ASSESSMENTOF THE IMPACTS OF 

### THE ST. 

### LUCIE NUCLEAR GENERATING 

### PLANT ON SEA TURTLE SPECIES FOUND IN THE INSHORE 

### WATERS OF 

### FLORIDA.

Prepared 

### by Florida Power C Light Co. August I995

### Section 1.0 

### Summary and Conclusions 2.0 

### Introduction 2.1 

### Purpose 2.2 

### Endangered SpeciesAct 2.3 

### Jurisdictionof National Marine Fisheries Service 2.4 

### Jurisdiction

### of U.S. Fish 

### and Wildlife Service 2.4 

### Chronology of 

### Events Leading to 

### this Assessment 3.0 

### Site Description 3.1 

### Location 3.2 

### Indian River 

### environment 3.3 

### Atlantic Ocean environment 3.3.1 

### Salinity 3.3.2 

### Temperature 3.3.3 

### Topography 3.3.4 

### Wave conditions and Turbidity 3.3.5 

### Reef System 4.0 St. 

### Lucie Plant Description 4.1 

### Circulating Water System 

### 4.1.1 Intake Structures and Velocity Caps 4.1.2 

### Intake Pipes 4.1.3 

### Head Walls and Canal System 4.1.4 4.1.5 

### 4.1.6 Discharge System 

### 4.1.7 Thermal Plume Highway Bridgesand UnderwaterIntrusionSystem IntakeWells,TrashRacks andTraveling Screens

5.0 

### Information 

### on Sea Turtle Species 5.1 

### Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Carettacarettal 5.1.1 

### Description 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.2 

### Green 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 

### Distribution Behavior Food 

### Habits Nesting Numerical Abundance Mortality Factors and Diseases Sea Turtle (Cheloniamvdas) Description Distribution Behavior Food 

### Habits Nesting Numerical Abundance Mortality Factors and Diseases

25.3 

### Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelyscoriacea1 5.3.1 

### Desc

### ript

### ion 5.3.2 

### Distribution 5.3.3 

### Behavior 5.3.4 

### Food Habits 5.3.5 

### Nesting 5.3.6 

### Numerical Abundance 5.3.7 

### Mortality Factors and Diseases 5.4 

### Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelysimbricata) 5.4.1 

### Description 5.4.2 

### Distribution 5.4.3 

### Behavior 5.4.4 

### Food Habits 5.4.5 

### Numerical Abundance 5.4.6 

### Mortality Factors 

### and Disease 5.5 

### Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelyskempi) 5.5.1 

### Description 5.5.2 

### Distribution 5.5.3 

### Behavior 5.5.4 

### Food Habits 5.5.5 

### Numerical Abundance 5.5.6 

### Mortality Factors and Disease 6.0 

### Sea Turtle Conservation Activities 6.1 

### Sea Turtle Capture Program 6.1.1 6.1.2 

### Barrier Nets 6.1.2.1 

### Past Configuration 6.1.2.2 

### Present Configuration 6.1.2.3 

### Future Configuration 6.1.3 

### Underwater Intrusion Detection System 6.1.4 

### Intake Well Inspectionand Removal 6.1.5 

### Netting Program 6.1.6 

### Hand Capture and Dip Netting 5.1.7 

### Residence 

### Time 6.1.8 

### Tagging and Health Assessment Activities 6.1.9 

### Necropsy and Rehabilitation Activities 6.2.1 

### Jurisdiction of U.S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service/Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection 6.2.2 

### Description 

### of Program Entrainment and Impingement 

### of Turtles

6.2 

### Sea Turtle Nesting Program

5.3 

### Sea turtle Stranding Program 6.4 

### Turtle Walk Progra;n 6.5 

### Assistance to Other Organizations 6.5.1 

### Description of 

### Assistance 6.5.1 

### List of 

### OrganizationsAssisted7.0 

### Assessment of 

### Present Operations 7.1 

### Direct and Indirect 

### Impacts 

### of ContinuedOperation of the Circulating Water System of the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Station on Sea 

### Turtle Populations 7.1.1 

### Impacts Due to Entrapment and Entanglement Nets in the Canal System 7.1.1.1 

### Impacts to Loggerhead Turtles 7.1.1.2 

### Impacts to Green Turtles 7.1.1.3 

### Impacts to Leatherback Turtles 7.1.1.4 

### Impacts to Hawksbill Turtles 7.1.1.5 

### Impacts to Kemp’sRidley Turtles 7.1.2 

### Impacts Due to 

### Impingement

### on Barrier Nets and the Intake Wells 7.1.2.1 

### Impacts to 

### Loggerhead Turtles 7.1.2’.2 

### Impacts to Green Turtles 7.1.2.3 

### Impacts to 

### Leatherback Turtles 7.1.2.4 

### Impacts to Hawksbills 7.1.2.5 

### Impacts to Kemp’s 

### Ridley 

### Turtle 7.2 

### Other Potential Station Impacts 7.2.1 

### Thermal Effects 7.2.2 

### Chlorination 7.2.3 

### Lights 7.2.4 

### Tapprogge Cleaning System 7.3 

### Cumulative Impact 

### of Continued Operation 

### of the Circulating Water System of 

### the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Station 

### on Sea Turtle Populations 7.4 

### Overall Assessment 8.0 

### References

# DRAFT

1.0 SUMMARY AND 

### CONCLUSIONS This document provides a 

### biological assessment 

### on the continued operation of 

### the Florida Power b 

### Light Co. 

### (FPL)St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, location on Hutchinson Island, Florida
on five species of 

### federally listed sea turtles as required 

### by a Section 7 

### consultation under the Endangered SpeciesAct 

### of 1973,as 

### amended. The turtle species encountered in decreasingnumerical abundance are: loggerhead,green,Kemp’s 

### ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill;the scientific names and their level

### of endangerment are given in Table 

### I. These five species of sea turtles enter a canal systemof the St. Lucie Plant along with water that is drawn from the nearshore waters of 

### the Atlantic ocean for condenser cooling. The turtles cannot escape and must be removed 

### from this canal system through a capture program. FPL 

### has worked diligently with federal and state agencies tomake this capture program efficient and beneficial to
sea turtle conservation through stewardshipefforts such as 

### noting health, tagging,noting recaptureincidents,obtainingmorphometric data, rehabilitating injured individuals, nesting studies, conducting turtle walks, assisting with sea turtle stranding networks, and collaborating with 

### research organizations. The intake structures and velocity caps for St. Lucie Units 1 

### and 2 

### serveas an artificial reef, since the structures are the 

### only significantphysical feature in this nearshore environment. The turtles encounter this 

### szructure in their normal ranging activities and 

### feed on 

### the fouling organisms growing on the structureor 

### seek the structzres for 

### shelter. Based on 

### the intake

### velocities of the intake structure, once 

### a turtle passes the vertical plane of the velocity cap, it is quickly swept into the intake pipeline and, after 

### a 3-5 

### minute ride through the pipeline, it is discharged into the intake canal. To 

### facilitate the captureof 

### entrapped turtlesand to minimize turtles 

### from moving down the canal system towards the plant, a largemesh barrier net was erected in 1978. 

### The rationale for 

### the mesh size of 

### this barrier net was based on 

### the size frequency of 140 

### turtles captured in the intake canal before 

### March 1978 

### (Figure 8)

### and the 8 

### inch (20.3 

### cm) square mesh was 

### chosen to exclude 95% 

### of the turtles. In theoriginalevaluation

### of the environmental impact

### of St. Lucie Unit 

### 1, turtle entrapment and impingement of turtles were never anticipated (U. S. 

### Atomic Energy Commission, 1974). 

### Therefore, it was very much of 

### a surprise that when St. Lucie Unit 1 

### went commercial in 1977, FPL 

### experienced turtle entrapment and impingement. An 

### initial biological assessment and Section 7 

### consultation were completed in 1982 

### for St. Lucie Unit 2, 

### with a non-jeopardy opinion at a certain level of 

### entrapment but without provisions for mortality. This assessment was based on the entrapmenthistory of the plant from 1976 

### through 1981 

### that approxirdated 150 

### turtle a year (Figure11). As 

### part of this evaluation,the 8 

### inch (20.3 

### cm) square mesh barrier net was 

### determined appropriate to 

### exclude



# -
turtles from the plant's intakewells. Also 

### an intensiveresearch program 

### to investigatemethods tophysicallyor

### behavioral exclude turtles from the offshore intake structures was conducted as 

### part of the Environmental Protection Plan of Unit 2 

### and concluded that
6there was no 

### practical method 

### to 

### accomplish this 

### goal 

### (Florida Power 6 Light, 1985). Since 1993, FPL 

### has documented significant 

### increases in numbers of turtles entrapped 

### that 

### are now 

### exceeding 600 a 

### year (Figure

### 11). A principal component of thisincrease

### is the 

### number of juvenilegreenturtles (carapacewidth 

### less than 12inches (30 cm)) (Figure 10)where 

### over 400 juvenilegreenshave been 

### captured inthetime 

### period of January 1, 1995throughJune 30, 1995 (Table 3). This increase in

### numbers handled at the plant 

### is believed 

### to I

be indicative 

### of increased populations numbers present in 

### the nearshore

### waters of theAtlantic ocean. withthisincreaseinthenumber of turtleshandled since 1991 and with a decrease inthe 

### size of the turtles handled, a certain percentage of greens 

### have been 

### able 

### topenetrate the 8 inch (20.3 cm)mesh barrier netandpass down thecanaltobe entrainedon the intake structures of theplant. 

### This culminated inthe 

### first six 

### months of 1995, where 23%of the

### turtles captured

### were 

### removed from the intakewells of theplant 

### (Table4). To counteract this problem, FPL 

### is proposing to install a smaller 

### mesh barrier net

### intheintakecanal 

### toexclude 100%of the green turtles encountered in 1995. The

### mesh of thisnetwillbe 5 inch (12.7 cm) square

### mesh, or a diagonalmeasurement of 7 inches (18 cmj and 

### is based on the size frequency distribution of 414 green turtles encountered 

### in 1995 (Figure 13). With this new barrier net 

### inplace, 

### the continued operation of the 3t. iucieNuclear Generating Plant willnot jeopardize the 

# . conLiinued existence of sea turtles 

### inFlorida.2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose

This biological assessment, regarding five species of sea turtle found at the Florida Power h Light Co. (FPL)St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, 

### is submitted

### totheNational

### Marine Fisheries Service 

### (NMFS)and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) by the u.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to comply with Section 7 \, of theEndangered Species Act

### of 1973, as amended and 50 CFR 402, Interagency Cooperation. An original assessment was conducted in 1982 (Bellmund et 

### al., 1952). Thisreport provides theNRC's updated biological assessment, which predicts the impact from the operation of Units 1 and 2 of the St. LucieNuclear PowerPlant on five species of sea turtles as listedinTable 1. Thisassessment isbased on a sitevisitby Dr. 

### M. Masnik of theNRC 

### inMay 1995, monitoring

### datacollected by FPL and 

### its consultants, 

### and a review of pertinent 

### literature.

2.2 Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act was first adopted 

### by Congress in 1973 and amended through thepresent. The purpcse of the act is:

'I... toprovide for the conservation 

### of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and for other purposes." One of the Act's principle features is contained inSection 7 of the Act, which provides for interagency cooperation inthat, 

# "...
each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized,
8

### funded,

### or carried out by such agency ('agency action,') does 

### not jeopardize the continued existence 

### of any endangered species 

### or threatenedspecies

### or result indestruction

### or adversemodification 

### of habitat of such species

# ...."

2.3 

### Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service The NMFS 

### has jurisdiction over all species 

### of sea turtles 

### in the waters 

### of the United States. Any 

### time sea turtle species are encountered in the water, such as in fisheries, dredging of 

### ship i, 

### channels, and water intake structures and associated canals, the "MFS 

### has jurisdictionunder aMemorandum of

### Agreement signed by the "MFS 

### and the U.S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service (FWSI 

### (reference??).

2.3 

### Jurisdiction of the U. 

### S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service The EWS 

### has jurisdiction over all species of 

### sea turtles on terrestrial environments of the United States. Any 

### time sea turtles venture from thewater onto land,principally for nesting, and during the incubation and the FWS 

### has 

### the hatching of young, jurisdiction. ! 2.4 

### Chronology 

### of Events Leading to this Assessment In 1974, 

### the Atomic Energy Comjnission in their Final EnvironmentalAssessment for 

### the ConstructionPermit for St. Lucie Unit 1, 

### described various biological communities found in the Atlantic Ocean immediately offshore of 

### theplant (USAEC,1974). 

### As
a 

### condition of FPL's license to operate Unit 1,

### FPLwas 

### required to 

### conduct a 

### nonitoring program, begun in December 1975, to 

### monitor biological communities in the vicinity of 

### the plant. Several
3

### species 

### of sea turtles where known to inhabit the waters adjacent to 

### the plant and to nest on the beaches 

### of Hutchinson Island. The results 

### of the monitoring programs, including data on sea turtle 

### species, were suntmarized yearly and presented in annual environmental monitoring reports (Applied Biology, 1976, 

### 1977a, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981). 

### In 1981, 

### the NRC 

### requested consultationwith the NMFS 

### and FWS 

### regarding the licensing 

### of St. Lucie Unit 2. 

### Five species 

### of sea turtles were identified 

### by the NMFS 

### as inhabiting the 

### Atlantic 

### :
ocean nearshore area of 

### the St. Lucie Plant. In 1982, 

### the NRC 

### completed a 

### biological assessment and concluded that the operation of 

### the plant would not have 

### an adverse impact on the continued existence 

### of these turtle species (Bellmund et al., 1982). 

### However, there were sea turtle monitoring requirements placed in the 

### Environmental Protection Plan of 

### Unit 2, 

### which required relocation

### of turtle nests found within a beach construction zone during 1982,

### removal

### of entrapped sea turtles from the intake canal 

### of the plant, a study to 

### evaluate methods to reduce entrapment, a continuous evaluation 

### ofmethods 

### to captureentrapped turtles,and nesting surveys

### ofHutchinson Island for the time period 1982-1987. \ 

### These results were presented in yearly annual reports to the NRC



### (AppliedBiology, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1984, 1985, i986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 

### Quantum, 1994).3.0 SITE'DESCRIPTION 3.1. Location The St. LucieNuclear Power Plant is located on a 1129 acre (460 ha) site on South Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie County, FL (Figure 1). The plant is approximately 7 miles (11.3 

### km) southof Ft. Pierce and approximately 7 

### miles (11.3 km) north 

### of Stuart. 

# \ 3.2 Indian River Environment SouthHutchinson Islandis a typicalbarrier islandof eastern Florida bounded on the east by theAtlantic Ocean and on the west 

### by the Indian River lagoon. The island is 23.3 miles (37.5 

### km) long and reaches its 

### maximum width of 1.1 

### miles (1.7 

### km) at the 

### plant site. This 

### barrier island has a flat topography and 

### is vegetated by mangroves, coastal hardwood hammocks, and salt tolerant beach species. Atthe site's ocean shore, thelandrises slightly

### to a dune 

### or ridge of approximately 19 feet (5.8

### m)above
mean sea level. The IndianRiver lagoon 

### is a shallowembayment that

### is bounded


### on the westby themainland peninsulaof Floridaandon the

### east by the 

### narrow barrier islands located alongthecoast of Florida. The Indian River lagoon originates in Brevard County in the Cape Canaveral area and terminates inthe Stuart area. Several inlets along thecoast connect the lagoon with theAtlantic ocean. Many rivers and drainage canals empty intothis entire stretch of the lagoon and greatly influence the salinity and nutrient levels of thewater body. Inmany areas of the lagoon, extensive sea grass

### beds exist and 

### support a wide diversity 

### of fish biota (Gilmore 1977).

3.3 

### Atlantic Ocean Environment Baseline and pre-operational studies 

### of the St. 

### Lucie Plant
are reported in a seriesof 

### publications entitled "NearshoreMarine Ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974" 

### by the Marine Research Laboratory of the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR, 1977, 1979). 

### These reports contain ten parts: 1) 

## !, Introductionand Rationale;2) 

### Sediments;3) 

### Physical and Chemical Environment; 4 

### )Lancelets and Fishes; 5) 

### Arthropods; 6)

### Plankton Dynamics 1971-1973; 

### 7)

### Phytoplankton 1971-1973: 

### 8)Zooplankton1971- 1973; 9)

### Diel Plankton 1973-1974; 

### 10)Benthic Algae Species List.

3.3.1 

### Salinity The salinity of 

### the ocean in the vicinity of the plant 

### is influencedby twomain water masses: shelf,which receive freshwater outflows fromvarious inlets, the Florida current, which is oceanic in nature. the water adjacent to the plant is approximately 36 o/oo 

### varies plus 

### or minus 2 

### o/oo

### when there is extensive fresh water outpourings 

### from inlets located at ft. 2ierce and Stuart (Applied Biology, 1981). (19

### km) of 

### the shoreline under certain conditions, but more typically is the waters 

### of the continental and The salinity of and only 

## \

The Floridacurrent sweepswithin 12

### miles

. 

### found 24 

### miles (39km) 

### offshore. The salinity of the Indian River lagoon varies widely from large less than 20 o/oo

### during the rainy season when there are

### fresh-waterdischarges to 34 o/oo

### during 

### flood tide and 

### low fresh

### water discharges (Wilcoxand Gilmore, 1976).

3.3.2 

### Temper ature Ambient water temperatureof the Atlantic ocean ranges froma Januaryminimum of 57 

### F (14 C) 

### to a September IllaXixnUm 

### of 84 

### F (29 

### C)(Applied Biology, 1981). 

### However under certain wind and upwelling conditionscommonduring summermonths, theambientwater 

### temperature 

### of 78-81 F (25-27

### C)candrop precipitously to 70-73 

### F

# i (21-23 C) 

### for severaldays (AppliedBiology, 1993;

### Quantum, 1994).

3.3.3 

### Topography The ocean bottom within 5 

### miles (8

### km) of the plant consists entirely 

### of sand and shell sediments with 

### no reef or rock 

### outcroppings, outside 

### of the surf zone. The bottom relief slopes very gradually until about 20 

### miles (32 

### km) 

### offshore, where the water depths 

### are 120-150 

### feet (36-45 

### m) deep, and then the continental 

### slopebegins. Water depths of 30-60 

### feet (9-18 

### m) are found up to 6 

### miles (9.6 

### km)

### offshore of 

### the plant. 3.3.4 

### Wave Conditions and Turbidity Wave conditions in the vicinity of the plant are extremely variable. Because 

### of the location 

### of the plant on the Atlantic Ocean, the area can be 

### subject to hurricanes, northeasters, 

### and distant storm systems, with associated wave and surf conditions that can exceed 16 

### feet (4.9 

### m). Under fair weather conditions, the ocean can be flat 

### calm. The water clarity/turbidity in the plant’s vicinity also varies with the wave conditions, the approximate distance of the 

### Fiorida current, and fresh 

### wateroutpourings from the 

### inlet (Applied Biology, 1981). Under heavy surf conditions, water clarity up 

### to 1 

### mile (0.6 

### km) offshore 

### is less than 1 foot (0.3

### m);under 

### calm conditions, water clarity

### can be 50 feet (15

### m).

3.3.5 Reef System Approximately 0.8 

### miles (1.3 

### km) south 

### of theplant’s intake structures an extensive worm reef community is found along the shoreline. This reef systemprovides extensive habitat for

### a wide varietyof fishand invertebrate 

### species inthe surf 

### zone (Applied Biology, 1977b). A coquinoid rock formation parallels much of island‘socean shorelineand provides suitablesubstratumforthese
worm reefs. The robustness of this worm reef 

### is seasonally dependent and there is major accretion during the calm summer months. The worm reef has a smaller 

### profile during the winter months due tothedestractiveness of heavy surf action. There are
no najor ‘reef systems within 6 

### miles (9.6 

### Ian) of the plant and thereare several shoals composed 

### of sand and shellhash 2-5 miles

(3.2-8 

### km)fromtheplant. These shoals have 

### a relief of about 10- 15 feet (3-4.5 

### m) and are found 2-3 miles (3.2- 4.8 km) offshore inabout 30-35 feet (9.1-10.7 

### m) of water. !

144.0 

### ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR 

### PLANT DESCRIPTION The St. Lucie Plant consists 

### of twoPressurized Water Reactors (Units 1 

### and 2), 

### each rated at 839 MU. 

### Unit 1 

### began commercial operation in February 

## , 1977 

### and Unit 2 

### began commercial operation inAugust, 1983. 

### The location of 

### the units.inrelationshipto the site layout is shown in Figure 2. 

### The reactor containment domes
are the tallest structures on the plant site and are 225.5 

### feet (69 

### m) above mean low water. The intake and discharge cooling canal systems shown in Figure 2 

### provide cooling water for both units. ! 

### The Atlantic ocean provides cooling and receiving waters for i 

### each unit's condenser and auxiliary cooling systems. These systems share a common intake and discharge canal with ocean piping. Major components of 

### these canals and ocean piping systems are: 1) 

### three ocean intake structures located approximately 1200 

### feet (365

### m)

### from the shore line; 2)

### three buried intakepipelines to conveywater from the intake structure to the intake canal (one pipeline is 16 

### feet (4.9 

### m)indiameter;two are 12 feet (3.65

### m) in 

### diameter); 3) 

### a comon intake canal to convey sea water to each unit's intake structure; 4)

### individualunit intake structures;5) 

### discharge structures for each unit; 6)

### a common dischargecanal; 7)


### one discharge pipeline (12

### feet (3.65 

### m)diameter pipeline) approximately 1200 

### feet (365 

### m) 

### offshore and another pipeline to convey water offshore to a 

### multiport diffuser (16 

### feet (4.9 

### m) diameter pipeline; solid to convey water offshore to a "Y"

### diffuser 

## \

pipeline 

### fromshorelineto approximately 1200 

### feet (365

### m)offshore and 

### then the multiport diffuser segment 

### fromapproximately 1200 to 2400 feet (365-730

### m)

### offshore) (Figure2).

15The design unit flow forUnits 1 and 

### 2 

### is 1150 cubic feet

### per second (32.6 

### cms) with

### maximum and normal temperature 

### rise across thecondensers of 31 F and 25 F (17-13 C), respectively (~ellmund et 

### al.,

. 1982)

# .

4.1 CirculatingWater System 4.1.1 Intake Structures and 

### Velocity Caps In 1991-1992, 

### allthree 

### velocity caps were rebuilt due tothe failureof severalpanels comprisingthecaps. This failure
was due tothe stresses from the harsh ocean environment and wave action. velocity caps is shown inFigure 3. I The relative position of the three intake structures and 

### !

All structures 

### are located approximately 1200 feet (365

### m) offshore and about 2400 feet (731 

### m) south of the discharge structures. The intake structures have a vertical section to minimize sand intake, a velocity cap tominimize fishentrapment, but no screensor grates 

### are used 

### todeny organisms access 

### tothe intake

### pipes. The 

### tops of theintake structures 

### are approximately 7 feet (2.1 

### m) below the surface at mean lowwater. The velocity cap 

### for the 16 feet (4.9 

### m) diameter pipe 

### is 70 feet (6.5 

### m) square, 

### is 5 feet (1.5) thick, and has 

### a vertical opening of 6.25 feet (1.9

### m). pipe is 52 feet (4.8 

### m)square, is 5 feet (1.5 

### m) thick, and has a verticalopeningof 6.5 feet (2.0

### m)

# . This informationisdepicted inFigure 3. The velocitycap

### for thetwo 12 feet (3.65) diameter

# \

The flowvelocities atvarious locations of the velocity cap and intake structureshave been calculated under various levels of biological fouling. The minimum and maximum horizontal intake

16velocities 

### at the face of the ocean intake 

### structures for the 12 feet (3.65 

### m) diameter 

### pipe is calculated at 0.37-0.41 feet per second (11.2-12.6 cm/sec) and for the 16 feet 

### (4.9 

### m)diameter pipe is calculated at 0.92-1.0 feet per second (28.3-30.5 

### cm/sec). As thewaterpasses under thevelocity cap, flowbecomes vertical and thevelocity increases to approximately 1.3 feet

### per second (40.2 

### cm/sec) for the 

### 12 feet (3.65 

### m) diameter pipe and 6.8 feet 

### per second (206 

### cm/sec) for the 16 feet (4.9 

### m) diameter pipe (Bellmund 

### et 

### al., 1982).

I! 4.1.2 Intake Pipes ', 

### From the ocean intake structures, water flows through the three buried pipelines of approximately 1200 feet (365 

### m) in length, which empty into the open intake canal behind the dune line (Figure 2). The flow through these pipelines will vary from 4.2-6.8 feetper second (127-206 

### cm/sec) depending on thepipeline and the degree 

### of fouling. Transit 

### time for an object 

### to travel thisdistance

### is approximately 180-285 seconds (3to4.75 minutes). Due to the differences in the diameter of the pipelines and frictionof thepipeline

### walls, thecalculated volume through the two 12 feet (3.65 

### m) diameter lines 

### is approximately 20%each and approximately 60% for the 16 feet (4.9 

### m) diameter pipeline 

## \ (Bellmund et 

### al., 1982).

4.1.3. Headwalls and Canal System Approxhately 450 feet (138

### m) behind the primary dune line the intake pipes discharge their water at two head wall structures into the intake canal (Figure 2). The headwall

17structure 

### for the

### two 

### 12 feet (3.65 

### m)diameter pipes is 

### a common vertical concrete wall. The head wall for the 16 feet (4.9 

### m) diameter pipe 

### is 

### more elaborate and consists of a guillotine gate in 

### a concrete box open at the other end. A 

### series of pillars parallel to the flow support a walkway above the discharge area. The 300 feet (91

### m) wide intake canal, whose maximum depth is approximately 25 feet (7.6 

### m), carries thecooling water 5000 feet (1525 

### m) tothe intake structures. The flow rate in the canal 

### varies from 0.9-1.1 feet 

### per second (27-32 cm/sec), depending on tidal stage.
I 

### \ 4.1.4 Highway Bridge and Underwater Intrusion System The intake canal is crossed by two permanent structures (Figure 2). One is a bridge owned by the Florida Department of Transportation and 

### is part of U.S. Highway A1A. The roadway is supportedby a series of concretepilings driven intothebottomof 

### the intake canal. The other 

### barrier 

### is the underwater intrusion detection system (Figure 3; UIDS), which is required 

### for security
reasons and has a net with a 9 inch (23

### cm) square mesh toprevent human intrusion 

### intothe secure 

### area 

### oftheplant (Figure 4).

I 4.1.5 Intake Wells, Trash Racks, and Traveling Screens 

### i Each unit has a separate intake structure consisting of four

. bays. Each bay (Figure 5)contains trash racks ("grizzlies")that
are vertical bars with approximately 3 inch (7.6 cm) spacings to catch large objects, such as flotsam, traveling screens with 

### a 3/8 inch (1cm) mesh to remove smaller debris, and circulating water pump. Approach velocities to each bay are calculated to be less
18than 

### 1 feet

### per second (30.5 

### cm/sec)

## ,but increasetoapproximately 5 feet 

### per second (150 

### cm/sec) at the trash racks. The trash racks are periodically cleaned 

### by a rake that 

### is dropped tothebottom of therack and 

### its teeth fitintothe 3 inch (7.6 

### cm) vertical openings of the structure. This rack 

### is pulled vertically

### up and collects any debris that

### may have accumulatedon thestructures. This debris 

### is emptied intoa trough atthe topof the intake bay for subsequent disposal. The collected 

### on thetraveling screens

### is washed from series of spay jets. This debris is emptied into 

### top of 

### the intake

### bay for disposal. debris that 

### is the 

### screen by a
a trough atthe ! \ After the 

### water has passed through the trash racks, the traveling screens, and the circulating water pump, it travels through thecondenser, which contains thousands of 3/8 inch (1

### cm) diametertubes. Condenser waterheat 

### is transferredtothiswater, which is then expelled intothedischargecanal. In 

### October 1995, FPL will install on Unit 2 

### a "traprogge" cleaning 

### system to maintain condenser cleanliness. This 

### same system will be installed on Unit 1 in the spring of 1996. The 

### system consists of a debris filter and a tube cleaning system (Figure6).

4.1.6 Discharge Systems Each unit discharges 

### itscondenser cooling

### water intothe discharge canal that is approximately 300 feet (91

### m) wide and 2200 feet (670 

### m) long (Figure 3). The canal terminates at two headwall structures approximately 450 feet (137 

### m) behind the primary dune line. One structure supports a i2 feet (3.65 

### m)diameter pipeline that is buried under the ocean 

### floor and runs approximately 1500 feet (460

### m) offshore where 

### it terminates 

### into I 1



### a two-port 

### “Y“

### nozzle. The 

### other structuresupports 

### a 16feet (4.9 

### m)diameter pipeline that 

### is buried under theocean floor and runs approximately 3375 feet (1030

### m) offshore. The last 1400feet (425 

### m) of thispipeline contains a multiport diffuser segment with 58 discharge 

### ports. To minimize plume interference, the 

### ports 

### are oriented in an offshore direction on alternating sides of the pipeline. The velocityof the

### water insidethispipeline averages about 5.7 feet

### per second (174 

### cm/sec) and thejet velocityof the discharge water at each 

### port averages 

### approximately 13 

### feet per second (400

### cm/sec)toensurequickdissipationof 

### the thermal load (Bellmund 

### et al., 1982).

4.1.7 Thermal Plume 

### FPL had thethermal plume modeled fortwo-unit operation. The results indicated that the 

### maximum surface temperatures are strongly dependent on ambient ocean conditions. The 

### maximum surface ”delta t” 

### is predicted 

### to be less than 4.9 F (2.7 C) and the resulting 2 

### F (1.1 C) surface isotherm 

### is estimated 

### at 963
acres (390 ha) (Bellmund 

### et al., 1982).I 5.0 

### INFORMATION ON SEA TURTLE SPECIES 5.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta

### caretta) 5.1.1 Description Caretta caretta, 

### or the loggerhead sea turtle, is distinguished by a reddish-brown carapace, and a dull brown to yellowish plastron. The carapace is composed of five pairs of costal scutes, eleven

### or twelvepairs of marginal scutes, and five 

### vertebral scutes. The skull is broad and massive. Adult loggerheads inthesoutheasternUnited Stateshave 

### a mean straight carapace length of about 36 icches (92

### cm) and a mean 

### body weight of about 250 pounds (113 kg). Dodd (1988)provides a complete morphological description of the species. I I

5.1.2 Distribution Loggerhead 

### turtles 

### are circumglobal in subtropical and 

### tropical waters. They 

### are found 

### in estuarine 

### waters 

### and the coastal waters of thecontinental shelvesand 

### areuncommon farfrom mainland shores. Individuals have been found in latitudes as high
as 50" inboth thenorthern and southernhemispheres. Loggerheads
are a widely dispersed species and hatchlings and small juveniles from southeasternU.S. beachesmay spend 3-5 yearscircumnavigating the Atlantic in current 

### gyres (Carr, 1986). Adults nesting on Florida east coast beaches are found inforaging areas throughout \ the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Meylan et al., 1983). Adult females are seasonally

### more abundant inareas adjacent 

### to nesting beaches during the summer season, but seasonal migration patterns for adult males and juvenile loggerheads are largely unknown. I

215.1.3 Behavior Loggerhead turtles 

### 'are solitary, although they may form ' aggregations 

### atsea

### or i n t h evicinityof nestingbeaches. Nesting is also solitary and occurs at night. Loggerheads 

### are active diurnal foragers and diving for food requires moderate depth and duration. The loggerhead mating system 

### is polyandrous, without elaborate courtship.

5.1.4 Food Habits Loggerhead turtles 

### are primarily carnivorous, feeding on a wide variety of invertebrates, mollusks and crustaceans, although coelenterates and cephalopods predominate inthedietsof juveniles (Dodd, 1988). At all ages, loggerheads commonly ingest non-food items such as plastics and tar. L

5.1.5 Nesting Loggerhead turtles favor high energy mainland beaches 

### as nesting sites. Steeply sloping beaches with gradually 

### sloped offshore approaches 

### are preferred. Dodd (1988) gives 

### a complete description of the nesting 

### process. The nesting behavior is stereotyped and there is very little individual variation. ?he nesting process 

### may be interrupted at any point up 

### to the actual deposition of the eggs, resulting 

### in what is termed a "false crawl". Florida loggerheads nest from '$ April until September, while farther north the nesting season is restricted to rnid-summer. Mean clutch 

### sizevaries from about 100 to 126 eggs. Loggerheads are known to nest from 1-6 times in a nesting season, with an internesting interval of about 14 days.
22

### Incubation time varies with temperature and 

### is typically 50-6C 

### days. the water by positive phototaxis. Hatchlings emerge as 

### a group at night and are oriented to

5.1.6 

### Numerical Abundance Loggerheads are the most abundant species 

### of sea turtle 

### in U.S. 

### coastalwaters. Themost 

### widely citedpopulation estimate for the 

### southeastern U.S. 

### population is given by Murphy and Hopkins

(1984)

### at 14,150 

### adult 

### females. Data on adult

### males and subadults is not sufficient to estimate total population size, and there is
no reliable esthnate of theworld population of loggerheads. From
an analysis 

### of trends in nesting data, the National Research

I 1 

### Council (1990) 

### conclude that there is evidence of a population decline for loggerheads in the northern portion of their range, while populations in Florida appear stable or 

### possibly increasing.

5.1.7 

### Mortality Factors and Diseases Mortality factorsare commonly separated into two categories: natural mortality and human induced mortality. Causes of natural mortality include abiotic factors such as destruction of nests 

### by beach erosion 

### or accretion, tidal inundation 

### of low-lying nests, hypothermia 

### of juveniles and adults during sudden, severe cold 

### spells, and biotic factors such 

### as predation, parasitism, and disease. 1 I 

### Loggerhead eggs are preyed upon by 

### raccoons, ghost crabs, hogs, 

### foxes, ants, crows, vultures and other birds. Hatchlings fall 

### prey to 

### a wide variety of 

### birds and 

### predatory fish. Larger

23

### juveniles and adults are preyed upon particularly the tiger shark. Loggerheadmortalitiesmay also

### be oat and the beach morning glory root by large coastal sharks,

. !


### caused 

### by vegetation. Sea systems can invade turtle nests and cause egg mortality and root systems can grow over a nest and block escape. Additionally, hatchlings and nesting females can become fatally entangled in vegetation. Little is known about diseases in loggerhead turtles 

### or the impact these diseases have on population levels. Stranded loggerheadshave been found tobe infestedwith blood flukes, which result in emaciation and anemia. Additionally, a variety of bacterial and 

### fungal pathogens are believed to cause mortality of
I 

### loggerhead embryos. 1 

### Human inducedmortality factorshave been extensively studied from both research and management perspectives. The National Research Council (

### 1990) 

### provides a detailed description and analysis 

### of these various mortality factors. Suitabilityof beaches for nesting can be compromisedby beach armoring, which impedes access to nesting sites and promotes erosion of adjacent beaches. 

### The widespread practice 

### of beach renourishmentcan create changes inbeach characteristics thatmake them less suitable for nesting (Nelsonand Dickerson, 1984). 

### Artificial lighting on the 

### beachfront both disorients

1 

### hatchlings and deters nesting females from coming ashore 

### \

(Witherington,1990). 

### High levels 

### of human activity on the beach at 

### night and 

### use of recreational equipment on beaches can destroy nests, contribute to 

### erosion, run over emergent hatchlings, cause hatchling disorientation and deter nesting females (National

24

### Research Council, 1990). Exotic vegetation, particularly the

. 

### Australian pine, may reduce 

### or impede access to nesting sites, ' 

### affect incubation temperature by shading, and may occasionally trap nesting females in exposed root systems (Schmelzand Hezich, 1988). 

### The most important source 

### of human induced mortality to juvenile and adult loggerheads is the shrimp fishery, which in recent years has accounted for the death 

### of between 5,000 

### and 50,000 

### loggerhead turtles per year (National Research Council, 1990). 

### Other types gf fishing gear such as gill nets, fish traps, and long lines collectivelyaccount 

### forabout 10% 

### of the mortality associatedwith the shrimp fishery,constituting the second largest 1 

# -

source of mortality to juveniles and adults. Harbor, inlet and navigational channel dredging has been documented to cause significant turtle mortality. 

### From 1980 

### to 1990, maintenance dredging 

### of the Cape Canaveral and Kings Bay entrance .channels killed 149 turtles, 90% 

### of the total being loggerheads (National Research Council, 1990). Boat collisionsare also a significant source 

### of mortality in Florida, with 6-9% 

### of strandings,

### or an average of 150 

### turtlesper 

### year, showing evidence of boat collisions (National Research Council, 19901. 

### Directed take of eggs and adults by humans is 

### a significant factoraffecting turtlepopulationsworld

### wide, but is difficult to quantify. Although loggerhead meat is 

### not highly prized, it is certainly eaten. Directed take is illegal in the United States and many Caribbean countries, and rates of 

### illegal take are largely unknown. 

### i

25Plastic debris and 

### tar are commonly found in the digestive I I 

### tracts of stranded 

### turtles and ingestion of theses 

### items causes 

## ' intestinal blockage and 

### releases 

### toxic chemicals. In 

### a Texas study, 26%of allstranded loggerheads had plastic debris

### or tar in the gut upon necropsy (Stanleyet al., 1988). The exact role of ingested debris inthedeathof strandedturtles, however, 

### is often unclear. Entrapment in

### power plant intake pipes 

### was mentioned in the National Research Council's report as a relativelyminor source of turtle mortality. 

### Adding the well-documented data 

### from the St. Lucie Plant to estimates 

### from other facilities 

### from New 

### York to Texas, the Council estimates that 57 loggerheads per year are killedby power plantentrapment (National Research 

### Council, 1990) 

# \

5.2 Green Sea Turtle (Cheloniamydas) 5.2.1 Description Cheloniamydas, 

### or the green 

### sea turtle, 

### isthe largest hardshelled sea turtle, with Florida adults averaging 40 inches (101.5 cm) incarapace length and 300 pounds (136.2 kg) inweight. They


### are distinguished 

### from the loggerhead by a much smaller, rounded head and a carapace with four pairs of costal scutes, and a single pair of frontal scales on the head. Pr,itchard (1979) gives a complete description and lifehistory of the green.

5.2.2 Distribution The green turtle is circumglobal in distribution, but restricted to thetropics. U.S. populations occur 

### in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, the Gulf of Mexico, and the eastern
26seaboard, occasionally 

### as farnorth 

### as Massachusetts. The primary

. habitat of adult green turtles 

### are shallow, protected waters supporting growthof benthic algaeand seagrasses. Theirpreferred nesting habitats 

### are on high-energy island beaches, and at 

### least
one population of green turtles regularly migrates 

### over 620 miles (1000

### km)between feeding and nesting habitats. Some green turtle nesting occurs inthecontinental U.S., mostly inFlorida between Volusia and Broward counties. Populations of immature green turtles are found year round in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida 

### Bay and Homosassa Bay areas of Florida. 

# \

5.2.3 Behavior
1 \ Like the loggerhead, the green turtle does not form 

### social groups and 

### is a solitary night nester. Green turtles are diurnal, feedingduringtheday and oftenreturningtoa particular lodge

### or coral head to sleep each night. The green turtle is warier than the loggerhead and their mating behavior 

### is similar 

### to the loggerhead.

5.2.4 Food Habits The adult greenturtleistheonly species of 

### sea turtlewhich is primarily herbivorous. In the post hatchling, pelagic stage, green turtles have an omnivorous or carnivorous diet. Upon
i entering benthic feeding grounds (atabout 8-10 inches (20-25 

### cm) I length), they shift to a diet of algae and seagrasses. Green turtles are selective grazers, favoring growing shoots of seagrasses and a variety of algae, and as a consequence of eating
a low protein, high fiber diet their growth is slow. The result

27of this low growth is that green sea turtles reach sexual

. i maturity 

### later, and have 

### a smaller reproductive output than other
sea turtles (Bjorndal, 1982).

5.2.5 Nesting Majorwesternhemispherenestingbeaches 

### for greenturtlesare Ascension Island, Aves Island, Surinam, and Costa Rica. A range of 60 

### to 800 nests 

### are recorded each year on the Atlantic coast 

### of Florida south of Cape Canaveral. The nesting process 

### is very similar 

### tothe loggerhead, except that the green turtleexcavates
a much deeper body pit and produces a higher nest mound. 

### As a result, eggs are buried considerably deeper than in loggerhead nests. Mean clutch 

### size is 110-115 eggs, and females deposit from
one 

### to seven (usually 

### two 

### or three) clutches 

### per nesting season (Witheringtonand Ehrhart, 1989a). 

# \

5.2.6 ' Numerical Abundance Sufficientdata do notexisttoaccuratelyassess the current population or population trend of green turtles. Based on historical accounts of the 16th and 17th century, 

### present day populations are certainly only 

### a small fraction of historical levels. With 60 to 80C nests a year, Florida supports onlya small percentage of the Caribbean and southeast Atlantic green turtle population, estimated by Carr (1978) at 69,000 adults. The \ National Research Council (1990) concluded that there was not sufficientinformation

### toassess trends ingreenturtlepopulation, 

### i

but noted that Hutchinson Island, Florida nesting levels have ircreased over theperiod 1971-1979.
235.2.7 

### Mortality Factors and Disease Mortality factors for the green turtle are similar to those discussed in Section 5.1.7 

### for the loggerhead, with 

### a few major differences due to the species biological and distributional differences

# . Natural mortality factors impacting eggs and hatchlings are as described for 

### the loggerhead,except that green turtle nests are less susceptible to raccoonand other small

### mammal predation due to 

### the greater depth 

### of the 

### egg cavity. Green turtles are more vulnerable to cold stunning (hypothermia). In a series

### of cold stunningevents in the IndianRiverLagoon,Florida, green turtles were by far the 

### most cornon species found affected, and mortality rates among green turtles were higher than loggerheads (Witheringtonand Ehrhart, 1989b). I I 

### Green turtles are subject to 

### a largely species specific diseasecalled fibropapillomatosis. The condition is thought to be 

### viral in origin, although a 

### specific pathogen is yet to be isolated. The condition 

### is characterized by tumorous warts on the skin and inside the body cavity. These tumors restrict movement,
cause blindness, promote parasite infestation, and increase the 

### likelihood 

### of entanglement. Green turtlesare not commonly taken in shrimptrawls,but are quitevulnerable to entanglement in othervarieties of 

### fishinggear such as gill nets. Directed take has historically been the greatest threat to green turtle populations,but present levels of directed takearedifficult toquantify (NationalResearchCouncil, 1990). 

### Other human induced green turtle mortality factors

### are as described 

### above in 

### section 5.1.7. I

29

### 5.3 

### Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelyscoriacea) 5.3.1 

### Description The leatherback (Dermochelyscoriacea)isdistinguishedby the absence of the keratinized scutes in the carapace, the lack 

### of claws 

### or scales in adults, and significant skeletal differences. The carapace is raised into seven longitudinal ridges and covered with thin black skinwith numerouswhite spots. The leatherback is the largest living sea turtle,attaining a carapace length 

### of 380- 430 

### inches (150-170 

### cm) and a maximum 

### weight 

### of 1100-1980 

### pounds (500-900

### kg) (Pritchard,1979).

5.3.2 

### Distribution I

### i The leatherback is 

### found world wide, from the tropics to high latitudes. Although found in coastal water, the leatherback is mainlypelagic, and is capableof travelinggreat distancesbetween nesting and foraging grounds. Preferred feeding habitats are pelagic, temperate zone waters that support large populations 

### of jellyfish, the leatherback's 

### main prey item. Preferred nesting habitats are tropical mainland shores with a steep beach profile and 

### deep water dlose to shore.

5.3.3 

### Behavior As 

### a 

### consequence of their pelagic nature, little is known about leatherback behavior. Like other sea turtles, they are not highly social and are solitary, nocturnal nesters. In contrast to other species,which are benthic feeders, leatherbacks feed in the water column. 

### They are capable of dives in excess of 3,000 

### feet I

30

# i (

### 1,000 

### m) to reach concentrations 

### of jellyf

### iah that exhibit vertical migration.

5.3.4 

### Food Habits Jellyfish and other coelenteratesare themajor 

### food item for leatherbacks and they have several adaptations 

### for this highly specializeddiet, suchas a highly expandableoral cavity,scissorlike 

### jaws and 

### an esophagus lined with stiff spines that project backward to aid in holding and swallowingprey. 

### Jellyfish 

### are a 

### low energy source and large quantities must 

### be consumed to 

### maintain this large turtle. Pritchard (1979)

### reported that young leatherbacks in captivity consumed twice theirweight in jellyfish daily. 

# i

5.3.5 

### Nesting Leatherback nesting is almost exclusively tropical. The largest nesting colonies are found in New Guinea, Indonesia, Central America, northeastern South America, and the southern Pacific coast 

### of Mexico. 

### Some nesting occurs outside the tropics, notably in South Africa and Florida, which records 38-188 

### leatherbacknests annually. Leatherbacksnest every 2 

### or 3 

### years, with as many as ten nestings per 

### season, and an internesting interval of about 10 

### days. Leatherback eggs are large, about 2.5 

### inches (6

### cm) in diameter. Clutch size is from 60-90 

### eggs and does including a variable number of undersized yolkless eggs

## , typically of 

### leatherbacks. Incubation time is about 65 

### days, 

### and hatching
success fromundisturbed nests is 

### typicallyhigh (Pritchard,1979). 1

31

### 5.3.6 

### Numerical Abundance 

## t Estimates 

### for total world population 

### of nesting 

### female leatherbacks range from 70,000 

### (Mrosovsky, 1983) 

### to 115,000 

### (Pritchard,1982). 

### Fretey and Girondot (1990)

### reportthatprevious estimates of about 15,000 

### nesting females from the French Guiana nesting colony may be an underestimate. The National Research Council (1990) 

### concluded that althoughdata are scarce,leatherback populations world wide appear to be stable.

5.3.7 

### Mortality Factors and Diseases Like green turtles, leatherback nests are resistant to predators because 

### of the depth of the egg cavity, but the steep, high energy beaches they favor 

### for nesting are very prone to storm 

### erosion. The pelagic nature of the leatherback insulates it from many 

### human caused sources

### of mortality like trawling,dredging,and boat collisions, but the leatherback is vulnerable to plastic ingestion,particularly polyethylene bags, which they mistake for jellyfish. Despite a widespread belief that leatherback meat 

### is inedible,harvest of

### nesting females is common in Guyana, Trinidad, and Columbia. No specific disease pathogens are reported for 

### leatherbacks.

5 4 

### Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelvsimbricata) i 5.4.1 

### Description i 

### The hawksbill (Eretmochelvs imbricata) is characterized by thick, over lapping carapace scuteswith bold 

### streaks of 

### brown and black on an amberbackground. The head is 

### narrow,with a 

### tapering, curved, "hawk's bill." The hawksbill is a 

### relatively small sea
32

### turtle, with nesting females averaging 32 inches (8l 

### cm) in carapace length. Witzell (1983)provides a 

### synopsis

### of biological data on the hawksbill.

5.4.2 

### Dist

### ribution Hawksbills are circumtropical in distribution,almost 

### always in close associationwith coral reefhabitats. Hawksbills aremore 

### sedentary than other species as adults, and in contrast 

### to 1 

### loggerheads, hawksbills do not disperse 

### as hatchlings into 

### the north Atlantic gyre (Witzell,1983). 

### Hawksbills nest on tropical islands and mainland shores of the tropics worldwide. Typical nesting beaches are low-energynarrowbeaches often withvegetation growing almost to 

### the water’s edge. Nesting in the continental U.S. 

### is extremely rare. 

# i

5.4.3 

### Behavior Hawksbills maintain a foraging territory that shifts 

### with age, moving to 

### deeper water as the animal matures. The hawksbill is a benthic forager in shallow water out to 300 

### feet (100

### m) (Meylan,1989).

5.4.4 

### Food 

### Habits Although a wide variety of food items have been documented in feeding studies (Wiztell, 1983), 

### hawksbills exhibit specialized feeding on 

### a fewgenera 

### of siliceous sponges. The sharp silicate spicules of this sponge are tolerated 

### by the digestive system of the hawksbill (Meylan, 1988). 

# i

33

### 5.4.5 Numerical Abundance Due to their remote, dispersed nesting habitats, no reliable population estimates Surinam over 15

### years very small (National I 

### exist 

### for the hawksbill. show a positive trend, but 

### the sample size is Research Council, 1990). Nesting surveys in !

5.4.6 

### Mortality Factors and Disease The mortality factors discussed 

### in section 5.1.7 

### on loggerheads also apply to the hawksbill. Because 

### of their association with reef habitat where trawling 

### is impractical, hawksbills are not often taken in shrimp trawls. The major 

### threat to 

### hawksbill populations is directed take by nets for tortoise shell products and stuffed specimens. Between 1970 and 1986, an estimated 250,000Caribbean hawksbill shellswere imported by Japan

# f alone (Donnelly, 1989). 

### Local harvest and sales are harder to quantify than international trade, but there is little doubt the totel take is a 

### clear threat to 

### the species survival.

5.5 

### Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelyskernpi) 5.5.1 Description TheKemp's ridley (LepidochelveskemDi)is distinguishedby 

### an olive green carapace, often wider 

### than long, with five pairs 

### of costal scutes and fivevertebral scutes. Adults measure 25 

### inches (62.70 cm) 

### in 

### average carapace length and weigh 77-100 

### pounds (35-45 

### kg). history of the 

### Kemp's ridley. Pritchard (1979)

### gives a completedescription and life

# i

5.5.2 

### DistributionKemp's ridleys are largely confined to the Gulf 

### of.Mexico, with 

### a 

### few occurring along theU.S. eastern seaboard 

### as far north


### as Long Island Sound. Within theGulf of 

### Mexico, 

### juveniles are far 1 more common in the northern Gulf, particularly in coastal waters 1 !



### from Texas toFlorida. Foraging habitats forjuveniles and adults


### are the

### coastal waters of theGulf of 

### Mexico, where they feed 

### on a widevarietyof crustacea andother invertebrates. Nesting habitat 

### is 

### almost exclusively confined 

### to

### a single 

### beach at Rancho Nuevo, 

### Mexico 

### at about latitude 

### 23" North inthe 

### state 

### of Tamaulipas.

5.3.3 Behavior Kemp's ridleyturtles show a high degree of 

### social behavior. They aggregateoffshoreof thenestingbeaches, sometimes 

### for days, and then allemerge synchronously inan "arribada"tonest, usually 

## i during daylight. In other

### behavioral aspects, they 

### are similar 

### to the loggerhead.

5.5.4 Food Habits 

### Kemp's ridleys consume 

### a variety of 

### prey, but their diet 

### is dominated 

### by the 

### blue crab. The 

### types of items found in the stomachs of stranded specimens suggest they may comaonly feed on the by catch dumped overboard by shrimp trawlers (Shoop and Ruckaeschel, 1982). 

# I 5.5.5 Numerical Abundance SincetheKemp's ridleyhas a restricteddistributionand, for the most part, nests on a single beach, population estimates are more accurate than for other species. Estimates of the total
35

### populationof nesting femalesrange 

### from 350-620 

### (National Research Council, 1990). 

### Based on a 

### motion picture 

### from 1947, 

### in which an estimated 40,000 

### females nested in a 

### single day at Rancho Nuevo, the current population is 

### perhaps 1% 

### of what it was less than 50 

### years ago.

5.5.6 

### Mortality Factors and Disease Mortality factors affecting nests 

### and hatchlings 

### for the Kemp’sridley are 

### similar to those discussed for 

### the loggerhead in section 5.1.7. 

### Human induced mortality factors 

### for adult and juvenile Kemp’s ridley’s are also similar to those 

### for the

# I

loggerhead. Shrimp trawling has been conclusively shown to 

### be the most hportant threat to 

### the survival of the Kemp’s ridley

(National Research Council, 1990). 

### The small population and restricted distribution of the 

### Kemp‘sridley make it particularly vulnerable to 

### catastrophic population declines, and shrimping ‘z
v 

### effort is very 

### heavy throughout its range. There are 

### no specific pathogens reported for the Kemp’s ridley, although bacterial and fungal infection are a major 

### cause 

### of egg mortality 

### in the closely

# I related olive ridley.

366.0 SEA 

### TURTLE CONSERVATION 

### ACTIVITIES 6.1 Sea TurtleCapture Program The rationale 

### for the 

### se-a turtle capture 

### program at the St. Lucie Plant is to quickly 

### remove entrapped turtles from the intake canal system once they have entered the system. 

### FPL, in
conjunctionwith Applied 

### Biology, Inc, and QuantumResources, Xnc., former and current contractors for sea turtle conservation and 

### mocitoring activities, have developed procedures and methods 

### for handling marine turtles entrapped 

### or impinged (Applied Biology, 1993; Quantum, 1994). An intensive research program 

### to investigate methods to physically 

### or behavioral exclude turtles fromtheoffshore intake structures was conducted as part of the Environmental 

### Protection Plan of Unit 2 and concluded thatthere

### was 

### no practicalmethod 

### to accomplish this goal (Florida Power & Light, 1985).

6.1.1 Entrapment and Impingement of Turtles Entrapment occurs when 

### an organismenters 

### a confined 

### area and cannot escape. Therefore, turtles entering the intake canal and their inability 

### to escape 

### is considered entrapment. Impingement
occurs when an organism is carried by currents and pinned 

### to a water intake structure or barrier, and in the case of a power plant, the trash racks and/or thetraveling screens 

### systemlocated inthe intakewells. Intheoriginal evaluation of theenvironmental 

### impact of St. Lucie Unit 1, turtle entrapment and impingement of turtles were !,
cever anticipated (U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974).
37Therefore, it was very much of a surprise thatwhen St. Lucie Unit 1 

### went 

### commercial in 1977, FPL 

### experienced 

### turtle entrapment and impingement. The 

### current thinking is that the intake structures and velocity caps sene as an artificial reef, since the structures
are the only significant physical feature in this inshore environment. The turtlesencounter this structureintheir normal ranging 

### activitiesand feedon thefouling organisms'growing 

### on the structure

### or seekthe structures for shelter. Based 

### on theintake velocities of the intake structure, once 

### a turtle passes the vertical plane of the velocity cap, it 

### is quickly sucked intothe intake pipeline and, after

### a 3-5 minute ride through thepipeline, it is discharged into the intake canal (see Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). The entrapment history of the St. Lucie Plant from 1976 

# - through December 31, 1994 isgiven inTable 2. All fivespecies of turtles present in the inshore waters of Florida have 

### been entrapped and total of 3199 turtles have been removed 

### from the intakecanal of the St. Lucie Plant. Loggerheads 

### are thedominant t u r t l e i nnumbers (n= 2394), greens are next (n

### = 751), followed 

# . by Kemp's ridley (n

### = 24), leatherback (n

### = 17), and hawksbill last 

### (n = 13). The entrapment history of the St. Lucie Plant 

### from January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995, is given 

### in Table 3. A * total of 609 turtles of four species have been handled. Greens and loggerheads
are the dominant species encountered. I

6.1.2 Barrier Nets 

# i 6.1.2.1 Past ConfigurationTo facilitatethe capture of entrapped turtlesand tominimize turtles 

### from moving down the intake canal 

### toward the plant to 

### be impinged, a large mesh barrier net (8 inch (20.3 

### cm) square

### mesh)
was erected at the A1A bridge in 1978 (Figure 2). The net was suspended 

### across the canal and was anchored 

### at the bottom with ’ weights and supported at thetop 

### by cables and floats (Figure 7). The net was hung so that it had 

### a 3:1 slope, with the bottom 1 \

anchors being positioned upstream of the surface floats. This configuration was designed 

### to prevent bowing of the net 

### in the center and minimizes the risk of an injured 

### or lethargic 

### turtle frombeingpinned against thenetanddrowning. 

### By confining most 

### tzztles tothecanal 

### area east of the A1A bridge, the 

### net 

### capture of turtles in this part of the canal was facilitated. Additionally

### any turtle with a carapace width of 11.3 inches (28.7 

### cm) 

### or greater was excluded from 

### passing through the net and moving down thecanal towards theintakestructuretobe impinged. 

### 1’ ! The rationale for thebarrier net tohave an 8 inch (20.3 

### cm) square mesh, 

### or a diagonal measure of 11.3 inches (28.7 

### cm), was based on the

### sizefrequency distributionof 140

### turtlescaptured in the intake canal before March 1978. The 8 inch (20.3 

### cm) square mesh was chosen 

### toexclude 95%of theturtles captured

### tothat

### date (Figure 8). The net has been rehung several times (e.g 1985, 1988, 1990) tomaintain its 3:l slope and blockage of the canal. Because of deterioration of thisnet over 

### time, a new net withthe same 8 inch (20.3 cm)mesh was installed in 1987.

6.1.2.2 Present Configuration 

# i

39The 

### barrier net presently in place was installed in 1987 

### according to the specifications given in Section 

### 6.1.2.1 

### and has the standard 8 

### in (20.3 

### cm) square mesh configuration (Figure7). 

### In 1990, 

### the net head cable attached to 

### the top of the net was 

### given more support by attaching a series 

### of floatation rafts 

## ' (Figure 8),

### which would keep the top of 

### the net at 

### or above the surfaceof the water under varying water levels which results from tides 

### or operational changes 

### of the generating units (e.g. if a 

### unit 

### is not operating, the water level in the canal rises about 4 ft 

### (1.2m)1. 

### This would keep turtles fromswimming over the top 

### of the net. The net.is inspected,approximately quarterly, to ensure its integrity throughout the water 

### column, its sides, and its 

### bottom. Repairs are made as 

### necessary and if the foot 

### of the net is buried by 

### a build up 

### of sediment, the material is removed by an air lift. 

# \

6.1.2.3 

### Future Configuration Due to observed increases in the entrapment rate in 1993 

### and 1994 

### (Quantum, 1994) 

### for greens and loggerheads, the continuing upward trend in 1995 

### (seeFigure 10 

### and Figure 11) 

### and due to unexpected increasesin impingementratesand subsequent mortality at t!eintakewells of the plant (seeTable 4), FPL 

# - is proposing to install 

### a smallermesh barrier net east of the present barrier net d 

### (seeFigure 12). 

### Due topotential fouling situationsfrom jellyfish
or sea weed, the top of the 

### net 

### will have the 

### capability of 

### being F



# .

Y *

c
### quickly 

### released so 

### that it can drop 

### to the 

### bottom of the canal. The 

### mesh of this net will be 5 

### inches (12.7 

### cm) square mesh, or a 

## \

40diagonal measurement of 7 inches (18cm), and according to a 

### size frequency distribution of 414 green 

### turtles entrapped in the intakecanal during 1995, 100%of allturtles encountered will

### be excluded frommoving down thecanal towards theplant (Figure 13). The net will be inspected on a quarterly basis to ensure 

### its 

### ' 

# --

= 

### i 

# _- -- --=I-_ integrity and 

### to provide necessary cleaning and maintenance 

### as required. Maintaining the integrityof thenet willensurethatno turtlespass thisbarrier and therefore the numbers 

### of sea turtles impinged on the intake structures should 

### approach 

### zero. Plans call for thepresent 8 inch (20.3 

### cm) mesh barrier net to be maintained in its existing place and 

### for it to 

### serve as 

### a back 

### up in

### case there is a failureof the 5 inch (12.7 

### cm)mesh net
or if this net needs to be removed because of fouling 

### from jellyfish, sea weed or flotsam.

6.1.3 Underwater Intrusion Detection System 

# \ In 1986 the underwater intrusion detection system ('JIDS)

### was installed

### toprevent human entry

### totheplant via the

### canal 

### system and 

### to provide further security 

### for the plant. This system 

### also provides an additional barrier 

### for turtles that have broached the barrier net at the A1A bridge. The barrier is located on the north-south 

### arm of the canal (Figure 2) and consists of a rigid net with a 9 inch (22.9 

### cm) mesh (Figure 4). This net 

### is hung at approximately a 0.9: 1 slope with thebottom of thenet downstream of the top. This net 

### is inspected on an periodic basis by security personnel and 

### several 

### turtles, both live and dead, have been removed fromthis area in 1994 and 1995. 

# I6.1.4. IntakeWell Inspection and Removal In December 1994 and to date in 1995, FPL has provided inspectionof theintakewellsat least once 

### everythreehours over
a 24 

### hour period. This increase in surveillance 

### was 

### necessitated duetoincreased turtle presence andmortality inthisarea (Table 4)- Plantpersonnel, 

### securitypersonnel

### ,and 

### sea

### turtlebiologists

~ inspect the

### wells for any turtlesthatmay be impinged 

### or swimming inthis 

### area (Figure 5). Any plant 

### or securitypersonnel 

### who 

### see a small turtle notifies 

### a turtle biologist through a 

### beeper system; response is within an hour. A sea turtlebiologist, then captures theturtle with a long-handle dip net and places it ina padded holding box for holding and transport. 6.1.5 Netting Program Sea turtles are removed from the intake canal 

### by means of large-mesh entanglementnetfishedbetween theintakeheadwall and thebarrier net located at'the A1A bridge ;Figure 

### 2). 

### From 1976 through the present, this netting 

### program has been constantly evaluated and continuously improved 

### tominimize trauma 

### to

### turtles and

### to

### maximize captureefficiency. Nests presentlyused 

### are from 100-120 feet (30-37 

### m) long, 9-12 feet (2.7-3.7 

### m) deep, and '

composed of 16 inch (41 cm) stretch-mesh multifilament nylon. Large floatsare attached tothetopof the net

### toprovidebuoyancy and the bottom of the net is unweighted. Prior toApril 1990, turtle nets were deployed .on Monday mornings and retrieved on Friday afternoons. During periods of deployment, the nets 

### were inspected for captures at least twice each day (e.g. mornings and afternoons). Additionally, plantpersonnel and securitypersonnel

4- -i&checked the 

### net periodically and biologists were Inotified immediately if a capture had 

### occurred. Sea turtlebiologist were
on call 24 hours/day to retrieve turtles impinged on the intake
screens. Beginning in April 1990, after consultation with NMFS, net deployment was scaled back todaylight hours only. Concurrently, surveillance of theintake canal and thenets was increased 

### tothe

. hours thenetswerebeing fished. This 

### measure decreased 

### response time 

### for removal of entangled turtles 

### from the nets 

### and decreased mortalities from accidental drowning (Figure 14). The presence of
a biologist also provided a daily assessment of turtle numbers 

### in the canal and an indication as 

### to when the turtle was first sighted. Biologists were then able to estimate the residence 

### time, which is the 

### number of days 

### from the 

### first observation 

### to capture and release.

6.1.6 Hand Capture and Dip Netting Inaddition 

### totheuse of tangle nets tocapture turtles, dip nets and hand captures 

### by snorkel and SCUBA divers 

### are used (Table

# '
41. 1 Long-handle dip netsused from small boats and 

### from thecanal banks and headwalls are moderately effective in capturing turtles withcarapace length of 12inches (30.5 cm) or less. Hand nets have 

### alsobeen used todipdead and floating small green turtles 

### from various areas inthecanal system and this factor accounts 

### for the largemortality associated with this recovery system (Table 4). Under good watervisibilityconditions, divershaveproven to be very effective in capturing turtles of all 

### sizes, particularly inactiveturtlespartialburied inthesediment inthevicinity of the 

### barrier net 

### or sleeping individuals throughout the canal. The8e hand captures have had 

### a significant 

### impact in reducing residence 

### times for turtles in the canal 

### (see Section 6.1.7).

6.1.7 Residence 

### Time 

# I Netting methodologies have been under continual 

### review and refinement 

### as netmaterials, configuration andplacement have been varied inan effort tominimize 

### sea turtle entrapment times. 

### For the 

### period 

### for which residence 

### time data 

### are available (July 1

### to December 31, 1994), about 76%of theturtlesenteringthecanal 

### are caught within 24 hours of firstsighting (Quantum, 1994). Because 

### of differences inmean size, loggerheads typically reside in the 

### canal for shorter

### periods than the 

### smaller green turtles. In the July

# - December, 1994 

### period, 100%of 

### all loggerheads


### were captured within one week of first sighting, with 

### a mean residence 

### time of 1.47 

### days. Over that same 

### period, green 

### turtles, which 

### were smaller and 

### less easilyentangled inthe

### large mesh nets, had 

### a mean residence 

### time of 2.00 

### days. 

### For the green 

### turtles, 96.9% were captured within one week of first sighting. Better utilization of currentsandeddies, adjustments

### totethering 

### lines, multi-net deployment and increased efforts tohand capture 

### turtles have contributed to reduced residence time during recent years (Quantum, 1994). 

# I

Residence 

### times may be extended 

### forturtles slipping past the A1A barrier net (Applied Biology, 1987). Because capture efforts west 

### of the A1A 

### barrier net were 

### less effective than 

### east of the barrier, most turtles thatbroached thebarrier netwerenot caught
44 ,until they entered the intake 

### wells of Unit 1 

### or 2. Because of their relatively 

### small 

### size, virtually allof the 

### turtles reaching the intake wells are green turtles. During 1994, 49 of the 194 green captures (25.2%) occurred attheintakewells (Quantum, 1994) and during the first sixmonth of 1995, 23% (95 out 

### of 414) of the captures occurred at the intakewells (Table,4). During 1994, 84.2% of allturtles entrapped inthecanal

### were ._ captured 

### east of the A1A barrier net, 253 

### by tangle net and 51

### by hand or dipnet capture. The effectiveconfinement of turtles

### east of thebarrier net has been a major contributor

### tothehighcapture efficiency achieved during 1994 (Quantum, 1994)

# .

6.1.8 Tagging and Health Assessment Activities Regardless of capturemethod, allturtlesremoved 

### from theSt. LEcie Plant intake canal 

### system are identified to species, measured, weighed, tagged, and examined 

### for overall condition (wounds, abnormalities, parasites, missing appendages). Healthy 

### turtles are released into the Ocean on the day of capture. See

~ Section 6.1.9 for a discussionon rehabilitation 

### or 

### sickor injured 

### turtles. Beginning July 1, 1994, allturtlescaptured

### arephotographed dorsally and ventrally prior to release, and the photographs retained fo.r future reference. Tags supplied 

### by the WS 

### are a3plied to the proximal edge of the foreflipper; a monel szainless-steel cattle 

### ear tag is applied to one flipper and a rototag is applied to the other flipper. The tag 

### numbers, the species, and morphometries of each turtle are reported on a

45monthlybasis totheFloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection 

### (DEP). If a turtlehas beenpreviouslytagged either attheSt. Lucie facility

### or elsewhere, that fact

### isnotedinthemonthly data sheet and reported. These data are forwarded by DEP to the NMF'S 

### for inclusion intheirdata base. Over the 19 year history of turtle entrapment atthe St. Lucie Plant (1976-1994)

### ,. 177 recaptures (150 I_ loggerhead and 27 green turtles) have occurred and 

### a number 

### of turtles have been 

### recaptured more than once (Quantum, 1994). One loggerhead inparticular, has been recaptured 11 times. Several other turtles with tag 

### scars have 

### also been recovered, indicating that the actual

### number of recaptures 

### may be higher. Occasionally, turtles 

### are captured that have been tagged by other researchers;
one such captureoccurred in 1994, 

### a female leatherbackwith tags 

### from French Guiana.

6.1.9 

### Necropsy and Rehabilitation Activities If 

### a turtle had recently died and conditions warrant, 

### . resuscitation techniques wereused. Beginning

### in1982, necropsies
were conducted on dead turtles found in fresh conditions; three necropsies

### were performed 

### in 1994. Lethargic 

### or slightly injured turtles are treated and occasionally held forobservationprior 

### to release; if furthertreatment iswarranted, theDEP isnotifiedand
a decision is made as to what facility would provide additional veterinarian treatment.

6.2 Sea TurtleNesting Programs

46

### 6.2.1 Jurisdiction

### of Fish andWildlife Service/Departmnt of Environmental Protection The 

### PWS has jurisdiction 

### over all species of nesting 

### sea turtles and their hatchlings and FPL has been conducting nesting studies 

### as part of the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 

### 2 reporting requirements. In addition, FWS and DEP have started 

### a long-term nesting index survey, and thedata generated by 

### PPL since 1971 

### are an integral 

### part of thisprogram. 

# I

6.2.2 Description of Program 

### FPL has been conducting 

### sea 

### turtle nesting program on south Hutchinson Island since 1971 and 

### reports have been summarized on a 

### yearly basis (Applied Biology, 1976-1994; Quantum, 1994). Methodologies used during the 1994 nesting surveys on Hutchinson Island 

### are described inthe Annual Operating Report for St. Lucie Unit 

### 2 (Quantum, 1994). Up through 1986, the turtle nesting 

### program was 

### a requirement 

### of theEnviromntal Protection Plan 

### of St. Lucie Unit 2, but afterthat 

### date, FPL elected 

### tovoluntarily continue the nesting monitoring 

### program through the present. 

# T

For the 1994 nesting season, nest surveys 

### were conducted on a 

### daily basis from April 15 

# - September 15. Biologist used small offroad 

### motorcycles to survey the island 

### early morning, generally completing the survey before 

### 10 AM. New nests, non-nesting emergences (false

### crawls), and nests destroyed by predators 

### are recorded 

### for each of the 0.62 

### mile (1 

### km) survey areas (Figure 15). The 0.78 

### mile (1.25 

### km) long surveys established in

### earlier studies were also monitored so comparisons could be made with previous studies.
47The only significant change in nesting 

### survey methods from previous 

### years was that, beginning 

### July 1, only 

### areas A-S were surveyed by Quantum Resources biologists (Figure 14). Areas T-JJ


### were surveyed by biologist from Ecological Associates and these data are used toprovide 1994 whole island nesting totals.

6.3 Sea

### Turtle Stranding

### Program In a cooperative effort, data 

### from stranded turtles found duringbeach nesting surveys are logged. These data are routinely provided 

### to the DEP and NMFS through the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.

6.4 TurtleWalk Program As a public service, FPL has been conducting turtle walk 

### programs 

### atthe St. Lucie since 1982. These walks are permitted by the DEP and have 

### grown in popularity and attendance 

### is shown in Table 5. i \ 6.5 Assistance 

### toOther Organizations 6.5.1 Description of Assistance FPL, throughitscontractorsApplied Biology, Inc. and Quantum Resources, Inc., provided assistance 

### to 

### a variety of federal, 

### state, local, private and academic institutions on 

### sea turtle issues. This assistance has consisted of such activities 

### as: providing turtles affected with fibropapillomas to treatment centers for study and treatment; tagging turtles for capture and release programs; providing informationon tagreturns; providing
48

### adultand hatchling turtles 

### for researchpurposes;providing tissue 

### samples and 

### blood for

### analysis;providing data on turtle abundance and nesting activities.

6.5.2 

### List of 

### Organizations Assisted Since the 

### program began in 1976, 

### data, specimens, and/or assistance have been given to the Florida Department of 

### Environmental Protection, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. 

### Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army 

### Corps 

### of Engineers, Smithsonian Institution, South 

### Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Division, theArchie Carr 

### Center 

### for Sea 

### TurtleResearch at the University 

### of Florida, Florida Atlantic University, University 

### of Central Florida, Texas A 6 

### M University, University of Rhode 

### Island,, University of 

### South Carolina, University of 

### Illinois, University of Georgia, 

### Virginia Institute 

### of Marine Science, Western Atlantic 

### Turtle Symposium, South 

### Atlantic 

# \ Fisheries Management Council, FloridaMarine Fisheries

### Commission, Harbor 

### Branch Oceanographic Institution and the National Research Council.



# i7.0 

### ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT 

### OPERATIONS

7.i

### Direct and Indirect Impacts of 

### the Continued Operation of the Circulating Water System of the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Station on Sea Turtle Populations 

# i

7.1.1 Impacts Due to Entrapment and Entanqlement Nets in the Canal e 

### System Direct effects on entrapment and entanglement net capture in the 

### canal system include: drowning in the intake pipes, injuries sustained in thepipes and the canal, injuries sustainduring canal ..-



### dredging (hydraulic and clam shell),

### loss of

### conditiondue to 

### long entrapment, exposure topredators in the intake canal, injuries and stress 

### sustained during capture, and drowning in fish gill nets and turtlecapturenets. Indirect effects include: interruption

### of migration, loss of 

### nesting opportunities 

### for adult females, 

### and :

loss 

### of mating opportunities for 

### adultmales and females. Table 6 

### presents the numbers of mortalities and probable cause

### of death, by species, through the 1976-June, 1995 operating history 

### of the St. 

### Lucie Plant. It is divided into the periods 1976-1990 when the capture netswere not 

### tended and 1990-June,1995, when the nets

### were deployed and tended. During conditions of 

### low flow rates in the intake pipes, 

### drowning in the intakepipes was identified as a probablemortality factor (AppliedBiology, 1987). Low 

### flowconditionswere virtually eliminated when 1983, 

### and transit times through the 

### intake pipes (3-5

### minutes) are St. 

### Lucie Unit 2 

### was brought on line in August, 

# isuch that drowning in the intake pipes is unlikely.

, No dead individuals have been recovered from the intake canal that are indicative of this type 

### of mortality. A fraction of turtles captured show recent superficial scrapes, usuallytotheanteriorcarapace or plastron, which may be due tocontact with encrusting organisms in,thepipeline. In the last year of operation (July 1, 1994

# - June 30, 1995), 14 of 361 turtles captured had significant injuries, most of which were old and well healed (Quantum, 1994). One loggerhead 

### was captured in 1994 with a fresh penetrating crack in the: carapace. It is not known whether this injury was sustained in the intake pipes or before entrapment, possibly by boat collision. '

Due to long residence 

### times in the canal some 

### turtles lack appropriate food and loose body weight. This 

### loss of conditionwas identified by Bellmund et al. (1982) as a concern. Their i conclusion was that residence times averaging 44 days had 

### little detrimental effects on turtles. In 1994, residence times, calculated 

### fromvisual observations, were 1.47 days forloggerheads and 2.00 days for green turtles and 100%of all loggerheads and 97% 

### of all green turtles were captured within 1 week of first sighting (Quantum, 1994). Bellmund et al. (1982)concluded thatpredation intheintake canal was not a significant mortality factor. Informal visual
census of fishpopulations inthecanal inrecent years (1993-1995) reveal five to ten large (220+ lbs 

## (loo+ kg)) jewfish, not considered before in previous analysis, which may present a significant hazard to smaller turtles, especially greens. Other \ possible predators include numbers of great barracuda and 1

51occasionally blacktip and spinner sharks. There 

### is no way to quantifythe

### extentof thispredation by fishspecies, but it does


### occur at 

### a low level. Injuries sustainedduring capture have allbeen superficial.

. I \ Typically they involve small cuts from net strands and minor abrasions sustained during handling. None have ever required veterinary attention 

### or rehabilitation. Stress 

### is difficult to quantify, but effortsaremade to- minimizehandlingtime (generally underone half hourtoobtainbiological informationand

### totagthe animal) and 

### to keep turtles cool and shaded prior to release. Drowning incapturenetshas occurredoccasionallythroughout the history of the St. Lucie Plant's capture program during the period 1976-June, 1995. Since theprogram began 7 loggerheads (7 mortalities out of 2583 captures 

### or 0.3%) and 13 green turtles (13mortalities outof 1165captures or 1.1%; drowned incapture nets (Tables 2, 3 

### tightly entangled, when a 

### small turtle \ and 6). Turtles can drown when they become i when the net 

### becomes fouled 

### on the

### bottom, 

### or becones tangledwitha largeturtleand isheld underwater. SinceApril 1990, when the netshave been constantly tended when 

### set during daylight hours, there have been 

### zero loggerheads and 3 greens drowned incapture nets (Table 6). Of theindirecteffects, interruptionof migrationisthemost difficult to evaluate, since the migratory habits of the 

### various life stagesof thevarious species are poorly understood. As long
as entrapment times in the canal are held to a minimum, no significant impact is expected. Loss of nesting opportunities for adult females may be 

### I expected when entrapment time during nesting season exceeds the

52internesting interval. There have been several instances of turtles emerging 

### from thecanal and nesting on thecanal bank. In 

### at least one case, the nest was not discovered and hatchlings entered the canal, where most were killed by being carried by

. currents to the plant (B. Perry, pers. corn.). However, 

### by minimizing residence time for adult turtles in the canal, this factor 

### can be controlled. Loss of mating opportunities can occur when an adult is trapped in the canal without 

### access to the 

### opposite sex in the mating season. The duration of themating seasons 

### for the

### various species 

### is prior totheonset of nesting. residence the

### inthecanal, this factor can also be controlled. However, by minimizing

Based on capture data, approximately 95% of turtles 

### are in good relative condition based 

### on weight, activity, parasite infestation, barnacle coverage, wounds, in juries and other abnormality (e.g. 

### loss of 

### an appendage) which might affect overall \ 

### vitality. However theother 5%

### of the

### turtle population 

### from the canal 

### are poor condition and probably entered the canal 

### in that condition (Quantum, 1994). Some of the 

### mortalities reported as unknown floating (Table 6)

### are put into this category because 

### a cause of death could not be determined. However, the turtles condition is very poor based on visual observation (e.g theanimal is underweight, is barnacle coverage, and lacks muscle tone).

7.1.1.1 Impacts toLoggerhead Turtles Tables 2 and 3 show the total captures and total mortalities

I for loggerheads throughout the history of the canal capture 

### \ operation. Figure 16 shows the decreasing mortality for

53

### loggerheads 

### expressed as 

### a percentage 

### of captures, reflecting improvements inmaterials and methods employed in the canal capture program. Since the evaluation 

### of low flowconditions in 1984, 

### and since

. ! 

### the deployment of an effective barrier net 

### in 1987, 

### drowning in barrier net and unknown (natural?)causes are the only significant identifiable sources 

### of entrapment related mortalities 

### for loggerheads (Table6). 

### Injuries sustained by loggerheads in transit through the intake pipes and in the canal are minor and do not significantly impact loggerheads. In the period 1976-1990, 

### there were 7 

### mortalities associated with hydraulic and clam shell dredging in the canal and 2 

### mortalities associated with fish gill netting required for 

### a 

### separate biological monitoring 

### program (Table6). 

### The fish gill netting program

### has 

### been discontinued so 

### this will no ! 

### longer be a source of mortality. With the recent hydraulic ' 

### dredging 

### of the intake canal in 1994 

### and the use 

### of a temporary 4 

### inch (10.2

### cm)barrier net to isolate thedredging area, there was


### no mortality associated with this program. Thus any future dredging program should not be a problem with the installation 

### of the 5 

### inch (12.7 

### cm) net being planned by FPL. I



### Because of 

### their size (subadult

### or adult),predation risk is 

### alsoconsidered insignificant. Injuryand stressduring capture is also 

### likely insignificant because of the effort to minimize handling time. Effects on the interruption of migration are unknown, but are

### minimized by the short residence times typical for ! 

### loggerheads. Since 1983, 

### an 

### averageof 25 

### adult female loggerheads per 

### year 

### have been 

### captured in the canal. Their 

### typically short

### residence times (meanresidence time of 1.47 

### days; Section 6.1.7) 

### renders 

### loss of nesting and mating opportunities insignificant. Current permit conditionscall for 

### increasedcapture effort to 

### be employed whenever 

### an adult turtle remains in the canal longer


### . than 7 

### days. Under these conditions, nets are deployed 7 

### days a 

### week up to 12 hours 

### a day to minimize residence time for 

### these adult animals. 

# \

7.1.1.2 

### Impact to Green Turtles Tables 2, 3 

### and 4 

### shows the total captures and total mortalities for green turtles throughout the history of the canal capture operation. Figure 17 

### shows the trend in green turtle mortality expressed as a 

### percentage 

### of captures. In contrast to the situation with the loggerhead, the deployment of barrier nets has not 

### been effective in confining all ! 

### green turtle to the portion of the canal east of A1A. 

### Green ' 

### turtles smaller than 

### about 11.3 inches (28 

### cm) in length 

### can 

### pass through the barrier nets, which can greatly increase residence times. Residence times for green turtles passing the A1A 

### barrier are unknownand

### may be significant. Calculated residencetks are based only on turtles sighted east of AlA, 

### where observations are sufficiently rigorous. Turtles recovered west of A1A 

### are more often underweight,which may 

### reflect long residence times. I



### For the first six months in 1995, 95 

### or 23% of 

### the greens captured in the intake canal passed through the existing 8 

### inch (20.3

### cm)barrier net and were taken at the intakewells (Table6)

# . Based on this finding, FPL 

### proposed using a smaller mesh net (5

# i inch or 12.7 cm)

### to prohibit these smaller size turtles frommoving

55down the intake 

### canal towards 

### the plant. Based on the 

### size frequency distribution of 414 green turtles captured in 1995 (Figure 13), 100%of all green turtles should theoretically 

### be prohibited from reaching the intakewells I \ Exposure to predators may be significantly affecting green turtles. The large jewfish observed in the canal have been documented tofeedon small sea turtles (Randall, 1967). There 

### is
no way to quantify this predation 

### by jewfish 

### or other large predatory fishinthe canal, but it does occur 

### at a lowlevel. Drowning incapture nets has occurred throughout the history of the program (Section 7.1.1, 13mortalities inthe period 1976- June, 1995; see Table 6), even after the present system of constantly tended nets was instituted in 1990 

# . Mortalitycan be expected to continue at low levels even with themost diligent of efforts and observation of the nets. : LOSS of nestingandmating opportunities

### for greenturtles is 

### not as significant 

### as for loggerheads, since few adult greens 

### are entrained (10 turtles in18years). Drowning intheintake

### pipes, injuries sustainedduring passage inthe intake pipes or from the capture program, and interruption of migration do not present significant impacts to green turtles under present operating conditions. '

7.1.1.3 Impacts toLeatherback Turtles Leatherback captures are infrequent at the St. Lucie Plant, withonly 18captured sincemonitoringbegan in 1976 (Tables 2 and 3). Plant (Tables 2, 3 and 6). Residence times for leatherbacks are Noleatherbackmortalities have been recorded attheSt. Lucie

# \extremely 

### short,never

### more than

### a fewhours from firstsighting to capture. The only 

### impacts of significance 

### to leatherbacks are injuries sustained in the intake pipes and in the canal, and injuriesand stress sustainedduring capture. Due 

### totheirlackof


### a hard shell and their delicate skin, leatherbacks invariably sustain cuts from the capture nets and from contact with hard surfacesinthecanal. All injuriesare superficial, andnone have required veterinary attention. 

# i

7.1.1.4 Impacts to Hawksbill Turtles Only 13hawksbill turtles have been captured 

### attheSt. Lucie Plant intheperiod 1976-June, 1995, and no mortalities have been recorded (Tables 2, 3 and 6). No significant impact tohawksbill turtlepopulations is expected from thecontinuedoperationof the St. Lucie Plant. 1 \ 7.1.1.5 Impacts 

### toKemp’s 

### Ridley Turtles A total of 29 Kemp’s ridleyturtles have been captured at the St. Lucie Plant since 1976 (Tables 2 and 3), allbut one of which
were juveniles 

### or sub-adults. There have been 4 mortalities of thisspecies (Tables 2, 3 and 6). Possible significantentrapment impacts toKeap’s ridleys include: loss of body condition due to long residencetimes, exposuretopredators anddrowning incapture nets. Interruption of migration for this species is unclear, but probably not significant. Loss of matinl; or nestingopportunities isnotconsideredsignificant, sinceadultsareextremelyuncommon. Due to their small average size, Kemp‘s ridleys have often been able to penetrate the barrier nets, contributing to longer 

### I

### residence times. Their 

### small size also subjects them 

### to a 

### higher, but unknown, risk of predation. One Kemp’s ridley was found to have drowned in a capture net in 1986. Modifications to capture procedures since then have lessened the likelihood of this impact. The Kemp’s ridley has the highest overall mortality rate of any species in the canal system at 13.8% (4 

### mortalities from 29 

### captures)

# . 

# i

With the 5 

### inch (12.7 

### cm)mesh barrier net being proposed by 

### FPL, all 

### Kemp’s ridleys should be prevented from 

### moving down the canal system towards the plant.

7.1.2 

### Impacts Due to Impingement on Barrier Nets and the Intake Wells Impactsdue to impingement/entanglement 

### on barrier nets and in the plant‘s intake wells cannot be easily characterized. Dead turtles in the canal that drift with the currentwill be recovered 

# ’
at these sites but, except 

### for cases of obvious entanglement in barrier nets 

### or mechanical injuries in the intakewells, the cause of death generally cannot be determined and is classified as unknown (Table 6). 

## i

Barrier net designs have improvedmarkedly over thehistory of the St. Lucie Plant’s operation, and have contributed to the overall reduction in mortality since 1990 (Table 6). 

### Increased efforts to hand capture turtles are also effective in capturing sick, injured

### or otherwise inactiveturtles that are at higher risk of impingement. Mechanical injuries in the intake wells can occur when the

# \ rakes 

### used to remove large debris from the 

### wells strike 

### or crush a
58

### turtle. Careful scrutiny

### by equipment

### operator8 prior tolowering therakeminimFzea this

### iource of mortality. With the5 inch (12.7 

### an) mesh 

### barrier net being 

### proposed by 

### FPL, allturtle6 erhould 

### be prevented 

### from moving down the canal 

### system towards theplant 

### and being exposed to this 

### type of mechanical injury in the intake 

### wells

# . 

# I

7.1.2.1 

### Impacts 

### toLoggerhead 

### Turtles Since barrier net hprovements 

### were completed in 1990, one loggerhead has been found entangled in the 

### barrier nets, and 

### six loggerheadshave been 

### recovered floating

### at, but

### not entangled 

### in, the

### barriernets (Table 6). No loggerhead has been captured atthe intake 

### wells since the barrier net improvements have been completed.

7.1.2.2 

### Impacts to

### Green Turtles Small green

### turtlesof carapacewidth s m a l l e r t h a n 11.3 inches (28.7 cm)have been 

### able 

### topenetrate thecurrent

### barrier net and 

### able to reach the 

### plant's intake 

### wells. Daily checks of the 

### intake 

### wells instituted in January, 1995 

### are useful in removing 

### turtles from these areas before they become exhausted swimming 

### against the currents and impinged against the grizzlies. This procedure has reduced but not eliminated mortalities altogether (Table 4). Impingement on the UIDS barrier impacts turtlesthat breach the A1A barrier net and 

### are not strong enough to 

### swim away 

### from 

# I thisbarrier. The design of theUIDS barrier (seeSections 4.1.5
59

### and 6.1.3) 

### is such that 

### it 

### is 

### considerably more hazardous to turtles than the A1A 

### barrier. Barrier net improvements scheduled in 1995 

### should eliminate impingement at the intakewells and at 

### the UIDS 

### barrier.

7.1.2.3 

### Impacts to 

### Leatherback Turtles No significantimpingementeffectsto 

### leatherback

### turtleshave 

# i been 

### experienced or 

### are expected.

7.1.2.4 

### Impacts to Hawksbill Turtles No significant impingement effects to hawksbill turtles have been experienced 

### or are anticipated.

7.1.2.5 

### Impacts to Kemp’sRidley Turtles Impingement impacts to Kemp’s ridley turtles are essentially the 

### same 

### as those discussed above in section 7.1.2.2 for 

### green turtles because 

### of similar sizes. Barrier net improvements 

### scheduled 

### for 1995

### will also be 

### effective in reducing thepotential : 

### i for Kemp’s ridley impingementmortality.

7.2 

### Other Potential Station Impacts 7.2.1 

### Thermal Effects Sea turtle nesting studies conducted since 1971 at 

### the St. Lucie Plant have found 

### no 

### significant effects of the thermal discharge

### or other aspects of 

### plant operationon 

### sea turtle nesting
on 

### Hutchifison Island (Quantum,1994). A study to 

### assess the impact of 

### thermal discharges on emerging hatchlings swimming near the

60

### discharge concluded that the St. Lucie Plant operation.does not affect hatchlings swimming performance (O'Hara, 1980). 

### No 

### significant impacts to marine turtles are anticipated 

### from continued operation of the St. Lucie Plant.

7.2.2 

### Chlorination 

# \ Chlorination is used to control biofouling in the condenser tubes, heat exchangers, and other auxiliary equipment. In accordancewith

### NPDES permit requirements

## ,total residual levels in the discharge canal do not exceed 0.1 

### mg/l. Given that chemical breakdown of sodium hypochlorite in seawater is rapid, and mixing with ambient seawater is thorough at the offshore discharge, chlorination is not anticipated to impact marine turtles.

7.2.3 

### Lights A 

### vegetative light screen and light shielding of security lighting is employed to eliminate direct lighting 

### of the beach. The lack 

### of documented hatchling disorientation incidents on companyproperty indicate that thesemeasures are effective. High i \



### rates 

### of nesting at theplant site indicates that adult females are not deterred 

### from using the plant site beaches. 

### No significant impacts to narine turtles on the beach or 

### in thewater as a result of 

### plant lighting are anticipated.

7.2.4 

### Tapprogge Cleaning System The Tapprogge cleaning systemwill be 

### installed on Unit 2 

### in October, 1995 

### and on Unit 1 

### in the spring of 1996. As 

### a component of the cleaning system, small sponge balls will be injected into

I! 61

### the 

### condenser to 

### keep the tubes free from fouling and 

### scale. These balls will be recovered once they have passed through the condenser,however there is apotential 

### for some 

### of these balls not to 

### be 

### recovered and enter the discharge canal. Since the balls are neutrally buoyant, there is a chance that a few may be 

### discharged to the environment.

7.3 

### Cumulative Impact of the Continued Operation of the Circulating Water System 

### of the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating * 

# -
Station on Sea Turtle Populations Escalating catch rates at the St. Lucie Plant experienced in 1994 and 1995 make it tenuous to project anticipated take into the future. Based 

### on capturedata fromJanuary through June, 1995,and factoring in historical data on seasonalpatterns in catch rates

### of the different species, FPL 

### estimates the 1995 total year catch at 400 

### loggerheads, 850 

### green turtles, 2 

### leatherback, 10 

### Kemp's ridleys, and 1 

### hawksbili. These catch rates are used in the calculations of anticipated lethal take presented below. Minimum 

### expected lethal take 

### is calculatedby multiplying the 1990-June, 1995 mortality rate (Tables 2 

### and 3) 

### for each species by the projected catch for that species. For 

### loggerheads, at a 

### mortality rate of 0.838 (7

### mortalities out 

### of 842 

### captures), this yields a

### minimum expected lethal take 

### of three annually. 

### For green turtles at a 

### mortality rate of 2.6% (23

### mortalities out of 879 

### captures), the minimum expected lethal take is 22 

### annually. Minimum expected lethal take for leatherbacks,Kemp's ridleys, and hawksbills is zero.mxbumexpected lethal take is calculated by multiplying the 1976-June, 1995 mortality rate (Tables 2 and 

### 3) 

### for each specier 

### by the projected catch 

### for that species. The 

### maximum rate 

### for loggerheads (5.1%; 

### 131mortalities out 

### of 2583 captures) yield8 

### a 

### maximum expected lethal take 

### of 20 annually. The 

### maximum rate 

### for green turtles 

### (3.4%; 40 mortalities out 

### of 1165 captures)yields a maximum expected lethal take of 29 annually. The 

### maximum rate 

### for

# I
Kemp’s ridley (13.8%; 4 mortalities out 

### of 29 captures) yields 

### a 

### maximum expected lethal take 

### of one annually. HaxFmum expected lethal takes for leatherbacks and hawksbills are zero, 

### but realistically should 

### be set at one. In the absence 

### of reliable data on the populations and population trends 

### of sea turtle species, an analysis 

### of the effects 

### of the above levels of take on sea turtle populations i8 problematical, but take associated with operation 

### of the St. Lucie Plant is unlikely to significantly affect sea turtle populations. The various sub-lethal impacts discussed in section 

### 7 above are

t 0 also believed to pose no significant impact to sea 

### turtle

# I populations.



### 7.4 Overall Assessment 

### The refinements to the sea turtle capture program over its history at the St. Lucie Plant have significantly reducedmortality rates for entrapped sea turtles. Data generated from the program, and other conservation activities described in Section 6 have made valuable contributions to sea turtle research and conservation. It is concluded that the continued operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear

63Generating Plant will have no significant impact on sea turtle species found in the inshore waters of Florida. 

## i 1

### 8.0 

### References
Applied Biology Inc., 1976. 

### Ecological monitoring at the Florida Power h 

### Light Co. St. Lucie Plant. Annual Report, AB-44. Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., 

### Miami, Vol. 

### 1-2. 

# i Applied Biology Xnc., 

### 1977a. Ecological monitoring at the Florida Power & 

### Light Co. St. 

### Lucie Plant. hnual Report, AB-101. Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., 

### Miami, Val. 

### 1-2. 

### Applied Biology, Inc., 

### 1977b. Worm 

### reef monitoring at the Florida Power & 

### Light Co. St. 

### Lucie Plant,April 1976-April 1977. AB60, 

### 25pp. Applied Biology Inc., 

### 1978. Florida Power & 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Plant annual environmental operating report. AB-177. Prepared by Applied 

### Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Co., 

### Miami, Vol. 

### 1-2.
Applied Biology Inc., 

### 1979. Florida Power & 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Plant annual environmental operating report. 

### AB-26

### 1. Prepared by Applied Biology 

### Inc. for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., Miami, 

### Vol. i-2. 

# i

Applied Biology Inc., 1980. Florida 

### Power h 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie Plant annual 

### environmental operating report 1970 AB-



## ...324. 

### Prepared by 

### Applied Biology 

### Inc. 

### for Florida Power b 

### Light Co., 

### Miami, Vol 1-2.


### Applied Biology Inc., 1381. 

### Florida Power b 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report. AB-379. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. 

### for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., Miami, Vol. 1-3. 

# i Applied Biology Inc., 1982. 

### Florida 

### Power & 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie Plant annual non-radiological environmental operating report. AB-442. 

### Prepared 

### by Applied Biology Inc. 

### for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., 

### Juno Beach, 

### Vol. 1-2.


### Applied Biology Inc., 

### i983a. Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Plant annual non-radiologicalenvironmentalmonitoring report. AB-530. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Co., Juno Beach, Vol. 1.


### Applied Biology Inc., 1983b. 

### Florida 

### Power & 

### Light Company, St. LucieUnit 2 

### environmental operating report. AB-533. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida 

### Power & 

### Light Co., 

### Juno Beach, Vol. 

### 1. 

# i

Applied Biology Inc., 1984. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie Plant annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report. -8-553. Prepared by 

### Applied Biology Inc. 

### for Florida 

### Power h Light Co., Juno 

### Beach, Vol. 1.

### Applied Biology Inc., 1985. 

### Florida Power C 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. AB-563. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power & I 

### Light Co., Juno Beach, Vol 1.


### Applied Biology Inc., 1986. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. 

### AB579. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power & 

### Light Co., 

### Juno Beach, Vol. 1.



### Applied Biology Inc., 1987. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. 

### . ! i 

### Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. 

### AB595. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power & 

### Light Co., Juno 

### Beach, Vol 1.


### Applied Biology Inc., 1988. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. 

### AB596. 

### Prepared 

### by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power & 

### Light Co., Juno Beach, Vol 1.


### Applied Biology Inc., 1989. 

### Florida Power & 

### Light Company, St. 

### Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report 1988. 

### AB603. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power h Light Co., Juno 

### Beach, Vol. 1, 77 pp. 

# i

67

### Applied Biology Inc., 1990. 

### Florida Power 6 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report 

# . AB610. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., Juno Beach, Vol.1 

## , 75 

### pp- 

# i Applied Biology Inc., 1991.. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. 

### AB-

' 617. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. 

### for Florida Power & 

### Light Co., Juno 

### Beach, Vol. 

### 1, 76 

### pp.
Applied Biology Inc., 1992. 

### Florida Power & 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. AB-623. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for Florida Power h 

### Light Co., Juno Beach, 71 

### pp. 1 \ 

### Applied Biology Inc., 1993. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. 

### AB631. 

### Prepared by Applied Biology Inc. for 

### Florida Power S 

### Light Co., ;uno 

### Beach, 71pp.
Bellmund, S., M. 

### T. 

### Masnik, and G. 

### Laroche. 1982. 

### Assessment 

### of the inpacts 

### of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on threatened or 

### endangered species. U.S. 

### Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Docket No. 50-398, 68 

### PP* 

## \ Bjorndal, X.A. 1982. 

### The consequences of 

### herbivory for 

### the life history pattern of 

### the Caribbean green turtle Chelonia mvdas.I
In: 

### Biology and Conservation of 

### Sea Turtles. 'Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 

### pages 111-116.

Carr, 

### A. 1978. 

### Survey and census of 

### sea turtles in the western Atlantic. Interim report to 

### the National Marine Fisheries Service. 21 

### pp
Carr, A.F., Jr. 1986. 

### New perspectives on the 

### pelagic stageof sea turtle development. NOAA-TM-SEFC-190. 36 

### pp
Dodd, D.K., Jr. 1988. 

### Synopsis of 

### the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus1758). USEWS 

### biological report 88(14). 110 pp.


### Donnelly, M. 1989. 

### International trade in hawksbill sea turtle shell 

### in the wider Caribbean, pages 45-47. 

### In: Proceedings of the 

### ninth annual workshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOM-TM-NMFS-SEFC 232..



### Florida Department of 

### Natural Resources. 1977. 

### Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974. 

### Florida Marine Research Publication, 

### No 23, 85 

### pp. 

### i

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1977. 

### Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974. 

### Florida Marine Research Publication, No 24, 23 pp.

69Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1977. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchineon Island, Florida: 1971-1974. Florida Marine Research Publication, 

### No 25, 63 pp.

Florida Department 

### of Natural Resources. 1979. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974. 

# I Florida Marine Research Publication, 

### No 34, 122 pp.

Florida Power h Light 

### Co. 1985. Sea turtle intake entrapment studies. Special Document 4/9/85. 20 pp. with 

### 7 appendices.

Fretey, J. and M Girondot, 1990. Numbering and tagging 

### of leatherbacks for four years on French Guiana beaches, pages 201-203. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual workshop 

### on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA-Tn-NWFS-SEFC-278. 

### Mi&, Florida. 

# I

Gilmore, 

### R. G., 

### Jr. 1977. Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and adjacent waters, Florida. 

### Bull. Florida State 

### HUB., Bio. Sci. 

### 22(3):101-148.
Weylan, 

### M. 1989. Spongivory 

### in hawksbill turtles: A diet of 

### glass. Science 239:393-395.
Meylan, A.B., D.A. Bjorndal, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida. 11. Post nesting movements of Caretta caretta. Biol. Conserv. 26:79-90. 

# 1Mrosovsky, N. 1983. 

### Conserving sea turtles. British Herpetological Society, London. 176 

### pp.
Murphy, T.M. 

### and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. 

### Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the southeast region, U.S. 

### Report toNational Marine Fisheries Service,contract # NA83- GA-00021. 73 

### pp.

National Research Council, 1990. 

### Decline of the sea turtles: 

### causes and prevention. National Academy Press. Washington. 

# \ 259 

### pp.
Nelson, V.A. 

### and D.D. 

### Dickerson. 1989. 

### Effects of beach renourishmenton sea turtles, pages 125-12:. 

### In: 

### Proceedings of 

### the ninth annual workshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOM-TM-NMFS-SEFC-232. Miami, FL.



### O'Hara, J. 1980. 

### Thermal influences on the swimming speed of 

### loggerhead turtle hatchlings. Copeia 1980. (4):773-780.


### Pritchard,P.C.H. 1979. 

### Encyclopedia cf 

### turtles. TFH 

### Publications, 1' I 

### Inc. Neptune, NJ, 895 

### pp.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. 

### Nesting of the leatherback turtle Dennochelyes coracea in pacific Mexico,with a 

### newestimate of 

### the world population status. Ccpeia 1982 (4)741-747.

### Quantum Resources, Tnc. 1994. 

### Florida Power h 

### Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 

### annual environmental operating report. Prepared by 

### Quantum Resources, Inc. for 

### Florida Power & 

### Light Co. 

### Juno Beach, Vol. 1, 49 

### pp. ii, 

### Randall, J.E. 1967. 

### Food habits of 

### reef fishes of 

### the west Indies. Stud. Trop. Oceanography. 5:665-847.


### Schmelz, G.W. and R.R. Mezich. 1988. 

### A preliminary investigation of 

### the potential impact of 

### australian pines on the nesting activities of 

### the loggerhead turtle, pages 63-66. 

### In: Proceedings of 

### the eighth annual workshop on sea 

### turtle biology and conservation. NOM-TM-NMFS-SEFC-214. 

### Miami,FL.


### Shoop,C.R. 

### and C. 

### Ruckdeschel, 1982. 

### Increasing turtle strandings ! 

### in the southeast United States: a complicating factor. 5 

### Biol. Conser. 23:213-215.


### Stanley, K.M., 

### E.K. Stabenau, and A.M. Landry, 1988. 

### Debris ingestion by sea 

### turtles along the Texas coast,pages 119-121. 

### 1n:Proceedings of the ninth annual workshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SEFC-214, 

### Miami, FL.

U. S. 

### Atomic Energy Commission. 1974. 

### Finai environmental statement related to construction of St. 

### Lucie Plant,Unit 2, 

### Docket No. 50-389. USAEC, 

### Directorate of 

### Licensing, Washington

### , DC. 

# i

'2

### Wilcox, J. 

### R. 

### and R. G. 

### Gilmore, Jr. 

### 1976. Some 

### hydrological data from the Indian River between Sebastian and St. Lucie Inlets, Florida 

### Tech. Rept. 17, Harbor 

### Branch Foundation, Inc., Ft. Pierce, FL, 104 pp.


### Witherington, B.E. 

### 1990. Photopollution on sea turtle nesting beaches: problems and next best solutions, pages 43-45. In: 

### Proceedingsof 

### the tenth annualworkshop on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA-TN-WS-SEFC-278, Miami, FL.
Witherington, B.E. 

### and L.M. 

### Ehrhart, 1989a. Status and reproductivecharacteristicsof

### green turtles (Chelonia mvdas) nesting in Florida, pages 351-352. In: Proceedings of 

### the second western Atlantic turtle symposium. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMF'S-SEFC-226, 

### Panama City, Florida. NTIS f 

### PB90-127648.
Witherington, 

### B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart, 1989b. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of marine turtles 

### in the Indian River Lagoon system, Florida, U.S.A. 

### Copeia 1989 (3):696-703. 

# i Witzell, W.N. 

### 1983. Synopsis of 

### the biological data on the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Linneaus1766). FA0 

### Fish. Synop. 137:78.

-3