ASSESSMENT OF 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 
Sect ion 

1.0 Summary and Conclusions 

2.0 Introduction 

2.1 Purpose 

2.2 Endangered Species Act 

2.3 Jurisdiction of 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 Bridges and Underwater Intrusion System 

Intake Wells, Trash Racks and Traveling Screens 

5.0 Information on Sea Turtle Species 

5.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta carettal 

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 (Chelonia mvdas) 

Description 

Distribution 

Behavior 

Food Habits 

Nesting 

Numerical Abundance 

Mortality Factors and Diseases 

2 
5.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea 1 

5.3.1 Desc r i pt 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 (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

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 (Lepidochelys kempi) 

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 Inspection and 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/Department of Environmental Protection 

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 Organizations Assisted 
7.0 Assessment of Present Operations 

7.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Continued Operation 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’s Ridley 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 Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. The turtle species encountered in decreasing numerical 

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 system of 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 to make this capture program efficient and beneficial to 

sea turtle conservation through stewardship efforts such as noting 

health, tagging, noting recapture incidents, obtaining morphometric 

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 serve as an artificial reef, since the structures are the 

only significant physical feature in this nearshore environment. 

The turtles encounter this szructure in their normal ranging 

activities and feed on the fouling organisms growing on the 

structure or 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 capture of entrapped turtles and to minimize 

turtles from moving down the canal system towards the plant, a 

large mesh 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 the original evaluation 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 entrapment history 

of the plant from 1976 through 1981 that approxirdated 150 turtle a 

year (Figure 11). 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 intake wells. Also an intensive research 

program to investigate methods to physically or behavioral exclude 

turtles from the offshore intake structures was conducted as part 

of the Environmental Protection Plan of Unit 2 and concluded that 

6 
there 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 this increase is the number 

of juvenile green turtles (carapace width less than 12 inches (30 

cm)) (Figure 10) where over 400 juvenile greens have been captured 

in the time period of January 1, 1995 through June 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 the Atlantic ocean. 

with this increase in the number of turtles handled since 1991 

and with a decrease in the size of the turtles handled, a certain 

percentage of greens have been able to penetrate the 8 inch (20.3 

cm) mesh barrier net and pass down the canal to be entrained on the 

intake structures of the plant. This culminated in the first six 

months of 1995, where 23% of the turtles captured were removed from 

the intake wells of the plant (Table 4). 

To counteract this problem, FPL is proposing to install a 

smaller mesh barrier net in the intake canal to exclude 100% of the 

green turtles encountered in 1995. The mesh of this net will be 5 

inch (12.7 cm) square mesh, or a diagonal measurement 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 in place, the continued operation 

of the 3t. iucie Nuclear Generating Plant will not jeopardize the 

. 

conLiinued existence of sea turtles in Florida. 
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 to the National 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 the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and 50 CFR 402, 

Interagency Cooperation. An original assessment was conducted in 

1982 (Bellmund et al., 1952). 

This report provides the NRC's updated biological assessment, 

which predicts the impact from the operation of Units 1 and 2 of 

the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant on five species of sea turtles as 

listed in Table 1. This assessment is based on a site visit by Dr. 

M. Masnik of the NRC in May 1995, monitoring data collected 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 the present. The purpcse of the act is: 

'I... to provide 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 in Section 7 of 

the Act, which provides for interagency cooperation in that, "... 

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 

threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification 

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 jurisdiction under a Memorandum 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 the water onto land, principally for nesting, 

and during the incubation and the hatching of young, the FWS has 

jurisdiction. 

! 

2.4 Chronology of Events Leading to this Assessment 

In 1974, the Atomic Energy Comjnission in their Final 

Environmental Assessment for the Construction Permit for St. Lucie 

Unit 1, described various biological communities found in the 

Atlantic Ocean immediately offshore of the plant (USAEC, 1974). As 

a condition of FPL's license to operate Unit 1, FPL was 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 consultation with 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 of methods to capture entrapped turtles, and 

nesting surveys of Hutchinson Island for the time period 1982-1987. \ 

These results were presented in yearly annual reports to the NRC 

(Applied Biology, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1984, 1985, i986, 1987, 1988, 

1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, Quantum, 1994). 
3.0 SITE'DESCRIPTION 

3.1. Location 

The St. Lucie Nuclear 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) south of 

Ft. Pierce and approximately 7 miles (11.3 km) north of Stuart. 

3.2 Indian River Environment \ 

South Hutchinson Island is a typical barrier island of eastern 

Florida bounded on the east by the Atlantic 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. At the site's ocean shore, the land rises 

slightly to a dune or ridge of approximately 19 feet (5.8 m) above 

mean sea level. 

The Indian River lagoon is a shallow embayment that is bounded 

on the west by the mainland peninsula of Florida and on the east by 

the narrow barrier islands located along the coast of Florida. The 

Indian River lagoon originates in Brevard County in the Cape 

Canaveral area and terminates in the Stuart area. Several inlets 

along the coast connect the lagoon with the Atlantic ocean. Many 

rivers and drainage canals empty into this entire stretch of the 

lagoon and greatly influence the salinity and nutrient levels of 

the water body. In many 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 series of publications entitled "Nearshore Marine 

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) !, 

Introduction and Rationale; 2 ) Sediments; 3) Physical and Chemical 

Environment; 4 )Lancelets and Fishes; 5 ) Arthropods; 6) Plankton 

Dynamics 1971-1973; 7) Phytoplankton 1971-1973: 8)Zooplankton 1971- 

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 

influenced by two main water masses: 

shelf, which receive fresh water outflows from various 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 Florida current sweeps within 12 miles 

. found 24 miles (39 km) offshore. 

The salinity of the Indian River lagoon varies widely from 

less than 20 o/oo during the rainy season when there are large 
fresh-water discharges to 34 o/oo during flood tide and low freshwater discharges (Wilcox and Gilmore, 1976). 

3.3.2 Temper at ure 

Ambient water temperature of the Atlantic ocean ranges from a 

January minimum of 57 F (14 C) to a September IllaXixnUm of 84 F (29 

C)(Applied Biology, 1981). However under certain wind and 

upwelling conditions common during summer months, the ambient water 

temperature of 78-81 F (25-27 C) can drop precipitously to 70-73 F i 

(21-23 C) for several days (Applied Biology, 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 slope begins. 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 water 
outpourings 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 the plant’s intake 

structures an extensive worm reef community is found along the 

shoreline. This reef system provides extensive habitat for a wide 

variety of fish and invertebrate species in the surf zone (Applied 

Biology, 1977b). A coquinoid rock formation parallels much of 

island‘s ocean shoreline and provides suitable substratum for these 

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 to the destractiveness of heavy surf action. There are 

no najor ‘reef systems within 6 miles (9.6 Ian) of the plant and 

there are several shoals composed of sand and shell hash 2-5 miles 

(3.2-8 km) from the plant. 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 

in about 30-35 feet (9.1-10.7 m) of water. 

! 

14 
4.0 ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT DESCRIPTION 

The St. Lucie Plant consists of two Pressurized 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 

in August, 1983. The location of the units.in relationship to 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 intake pipelines 

to convey water from the intake structure to the intake canal (one 

pipeline is 16 feet (4.9 m)in diameter; 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) individual unit intake structures; 5) 

discharge structures for each unit; 6) a common discharge canal; 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 from shoreline to approximately 1200 feet (365 m) offshore 

and then the multiport diffuser segment from approximately 1200 to 

2400 feet (365-730 m) offshore) (Figure 2). 

15 
The design unit flow for Units 1 and 2 is 1150 cubic feet per 

second (32.6 cms) with maximum and normal temperature rise across 

the condensers of 31 F and 25 F (17-13 C), respectively (~ellmund 

et al., . 1982 ) . 

4.1 Circulating Water System 

4.1.1 Intake Structures and Velocity Caps 

In 1991-1992, all three velocity caps were rebuilt due 

to the failure of several panels comprising the caps. This failure 

was due to the stresses from the harsh ocean environment and wave 

action. 

velocity caps is shown in Figure 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 to minimize fish entrapment, 

but no screens or grates are used to deny organisms access to the 

intake pipes. The tops of the intake structures are approximately 

7 feet (2.1 m) below the surface at mean low water. 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 

vertical opening of 6.5 feet (2.0 m) . This information is depicted 

in Figure 3. 

The velocity cap for the two 12 feet (3.65) diameter \ 

The flow velocities at various locations of the velocity cap 

and intake structures have been calculated under various levels of 

biological fouling. The minimum and maximum horizontal intake 

16 
velocities 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 

the water passes under the velocity cap, flow becomes vertical and 

the velocity 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 feet per second (127-206 cm/sec) depending on the pipeline 

and the degree of fouling. Transit time for an object to travel 

this distance is approximately 180-285 seconds (3 to 4.75 minutes). 

Due to the differences in the diameter of the pipelines and 

friction of the pipeline walls, the calculated 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 

17 
structure 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 the cooling water 5000 feet 

(1525 m) to the 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 

supported by a series of concrete pilings driven into the bottom of 

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 to prevent 

human intrusion into the secure area of the plant (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 (1 cm) mesh to remove smaller debris, and circulating water 

pump. Approach velocities to each bay are calculated to be less 

18 
than 1 feet per second (30.5 cm/sec) , but increase to approximately 

5 feet per second (150 cm/sec) at the trash racks. 

The trash racks are periodically cleaned by a rake that is 

dropped to the bottom of the rack and its teeth fit into the 3 inch 

(7.6 cm) vertical openings of the structure. This rack is pulled 

vertically up and collects any debris that may have accumulated on 

the structures. This debris is emptied into a trough at the top of 

the intake bay for subsequent disposal. The 

collected on the traveling 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 at the 

! 

\ 

After the water has passed through the trash racks, the 

traveling screens, and the circulating water pump, it travels 

through the condenser, which contains thousands of 3/8 inch (1 cm) 

diameter tubes. Condenser water heat is transferred to this water, 

which is then expelled into the discharge canal. 

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 

(Figure 6). 

4.1.6 Discharge Systems 

Each unit discharges its condenser cooling water into the 

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 structure supports a 16 feet (4.9 

m) diameter pipeline that is buried under the ocean floor and runs 

approximately 3375 feet (1030 m) offshore. The last 1400 feet (425 

m) of this pipeline 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 velocity of the water inside this pipeline averages 

about 5.7 feet per second (174 cm/sec) and the jet velocity of the 

discharge water at each port averages approximately 13 feet per 

second (400 cm/sec) to ensure quick dissipation of the thermal load 

(Bellmund et al., 1982). 

4.1.7 Thermal Plume 

FPL had the thermal plume modeled for two-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 twelve pairs of marginal scutes, and five 

vertebral scutes. The skull is broad and massive. Adult 

loggerheads in the southeastern United States have 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 the continental shelves and are uncommon far from 

mainland shores. Individuals have been found in latitudes as high 

as 50" in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Loggerheads 

are a widely dispersed species and hatchlings and small juveniles 

from southeastern U.S. beaches may spend 3-5 years circumnavigating 

the Atlantic in current gyres (Carr, 1986). Adults nesting on 

Florida east coast beaches are found in foraging areas throughout \ 

the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Meylan et al., 1983). Adult 

females are seasonally more abundant in areas adjacent to nesting 

beaches during the summer season, but seasonal migration patterns 

for adult males and juvenile loggerheads are largely unknown. 

I 

21 
5.1.3 Behavior 

Loggerhead turtles 'are solitary, although they may form ' 

aggregations at sea or i n t h e vicinity of nesting beaches. 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 in the diets of 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 size varies 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. coastal waters. The most widely cited population 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 the world 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 factors are 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. 

Loggerhead mortalities may 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 

loggerheads have been found to be infested with 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 induced mortality factors have 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. 

Suitability of beaches for nesting can be compromised by beach 

armoring, which impedes access to nesting sites and promotes 

erosion of adjacent beaches. The widespread practice of beach 

renourishment can create changes in beach characteristics that make 

them less suitable for nesting (Nelson and Dickerson, 1984). 

Artificial lighting on the beachf ront 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 (Schmelz and 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 collectively account for about 10% of the mortality 

associated with 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 collisions are also a significant source of mortality in 

Florida, with 6-9% of strandings, or an average of 150 turtles per 

year, showing evidence of boat collisions (National Research 

Council, 1990 1. 

Directed take of eggs and adults by humans is a significant 

factor affecting turtle populations world 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 

25 
Plastic 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 all stranded loggerheads had plastic debris or tar in 

the gut upon necropsy (Stanley et al., 1988). The exact role of 

ingested debris in the death of stranded turtles, however, is often 

unclear. 

Entrapment in power plant intake pipes was mentioned in the 

National Research Council's report as a relatively minor 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 

killed by power plant entrapment (National Research Council, 1990) \ 

5.2 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

5.2.1 Description 

Chelonia mydas, or the green sea turtle, is the largest hardshelled sea turtle, with Florida adults averaging 40 inches (101.5 

cm) in carapace length and 300 pounds (136.2 kg) in weight. 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 life history of the green. 

5.2.2 Distribution 

The green turtle is circumglobal in distribution, but 

restricted to the tropics. U.S. populations occur in the Virgin 

Islands and Puerto Rico, the Gulf of Mexico, and the eastern 

26 
seaboard, occasionally as far north as Massachusetts. The primary . 

habitat of adult green turtles are shallow, protected waters 

supporting growth of benthic algae and seagrasses. Their preferred 

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 in the continental U.S., mostly in Florida 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, 

feeding during the day and often returning to a 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 green turtle is the only species of sea turtle which 

is primarily herbivorous. In the post hatchling, pelagic stage, 

green turtles have an omnivorous or carnivorous diet. Upon 

i entering benthic feeding grounds (at about 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 

27 
of 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 

Major western hemisphere nesting beaches for green turtles are 

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 to the loggerhead, except that the green turtle excavates 

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 

(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989a). 

\ 

5.2.6 ' Numerical Abundance 

Sufficient data do not exist to accurately assess 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 only a 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 

sufficient information to assess trends in green turtle population, 

i 

but noted that Hutchinson Island, Florida nesting levels have 

ircreased over the period 1971-1979. 

23 
5.2.7 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 raccoon and 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 stunning events in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, 

green turtles were by far the most cornon species found affected, 

and mortality rates among green turtles were higher than 

loggerheads (Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989b). 

I 

I 

Green turtles are subject to a largely species specific 

disease called 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 turtles are not commonly taken in shrimp trawls, but are 

quite vulnerable to entanglement in other varieties of fishing gear 

such as gill nets. Directed take has historically been the 

greatest threat to green turtle populations, but present levels of 

directed take are difficult to quantify (National Research Council, 

1990). Other human induced green turtle mortality factors are as 

described above in section 5.1.7. 

I 

29 
5.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

5.3.1 Description 

The leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) is distinguished by 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 skin with numerous white 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 

mainly pelagic, and is capable of traveling great distances between 

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 coelenterates are the major food item for 

leatherbacks and they have several adaptations for this highly 

specialized diet, such as a highly expandable oral cavity, scissorlike jaws and an esophagus lined with stiff spines that project 

backward to aid in holding and swallowing prey. 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 their weight 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 

leatherback nests annually. Leatherbacks nest 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 from undisturbed nests is typically high (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) report that previous 

estimates of about 15,000 nesting females from the French Guiana 

nesting colony may be an underestimate. The National Research 

Council ( 1990 ) concluded that although data 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 (Eretmochelvs imbricata) 

i 5.4.1 Description i 

The hawksbill (Eretmochelvs imbricata) is characterized by 

thick, over lapping carapace scutes with bold streaks of brown and 

black on an amber background. 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 D is t r ibut ion 

Hawksbills are circumtropical in distribution, almost always 

in close association with coral reef habitats. Hawksbills are more 

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-energy narrow beaches often with vegetation 

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 few genera 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 250,000 Caribbean hawksbill shells were 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 (Lepidochelys kernpi) 

5.5.1 Description 

The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelves kemDi) is distinguished by an 

olive green carapace, often wider than long, with five pairs of 

costal scutes and five vertebral 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 complete description and life i 

5.5.2 Distribution 
Kemp's ridleys are largely confined to the Gulf of. Mexico, 

with a few occurring along the U.S. eastern seaboard as far north 

as Long Island Sound. Within the Gulf of Mexico, juveniles are far 1 

more common in the northern Gulf, particularly in coastal waters 

1 

! 

from Texas to Florida. Foraging habitats for juveniles and adults 

are the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, where they feed on a 

wide variety of crustacea and other invertebrates. Nesting habitat 

is almost exclusively confined to a single beach at Rancho Nuevo, 

Mexico at about latitude 23" North in the state of Tamaulipas. 

5.3.3 Behavior 

Kemp's ridley turtles show a high degree of social behavior. 

They aggregate offshore of the nesting beaches, sometimes for days, 

and then all emerge synchronously in an "arribada" to nest, 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 

Since the Kemp's ridley has a restricted distribution and, for 

the most part, nests on a single beach, population estimates are 

more accurate than for other species. Estimates of the total 

35 
population of nesting females range 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’s ridley 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‘s ridley 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. 

36 
6.0 SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES 

6.1 Sea Turtle Capture 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 

con junction with Applied Biology, Inc, and Quantum Resources, 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 from the offshore intake 

structures was conducted as part of the Environmental Protection 

Plan of Unit 2 and concluded that there was no practical method to 

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

6.1.1 Entrapment and Impingement of Turtles 

Entrapment occurs when an organism enters 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 the traveling screens system located 

in the intake wells. 

In the original evaluation of the environmental impact of St. 

Lucie Unit 1, turtle entrapment and impingement of turtles were !, 

cever anticipated (U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1974). 

37 
Therefore, it was very much of a surprise that when 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 turtles encounter this structure in their normal 

ranging activities and feed on the fouling organisms' growing on the 

structure or seek the structures 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 sucked into the 

intake pipeline and, after a 3-5 minute ride through the pipeline, 

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 is given in Table 2. All five species of 

turtles present in the inshore waters of Florida have been 

entrapped and total of 3199 turtles have been removed from the 

intake canal of the St. Lucie Plant. Loggerheads are the dominant 

t u r t l e i n numbers (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 Configuration 
To facilitate the capture of entrapped turtles and to minimize 

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 the top 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 

from being pinned against the net and drowning. By confining most 

tzztles to the canal 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 the canal towards the intake structure to be impinged. 1’ 

! 

The rationale for the barrier net to have an 8 inch (20.3 cm) 

square mesh, or a diagonal measure of 11.3 inches (28.7 cm), was 

based on the size frequency distribution of 140 turtles captured in 

the intake canal before March 1978. The 8 inch (20.3 cm) square 

mesh was chosen to exclude 95% of the turtles captured to that date 

(Figure 8). 

The net has been rehung several times (e.g 1985, 1988, 1990) 

to maintain its 3:l slope and blockage of the canal. Because of 

deterioration of this net over time, a new net with the same 8 inch 

(20.3 cm) mesh was installed in 1987. 

6.1.2.2 Present Configuration 

i 

39 
The 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 (Figure 7). 

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 

surface of 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 (1.2 m) 1. This would keep turtles from swimming 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 (see Figure 10 and Figure 11) and due to 

unexpected increases in impingement ratesand subsequent mortality 

at t!e intake wells of the plant (see Table 4), FPL - is proposing to 

install a smaller mesh barrier net east of the present barrier net d 

(see Figure 12). Due to potential fouling situations from jellyfish 

or sea weed, the top of the net will have the capability of being 

F 

. Y 

* 

cquickly 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 

\ 

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

frequency distribution of 414 green turtles entrapped in the 

intake canal during 1995, 100% of all turtles encountered will be 

excluded from moving down the canal towards the plant (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 integrity of the net will ensure that no 

turtles pass this barrier and therefore the numbers of sea turtles 

impinged on the intake structures should approach zero. 

Plans call for the present 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 failure of 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 to prevent human entry to the plant 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 the bottom of the net 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 from this area in 1994 and 1995. I 
6.1.4. Intake Well Inspection and Removal 

In December 1994 and to date in 1995, FPL has provided 

inspection of the intake wells at least once every three hours over 

a 24 hour period. This increase in surveillance was necessitated 

due to increased turtle presence and mortality in this area (Table 

4)- 

Plant personnel, security personnel , and sea turtle biologists ~ 

inspect the wells for any turtles that may be impinged or swimming 

in this area (Figure 5). Any plant or security personnel who see 

a small turtle notifies a turtle biologist through a beeper 

system; response is within an hour. A sea turtle biologist, then 

captures the turtle with a long-handle dip net and places it in a 

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 entanglement net fished between the intake headwall and 

the barrier net located at'the A1A bridge ;Figure 2). From 1976 

through the present, this netting program has been constantly 

evaluated and continuously improved to minimize trauma to turtles 

and to maximize capture efficiency. Nests presently used 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 floats are attached to the top of the net to provide buoyancy 

and the bottom of the net is unweighted. Prior to April 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, plant personnel and security personnel 

-i& 4- 
checked the net periodically and biologists were I notified 

immediately if a capture had occurred. Sea turtle biologist 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 to daylight hours only. Concurrently, 

surveillance of the intake canal and the nets was increased to the . 

hours the nets were being 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 

In addition to the use of tangle nets to capture turtles, dip 

nets and hand captures by snorkel and SCUBA divers are used (Table ' 

4 1. 

1 

Long-handle dip nets used from small boats and from the canal 

banks and headwalls are moderately effective in capturing turtles 

with carapace length of 12 inches (30.5 cm) or less. Hand nets have 

also been used to dip dead and floating small green turtles from 

various areas in the canal system and this factor accounts for the 

large mortality associated with this recovery system (Table 4). 

Under good water visibility conditions, divers have proven 

to be very effective in capturing turtles of all sizes, 

particularly inactive turtles partial buried in the sediment in the 
vicinity 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 net materials, configuration and placement have been 

varied in an effort to minimize sea turtle entrapment times. For 

the period for which residence time data are available (July 1 to 

December 31, 1994), about 76% of the turtles entering the canal are 

caught within 24 hours of first sighting (Quantum, 1994). Because 

of differences in mean 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 easily entangled in the 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 currents and eddies, adjustments to tethering 

lines, multi-net deployment and increased efforts to hand capture 

turtles have contributed to reduced residence time during recent 

years (Quantum, 1994). 

I 

Residence times may be extended for turtles 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 that broached the barrier net were not caught 

44 , 
until they entered the intake wells of Unit 1 or 2. Because of 

their relatively small size, virtually all of the turtles reaching 

the intake wells are green turtles. During 1994, 49 of the 194 

green captures (25.2%) occurred at the intake wells (Quantum, 1994) 

and during the first six month of 1995, 23% (95 out of 414) of the 

captures occurred at the intake wells (Table, 4). 

During 1994, 84.2% of all turtles entrapped in the canal were ._ 

captured east of the A1A barrier net, 253 by tangle net and 51 by 

hand or dip net capture. The effective confinement of turtles east 

of the barrier net has been a major contributor to the high capture 

efficiency achieved during 1994 (Quantum, 1994 ) . 

6.1.8 Tagging and Health Assessment Activities 

Regardless of capture method, all turtles removed from the St. 

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 discussion on rehabilitation or sick or injured 

turtles. 

Beginning July 1, 1994, all turtles captured are photographed 

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 

45 
monthly basis to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP). 

If a turtle has been previously tagged either at the St. Lucie 

facility or elsewhere, that fact is noted in the monthly data sheet 

and reported. These data are forwarded by DEP to the NMF'S for 

inclusion in their data base. Over the 19 year history of turtle 

entrapment at the 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 in particular, 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 capture occurred in 1994, a female leatherback with tags 

from French Guiana. 

6.1.9 Necropsy and Rehabilitation Activities 

If a turtle had recently died and conditions warrant, . 

resuscitation techniques were used. Beginning in 1982, 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 for observation prior to 

release; if further treatment is warranted, the DEP is notified and 

a decision is made as to what facility would provide additional 

veterinarian treatment. 

6.2 Sea Turtle Nesting Programs 

46 
6.2.1 Jurisdiction of Fish and Wildlife 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 the data generated by PPL since 1971 are 

an integral part of this program. 

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 in the Annual Operating Report for St. Lucie 

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

program was a requirement of the Enviromntal Protection Plan of 

St. Lucie Unit 2, but after that date, FPL elected to voluntarily 

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. 

47 
The 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 to provide 1994 whole island nesting totals. 

6.3 Sea Turtle Stranding Program 

In a cooperative effort, data from stranded turtles found 

during beach nesting surveys are logged. These data are routinely 

provided to the DEP and NMFS through the Sea Turtle Stranding and 

Salvage Network. 

6.4 Turtle Walk Program 

As a public service, FPL has been conducting turtle walk 

programs at the 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 to Other Organizations 

6.5.1 Description of Assistance 

FPL, through its contractors Applied 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 information on tag returns; providing 

48 
adult and hatchling turtles for research purposes; 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, the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research 

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, Florida Marine Fisheries Commission, 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution and the National Research 

Council. 

i 
7.0 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 the pipes and the canal, injuries sustain during canal 

..- 

dredging (hydraulic and clam shell), loss of condition due to long 

entrapment, exposure to predators in the intake canal, injuries and 

stress sustained during capture, and drowning in fish gill nets 

and turtle capture nets. Indirect effects include: interruption of 

migration, loss of nesting opportunities for adult females, and 

: 

loss of mating opportunities for adult males 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 nets were 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 intake pipes was identified as a probable mortality 

factor (Applied Biology, 1987). Low flow conditions were 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, i 
such 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, usually to the anterior carapace or plastron, which may be 

due to contact with encrusting organisms in,the pipeline. 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 condition was 

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 from visual observations, were 1.47 days for loggerheads 

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 that predation in the intake 

canal was not a significant mortality factor. Informal visual 

census of fish populations in the canal in recent 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 

51 
occasionally blacktip and spinner sharks. There is no way to 

quantify the extent of this predation by fish species, but it does 

occur at a low level. 

Injuries sustained during capture have all been 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 efforts are made to- minimize handling time (generally 

under one half hour to obtain biological information and to tag the 

animal) and to keep turtles cool and shaded prior to release. 

Drowning in capture nets has occurred occasionally throughout 

the history of the St. Lucie Plant's capture program during the 

period 1976-June, 1995. Since the program began 7 loggerheads (7 

mortalities out of 2583 captures or 0.3%) and 13 green turtles 

(13 mortalities out of 1165 captures or 1.1%; drowned in capture 

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 tangled with a large turtle and is held 

underwater. Since April 1990, when the nets have been constantly 

tended when set during daylight hours, there have been zero 

loggerheads and 3 greens drowned in capture nets (Table 6). 

Of the indirect effects, interruption of migration is the most 

difficult to evaluate, since the migratory habits of the various 

life stages of the various 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 

52 
internesting interval. There have been several instances of 

turtles emerging from the canal and nesting on the canal 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 the mating seasons for the various 

species is prior to the onset of nesting. 

residence the in the canal, 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 the other 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 the animal 

is underweight, is barnacle coverage, and lacks muscle tone). 

7.1.1.1 Impacts to Loggerhead 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 in materials and methods employed in the canal capture 

program. 

Since the evaluation of low flow conditions 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 (Table 6). 

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 (Table 6). 

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 the dredging 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 

also considered insignificant. Injury and stress during 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 average of 25 adult female loggerheads 

per year have been captured in the canal. Their typically short 
residence times (mean residence time of 1.47 days; Section 6.1.7) 

renders loss of nesting and mating opportunities insignificant. 

Current permit conditions call for increased capture 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 unknown and may be significant. Calculated residence tks 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 intake wells (Table 6 ) . 

Based on this finding, FPL proposed using a smaller mesh net (5 i 

inch or 12.7 cm) to prohibit these smaller size turtles from moving 

55 
down 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 intake wells 

I 

\ Exposure to predators may be significantly affecting green 

turtles. The large jewfish observed in the canal have been 

documented to feed on small sea turtles (Randall, 1967). There is 

no way to quantify this predation by jewfish or other large 

predatory fish in the canal, but it does occur at a low level. 

Drowning in capture nets has occurred throughout the history 

of the program (Section 7.1.1, 13 mortalities in the period 1976- 

June, 1995; see Table 6), even after the present system of 

constantly tended nets was instituted in 1990 . Mortality can be 

expected to continue at low levels even with the most diligent of 

efforts and observation of the nets. 

: 

LOSS of nesting and mating opportunities for green turtles is 

not as significant as for loggerheads, since few adult greens are 

entrained (10 turtles in 18 years). Drowning in the intake pipes, 

injuries sustained during passage in the 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 to Leatherback Turtles 

Leatherback captures are infrequent at the St. Lucie Plant, 

with only 18 captured since monitoring began in 1976 (Tables 2 and 

3). 

Plant (Tables 2, 3 and 6). Residence times for leatherbacks are 

No leatherback mortalities have been recorded at the St. Lucie \ 
extremely short, never more than a few hours from first sighting to 

capture. The only impacts of significance to leatherbacks are 

injuries sustained in the intake pipes and in the canal, and 

injuries and stress sustained during capture. Due to their lack of 

a hard shell and their delicate skin, leatherbacks invariably 

sustain cuts from the capture nets and from contact with hard 

surfaces in the canal. All injuries are superficial, and none have 

required veterinary attention. 

i 

7.1.1.4 Impacts to Hawksbill Turtles 

Only 13 hawksbill turtles have been captured at the St. Lucie 

Plant in the period 1976-June, 1995, and no mortalities have been 

recorded (Tables 2, 3 and 6). No significant impact to hawksbill 

turtle populations is expected from the continued operation of the 

St. Lucie Plant. 1 

\ 

7.1.1.5 Impacts to Kemp’s Ridley Turtles 

A total of 29 Kemp’s ridley turtles have been captured at the 

St. Lucie Plant since 1976 (Tables 2 and 3), all but one of which 

were juveniles or sub-adults. There have been 4 mortalities of 

this species (Tables 2, 3 and 6). Possible significant entrapment 

impacts to Keap’s ridleys include: loss of body condition due to 

long residence times, exposure to predators and drowning in capture 

nets. Interruption of migration for this species is unclear, but 

probably not significant. Loss of matinl; or nesting opportunities 

is not considered significant, since adults are extremely uncommon. 

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 

Impacts due 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 current will be recovered ’ 

at these sites but, except for cases of obvious entanglement in 

barrier nets or mechanical injuries in the intake wells, the cause 

of death generally cannot be determined and is classified as 

unknown (Table 6). 

i 

Barrier net designs have improved markedly over the history 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 inactive turtles 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 to lowering 

the rake minimFzea this iource of mortality. With the 5 inch (12.7 

an) mesh barrier net being proposed by FPL, all turtle6 erhould be 

prevented from moving down the canal system towards the plant and 

being exposed to this type of mechanical injury in the intake 

wells . 

I 

7.1.2.1 Impacts to Loggerhead Turtles 

Since barrier net hprovements were completed in 1990, one 

loggerhead has been found entangled in the barrier nets, and six 

loggerheads have been recovered floating at, but not entangled in, 

the barrier nets (Table 6). No loggerhead has been captured at the 

intake wells since the barrier net improvements have been 

completed. 

7.1.2.2 Impacts to Green Turtles 

Small green turtles of carapace width s m a l l e r t h a n 11.3 inches 

(28.7 cm) have been able to penetrate the current 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 turtles that breach 

the A1A barrier net and are not strong enough to swim away from I 

this barrier. The design of the UIDS barrier (see Sections 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 intake wells and at the 

UIDS barrier. 

7.1.2.3 Impacts to Leatherback Turtles 

No significant impingement effects to leatherback turtles have 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’s Ridley 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 the potential : 

i 

for Kemp’s ridley impingement mortality. 

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 operation on 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 

accordance with 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 

company property indicate that these measures are effective. High 

i 

\ 

rates of nesting at the plant 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 the water as a result 

of plant lighting are anticipated. 

7.2.4 Tapprogge Cleaning System 

The Tapprogge cleaning system will 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 a potential 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 capture data from January through June, 1995, and 

factoring in historical data on seasonal patterns 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 calculated by 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. 
mxbum expected 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%; 131 mortalities 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 reduced mortality 

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 

63 
Generating 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-radiological environmental monitoring 

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. 

Lucie Unit 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 stage of 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 (Linnaeus 1758). 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. 

69 
Florida 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. 1 
Mrosovsky, 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 to National 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 

renourishment on 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 new estimate 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. i 

i, 

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: 

Proceedings of the tenth annual workshop on sea turtle biology 

and conservation. NOAA-TN-WS-SEFC-278, Miami, FL. 

Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart, 1989a. Status and 

reproductive characteristics of 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. 

Witzell, W.N. 1983. Synopsis of the biological data on the i 

hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Linneaus 1766). FA0 

Fish. Synop. 137:78. 

-3