ML022460361
| ML022460361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/2002 |
| From: | Powers J US Dept of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration |
| To: | Berkow H NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2 |
| References | |
| F/SER3:BH:tg, FOIA/PA-2003-0059, FOIA/PA-2003-0189 | |
| Download: ML022460361 (35) | |
Text
o
- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
- " National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
?4"E °'
- Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (727) 570-5312; FAX 570-5517 http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov AUG 18 2)O F/SER3:BH:tg Mr. Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate I0 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Berkow:
biological This document represents the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NOAA Fisheries) opinion (Opinion) based on your request for reinitiation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) cooling section 7 consultation for the operation of the Crystal River Energy Complex's (CREC) effects on water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, and its loggerhead turtles (Carettacaretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea),hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata),and green turtles of the (Chelonia mydas). This Opinion has been prepared in accordance with section 7(a)(2)
The NOAA Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq.).
any questions Fisheries consultation number for this action is F/SER/2001/01080. If you have about this consultation, please refer to this number.
This Opinion is based on information provided in a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory phone Commission (NRC) dated October 11, 2001, with an attached biological assessment; CREC staff; conversations and meetings between NOAA Fisheries staff, NRC staff, and threatened and published and unpublished scientific information on the biology and ecology of endangered turtles within the action area; and other sources of information. A complete Regional administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Office in St. Petersburg, Florida.
The Opinion states NOAA Fisheries' belief that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize sea the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill and leatherback issued an turtles. However, NOAA Fisheries anticipates incidental takes of these species and has contains reasonable Incidental Take Statement (ITS), pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. This ITS take.
and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to help minimize this
/(V Incidental takes of marine mammals are not authorized. If the NRC believes such takes may occur, an incidental take authorization under Marine Mammal Protection Act, Section 101 (a)(5),
111 Ct eQ&
_7
is necessary. In this regard, please contact Ken Hollingshead of our headquarters Protected Resources staff at (301) 713-2055.
Sincerely, 4 /7
>4 Joseph E Powers, Ph.D.
Acting Regiona: Administrator Enclosure cc: F/PR3 o:\section7\formal\crys20 0 2 .wpd File: 1514.22.m.3
Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Agency: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Activity: Cooling water intake system at the Crystal River Energy Complex (F/SER/2001/01080)
Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region Date Issued:
Approved By: ý,V.-, /
Joseph E. Powers, Ph.D. t Acting Regional Administrator This document represents the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NOAA Fisheries) biological opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the operation of the Crystal River Energy Complex's Florida, (CREC) cooling water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Carettacaretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea),hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata),
and green turtles (Chelonia mydas). This Opinion has been prepared in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq.).
have any The NOAA Fisheries consultation number for this action is F/SER/2001/01080. If you questions about this consultation, please refer to this number.
History of the Consultation ESA In a letter dated April 2, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reinitiated section 7 consultation for the operation of the CREC cooling water intake system. The NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Protected Resources Division received this letter the on April 9, 2001. The NRC reinitiated consultation because it felt that CREC would exceed incidental take levels for live turtles issued with the June 16, 1999, incidental take statement water (ITS) that concluded the no jeopardy Opinion issued for the operation of CREC's cooling that CREC would likely intake system. In a letter dated April 9, 2001, NOAA Fisheries agreed exceed its ITS levels and agreed that reinitiation of section 7 consultation was warranted.
NOAA Fisheries staff met with CREC and NRC staff at the CREC facility on May 9, 2001.
During this meeting NOAA Fisheries staff requested an update of NRC's and CREC's October 1998 biological assessment (BA) in order to complete a formal section 7 consultation. NOAA 2
Fisheries received the updated BA on October 22, 2001, and considers this information to be a complete initiation package. This Opinion is based on information provided in the letter from the NRC dated October 11, 2001, with the attached BA; phone conversations and meetings between NOAA Fisheries staff, NRC staff, and CREC staff; published and unpublished scientific information on the biology and ecology of threatened and endangered turtles within the action is area; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation on file at the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida.
I. Description of the Proposed Action The ProposedAction The CREC contains five separate power plants. Unit 1 is an approximately 400 MW electric (MWe) coal-fueled plant. Unit 2 is an approximately 500 MWe coal-fueled plant. Unit 3 is an approximately 890 MWe pressurized water, nuclear-fueled plant. Units 4 and 5 are coal-fueled plants rated at approximately 640 MWe each. This consultation will analyze the cooling water intake systems for Units 1, 2, and 3.
The intake structures for Units 1, 2, and 3 are concrete structures with bar racks, traveling screens, and seawater pump components. Surface water trash barriers are deployed in front of the bar racks to collect large floating debris. Water is drawn from the intake canal through the bar racks, through the traveling screens, into the pumps, and then flows through the plant's condensers and auxiliary systems. The water is then discharged through an outfall into the discharge canal. The discharge canal directs water back to the Gulf of Mexico.
The intake bar racks prevent trash and large debris carried by the seawater from entering the intake structure. The seawater must pass through the bar racks which are made of steel bars spaced on 4-inch centers. The bar racks extend from well above the water line to the concrete base at the bottom of the intake canal. Debris and marine life smaller than the bar rack openings pass through the bar racks. The traveling screens effectively remove this floating or suspended debris from the intake water. Intake water passing through these screens suspends debris and solid materials onto the screens. The screens are conveyed upwards to an overlapping water spray system which washes these materials off the screens and into a debris trough. The traveling screen system is operated approximately three times a day.
Each of the three plants that use seawater for cooling have four large circulating pumps used to draw seawater into the plant. The water is then pumped through the condensers and out to the discharge canal. On Units 1 and 2, the total design flow is 638,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
Unit 3 design flow is 680,000 gpm. In addition, Unit 3 has a low flow nuclear services water pumping system with a normal flow rate of approximately 10,000 gpm. Under emergency conditions, additional pumps would increase this flow up to approximately 20,000 gpm. From the discharge of the pumps, the water flows to the main condensers; and for Unit 3, an additional flow path exists for the nuclear services and decay heat cooling water heat exchangers. After the 3
seawater passes through the tubes of the condenser and/or heat exchangers, the seawater is transported in underground pipes to the discharge canal. The discharge canal directs the water back to the Gulf of Mexico.
The bar racks are inspected 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day during times of high turtle concentrations in the intake canal (February through May) and once every two hours during other times of the year. If a turtle is stranded on the bar racks, it is immediately recovered with dip nets. Healthy turtles are placed in a holding tank at the CREC Mariculture Center, where Mariculture Center Staff members determine the proper disposition of the turtle, in conjunction with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) personnel. Non-healthy turtles are also taken to the Mariculture Center with disposition to be determined by FWC. Dead turtles are sent to the Mariculture Center and picked up by FWC.
Action Area The CREC is located on an approximate 5,000-acre site near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida. The Complex is approximately 7.5 miles northwest of the city of Crystal River, within the coastal salt marsh area of west central Florida. The action area consists of 3 of the 5 power plants (Plants 1, 2 and 3) that make up CREC, the 2.8-mile discharge canal, and the intake canal and intake structures, which includes the bar racks, traveling screens, and sea water pump components. The intake canal is a dredged canal approximately 14 miles long with an average depth of 20 feet (the area of the intake canal has a natural rock bottom starting under the initial layer of sand and sediment. The depth of the sand and sediment layer varies greatly in the area.
The canal was dredged through the sand and sediment leaving a rock bottom that extends the length of the canal). The canal is bordered on both sides by land beginning from the plant site and extending 3 miles to the west. The canal then extends westward an additional 11 miles out into the Gulf of Mexico.
II. Status of the Species The following endangered and threatened marine mammal, sea turtle, and marine plant species under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries are known to occur in or near the action area:
Common Name Scientific Name Endangered Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas*
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Right whale Eubalaenaglacialis Humpback whale Megapteranovaeangliae 4
Sperm whale Physetermacrocephalus Threatened Loggerhead sea turtle Carettacaretta Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxcyrinchus desotoi Critical Habitat There is no critical habitat in the action area.
- Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatenedexcept for the Floridabreeding population,which is listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguishbetween the populationsaway from the nesting beaches, green turtles are considered endangeredwherever they occur in U.S. waters.
Sperm whales (Physetermacrocephalus),occur in the Gulf of Mexico but are rare in state waters. Other endangered whales, including North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaenaglacialis) and humpback whales (Megapteranovaengliae), have been observed occasionally in the Gulf of Mexico. The individuals observed have likely been inexperienced juveniles straying from the normal range of these stocks. NOAA Fisheries does not believe that there are resident stocks of these species in the Gulf of Mexico; therefore, these species are not likely to be adversely affected by projects in the Gulf. Based on this information, NOAA Fisheries believes that the chance of the proposed action affecting listed species of large whales is discountable.
Although the Gulf sturgeon's migratory habits are not well known, NOAA Fisheries believes it is unlikely that Gulf sturgeon will stray from mud and sand bottom marine foraging areas in the Gulf to enter the rocky bottomed intake canal of the CREC and subsequently be affected by the cooling water intake system. Studies conducted by CREC from 1980 to 1983, to determine the species of fish and invertebrates affected by the cooling water system, showed no evidence of Gulf sturgeon. Based on this information, NOAA Fisheries believes that the chance of the proposed action adversely affecting Gulf sturgeon is discountable. Therefore, the remainder of the analysis in this Opinion will focus on the five species of sea turtles in or near the action area.
A. Species/critical habitat description Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a threatened species in 1978. This species inhabits the continental shelves and estuarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, and within the continental United States it nests from Louisiana to Virginia. The major nesting areas include coastal islands of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida, with the bulk of the nesting occurring on the Atlantic 5
coast of Florida. Developmental habitat for small juveniles are the pelagic waters of the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea.
There is no critical habitat designated for the loggerhead sea turtle.
Green Sea Turtle Federal listing of the green sea turtle occurred on July 28, 1978, with all populations listed as threatened except for the Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico breeding populations which are endangered. The complete nesting range of the green turtle within the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Region includes sandy beaches of mainland shores, barrier islands, coral islands, and volcanic islands between Texas and North Carolina and at the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I.) and Puerto Rico (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991a). Principal U.S. nesting areas for green turtles are in eastern Florida, predominantly Brevard through Broward counties (Ehrhart and Witherington 1992). Regular green turtle nesting also occurs on St Croix, U.S.V.I., and on Vieques, Culebra, Mona, and the main island of Puerto Rico (Mackay and Rebholz 1996, Dfez pers. comm.).
Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Isla Culebra, Puerto Rico, and its associated keys.
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle The Kemp's ridley was listed as endangered on December 2, 1970. Internationally, the Kemp's ridley is considered the most endangered sea turtle (Zwinenberg 1977, Groombridge 1982).
Kemp's ridleys nest in daytime aggregations known as arribadas, primarily at Rancho Nuevo, a stretch of beach in Mexico, Tamaulipas State. The species occurs mainly in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Occasional individuals reach European waters (Brongersma 1972). Adults of this species are usually confined to the Gulf of Mexico, although adult-sized individuals sometimes are fcund on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States.
There is no designated critical habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle.
Leatherback Sea Turtle The leatherback was listed as endangered on June 2, 1970. Leatherbacks are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans; the Caribbean Sea; and the Gulf of Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1972). Adult leatherbacks forage in temperate and subpolar regions from 71"N to 47°S latitude in all oceans and undergo extensive migrations between 90*N and 20°S, to and from the tropical nesting beaches. In the Atlantic Ocean, leatherbacks have been recorded as far north as Newfoundland, Canada, and Norway, and as far south as Uruguay, Argentina, and South Africa (see NOAA 6
Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). Female leatherbacks nest from the southeastern United States to southern Brazil in the western Atlantic and from Mauritania to Angola in the eastern Atlantic.
The most significant nesting beaches in the Atlantic, and perhaps in the world, are in French Guiana and Suriname (see NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001).
Critical habitat for the leatherback includes the waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
Hawksbill Sea Turtles The hawksbill turtle is listed as endangered under the ESA, and is considered Critically Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) based on global years) (Meylan and population declines of over 80% during the last three generations (105 Donnelly 1999). Only five regional nesting populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Most populations are declining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. Although hawksbills are subject to the suite of threats that affect other marine turtles, the decline of the species is primarily attributed to centuries of exploitation for tortoiseshell, the beautifully patterned scales that cover the turtle's shell (Parsons 1972).
Critical habitat for the hawksbill includes the waters around Mona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico.
B. Life history Loggerhead Sea Turtle Mating takes place in late March-early June, and eggs are laid throughout the summer, with a mean clutch size of 100-126 eggs in the southeastern United States. Individual females nest multiple times during a nesting season, with a mean of 4.1 nests/nesting individual (Murphy and Hopkins 1984). Nesting migrations for an individual female loggerhead are usually on an interval of 2-3 years, but can vary from 1-7 years (Dodd 1988). Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years or more, but there is some variation in habitat use by individuals at all life stages. Turtles in this life history stage are called "pelagic immatures." Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature loggerheads reach 40-60 cm straight-line carapace length they begin to recruit to coastal inshore and nearshore waters of the continental shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Benthic immature loggerheads, the life stage following the pelagic immature stage, have been found from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to southern Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in northeastern Mexico. Large benthic immature loggerheads (70-91 cm) represent a larger proportion of the strandings and in-water captures (Schroeder et al. 1998) along the south and 7
western coasts of Florida as compared with the rest of the coast, which could indicate that the larger animals are either more abundant in these areas or just more abundant within the area relative to the smaller turtles. Benthic immature loggerheads foraging in northeastern U.S.
waters are known to migrate southward in the fall as water temperatures cool (Epperly et al.
1995b, Keinath 1993, Morreale and Standora 1999, Shoop and Kenney 1992), and migrate northward in spring. Past literature gave an estimated age at maturity of 21-35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985, Frazer et al. 1994) and the benthic immature stage as lasting at least 10-25 years.
However, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC (2001) reviewed the literature and constructed growth curves from new data, estimating ages of maturity ranging from 20-38 years and benthic immature stage lengths from 14-32 years.
Juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988). Sub-adult and adult loggerheads are primarily coastal and typically prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hard bottom habitats.
Green Sea Turtle Green sea turtle mating occurs in the waters off the nesting beaches. Each female deposits 1-7 clutches (usually 2-3) during the breeding season at 12-14 day intervals. Mean clutch size is highly variable among populations, but averages 110-115. Females usually have 2-4 or more years between breeding seasons, while males may mate every year (Balazs 1983). After hatching, green sea turtles go through a post-natchling pelagic stage where they are associated with drift lines of algae and other debris Green turtle foraging areas in the southeast United States include any neritic waters having macroalgae or sea grasses near mainland coastlines, islands, reefs, or shelves, and any open ocean surface waters, especially where advection from wind and currents concentrates pelagic organisms (Hirth 1997, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991). Principal benthic foraging areas in the region include Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay, Laguna Maare, and the Gulf inlets of Texas (Doughty 1984, Hildebrand 1982, Shaver. 994), the Gulf of Mexiklc off Florida from Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Caldwell and Carr 1957, Carr 1984), Florida Bay and the Florida Keys (Schroeder and Foley 1995), the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida (Ehrhart 1983), and the Atlantic Ocean off Florida from Brevard through Broward counties (Wershoven and Wershoven 1992, Guseman and Ehrhart 1992). Adults of both sexes are presumed to migrate between nesting and foraging habitats along corridors adjacent to coastlines and reefs. Age at sexual maturity is estimated to be between 20 to 50 years (Balazs 1982, Frazer and Ehrhart 1985).
Green sea turtles are primarily herbivorous, feeding on algae and sea grasses, but also occasionally consume jellyfish and sponges. The post-hatchling, pelagic-stage individuals are assumed to be omnivorous, but little data are available.
8
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Remigration of females to the nesting beach varies from annually to every 4 years, with a mean of 2 years (TEWG 1998). Nesting occurs from April into July and is essentially limited to the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, near Rancho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico.
The mean clutch size for Kemp's ridleys is 100 eggs/nest, with an average of 2.5 nests/female/season.
Juvenile/subadult Kemp's ridleys have been found along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico. Atlantic juveniles/subadults travel northward with vernal warming to feed in the productive, coastal waters of Georgia through New England, returning southward with the onset of winter to escape the cold (Lutcavage and Musick 1985, Henwood and Ogren 1987, Ogren 1989). In the Gulf, juvenile/subadult ridleys occupy shallow, coastal regions. Ogren (1989) suggested that in the northern Gulf they move offshore to deeper, warmer water during winter. Studies suggest that subadult Kemp's ridleys stay in shallow, warm, nearshore waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico until cooling waters force them offshore or south along the Florida coast (Renaud 1995). Little is known of the movements of the post hatching, planktonic stage within the Gulf. Studies have shown the post-hatchling pelagic stage varies from 1-4 or more years, and the benthic immature stage lasts 7-9 years (Schmid and Witzell 1997). The Turtle Expert Working Group (1998) (TEWG) estimates age at maturity to range from 7-15 years.
Stomach contents of Kemp's ridleys along the lower Texas coast consisted of a predominance of nearshore crabs and mollusks, as well as fish, shrimp and other foods considered to be shrimp fishery discards (Shaver 1991). Pelagic stage, neonatal Kemp's ridleys presumably feed on the available Sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the Gulf of Mexico.
Leatherback Sea Turtle Female leatherbacks nest from the southeastern United States to southern Brazil in the western Atlantic and from Mauritania to Angola in the eastern Atlantic, with nesting occurring as early as late February or March. When they leave the nesting beaches, leatherbacks move offshore but eventually utilize both coastal and pelagic waters. Very little is known about the pelagic habits of the hatchlings and juveniles, and they have not been documented to be associated with the Sargassum areas as are other species. Leatherbacks are deep divers, with recorded dives to depths in excess of 1,000 m (Eckert et al. 1989), but they may come into shallow waters if there is an abundance of jellyfish nearshore.
Although leatherbacks are a long-lived species (> 30 years), they are somewhat faster to mature than loggerheads. Leatherbacks have an estimated age at sexual maturity reported of about 13-14 years for females, with 9 years reported as a likely minimum (Zug 1996) and 19 years as a likely maximum (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). They nest frequently (up to 7 nests per year) during 9
a nesting season and nest about every 2-3 years. During each nesting, they produce 100 eggs or more in each clutch and, thus, can produce 700 eggs or more per nesting season (Schultz 1975).
are Leatherback sea turtles feed primarily on jellyfish as well as cnidarians and tunicates. They also the most pelagic of the turtles, but have been known to enter coastal waters on a seasonal basis to feed in areas where jellyfish are concentrated.
Hawksbill Sea Turtles The life history of hawksbills consists of a pelagic stage that lasts from the time they leave the nesting beach as hatchlings until they are approximately 22-25 cm in straight carapace length (Meylan 1988, Meylan in prep.), followed by residency in developmental habitats (foraging areas where immatures reside and grow) in coastal waters. Adult foraging habitat, which may or may not overlap with developmental habitat, is typically coral reefs, although other hard-bottom communities and occasionally mangrove-fringed bays may be occupied. Hawksbills show fidelity to their foraging areas over periods of time as great as several years (van Dam and Dfez 1998).
Hawksbills may undertake developmental migrations (migrations as immatures) and reproductive migrations that involve travel over hundreds or thousands of kilometers (Meylan 1999b).
Reproductive females undertake periodic (usually non-annual) migrations to their natal beach to nest. Movements of reproductive males are less well known, but are presumed to involve migrations to the nesting beach or to courtship stations along the migratory corridor. Females nest an average of 3-5 times per season with some geographic variation in this parameter (see references on pp. 204-205, Meylan and Donnelly 1999; Richardson et al. 1999). Clutch size is higher on average (up to 250 eggs) than that of green turtles (Hirth 1980). Reproductive females may exhibit a high degree of fideliLy to their nest sites. This, plus the tendency of hawksbills to nest at regular intervals within a seasn, make them vulnerable to capture on the nesting beach.
C. Population dynamics, status, and distribution Loggerhead Sea Turtle Loggerhead sea turtles occur throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and are the most abundant species of sea turtle occurring in U.S.
waters. Loggerhead sea turtles concentrate their nesting in the north and south temperate zones and subtropics, but generally avoid nesting in tropical areas of Central America, northern South America, and the Old World (Magnuson et al. 1990).
In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulf coast of Florida. There are five western Atlantic subpopulations, divided geographically as follows: (1) a northern nesting subpopulation, occurring from North Carolina to northeast Florida at about 29' N (approximately 7,500 nests in 1998); (2) a south Florida 10
nesting subpopulation, occurring from 290 N on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast occurring (approximately 83,400 nests in 1998); (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulation, 1,200 nests in at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida (approximately Peninsula, Mexico 1998); (4) a Yucatn nesting subpopulation, occurring on the eastern Yucatdn and (5) a Dry Tortugas (Mdirquez 1990) (approximately 1,000 nests in 1998) (TEWG 2000);
Key West, Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near homing of females to (approximately 200 nests per year) (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). Natal recolonization the nesting beach provides the barrier between these subpopulations, preventing with turtles from other nesting beaches.
sea turtle Based on the data available, it is difficult to estimate the size of the loggerhead agreement population in the United States or its territorial waters. There is, however, general size and that the number of nesting females provides a useful index of the species' population the United States stability at this life stage. Nesting data collected on index nesting beaches in size of loggerhead from 1989-1998 represent the best data set available to index the population based on nesting beach sea turtles. However, an important caveat for population trends analysis population data is that this may reflect trends in adult nesting females but not reflect overall of nests laid along the growth rates. Given this caveat, between 1989 and 1998, the total number of 73,751. On U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts ranged from 53,014 to 92,182 annually, with a mean 8.5% were from the average, 90.7% of these nests were from the south Florida subpopulation, sites. There is limited northern subpopulation, and 0.8% were from the Florida Panhandle nest nesting throughout the Gulf of Mexico west of Florida, but it is not known to which subpopulation the turtles making these nests belong.
4,370 to 7,887, with a The number of nests in the northern subpopulation from 1989 to 1998 was 4.1 nests in a nesting 10-year mean of 6,247 nests. With each female producing an average of subpopulation was 1,524.
season, the average number of nesting females per year in the northern females in The total nesting and non-nesting adult female population is estimated as 3,810 adult on number of the northern subpopulation (TEWG 1998, 2000). The northern population, based adding to nests, has been classified as stable or declining (TEWG 2000). Another consideration estimate that the vulnerability of the northern subpopulation is that NOAA Fisheries' scientists is the northern subpopulation produces 65% males, while the south Florida subpopulation estimated to produce 80% females (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001).
scale and is second The southeastern U.S. nesting aggregation is of great importance on a global (Ross 1979, in size only to the nesting aggregation on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman of the southeast Ehrhart 1989, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991b). The global importance of the Oman colony has not U.S. nesting aggregation is especially significant because the status vulnerable to been evaluated recently, but it is located in an area of the world where it is highly and lack of strong disruptive events such as political upheavals, wars, catastrophic oil spills, protections (Meylan et al. 1995).
11
Ongoing threats to the western Atlantic populations include incidental takes from dredging, commercial trawling, longline fisheries, and gillnet fisheries; loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; and disease.
Green Sea Turtle In The vast majority of green turtle nesting within the southeast United States occurs in Florida.
nesting Florida from 1989-1999, green turtle abundance from nest counts ranges from 109-1,389 females per year (Meylan et al. 1995 and Florida Marine Research Institute Statewide Nesting 2001 Database, unpublished data; estimates assume 4 nests per female per year, Johnson and Ehrhart 1994). High biennial variation and a predominant 2-year re-migration interval (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989, Johnson and Ehrhart 1994) warrant combining even and odd years into 2-year cohorts. This gives an estimate of total nesting females that ranges from 705 1,509 during the period 1990-1999. It is important to note that because methodological limitations make the clutch frequency number (4 nests/female/year) an underestimate (by as great as 50%), a more conservative estimate is 470-1,509 nesting females in Florida between 1990 and 1999. In Florida during the period 1989-1999, numbers of green turtle nests by year show no trend. However, odd-even year cohorts of nests do show a significant increase during the period 1990-1999 (Florida Marine Research Institute, 2001 Index Nesting Beach Survey Database).
It is unclear how greatly green turtle nesting in the whole of Florida has been reduced from historical levels (Dodd 1981), although one account'indicates that nesting in Florida's Dry Tortugas may now be only a small fraction of what it once was (Audubon 1926). Total nest counts and trends at index beach sites during the past decade suggest that green turtles that nest within the southeast United States are recovering and have only recently reached a level of approximately 1,000 nesting females. There are no reliable estimates of the number of green turtles inhabiting foraging areas within the southeast United States, and it is likely that green turtles foraging in the region come from multiple genetic stocks. These trends are also uncertain because of a lack of data. However, there is one sampling area in the region with a large time series of constant turtle-capture effort that may represent trends for a limited area within the region. This sampling area is at an intake canal for a power plant on the Atlantic coast of Florida where 2,578 green turtles have been captured during the period 1977-1999 (FPL 2000). At the power plant, the annual number of immature green turtle captures (minimum straight-line carapace length < 85 cm) has increased significantly during the 23-year period.
Status of immature green turtles foraging in the southeast United States might also be assessed from trends at nesting beaches where many of the turtles originated, principally, Florida, Yucatdin, and Tortuguero. Trends at Florida beaches are presented above. Trends in nesting at Yucatfin beaches cannot be assessed because of irregularity in beach survey methods over time.
Trends at Tortuguero (ca. 20,000-50,000 nests/year) show a significant increase in nesting during the period 1971-1996 (Bjorndal et al. 1999).
12
been the The principal cause of past declines and extirpations of green turtle assemblages has of green over-exploitation of green turtles for food and other products. Although intentional take turtles that nest turtles and their eggs is not extensive within the southeast United States, green region and and forage in the region may spend large portions of their life history outside the green turtles and outside United States' jurisdiction, where exploitation is still a threat. Adult extent off immatures are exploited heavily on foraging grounds off Nicaragua and to a lesser et al. 1978, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and the Tortuguero nesting beach (Carr Nietschmann 1982, Bass et al. 1998, Lagueux 1998).
Threats to There are significant and ongoing threats to green turtles from human-related causes.
and nesting beaches in the region include beach armoring, erosion control, artificial lighting, both direct disturbance, which can be expected to increase with time. Pollution is known to have of foraging (ingestion of foreign materials such as tar balls and plastics) and indirect (degradation as a result of direct grounds) impacts on green sea turtles. Foraging habitat loss also occurs are destruction by dredging, siltation, boat damage, and other human activities. Green turtles with power often captured and occasionally killed by interactions with fishing gear. Collisions the U.S. coast and may boats and encounters with suction dredges have killed green turtles along be common elsewhere where boating and dredging activities are frequent (Florida Marine Research Institute, Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Database). Threats from influences, increasing incidences of disea'e, which may or may not have some relation to human are also a concern. The occurrence of green turtle fibropapillomatosis disease was originally this reported in the 1930s, when it was thought to be rare (Smith and Coates 1938). Presently, areas, disease is cosmopolitan and has been found tc affect large numbers of animals in some including Hawaii and Florida (Herbst 1994, Jacobson 1990, Jacobson et al. 1991).
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle suggests L. kempii has a very' restricted distribution relative to the other sea turtle species. Data shallow near that adult Kemp's ridley turtles are restricted comewhat to the Gulf of Mexico in are found in shore waters, and benthic immature turtles of 20-60 cm straight line carapace length nearshore coastal waters including estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, although The adult-sized individuals sometimes are found on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States.
post-pelagic stages are commonly found dwelling over crab-rich sandy or muddy bottoms.
Juveniles frequent bays, coastal lagoons, and river mouths.
the Of the seven extant species of sea turtles in the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to Rancho Nuevo lowest population level. Most of the population of adult females nest on the in beaches (Pritchard 1969). When nesting aggregations at Rancho Nuevo were discovered (Hildebrand 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 40,000 individuals ridleys had 1963). By the early 1970s, the woiid population estimate of mature female Kemp's been reduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals. The population declined further through the mid 1980s. Recent observations of increased nesting suggest that the decline in the ridley population has stopped and the population is now increasing.
13
The TEWG (1998) identified three population trends in benthic immature ridleys. Benthic immatures are not yet reproductively mature but have recruited to feed in the nearshore benthic environment, where they are exposed to nearshore mortality sources that often result in 1966 resulted strandings. Increased production of hatchlings from the nesting beach beginning in of increase in an increase in benthic ridleys that leveled off in the late 1970s. A second period followed by leveling occurred between 1978 and 1989 as hatchling production was further enhanced by the cooperative program between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mexico's A
Instituto Nacional de Pesca to increase the nest protection and relocation program in 1978.
and third period of steady increase, which has not leveled off to date, has occurred since 1990 increase in appears to be due to the greatly increased hatchling production and an apparent survival rates of immature turtles beginning in 1990, due in part to the introduction of turtle have excluder devices (TEDs) in the U.S. and Mexican shrimping fleets. Adult ridley numbers now grown, as shown in nesting increases at the main nesting sites in Mexico. Nesting at to Tamaulipas and Veracruz increased from a low of 702 nests in 1985, to 1,930 nests in 1995, projected 6,277 nests in 2000 (USFWS 2000). The population model used by the TEWG (1998)
Plan, that Kemp's ridleys could reach the intermediate recovery goal identified in the Recovery maturity and age specific of 10,000 nesters by the year 2020 if the assumptions of age to sexual survivorship rates used in their model are correct.
The largest contributor to the decline of the ridley in the past was commercial and local exploitation, especially poaching of nests at the Rancho Nuevo site, as well as the Gulf of Mexico trawl fisheries. The advent of TED regulations for trawlers and protections for the nesting beaches have allowed the species to begin to rebound. Many threats to the future of the species remain, including interactions with fishery gear, marine pollution, foraging habitat such destruction, illegal poaching of nests and potential threats to the nesting beaches from sources as global climate change, development, and tourism pressures.
Leatherback Sea Turtle waters Leatherbacks are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found in of the Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1972). The leatherback is the largest living turtle and it ranges farther than any other sea turtle species, of exhibiting broad thermal tolerances (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1995). Genetic analyses occur leatherbacks to date indicate that within the Atlantic basin significant genetic differences among St. Croix (U.S.V.I.) and mainland Caribbean populations (Florida, Costa Rica, Suriname/French Guiana), and between Trinidad and the mainland Caribbean populations (Dutton et al. 1999), leading to the conclusion that there are at least three separate subpopulations of leatherbacks in the Atlantic.
Nest counts are the only reliable population information available for leatherback turtles. Recent declines have been seen in the number of leatherbacks nesting worldwide (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1995). A population estimate of 34,500 females (26,200-42,900) was made by Spotila 14
et al. (1996), who stated that the species as a whole was declining and local populations were in danger of extinction. Historically, decline was due primarily to intense exploitation of the eggs (Ross 1979), but adult mortality has increased significantly from interactions with fishery gear (Spotila et al. 1996). The Pacific population is in a critical state of decline, now estimated to number less than 3,000 total adult and subadult animals (Spotila et al. 2000). The status of the Atlantic population is less clear. In 1996, it was reported to be stable, at best (Spotila et al.
1996), but numbers in the western Atlantic at that time were reported to be on the order of 18,800 nesting females. According to Spotila (pers. comm.), the western Atlantic population currently numbers about 15,000 nesting females, whereas current estimates for the Caribbean (4,000) and the eastern Atlantic, off Africa, (numbering ca. 4,700) have remained consistent with numbers reported by Spotila et al. in 1996.)
The nesting aggregation in French Guiana has been declining at about 15% per year since 1987.
From 1979-1986, the number of nests was incieasing at about 15% annually. The number of nests in Florida and the U.S. Caribbean has been increasing at about 10.3% and 7.5%,
respectively, per year since the early 1980s but the magnitude of nesting is much smaller than that along the French Guiana coast (see NOAA Fisheries SEFSC 2001). In summary, the conflicting information regarding the status of Atlantic leatherbacks makes it difficult to conclude whether or not the population is currently in decline. Numbers at some nesting sites are up, while at others they are down.
Zug (1996) pointed out that the combination of the loss of long-lived adults in fishery-related mortality (especially entanglement in gear and drowning in trawls), and the lack of recruitment stemming from elimination of annual influxes of hatchlings because of intense egg harvesting, has caused the sharp decline in leatherback populations. Other important ongoing threats to the population include pollution, loss of nesting habitat, and boat strikes.
Hawksbill Sea Turtle The hawksbill is a medium-sized sea turtle with adults in the Caribbean ranging in size from approximately 62.5 to 94.0 cm straight carapace length. The species occurs in all ocean basins although it is relatively rare in the Eastern Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, and absent from the Mediterranean Sea. Hawksbills are the most tropical of the marine turtles, ranging from approximately 30'N to 300 S. They are closely associated with coral reefs and other hard-bottom habitats, but they are also found in other habitats including inlets, bays, and coastal lagoons. The diet is highly specialized and consists primarily of sponges (Meylan 1988), although other food items, notably corallimorphs and zooanthids, have been documented to be important in some areas of the Caribbean (van Dam and Dfez 1997, Mayor et al. 1998, Leon and Dfez 2000).
In the Western Atlantic, the largest hawksbill nesting population occurs in the Yucatan Penfnsula of Mexico, where several thousand nests are recorded annually in the states of Campeche, Yucatfn, and Quintana Roo (Gardufio-Andrade et al. 1999). Important but significantly smaller nesting aggregations are documented elsewhere in the region in Puerto Rico, the U.S.V.I.,
15C
Antigua, Barbados, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Jamaica (Meylan 1999a). Estimates of the annual number of nests for each of these areas are of the order of hundreds to a few thousand. Nesting within the southeastern U.S. and U.S. Caribbean is restricted to Puerto Rico (>650 nests/yr), the U.S.V.I. (-400 nests/yr), and, rarely, Florida (0-4 nests/yr)(,Eckert 1995, Meylan 1999a, Florida Statewide Nesting Beach Survey database). At the two principal nesting beaches in the U.S.
Caribbean where long-term monitoring has been carried out, populations appear to be increasing (Mona Island, Puerto Rico) or stable (Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, U.S.V.I.)
(Meylan 1999a).
D. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected Of the above listed species occurring in the action area, NOAA Fisheries believes that Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, but no critical habitat for any species will be impacted. These five species are known to occur in the action area and the likelihood of them being impacted by the activities in the action area is not discountable.
III. Environmental Baseline This section contains an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of :he species, its habitat, and ecosystem, within the action area. The environmental baseline is a snapshot of a species' health at a specified point in time and includes state, tribal, !ocal, and private actions already affecting the species, or that will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. Unrelated Federal actions affecting the same species or critical habitat that have completed formal or informal consultation are also part of the environmental baseline, as are Federal and other actions within the action area that may benefit listed species or critical habitat.
The environmental baseline for this Opinicn includes the effects of several activities that affect the survival and recovery of threatened and endangered species in the action area. The activities that shape the environmental baseline in the action area of this consultation are primarily fisheries and recovery activities associated with reducing fisheries impacts. Other environmental impacts include effects of discharges, dredging, military activities, and industrial cooling water intake.
A. Status of the species within the action area The five species of sea turtles that occur in the action area are all highly migratory. NOAA Fisheries believes that no individual members of any of the species are likely to be year-round residents of the action area. Individual animals will make migrations into nearshore waters as well as other areas of the North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.
Therefore, the range-wide status of the five species of sea turtles, given in Section II above, most accurately reflects the species' status within the action area.
16
B. Factors affecting species environment within the action area.
As explained above, sea turtles found in the action area are not year-round residents of the area, Therefore, and may travel widely throughout the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.
anywhere else within individuals found in the action area can potentially be affected by activities this wide range.
Federal Actions to address In recent years, NOAA Fisheries has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations the effects of federally-permitted fisheries and other Federal actions on threatened and the endangered species. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing NOAA probability of adverse effects of the action on sea turtles. Similarly, recovery actions of sea turtles in the Fisheries has undertaken under the ESA are addressing the problem of take take fishing and shipping industries. The following summary of anticipated sources of incidental of turtles includes only those Federal actions which have undergone formal section 7 consultation.
the Potential adverse effects from Federal vessel operations in the action area and throughout range of sea turtles include operations of the Navy (USN) and Coast Guard (USCG), the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). NOAA Fisheries has conducted formal 7
consultations with the USCG, and the USN on their vessel operations. Through the section process, where applicable, NOAA Fisheries has and will continue to establish conservation listed measures for all these agency vessel operations to avoid or minimize adverse effects to species. At the piesent time, however, they represent potential for some level of interaction.
In addition to vessel operations, other military activities including training exercises and have ordnance detonation also adversely affect sea turtles. Consultations on individual activities activities in any region has been completed, but no formal consultation on overall USCG or USN been completed at this time.
as a The construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels has also been identified to sea turtle source of turtle mortality. Hopper dredges move relatively rapidly (compared swimming speeds) and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag arm of the moving dredge overtakes the slower moving turtle. Regional biological opinions (RBOs) with the Gulf corresponding ITSs have been issued to the COE for the southeast Atlantic waters and of Mexico of Mexico. Consultation is currently underway, on a new RBO for the COE's Gulf hopper dredging operations.
The COE and Minerals Management Service (MMS) (the latter is non-military) oil and gas exploration, well development, production, and abandonment/rig removal activities also 17
adversely affect sea turtles. Both of these agencies have consulted with NOAA Fisheries on these types of activities.
in Adverse effects on threatened and endangered species from several types of fishing gear occur the action area. Efforts to reduce the adverse effects of commercial fisheries are addressed through the ESA section 7 process. Gillnet, longline, trawl gear, and pot fisheries have all been fishery documented as interacting with sea turtles. For all fisheries for which there is a Federal impacts management plan (FMP) or for which any Federal action is taken to manage that fishery, on the have been evaluated under section 7. Several formal consultations have been conducted threatened following fisheries that NOAA Fisheries has determined are likely to adversely affect fishery, and endangered species: American lobster, monkfish, dogfish, southeastern shrimp trawl northeast multispecies, Atlantic pelagic swordfish/tuna/shark, and summer flounder/scup/black sea bass fisheries.
Species On June 14, 2001, NOAA Fisheries issued a jeopardy opinion for the Highly Migratory (HMS) fisheries off the eastern United States. The HMS Opinion found that the continued was likely prosecution of the pelagic longline fishery in the manner described in the HMS FMP to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. This with determination was made by analyzing the effects of the fishery on sea turtles in conjunction of the the environmental baseline and cumulative effects. The environmental baseline section HMS Opinion is incorporated herein by reference and can be found at the following NOAA Fisheries website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot-res/readingrm/ESAsec7/HMS060801final.pdf The environmental baseline for the June 14, 2001, HMS Opinion also considered the impacts from the North Carolina offshore spring monkfish gillnet fishery and the inshore fall southern flounder gillnet fishery, both of which were responsible for large numbers of sea turtle mortalities in 1999 and 2000, especially loggerhead sea turtles. However, during the 2001 effort in season NOAA Fisheries implemented an observer program that observed 100% of the gillnet the monkfish fishery, and then in 2002 a rule was enacted creating a seasonal monkfish closure along the Atlantic coast based upon sea surface temperature data and turtle migration with mitigative patterns. In 2001, NOAA Fisheries also issued an ESA section 10 permit mortalities in these measures for the southern flounder fishery. Subsequently, the sea turtle reduces fisheries were drastically reduced. The reduction of turtle mortalities in these fisheries the negative effects these fisheries have on the environmental baseline.
NOAA Fisheries has implemented a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) in the HMS fishery which would allow the continuation of the pelagic longline fishery without jeopardizing this RPA the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. The provisions of include the closure of the Grand Banks region off the northeast United States and gear restrictions that are expected to reduce the by-catch of loggerheads by as much as 76% and research leatherbacks by as much as 65%. Further, NOAA Fisheries is implementing a major implementation of project to develop measures aimed at further reducing longline by-catch. The baseline.
this RPA reduces the negative effects that the HMS fishery has on the environmental 18
of the The conclusions of the June 14, 2001, HMS Opinion and the subsequent implementation RPA are hereby incorporated into the environmental baseline section of this Opinion.
of Another action with Federal oversight which has impacts on sea turtles is the operation affected by electrical generating plants. Sea turtles entering coastal or inshore areas have been opinions entrainment in the cooling-water systems of electrical generating plants. Biological plants, and others are currently have already been written for a number of electrical generating undergoing section 7 consultation.
State or Private Actions turtles Commercial vessel traffic and recreational pursuits can have an adverse effect on sea marine events through propeller and boat strike damage. Private vessels participate in high speed and concentrated in the southeastern United States and are a particular threat to sea turtles, not currently occasionally to marine mammals as well. The magnitude of these marine events is on these events, but a thorough known. NOAA Fisheries and the USCG are in early consultation analysis has not been completed.
nets, and Various fishing methods used in state fisheries, including trawling, pot fisheries, fly prohibit gillnets are known to cause interactions with sea turtles. Georgia and South Carolina waters, as gillnets for all but the shad fishery. Florida has banned all but very small nets in state fisheries has Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have also placed restrictions on gillnet waters, within state waters such that very little commercial gillnetting takes place in southeast in areas with the exception of North Carolina. Most pot fisheries in the Southeast are prosecuted frequented by sea turtles.
Strandings in the North Carolina area represent, at best, 7%-13% Gf the actual nearshore mortality (Epperly et al. 1996). Studies by Bass et al. (1998), Norrgard (1995), and Rankin highly over Baransky (1997) indicate that the percentage of northern loggerheads in this area is from this represented in the strandings when ccmpared to the approximately 9% representation genetic subpopulation in the overall U.S. sea turtle nesting populations. Specifically, the composition of sea turtles in this area is 25%-54% from the northern subpopulation, 46%-64%
from the South Florida subpopulation, and 3%-16% from the Yucatdn subpopulation. The recovery of this cumulative removal of these turtles on an annual basis would severely impact the species.
Other Potential Sources of Impacts in the Environmental Baseline A number of activities that may indirectly affect listed species include discharges from from wastewater systems, dredging, ocean dumping and disposal, and aquaculture. The impacts are being these activities are difficult to measure. Where possible, however, conservation actions implemented to monitor or study impacts from these elusive sources.
19
for NOAA Fisheries and the USN have been working cooperatively to establish a policy in the marine monitoring and managing acoustic impacts from anthropogenic sound sources exclusion, environment. Acoustic impacts can include temporary or permanent injury, habitat habituation, and disruption of other normal behavior patterns.
Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline for incidental NOAA Fisheries implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential has required the mortality of sea turtles in commercial fisheries. In particular, NOAA Fisheries trawls in the use of TEDs in southeast U.S. shrimp trawls since 1989 and in summer flounder that TEDs mid-Atlantic area (south of Cape Charles, Virginia) since 1992. It has been estimated over the exclude 97% of the turtles caught in such trawls. These regulations have been refined proper placement and installation, years to ensure that TED effectiveness is maximized through Recent analyses configuration (e.g., width of bar spacing), floatation, and more widespread use.
opening by Epperly and Teas (1999) indicate that the minimum requirements for the escape annually along dimensions are too small, and that as many as 47% of the loggerheads stranding On the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf -ofMexico were too large to fit through existing openings.
escape openings in October 2, 2001, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule to require larger TEDs and is planning to publish a final rule in 2002.
In 1993 (with a final rule implemented in 1995), NOAA Fisheries established a Leatherback Conservation Zone to restrict shrimp trawl activities from the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, high to the North Carolina/Virginia border. This provides for short-term closures when coastal waters concentrations of normally pelagic-distributed leatherbacks are recorded in more due to their size, adult where the shrimp fleet operates. This measure is necessary because, TEDs.
leatherbacks are larger than the escape openings of most NOAA Fisheries-approved in a type of NOAA Fisheries is also working to develop a TED which can be effectively used fisheries to trawl known as a fly net, which is sometimes used in the mid-Atlantic and northeast quite high in this target sciaenids and bluefish. Limited observer data indicate that takes car, be is still fishery. A prototype design has been developed, but testing under commercial conditions necessary.
fishermen In addition, NOAA Fisheries has been active in public outreach efforts to educate information regarding sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques. As well as making this number of workshops widely available to all fishermen, NOAA Fisheries recently conducted a to educate with longline fishermen to discuss bycatch issues including protected species, and continue these them regarding handling and release guidelines. NOAA Fisheries intends to fishery over outreach efforts and hopes to reach all fishermen participating in the pelagic longline Stranding and the next one to two years. There is also an extensive network of Sea Turtle collects data Salvage Network participants along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico which not only on dead sea turtles, but also rescues and rehabilitates any live stranded turtles.
20
IV. Effects of the Action Since Units 1, 2, and 3 began commercial operation, marine turtles have occasionally been found in the intake canal. CREC records indicate that from 1994 to 1997, eight sea turtles were stranded on the Unit 3 intake bar racks. CREC records for these years were opportunistic, and do not indicate species, time of year, size or disposition of the stranded turtles (dead or alive). Sea turtle monitoring activities at CREC have increased substantially since 1997, with the monitoring program implemented in March 1998 and the implementation of the Sea Turtle Rescue Guidelines dated September 1998. The increased monitoring should provide a more realistic estimate of the number of sea turtles stranded or killed each year at the plants.
The records indicate that this activity has not taken many sea turtles for years up to 1998. For the four years from 1994 to 1997, the activities at CREC have taken an average of two sea turtles per year. Records for 1998 show a dramatic increase in the numbers of sea turtle strandings at CREC, especially for the months of February to May. In 1998, a total of 40 takes were stranded at the power plants, 5 being lethal. Of these, 37 of the turtles released alive were Kemp's ridley and all 5 lethal takes were also Kemp's rid!ey. All sea turtles stranded at CREC were sub-adults with carapace lengths ranging from 21 cm to 55 cm. There are no proven environmental factors that have caused this increase and population numbers are not monitored for this area so the increase could be from an increase in population or an increase in sub-adult turtles moving into this area from some other area (pers. comm. Allen Foley, FWC).
The number of marine sea turtles taken in 1999 was significantly lower than 1998. A total of 9 live sea turtles were recovered from the bar racks :n 1999. Of these, 7 were Kemp's ridleys, 1 was a loggerhead, and 1 was a green turtle. In 2000, a total of 19 turtles were taken from the bar racks: 13 were alive, 5 were considered non-causal mortalities (killed by something other than plant activities, such as a boat strike, and verified by FWC), and 1 was considered killed as a result of plant activities. Of these, 11 were Kemp's ridleys, 6 were green turtles, 1 was a loggerhead, and 1 was a hawksbill.
More turtles were taken in 2001 than in 1998. There were 66 sea turtles taken incidentally in 2001, 62 were released alive, 3 were considered non causal mortalities, and 1 was considered killed as a result of plant activities. The vast majority of these turtles were Kemp's ridleys, followed by green and loggerhead turtles. These numbers exceeded the biennial ITS levels set in the June 1999 Opinion, which established an incidental take level of 50 live takes, 5 turtles killed as a result of plant activities and 8 dead turtles not causally related to plant operations. As of May 21, 2002, there have been 11 turtles incidentally taken at CREC, 8 of which were alive and 3 dead turtles not causally related to plant operations.
Based on this information and recorded take levels for 1998 and 2001, NOAA Fisheries believes that the level of live take of sea turtles in CREC's intake canal may reach 75 sea turtles rescued alive from the bar racks annually and 3 lethal takes annually that are causally related to plant operations. The majority of these turtles are expected to be Kemp's ridleys, followed by greens 21
and loggerheads. Hawksbills and leatherbacks, although occasionally found in the area, are does not expected to make up a very small portion of this take (less than 1%). NOAA Fisheries rarity in the action expect leatherbacks or hawksbills to be part of the lethal take because of their area.
V. Cumulative Effects are reasonably Cumulative effects are the effects of future state, local, or private activities that Federal actions that certain to occur within the action area considered in this biological opinion.
they require are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because area, major future separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Within the action environmental baseline.
changes are not anticipated in ongoing human activities described in the recreational The present, major human uses of the action area such as commercial fishing, chemical products, are expected to boating and fishing, and the transport of petroleum and other risks of injury continue at the present levels of intensity in the near future as are their associated oil spills, vessel or mortality to sea turtles posed by incidental capture by fishermen, accidental in Section collisions, marine debris, chemical discharges, and man-made noises. As discussed Atlantic and III, however, listed species of turtles migrate throughout the Gulf of Mexico and area.
may be affected during their life cycles by non-Federal activities outside the action along the Beachfront development, lighting, and beach erosion control are all ongoing activities sea turtle southeastern coast of the United States. These activities potentially reduce or degrade activities along nesting habitats or interfere with hatchling movement to sea. Nocturnal human nesting beaches may also discourage sea turtles from nesting sites. The extent to which these more and activities reduce sea turtle nesting and hatchling production is unknown. However, to protect more coastal counties have or are adopting more stringent protective measures measures hatchling sea turtles from the disorienting effects of beach lighting. Some of these citizens who were drafted in response to law suits brought against the counties by concerned lighting charged the counties with failing to uphold the ESA by allowing unregulated beach which results in takes of hatchlings.
Gulf of Mexico, State-regulated commercial and recreational boating and fishing activities in the endangered off Citrus County waters currently result in the incidental take of threatened and and thrill-craft species. It is expected that states will continue to license/permit large vessel regulations that operations which do not fall under the purview of a Federal agency and will issue and offshore will affect fishery activities. Any increase in recreational vessel activity in inshore turtles taken waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico will likely increase the risk of have been known by injury or mortality in vessel collisions. Recreational hook-and-line fisheries NOAA to lethally take sea turtles, including Kemp's ridleys. Future cooperation between caused by Fisheries and the states on these issues should help decrease take of sea turtles ESA recreational activities. NOAA Fisheries will continue to work with states to develop and mitigate these section 6 agreements and section 10 permits to enhance programs to quantify takes.
22
VI. Conclusion The annual live take, tagging, and release of 75 turtles (Kemp's ridleys, greens, hawksbills, annual lethal leatherbacks, and loggerheads) will not have an impact on turtles populations. The take of 3 Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, or green sea turtles, or some combination of all three, States from represents a very small percentage of the total sea turtle take in the Southeast United baseline such things as commercial fishing. As explained in this Opinion (in the environmental in the and species description), nesting for these species has been increasing or remaining stable which has Southeast United States (except for the northern nesting population of loggerheads after been stable and may be decreasing) in spite of the current amount of take. Therefore, ridley sea reviewing the current status of endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's of the turtles, and threatened loggerhead sea turtles; the environmental baseline; the effects the proposed action; and the cumulative effects, it is NOAA Fisheries biological opinion that this implementation of the proposed action, as described in the Proposed Action section of Opinion, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered green, leatherback, habitat hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, or threatened loggerhead sea turtles. No critical has been designated for these species in the action area; therefore, none will be affected.
VII. Incidental Take Statement prohibit the Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is to attempt to defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to, and not the engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental the terms of section 7(b)(4) purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under action is and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.
NRC so that The measures described below are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by the for they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the NRC fails to assume and implement order to monitor terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In on the impact of incidental take, the NRC must report the progress of the action and its impact the species to NOAA Fisheries as specified in the incidental take statement.
Amount or Extent of Anticipated Take historical Based on stranding records, incidental captures aboard commercial shrimp vessels, and data, five species of sea turtles are known to occur in the action area. Current available information on the relationship between sea turtles and CREC's cooling water intake system indicates that injury and/or death of sea turtles is likely to occur from entrainment on the bar racks of the water intake system. Therefore, pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, NOAA 23
Fisheries anticipates an annual incidental take of up to seventy-five live sea turtles and three sea turtles killed as a result of plant operations, in any combination of loggerheads, greens, Kemp's ridleys, hawksbills, or leatherbacks. This level of take is anticipated for the operation of CREC's cooling water intake system. If the actual incidental take meets or exceeds this level, the NRC must immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation. NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Region will cooperate with the NRC in the review of the incident. NOAA Fisheries also expects that the CREC may capture and collect an additional unquantifiable number of previously dead of sea turtles (turtles not killed as a result of plant operations) such as turtles with obvious signs injury, such as prop scars, or disease.
Effect of the Take NOAA Fisheries believes that the aforementioned level of anticipated annual take, over the next five years, is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles in the wild by reducing their reproduction, numbers, or distribution, even if all incidental takes are from the same species. In particular, NOAA Fisheries determined that it does not expect activities associated with the proposed action, when added to ongoing activities affecting these species in the action area and cumulative effects, to affect sea tartles in a way that reduces the number of animals bern in a particular year (i.e., a specific age-class), the reproductive success of adult sea turtles, or the number of young sea turtles that annually recruit into the adult breeding population.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures NOAA Fisheries believes the following reasonable ana prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles:
- 1. NRC will monitor sea turtle activities around the bar racks and rescue sea turtles stranded on the bar racks.
- 2. NRC will keep records of sea turtle strandings at the plants.
Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the NRC must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting and monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary.
- 1. Continue implementation of the procedures outlined in the Florida Power Corporation's Sea Turtle Rescue and Handling Guidelines (AI-571) which are incorporated by reference. All updates of the rescue plan will be reviewed by the FWC and NOAA Fisheries.
24
- 2. If any listed species are apparently injured or killed in the intake canal or the bar racks, a report summarizing the incident must be provided to the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office (SERO) Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, within 30 days of the incident.
- 3. All sea turtle takings at the plant will be recorded by species, size, date and time collected, location, condition, and disposition. Details on the information to be collected and recorded shall be specified in the Sea Turtle Rescue and Handling Guidelines. Data collected will be tabulated and submitted to NOAA Fisheries' SERO Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division and the FWC by March 1 of each year.
- 4. If non-lethal take reaches 70 individuals, causally related lethal take reaches 2 individuals, or if take of non-causally related dead turtles reaches 8 individuals (although there is no specified take limit on non-causally related dead turtles, NOAA Fisheries is requiring this information in case there are other issues it may need to look into) in any one year, NRC will notify the SERO Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Divisicn within 5 days.
NOAA Fisheries anticipates that no more than 78 sea turtles will be incidentally taken annually as a result of the proposed action and that three of these takes will be lethal. The reasonable and prudent measures and their implementing terms and conditions are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of this action, this level of incidental take is met or exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The NRC must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with NOAA Fisheries the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.
VIII. Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorizations to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
NRC should continue the evaluation and experimentation on methods to be employed that could be used to keep sea turtles away from the bar racks.
In order for NOAA Fisheries to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, NOAA Fisheries requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations.
25
IX. Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the NRC's BA dated October 11, 2001. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where is discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or take authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental action that may affect statement is met or exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the listed species or critical habitat (when designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously effect to considered, (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an a new listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4) action. In species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the NRC must immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation.
26
References Cited Audubon, J.J. 1926. The Turtlers. Pp. 194-202 In: Delineations of American Scenery and Character, G.A. Baker and Co., N.Y.
Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago, p. 117
- 125. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Balazs, G.H. 1983. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at French Frigate Shoals, northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS SWFC-36.
Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, J. Braun, D.W. Owens, and R.M. Patterson. 1998. Natal origin and sex ratios of foraging sea turtles in 'the P*,mlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex. U.S. Dep.
Commer. N.*OAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 137-138.
Bjorndal, K.A., J.A. Wetherall, A.B. Bolten, and J.A. Mortimer. 1999. Twenty-six years of green turtle nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: an encouraging trend. Conservation Biology 13: 126-134.
Brongersma, L. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zool. Verhand. Leiden, 121: 318 pp.
Caldwell, D.K. and A. Carr. 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida. Transactions of the 22nd North American Wildlife Conference, 457-463.
Carr, A.F., M.H. Carr, and A.B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 7.
The west Caribbean green turtle colony. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162: 1-46.
Carr, A. 1984. So Excellent a Fishe. Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y.
Dfez, C.E. 2000. Personal communication to Blair Witherington, FMRI.
Dodd, C.K. 1981. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia inydas (L.), in Florida: historic review and present trends. Brimleyana 7: 39-54.
Dodd, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Carettacaretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (14).
Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: a forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 88: 43-70.
27
Dutton, P.H., B.W. Bowen, D.W. Owens, A. Barragdn, and S.K. Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of the leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). J. Zool. Lond 248:397-409.
foraging Eckert, S.A. and K.L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G.L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and Can. J. Zool. 67:2834-2840.
behavior of leatherback sea turtles (Dennochelys coriacea).
46: 337 Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River Lagoon System. Florida Sci.
346.
K. Bjorndal, Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. In Ogren, L., F. Berry, of the H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.). Proceedings 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC 226: 122-139.
Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1992. Green turtle. In P. E. Moler (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vo',w.e III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida: 90-94.
waters. Conserv.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995a. Sea turtles in North Carolina Biol. 9: 384-394.
North Carolina Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995b. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93. 254-261.
J.H. Churchill.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.T. Chester, F.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, P.A. Tester, and Sci.
1996. Beach strandings as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bull. Mar.
59: 289-297.
to the size Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 1999. Evaluation of TED opening dimensions relative of turtles stranding in the Western 1 or.h Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NMFS SEFSC T
Contribution PRD-98/99-08, 31 pp.
Press, Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Kentucky Lexington, Ky.
Florida Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2001.
statewide nesting beach survey data. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Unpublished data.
report FPL (Florida Power & Light Co.) St. Lucie Plant. 2000. Annual environmental operating 1999. Juno Beach, Fla.
28
Frazer, N.B. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985: 73-79.
Frazer, N.B., C.J. Limpus, and J.L. Greene. 1994. Growth and age at maturity of Queensland loggerheads. U.S. Dep. of Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-351:42-45.
Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia - Reptilia Red Data Book. Part 1. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Int. Union Conserv. Nature and Nat. Res., 426 pp.
Guseman, J.L. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecological geography of Western Atlantic loggerheads and green turtles: evidence from remote tag recoveries. In M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (compilers). Proceedings of the 11' Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. NMFS-SEFC-302: 50.
Henwood, T.A. and L.H. Ogren. 1987. Distribution and migrations of immature Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) off Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Northeast Gulf Science, 9(2): 153-160.
Herbst, L.H. 1994. Fibropapillomatosis in marine turtles. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 4:
389-425.
Hildebrand, H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidaci6n de la tortuga "lora" Lepidochelys kempii (Garman), en la costa occidental del Golfo de M6xico (Rept., Chel.). Ciencia Mex., 22(a):
105-112.
Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the Western Gulf of Mexico. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 447-453.
Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1), Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept of the Interior. 120 PP.
International Whaling Commission (IWC). 2001. Report of the Workshop on Status and Trends of the Western North Atlantic Right Whales. Journalof Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2, in press.
Jacobson, E.R. 1990. An update on green turtle fibropapilloma. Marine Turtle Newsletter 49:
7-8.
Jacobson, E.R., S.B. Simpson, Jr., and J.P. Sundberg. 1991. Fibropapillomas in green turtles. In G.H. Balazs, and S.G. Pooley (eds.). Research Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-156: 99-100.
29
Johnson, S.A., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1994. Nest-site fidelity of the Florida green turtle. In B.A.
Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers). Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341: 83.
Keinath, J.A. 1993. Movements and behavior of wild and head-started sea turtles. Ph.D.
Dissertation. College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va., 206 pp.
Lagueux, C.J. 1998. Demography of marine turtles harvested by Miskito Indians of Atlantic Nicaragua. In R. Byles and Y. Fernfindez (compilers). Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412: 90.
Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 1985(2): 449-456.
MacKay, A.L. and J.L. Rebholz. 1996. Sea turtle activity survey on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (1992-1994). In J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. Bell (Compilers). Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-387: 178-18 1.
Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W. Owens, P.C.H. Pritchard, J.I.
Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 274 pp.
Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of Developed Coastline on Nesting and Hatchling Sea Turtles in Southeastern Florida. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
Mdrquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 11. Sea turtles of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea turtle species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 125.
81 pp.
Mdirquez, R., R. Byles, P. Burchfield, N. Thompson, M. Sdnchez, J. Dfaz, M. A. Carrasco, A.S.
Leo, and C. Jimrnez. 1995. The Recovery of the Kemp's ridley Sea turtle population in the Mexican Beach of Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas. Draft submitted to the Marine Turtle Newsletter.
Mayor, P., B. Phillips, and Z. Hillis-Starr. 1998. Results of stomach content analysis on the juvenile hawksbill turtles of Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S.V.I. Pp. 230-232 in Proceedings of the 17' Annual Sea Turtle Symposium, S. Epperly and J. Braun, Compilers. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415.
30
Mays, J.L., and Shaver, D.J. 1998. Nesting trends of sea turtles in National Seashores along Atlantic and Gulf coast waters of the United States. 61 pp.
MCAS. 2001. Biological Assessment for C. going Ordnance Delivery at Bombing Target 9 and Bombing Target 11. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Environmental Affairs Department. Cherry Point, N.C. December 2001.
Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications 52: 1-5 1.
Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1999. Vying for the same resources: potential conflict along migratory corridors. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 69.
Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the Southeast Region. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Nietschmann, B. 1982. The cultural context of sea turtle subsistence hunting in the Caribbean and problems caused by commercial exploitation. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 439-445.
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Pla., SEFSC Contribution PRD-00/01-08; Pars I-Ill and Appendices I-V1.
NMFS and USFWS. 1991a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
N'TMFS and USFWS. 199 1b. Recovery Plar for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
NMFS and USFWS. 1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Fla.
NMFS and USFWS. 1995. Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Md.
31
loggerhead Norrgard, J. 1995. Determination of stock composition and natal origin of a juvenile turtle population (Carettacaretta)in Chesapeake Bay using mitochondrial DNA analysis.
M.S. Thesis, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va. 47 pp.
Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and sub-adult Kemp's ridley sea turtle: Preliminary (eds),
results from 1984-1987 surveys, pp. 116-123 in: Caillouet, C.W. and A.M. Landry Texas First Intl. Symp. on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biol, Conserv. and Management.
A&M Univ., Galveston, Tex., Oct. 1-4, 1985, TAMU-SG-89-105.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Fla. State Mus. 13(2): 1-139.
western north Rankin-Baransky, K.C. 1997. Origin of loggerhead turtles (Carettacaretta)in the Atlantic as determined by mt DNA analysis. M.S. Thesis. Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa.: 50 pp.
Renaud, M.L. 1995. Movements and submergence patterns of Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii). Journal of Herpetology 29: 370-374.
pp. 189 Ross, J.P. 1979. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea Zurtles, 195. In: Bjorndal, K.A. (editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Schnm.id, J.R. and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 2: 532 - 537.
Bay. In Schroeder, B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Population studies of marine turtles in Florida J. I. Richardson and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361: 117.
of marine Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, B.E. Witherington, and A.E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology turtles in Florida Bay: Population structure, distribution, and occurrence of fibropapilloma. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 265 267.
Schultz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelingen (Leiden),
Number 143: 172 pp.
loggerhead Sears, C.J. 1994. Preliminary genetic analysis of the population structure of Georgia sea turtles. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo NMIFS-SEFSC-351: 135-139.
32
Sears, C.J., B.W. Bowen, R.W. Chapman, S.B. Galloway, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and C.M.
Woodley. 1995. Demographic composition of the juvenile loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) feeding population off Charleston, South Carolina: evidence from mitochondrial DNA markers. Mar. Biol. 123: 869-874.
Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology of wild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles in south Texas waters. Journal of Herpetology. Vol. 23. 1991.
Shaver, D.J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. Journal of Herpetology 28: 491-497.
Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs. 6: 4 3-67.
Smith, G.M. and C.W. Coates. 1938. Fibro-epithelial growths of the skin in large marine turtles, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus). Zoologica 24: 93-98.
Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.S. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 1996.
Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are ;eatherback turtles going extinct? Chel. Conserv. Biol. 2(2): 209-222.
Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405: 529-530.
TEWG. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys ken:pii) .nd loggerhead (Carettacaretta)sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep.
Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NM-FS-SEFSC-409, 96 pp.
TEWG. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp.
USFWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Fla.
USFWS. 2000. Report on the Mexico/United States of America population restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico.
Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in their nearshore habitat of Broward County, Florida: a five year review. In M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (compilers).
33
Proceedings of the 11th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. NMFS-SEFC-302: 121-123.
Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H.
Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226:
351-352.
Zug, G.R.. and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dennochelys coriacea (Testudines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronological analysis. Chel. Conserv. Biol.
2(2): 244-249.
the Zwinenberg. A.J. 1977. Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempii (Garman, 1880), undoubtedly most endangered marine turtle today (with notes on the current status of Lepidochelys olivacea). Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society, 13(3): 170-192.
34