ML12178A513
| ML12178A513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River, Levy County |
| Issue date: | 09/19/2002 |
| From: | Mozafari B Plant Licensing Branch III, NRC/OGC |
| To: | Young D Progress Energy Florida |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22806, 52-029-COL, 52-030-COL, ASLBP 09-879-04-COL-BD01, +reviewedbca1 | |
| Download: ML12178A513 (34) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 September 19, 2002 Mr. Dale E. Young, Vice President Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA 1B) ATTN: Supervisor, Licensing & Regulatory Programs 15760 W. Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida 34428-6708
SUBJECT:
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 - SECTION 7 CONSULTATION UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REGARDING SEA TURTLES AT THE CRYSTAL RIVER ENERGY COMPLEX (TAC NO. MB 1562)
Dear Mr. Young:
Enclosed is a copy of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS's) Biological Opinion, which was issued August 8, 2002. This Opinion is a reinitiation of consultation subsequent to the June 1999 Opinion. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally requested reinitiation on April 2, 2001, because of a possibility that the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) would exceed the NMFS. anticipated incidental take levels for live turtles established in the Incidental Take Statement of the June 1999 Opinion. The August 8, 2002, Opinion states the NMFS belief that the continued operation of the cooling , water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico is not likely to jeopardize the continued l existence of the five species of sea turtles found at CREC. However, it revises the Incidental Take Statement and modifies some of the Terms and Conditions of the previous Opinion. These should be evaluated for the potential need to revise the Crystal River Unit 3 Technical Specifications and plant procedures. If you have any questions following review of the document, please contact me at (301) 415-2020. Sincerely, Brenda L. Mozafari, Senior Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-302
Enclosure:
NMFS Biological Opinion cc wlo encl: J. Powers, NMFS cc: See next page NRC031 June 26, 2012
UNITEO STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMEI=iCE ,. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (727) 570-5312; FAX 570-5517 http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov F/SER3 :BH:tg Mr. Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Berkow:
This document represents the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NOAA Fisheries) biological opinion (Opinion) based on your request for reinitiation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation for the operation of the Crystal River Energy Complex's (CREC) cooling water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (LepidocheZys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dennochelys 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.). The NOAA Fisheries consultation number for this action is F/SERl200 110 1080. If you have any questions about this consultation, please refer to this number. This Opinion is based on information provided in a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated October 11, 2001, with an attached b~ological assessment; 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 area; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional OffIce in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Opinion states NOAA Fisheries' belief that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles. However, NOAA Fisheries anticipates incidental takes of these species and has issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS), pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. This ITS contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to help minimize this take. Incidental takes of marine mammals are not authorized. If the NRC believes such takes may I :-v:J occur, an incidental take authorization under Marine Mammal Protection Act, Section 101 (a)(5)i'\ '0
~
~~~
~ .").
l~~J"j 1 G-of
<t~IIwiI(rQf~
- fl.P- (3. y'llo Z~~,I' i
is necessary. In this regard, please contc:ct Ken Hollingshead of our headquarters Protected Resources staff at (301) 713-2055.
- 2!:::Ph~t4A ~
Acting Regiona: Administrator Enclosure cc: FIPR3 o:\section7\formal\crys2002. 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/200 110 1080) Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region Date Issued: ! glfflo~ Approyed By: /VL/ J~seph C-{flJ E. Powers, Ph.D. 7 tclt j r! !l 1/-./ 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 (CREC) cooling water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dennochelys coriacea), hawksbiIl 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.). The NOAA Fisheries consultation number for this action is F/SER/2001/0l080. If you have any questions about this consultation, please refer to this number. History o/the Consultation In a letter dated April 2, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reinitiated ESA 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 on April 9, 2001. The NRC reinitiated consultation because it felt that CREC would exceed the incidental take levels for live turtles issued with the June 16, 1999, incidental take statement (ITS) that concluded the no jeopardy Opinion issued for the operation of CREC's cooling water intake system. In a letter dated April 9, 2001, NOAA Fisheries agreed that CREC would likely 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 CREe'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 atta:hed 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 area; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. I. Description of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action 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 approximat~ly 640 MWe eac~. 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 I/screens, and seawater pump components. Surface water trash barriers are deployed in front of J 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 hours 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 1 is stranded on the bar racks, it is immediately recovered \vith 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, trweling 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
- i. 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 cenal then extends westward an additional 11 miles out into the Gulf of Mexico.
II. Status of the Species The following endangered and threatened mmne 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 turtie Chelonia mydas* Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Leatherback sea turtle Dennochelys coriacea Right whale Eubalaena glacialis Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 4
Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Threatened Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Gulf sturgeon Acipenser o;ryrinclws desotoi Critical Habitat There is no critical habitat in the action area.
- Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between the populations away from the nesting beaches, green turtles are considered endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters.
Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), occur in the Gulf of Mexico but are rare in state waters. Other endangered whales, including North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae), 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 Lo2gerhead 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 gre-en se!l 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. Internutionally, the Kemp's ridley is considered the most endangered sea turtle (Zwinenberg 1977, Groombridge 1982). Kemp'sridleys 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 £pecies 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 ON to 47*S latitude in all oceans 0 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 I population declines of over 80% during the last three generations (l05 years) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Only five regional nestir.g 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 hawksbiIl 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 tr.e smaller turtles. Benthic immature loggerheads foraging in northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward in the fall as water temperatures cool (Epperiyet 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 macro algae or sea grasses near mainland coastlines, islands, reefs, or shelves, and any open-ocean surface waters, ~specially wnere 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 GrIf cf Mexir.. c 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 Brevcrd 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 ~djacent 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 ev~ry 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/subaduIt Kemp's ridleys have been found along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico. Atlantic juveniles/sub adults travel northward with vernal warming to feed in the productive, coastal w"ters 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 ridJeys occupy shallow, coastal regions. Ogren (1989) suggested that in the northern Gulf they move offshore to deeper, warmer water during winter. Studies suggest that sub adult 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 WitzeIl1997). 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 a1. 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). Leatherback sea turtles feed primarily on jellyfIsh as well as cnidarians and tunicates. They are 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 ;oraging habitat, which mayor may not overlap with developmental habitat, i~ 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 thet of green turtles (Hirth 1980). Reproductive females may exhibit a high degree of fideliLY to the!r nest sites. This, plus the tendency of hawksbills to nest at regular intervals within a seas':tn, make them vulnerable to capture on the nesting beach. C. Population dynamics, status, and distribution Log~!erhead 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 th~ 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 29° N on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast (approximately 83,400 nests in 1998); (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulation, occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida (approximately 1,200 nests in 1998); (4) a Yucatan nesting subpopulation, occurring on the eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Marquez 1990) (approximately 1,000 nests in 1998) (TEWG 2000); and (5) a Dry Tortugas nesting subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida (approximately 200 nests per year) (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). Natal homing of females to the nesting beach provides the barrier between these subpopulations, preventing recolonization with turtles from other nesting beaches. Based on the data available, it is difficult to estimate the size of the loggerhead sea turtle population in the United States or its territorial waters. There is, however, general agreement that the number of nesting females provides a useful index of the species' population size and stability at this life stage. Nesting data collected on index nesting beaches in the United States from 1989-1998 represent the best data set available to index the population size of loggerhead sea turtles. How~ver, an important caveat foi' population trends analysis based on nesting beach data is that this may reflect trends in adult nesting females but not reflect overall population growth rates. Given this caveat, between 1989 and 1998, the total number of nests laid along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts ranged from 53,014 to 92,182 annually, with a mean of 73,751. On average, 90.7% of these nests were from the south Florida subpopulation, 8.5% were from the northern subpopulation, and 0.8% were from the Florida Panhandle nest sites. There is limited nesting throughout the Gulf of Mexico west of Florida, but it is not known to which subpopulation the turtles making these nests belong. The number of nests in the northern subpopulation from 1989 to 1998 was 4,370 to 7,887, with a lO-year mean of 6,247 nests. With each female producing all average of 4.1 nests in a nesting season, the average number of nesting females per year in the northern subpopulation was 1,524. The total nesting and non-nesting adult female population is estimated as 3,810 adult females in the northern subpopulation CTEWG 1998,2000). The northern popUlation, based on number of nests, has been classified as stable or declining (TEWG 2000). Another consideration adding to the vulnerability of the northern subpopulation is that NOAA Fisheries' scientists estimate that the northern subpopulation produces 65% males, while the south Florida subpopulation is estimated to produce 80% females (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). The southeastern U.S. nesting aggregation is of great importance on a global scale and is second in size only to the nesting aggregation on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman (Ross 1979, Ehrhart 1989, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991b). The global importance of the southeast U.S. nesting aggregation is especially significant because the status of the Oman colony has not been evaluated recently, but it is located in an area of the world where it is highly vulnerable to disruptive events such as political upheavals, wars, catastrophic Oil spills, and lack of strong protections (1\1eylan et al. 1995). 11
Ongoing threats to the western Atlantic populations include incidental takes from dredging, commercial trawling, longline fisheries, and gill net 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 The vast majority of green turtle nesting within the southeast United States occurs in Florida. In Florida from 1989-1999, green turtle abundance from nest counts ranges from 109-1,389 nesting females per year (Meylan et a1. 1995 and Florida Marine Research Institute Statewide Nesting 2001 Database, unpublished data; estimat!~s 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 sma1l 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 i;nmature 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, Yucatan, and Tortuguero. Trends at Florida beaches are presented above. Trends in nesting at Yucatan 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
The principal cause of past declines and extirpations of green turtle assemblages has been the over-exploitation of green turtles for food and other products. Although intentional take of green turtles and their eggs is not extensive within the southeast United States, green turtles that nest and forage in the region may spend large portions of their life history outside the region and outside United States' jurisdiction, where exploitation is still a threat. Adult green turtles and immatures are exploited heavily on foraging grounds off Nicaragua and to a lesser extent off Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and the Tortuguero nesting beach (Carr et a1. 1978, Nietschmann 1982, Bass et a1. 1998, Lagueux 1998). There are significant and ongoing threats to gret.n turtles from human-related causes. Threats to nesting beaches in the region include beach annoring, erosion control, artificial lighting, and disturbance, which can be expected to increase with time. Pollution is known to have both direct (ingestion of foreign materials such as tar balls and plastics) and indirect (degradation of foraging grounds) impacts 0n green sea turtles. Foraging habitat loss also occurs as a result of direct destruction by dredging, siltation, boat damage, and other human activities. Green turtles are often captured and occasionally killed by intf\ractions with fishing gear. Collisions with power boats and encounters with suction dredges have killed green turtles along the U.S. coast and may be common elsewhere where boating and tireclging activities are frequent (Florida Marine Research Institute, Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Database). Threats from increasing incidences of disea.;e, which mayor may not have some relation to human influences, are also a concern. The occurrence of green turtle fibropapillomatosis disease was originally reported in the 1930s, when it was thought to be rare (Smith and Coates 1938). Presently, this disease is. cosmopolitan and has been found tc affect large numbers of animals in some areas, including Hawaii and :florida (Herbst 1994, Jacobson 1990, Jacobson et a1. 1991). Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle L. kempii has a very restricted distribution relative to the other sea turtle species. Data suggests that adult Kemp's ridley turtles are restricted :ornewhat to the Gu1f of Mexico in shallow near shore waters, and benthic immature turtles of 20-60 cm straight line carapace length are found in nearshore coastal waters including estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, although adult-sized individuals sometimes are foun':! on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. The post-pelagic stages are commonly found dwelling over crab-rich sandy or muddy bottoms. Juveniles frequent bays, coastal lagoons, and river mouths. Of the seven extant species of sea turtles in the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the lowest population level. Most of the population of adult females nest on the Rancho Nuevo beaches (pritchard 1969). When nesting aggregations at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the early 1970s. the worid popUlation estimate of mature female Kemp's ridleys had 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 strandings. Increased production of hatchlings from the nesting beach beginning in 1966 resulted in an increase in benthic ridleys that leveled off in the late 1970s. A second period of increase 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 Instituto Nacional de Pesca to increase the nest protection and relocation program in 1978. A third period of steady increase, which has not leveled off to date, has occurred since 1990 and appears to be due to the greatly increased hatchling production and an apparent increase in of survival rates of immature turtles beginning in 1990, due in part to the introduction turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in the U.S. and Mexican shrimping fleets. Adult ridley numbers have now grown, as shown in nesting increases at the main nesting sites in Mexico. Nesting at Tamaulipas and Veracruz increased from a low of 702 nests in 1985, to 1,930 nests in 1995, to 6,277 nests in 2000 (USFWS 2000). The population model used by the TEWG (1998) projected that Kemp's ridleys could reach the intermediate recovery goal identified in the Recovery Plan, of 10,000 nesters by the year 2020 if the assumptions of age to sexual maturity and age specific 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. Mar:y threats to the future of the species remain, including interactions with fishery gear, marine pollution, foraging habitat destruction, illegal poaching of nests and potential threats to the nesting beaches from such sources as global climate change, development, and tourism pressures. Leatherback Sea Turtle Leatherbacks are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found in waters 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, exhibiting broad thermal tolerances (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1995). Genetic analyses of leatherbacks to date indicate that within the Atlantic basin significant genetic differences occur among St. Croix (U.S.V.I.) and mainland Caribbean populations (Florida, Costa Rica, SurinamefFrench 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 informvtion 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 a1. (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 a1. 1996). The Pacific population is in a critical state *of decline, now estimated to number less than 3,000 total adult and subadult animals (SpotiIa et a1. 2000). The status of the Atlantic population is less clear. In 1996, it was reported to be stable, at best (Spotila et a1. 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 a1. in 1996. 1 The nesting aggregation in French Guiana has been declining at about 15% per year since 1987. From 1979-1986, the number of nests was increasing 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 sinr;e 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 !oss of long-lived adults in fishery-related mortality (especially entanglement in gear and drowning in trawls), Rnd the lack of recruitment stemming from elimination of annual infl~xes 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 em 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 0 N to 30° 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 a1. 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, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo (Garduno-Andrade et a1. 1999). Important but significantly smaller nesting aggregations are documented elsewhere in the region in Puerto Rico, the U.S.V.I., 15
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-tenn 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 critic~i habitat for any species will be impacted. These five species are known to occur in the acti')n 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 alr~ady affecting the species, or that will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. Unrelated Federal actions affecting the same species or critical habitat that h<lve cl)mpleted formal or informal consultation are also part of the environmental base!in'!, as are Federal a'1d other actions within the action area that may benefit listed species or critical habitat. The environmental ba£eline for this Opinit:n i!lcludes the effects of several activities that affect the survival and recove.,), of threatened .md endangered specie~ 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, I' 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, and may travel widely through cut the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Therefore, individuals found in the action area can potentially be affected by activities anywhere else within this wide range. Federal Actions In recent years, NOAA Fisheries has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects of federally-pennitted fisheries and other Federal actions on threatened and endangered species. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability of adverse effects of the action on sea turtles. Similarly, recovery actions NOAA Fisheries has undertaken under the ESA are addressing the problem of take of sea turtles in the fishing and shipping industries. The following summary of anticipated sources of incidental take of turtles includes only those Federal actions which have undergone fonnal section 7 consultation. Potential adverse effects from Federal vessel operations in the action area and throughout the 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 Anny Corp's of Engineers (CDE). NOAA Fisheries has conducted fonnal consultations with the USCG, and the USN on their vessel operations. Through the section 7 process, where applicable, NOAA Fisheries has and will continue to establish conservation measures for all these agency vessel operations to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species. At the plesent time, however, they represent potential for some level of interaction. In addition to vessel operations, other military activities including training exercises and ordnance detonation also adversely affect sea turtles. Consultations on individual activities have been completed, but no f::>nnal consultation on overall USCG or USN activities in any region has been completed at this time. The construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels has also been identified as a source of turtle mortality. Hopper dredges move relatively rapidly (compared to sea turtle swimming speeds) and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag ann of the moving dredge overtakes the slower moving turtle. Regional biological opinions (RBOs) with corresponding ITSs have been issued to the COE for the southeast Atlantic waters and the Gulf of Mexico. Consultation is currently underway, on a new RBO for the CaE's Gulf of Mexico 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 l7
adversely affect sea turtles. Both of these agencies have consulted with NOAA Fisheries on these types of activities. Adverse effects on threatened and endangered species from several types of fishing gear occur in 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 documented as interacting with sea turtles. For all fisheries for which there is a Federal fishery management plan (FMP) or for which any Federal action is taken to manage that fishery, impacts have been evaluated under section 7. Several formal consultations have been conducted on the following fisheries that NOAA Fisheries has deterrninerl are likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species: American lobsler, monkfish, dogfish, southeastern shrimp trawl fishery, northeast multispecies, Atlantic pelagic swordfish/tuna/shark, and summer flounderlscuplblack sea bass fisheries. On June 14,2001, NOAA Fisheries issued a jeopardy opinion for the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) fisheries off the eastern United States. The H1v.lS Opinion found that the continued prosecution of the pelagic longline fishery in the manner described in the HMS FMP was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. This determination was made by analyzing the effects of the fishery on sea turtles in conjunction with the environmental baseline and cumulative effects. The environI11ental baseline section of the HMS Opinion is incorporated herein by reference and can be found at the following NOAA Fisheries website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/procres/readingrmlESAsec7IIllv1S060801final.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 season NOAA Fisheries implemented an observer program that observed 100% of the effort in the monkfish fishery, and then in 2002 a rule was enacted creating a seasonal monkfish gillnet closure along the Atlantic coast based upon sea surface temperature data and turtle migration patterns. In 2001, NOAA Fisheries also issued an ESA section 10 permit with mitigative measures for the southern flounder fishery. Subsequently, the sea turtle mortalities in these fisheries were drastically reduced. The reduction of turtle mortalities in these fisheries reduces 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 the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. The provisions of this RP A 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 leatherbacks by as much as 65%. Further, NOAA Fisheries is implementing a major research project to develop measures aimed at further reducing longline by-catch. The implementation of this RPA reduces the negative effects that the HMS fishery has on the environmental baseline. 18
The conclusions of the June 14,2001, HMS Opinion and the subsequent implementation of the RPA are hereby incorporated into the environmental baseline section of this Opinion. Another action with Federal oversight which has impacts on sea turtles is the operation of electrical generating plants. Sea turtles entering coastal or inshore areas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling-water systems of electrical generating plants. Biological opinions have already been written for a number of electrical generating plants, and others are currently undergoing section 7 consultation. State or Private Actions Commercial vessel traffic and recreational pu:-suits can have an adverse effect on sea turtles through propeller and boat strike damage. Private vessels participate in high speed marine events concentrated in the southeastern United States and are a pa.rticular threat to sea turtles, and occasionally to marine mammals as well. The magnitude of these marine events is not currently known. NOAA Fisherie8 and the USCG are in early consultation on these events, but a thorough analysis has not been completed. Various fishing methods used In state fisreries, including trawling, pot fisheries, fly nets, and gillnets are known to cause interactions with sea turtles. Georgia and South Carolina prohibit gillnets for all but the shad fishery. Florida has banned all but very small nets in state waters, as has Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have also placed restrictions on gillnet fisheries within state waters such that very little commercial gillnetting takes place in southeast waters, with the exception of North Carolina. Most pot fisheries in the Southeast are prosecuted in areas frequented by sea turtles. Strandings in the North Carolina area represent, at best, 7%-13% c,f the actual nearshore mortality (Epperly et a1. 1996). Studies by BE!SS et a1. (1998), Norrgard (1995), and Rankin-Baransky (1997) indicate that the percentage of northern loggerheads in this area is highly over-represented in the strandings when cc.mpa:e:i to the approximately 9% representation from this subpopulation in the overal~ U.S. sea turtle nesting populations. Specifically, the genetic 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 Yucatan subpopulation. The cumulative removal of these turtles on an annual basis would severely impact the recovery of this species. Other Potential Sources of Impacts in the Environmental Baseline A number of activities that may indirectly affect listed species include discharges from wastewater systems, dredging, ocean dumping and disposal, and aquaculture. The impacts from these activities are difficult to measure. Where possible, however, conservation actions are being implemented to monitor or study impacts from these elusive sources. 19
NOAA FIsheries and the USN have been working cooperatively to establish a policy for monitoring and managing acoustic impacts from anthropogenic sound sources in the marine environment. Acoustic impacts can include temporary or permanent injury, habitat exclusion, habituation, and disruption of other normal behavior patterns. Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline NOAA Fisheries implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of sea turtles in commercial fisheries. In particular, NOAA Fisheries has required the use of TEDs in southeast U.S. shrimp trawls since 1989 and in summer flounder trawls in the mid-Atlantic area (south of Cape Charles, Virginia) since 1992. It has been estimated that TEDs exclude 97% of the turtles caught in such trawls. These regulations have been refined over the years to ensure that TED effectiveness is maximized through proper placement and installation, configuration (e.g., width of bar spacing), floatation, and more widespread use. Recent analyses by Epperly and Teas (1999) indicate that the minimum requirements for the escape opening dimensions are too small, and that as many as 47% of the loggerheads stranding annually along the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico were too large to fIt through existing openings. On October 2,2001, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule to require larger escape openings in TEDs and is planning to publish a fmal rule in 2002. In 1993 (with a final rule implemented in 1995), NOAA Fisheries estabiisI-:ed a Leatherback Conservation Zone to restrict shrimp trawl activities from the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, to the North Carolina/Virginia border. This provides for short-term closures when high concentrations of normally pelagic-distributed leatherbacks are recorded in more coastal waters where the shrimp fleet operates. This measure is necessary because, due to their size, adult leatherbacks are larger than the escape openings of most NOAA Fisheries-approved TEDs. NOAA Fisheries is also working to develop a TED which can be effectively used in a type of trawl known as a fly net, which is sometimes used in the mid-Atlantic and northeast fisheries to target sciaenids and bluefish. Limited observer data indicate that takes can be quite high in this fishery. A prototype design has been developed, but testing under commercial conditions is still necessary. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has been active in public outreach efforts to educate fishermen regarding sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques. As well as making this information widely available to all fishermen, NOAA Fisheries recently conducted a number of workshops with longline fishermen to discuss bycatch issues including protected species, and to educate them regarding handling and release guidelines. NOAA Fisheries intends to continue these outreach efforts and hopes to reach all fishermen participating in the pelagic longline fishery over the next one to two years. There is also an extensive network of Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network participants along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico w:1ich not only collects data 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 dispositicn 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 drumatic 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 ridley. All sea turtles stranded at CREC were sub-adults with carapace lengths rang!ng from 21 em to 55 cm. There are no proven environmental factors that have caused this incre2se 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 ta.1.cen in 1999 was signifit::antly lower than 1998. A total of 9 live sea turtles were recoveree 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 turtier.; 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 gr~en 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, r followed by green and loggerhead turtles. These numbers exceeded the biennial ITS levels set in ! the June 1999 Opinion, which established an incidental take ievel 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 expected to make up a very small portion of this take (Jess than 1%). NOAA Fisheries does not expect leatherbacks or hawksbills to be part of the lethal take because of their rarity in the action area. V. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the effects of future state, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area considered in this biological opinion. Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Within the action area, major future changes are not anticipated in ongoing human activities described in the environmental baseline. The present, major human uses of the action area such as commercial fishing, recreational boating and fishing, and the transport of petroleum and other chemical products, are expected to continue at the present levels of intensity in the near future as are their associated risks of injury or mortality to sea turtles posed by incidental capture by fishermen, accidental oil spills, vessel collisions, marine debris, chemical discharges, and man-made noises. As discussed in Section III, however, listed species of turtbs migrate throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic and may be affected during their life cycles by non-Federal activities outside the action area. Beachfront development, lighting, and beach erosion control are all ongoing activities along the southeastern coast of the United State.;. These activities potentially reduce or degrade sea turtle nesting habitats or interfere with hatchling movement to sea. Nocturnal human activities along nesting beaches may also discourage sea turtles from nesting sites. The extent to which these activities reduce sea turtle nesting and hatchling production is unknown. However, more and more coastal counties have or are adopting more stringent protective measures to protect hatchling sea turtles from the disorienting effects of beach lighting. Some of these measures were drafted in response to law suits brought against the counties by concerned citizens who charged the counties with failing to uphold the ESA by allowing unregulated beach lighting which results in takes of hatchlings. State-regulated commercial and recreational boating and fishing activities in the Gulf of Mexico. off Citrus County waters currently result in the incidental take of threatened and endangered species. It is expected that states will continue to license/permit large vessel and thrill-craft operations which do not fall under the purvie;v of a Federal agency and will issue regulations that will affect fishery activities. Any increase in recreational vessel activity in inshore and offshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico will likely increase the risk of turtles taken by injury or mortality in vessel collisions. Recreational hook-and-line fisheries have been known to lethally take sea turtles, including Kemp's ridleys. Future cooperation between NOAA Fisheries and the states on these issues should help decrease take of sea turtles caused by recreational activities. NOAA Fisheries will continue to work with stat(;;s to develop ESA section 6 agreements and section 10 permits to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate these takes. 22
VI. Conclusion The annual live take, tagging, and release of 75 turtles (kemp's ridleys, greens, hawksbiIls, leatherbacks, and loggerheads) will not have an impact on turtles populations. The annual lethal take of 3 Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, or green sea turtles, or some combination of all three, represents a very small percentage of the total sea turtle take in the Southeast United States from such things as commercial fishing. As explained in this Opinion (in the environmental baseline and species description), nesting for these species has been increasing or remaining stable in the Southeast United States (except for the northern nesting population of loggerheads which has been stable and may be decreasing) in spite of the current amount of take. Therefore, after reviewing the current status of endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, and threatened loggerhead sea turtles; the environmental baseline; the effects of the proposed action; and the cumulative effects, it is NOAA Fisheries biological opinion that the implementation of the proposed action, as described in the Proposed Action section of this Opinion, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, or threatened loggerhead sea turtles. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the action area; therefore, none will be affected. VII. Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is d'!fined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is 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. The measures described below are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by the NRC so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply. The NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the NRC fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(0)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the NRC must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to NOAA Fisheries as specified in the incidental take statement. Amount or Extent of Anticipated Take Based on stranding records, incidental captures aboard commercial shrimp vessels, and historical 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 andlor 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, hawksbilIs, 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 sea turtles (turtles not killed as a result of plant operations) such as turtles with obvious signs of injury, such as prop scars, or disease. Effect of the Take NOAA Fisheries beJieves that the aforementioned level of anticipated annual take, over the next five years, is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and r~covery 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, N91\.A Fisheries determined that it does not expect activities associated with the proposed
,a'ttion, when added to ongoing activities affecting these species in the action area and cumulative
./ effects, to affect sea tJrtles iIi a way that reduces the number of animals bC'rn in a particular year
/ (i.e., a specific age-class), the reproductive success of adult ~ea turtles, or the number of young sea turtles that annually recruit into the adult breeding population.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures NOAA Fisheries beli~ves the following reasonable ana prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incic!.ental 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.57I) 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 CPR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is met or exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the NRC must immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation. 26
References Cited Audubon, 1.1. 1926. The Turtlers. Pp. 194-7.02 In: Delineations of American Scenery and Character, G.A. Baker and Co., N.Y. Balazs. G.B. 1982. Growth rates of immature gree~ turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago, p. 117
- 125. III KA. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Balazs, G.B. 1983. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at French Frigate Shoals, northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Tech. Memo. N1v1FS-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 Pc'lTllico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 137-138. Bjorndal, K.A., 1.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. Zoo1. 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 Ccnference, 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, FMRl. Dodd, C.K 1981. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (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 Caretta caretta (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. Barragan, and S.K Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of the leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). J. Zoo1. Lond 248:397-409. Eckert, S.A. and KL. Eckert. P. Ponganis. and O.L. Kooyman. 1989. DIving and foraging behavior of leatherback sea turtles (Dennoc/lelys coriacea). Can. J. Zool. 67:2834-2840. Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River Lagoon System. Florida Sci. 46: 337-346. Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. In Ogren, L., F. Berry, K Bjorndal, H. Kumpf. R. Mast, O. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum N1v1FS-SEFC-226: 122-139. Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1;>92. Oreen turtle. In P. E. Moler (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, VO:'ll1.e m. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida: 90-94. Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995a. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conserv. BioI. 9: 384-394. Epperly, S.P., 1. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995b. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93. 254-261. Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.T. Chester, F.A. Cross, I.V. Merriner, P.A. Tester, and I.H. Churchill. 1996. Beach str andu1gs as an hdic.~tor of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bull. Mar. Sci. 59: 289-297. Epperly, S.P. and W.O. Teas. 1999. Evalcation of TED opening dimensions relative to the size of turtles stranding in the \Vesterr: 11or.h Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08, 31 pp. Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington, Ky . . Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2001. Florida statewide nesting beach survey data. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Unpublished data. FPL (Florida Power & Light Co.) St. Lucie Plant. 2000. Annual environmental operating report 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 Queensiand 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 th 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. FibropapiIIomatosis in marine turtles. Annual Review ofFish Diseases 4: 389-425. Hildebrand, H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidaci6n de la tortuga "lora" LepidocheZys kempii (Garman), en Ia costa occidental del Golfo de Mex.ico (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 (!WC). 2001. Report of the Workshop on Status and Trends of the Western North Atlantic Right Whales. Journal ajCetacean 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.O. Pooley (eds.). Research Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-lS6: 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. Fernandez (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 I.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, I.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: 178-181. Magnuson, J.I., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W. Owens, p.e.H. Pritchard, J.r. 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. MaT1n, 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. Marquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue, Va!. 11. Sea turtles of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of s\!a turtle species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 125. 81 pp. Marquez, R., R. Byles, P. Burchfield, N. Thompson, M. Sanchez, J. Diaz, M. A. Carrasco, A.S. Leo, and C. Jimenez. 1995. The Recovery of the Kemp's ridley Gea 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 th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium, S. Epperly and J. Braun, Compilers. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-41S. 30
Mays, J.L., and Shaver, DJ. 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 De1iv~ry 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: 1-51. Morreale, SJ. and E.A. Standora. 1999. Vying for the same resources: potential conflict along migratory corridors. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-41S: 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. BjorndaJ (erJ.). 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 a::sessment 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, :i"la., SEFSC Contribution PRD-OO/01-08; Par.s I-ill and Appendices I-VI. NMFS and USFWS. 1991a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. l'TMFS and USFWS. 1991b. Recovery Plar for U.S. Popu'iation of Loggerhead Turtle. National Marine Fishenes Service, Washington, D.C. NMFS and USFWS. 1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback TUItJes in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for HawksbiH 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
Norrgard, J. 1995. Determination of stock composition and natal origin of a juvenile loggerhead turtle population (Caretta caretta) 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 results from 1984-1987 surveys, pp. 116-123 in: Caillouet, C.W. and A.M. Landry (eds), FIrSt IntI. Symp. on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle BioI, Conserv. and Management. Texas A&M Univ., Galveston, Tex., Oct. 1-4, 1985, TAMV-SG-89-105. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Fla. State Mus. 13(2): 1-139. Rankin-Baransky, K.C. 1997. Origin of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the western north 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 kempil), Journal of Herpetology 29: 370-374. Ross, J.P. 1979. Historical decline ofloggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea ~urtles, pp. 189-195. In: Bjorndal, K.A. (editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, W~shington, D.C. Schrr.id, J.R. and W.N. Witzel!. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii): cumulative results 'Jf tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian Conserv. BioI. 2: 532 - 537. Schroeder, B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Population studies of marine turtles in Florida Bay. In J.1. 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. Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, B.E. Witherington, and A.E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology of marine turtles in Florida Bay: Population structure, distribution, and OCCUIT'!nce of fibropapilloma. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 265-267. Schultz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Ver:,aridelingen (Leiden), Number 143: 172 pp. Sears, C.J. 1994. Preliminary genetic analysis of the population structure of Georgia loggerhead sea turtles. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFSC-351: 135-139. 32}}