ML20195D630
| ML20195D630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1999 |
| From: | Diazsoltero H COMMERCE, DEPT. OF, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE |
| To: | Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906100011 | |
| Download: ML20195D630 (39) | |
Text
f' l
UNITED CTATE3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC]
National Oceanio and Atmospherio Administ, ~*rion
' ~
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE e,w Silver Spnng, Maryland 20910
- ~r eqt. &
APR 3 01999 Ac7, o'a Mr. Jack W. Roe Division of Reactor Program Management gcr' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation gp , J/g jfg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Roe:
This document transmits the enclosed National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion (BO) based on our review of the continued use of the cooling water intake system at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) located in Brunswick County, North Carolina. BSEP is on the Cape Fear River Estuary.
This BO reviews the efferts of this activity on loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles. It also reviews the effects of this activity on the shortnose sturgeon. This BO is prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This BO is based on information provided in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) biological assessment dated December 1997 and two meetings among NMFS, NRC, and BSEP personnel held in August 1997 and May 1998. The biological assessment analyzed the impacts to sea turtles caused by operations at Carolina Power and Light Company's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NMFS Southeast Regional Office.
We look forward to further cooperation with you on other NRC activities to ensure the conservation and recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species.
Sincerely, y
/
/ -
t ,
Hild
- Director iaz- 1 ero [g{b V
Office of Protected Resources Enclosure 9906100011 990430 I PDR ADOCK 05000324 i p PDR s L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u
Endangered' Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Activity: Operation of the Cooling Water Intake System at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power and Light Company Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region Date Issued: )O /977
/
3
/
/ e
This document transmits the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion (BO) based on our review of the continued use of the cooling water intake system at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) located in Brunswick County, North Carolina. BSEP is on the Cape Fear River Estuary. This BO reviews the effects of this activity on' loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles. It also reviews the effects of this activity on the shortnose sturgeon.
This BO is prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This biological opinion is based on information provided in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) biological assessment dated December 1997 and two meetings'among NMFS, NRC, and BSEP personnel held in August 1997 and May 1998. The biological assessment analyzed the impacts to sea turtles caused by operations at Carolina Power and Light Company's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. .A' complete administrative record of this l cor.sultation is on file at the NMFS Southeast Regional Office.
I. History of the Consultation Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) has been monitoring sea turtle take in its cooling water intake canal since 1986. The operation of the cooling water intake system at BSEP has resulted
)
l 4
~
T l
l-L in 123 incidental takes of sea turtles from 1986 through 1996; of these' 22 have been lethal. As a result of these takings, l -Nuclear. Regulatory. Commission (NRC) and BSEP personnel met with l
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office (NMFS.
' SERO)-and NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) personnel on, August 12, 1997 to discuss section 7 consultation-requirements"for the cooling water intake system at BSEP. NRC submitted a biological assessment and request for formal consultation to NMFS SERO on March 9, 1998. The biological assessment concluded that listed species of sea turtles are
'likely to be adversely affected by the cooling water intake
. system, and suggested that these effects would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed sea turtles. NMFS requested a meeting at BSEP to gather additional.information on the operation of the cooling water intake system; this meeting was held in May 1998. Following review of this information, formal consultation was initiated in May 1998.
II. Description of the Proposed Action Action Area The BSEP is located in Brunswick County, near Southport, North Carolina on the Cape Fear River estuary. BSEP is comprised of two nuclear fueled units: Unit 1 began commercial operation in-1975 and Unit 2 began commercial operations in 1977. BSEP operates in a once-through. cooling mode by withdrawing water from the Cape Fear River through a three-mile-long intake canal. The intake canal is approximately 300 ft wide, 18 ft deep and located approximately 6 miles north of the' mouth of the Cape Fear River.
It is separated from the river by a diversion structure. The water from the intake canal is passed through the plant's condensers, sent through a six-mile-long discharge canal, pumped 2,000 ft offshore through subaqueous pipes, and then is discharged into the Atlantic Ocean at a depth lof 18 ft The two nuclear units operate independently, but share a common intake and discharge canal. Approximately 1.5 billion gallons of water pass through the plant each day when both units are operating.
At each' unit, trash racks and traveling screens collect and remove debris and aquatic organisms prior to the water entering the plant through the intake structure. The action area consists of the. intake canal, a diversion structure and the area immediately.riverward of the structure, the trash racks and )
. traveling screens, and the discharge system. !
. l
- l u_ i
Proposed Action
'BSEP constructed a permanent diversion structure at the mouth of the intake canal in 1982. This structure is intended to reduce the numbers of large fish, shellfish and marine debris entering the canal. The diversion structure consists of 37 bays with a total of 134 panels of screens made of a copper-nickel alloy with a mesh size of 3/8 x 5/8 inches. It is V-shaped to. increase screen area and to reduce approach-flow velocity. The intake canal at the diversion structure varies from a depth of approximately 18 ft at its center to about 4 ft at the end bays on either side. The screen panels are designed to release from their frames under high debris load to prevent overall damage to I
the diversion structure. Each screen release creates an opening of about 2 x 4 to 3 x 4 ft These screen releases have allowed turtles to enter the intake canal. BSEP has full time staff to maintain the diversion structure. The structure is generally inspected-and maintained (cleaned) daily; blowouts are repaired during daily inspections. Since July 1997, BSEP has experimented with fixed 6 inch blocker panels on the diversion structure to )'
further decrease turtle entrapment.
BSEP conducts daily sea turtle patrols at low tide during late April through August. During the inspections at the intake structure, each trash rack is closely inspected for signs of sea turtle stranding and the area around the intake structure is l
observed for 30 to 60 minutes for sea turtle surfacing. The area i
around the diversion structure is observed for 30 to 60 minutes daily, April _through August, for turtle surfacing. If turtles get into the intake canal, BSEP has a set plan to capture and return them to the Atlantic Ocean. If a turtle is located near i the plant intake structure, it is capturt.i using a 200 ft net i that l's 22 ft deep. The net is deployed from boats. If a turtle is sighted near the diversion structure a 300 ft, 22 ft deep net (this net may be used at both locations) is deployed from boats l 1
upstream from the diversion structure. Once the net is deployed it is monitored at all times. When a turtle is snared in the net it is quickly removed from the water. It is then tagged, photographed, and a turtle stranding report is completed. The l turtle is released into the Atlantic Ocean at Yaupon Beach, North
' Carolina, 6 miles south of the plant.
i l III. Status of Listed Specisa and Critical Habitat The following endungered and threatened sea turtle and fish :
species are under the jurisdiction of NMFS and are known to occur '
in the Cape Fear River Estuary region:
3 e
~
Common Name Scientific Name Status
-Sea Turtles Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta T Green turtle Chelonia mydas E/T*
Leatherback- turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempli E Fish Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E
- Green turtics 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.
Sea Turtles Loggerhead _ Turtle (Caretta caretta)
The threatened loggerhead is the most abundant species of sea turtle in U.S. waters, commonly occurring throughout the inner continental shelf from Florida through Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
The loggerhead's winter and early spring range is generally south of 37 00' N in estuarine rivers, coastal bays, and shelf waters of the southeaatern United States. Loggerheads move northward and enter northeast coastal embayments as water temperatures approach 20 C (Burke et al., 1989, Musick et al., 1984) to feed on benthic invertebrates, leaving the northern embayments in the fall when water temperaturec drop. This is supported by the recent work of Morreale and Standorn (1998) who tracked 12 loggerheads and 3 kemp's ridleys by satellite. All of the turtles tracked similar spatial and temporal corridors, migrating south from Long Island Sound, NY, in a time period of October through December. Thu turtles traveled within a. narrow band along the continental shelf and became sedentary for one t0 two months south of Cape Hatteras. Some of the turtles lingered between Cape Lookout Shoals and Frying Pan Shoals offshore of Wilmington, North Caroljna prior to moving south or into the Gulf Stream.
l The activity of the loggerhead is limited by temperature.
l Keinath et al. (1987) observed sea turtle emigration from the i Chesapeake Bay when water temperatures cooled to below 18 C, f generally in November. Loggerhead turtles, however, have been seen in New York waters for extended periods at temperatures as i
4
- c. a
i low as 8 C (NM FS , 1995b). . Surveys conducted offshore and sea turtle strandings.during November and December off North Carolina suggest that sea turtles emigrating from northern waters in fall and winter months may concentrate in nearshore and southerly areas influenced by warmer Gulf stream waters (Epperly et al.,
1995). j l
Aerial surveys of loggerhead turtles at sea, north of Cape Hatteras indicate that they are most common in waters from 22 to 49m deep, although they range from the beach to waters beyond the continental shelf (Shoop and Kenney, 1992). There is no information regarding the activity of these offshore turtles. t l
Pursuant to a November 1994 Biological opinion on the continued I operation of the shrimp fishery in the southeastern United States, NMFS selected an Expert Working Group (EWG) consisting of 3 population biologists, sea turtle biologists and state and federal managers to consider the best available information to formulate population estimates for sea turtles affected by human activities in the NMFS Southeast Region. The EWG focused on determining population estimates for Kemp's ridley and loggerhead l sea turtles. Draft reports by the EWG, entitled "Kemp's ridley j (Lepidochelys kem.pli) Sea Turtle Status Report," dated June 28, ,
1996 and the " Status of the Loggerhead Turtle Population (Caretta j caretta) in the Western North Atlantic," dated July 1, 1996 were l submitted to NMFS in early July. New information or conclusions provided within these reports are summarized very briefly below, !
and the reports are incorporated by reference.
l The EWG identified four nesting subpopulations of loggerheads in the western North Atlantic (there is a possibility that all four could be found in the Action Area): (1) the northern subpopulation producing approximately 6,200 nests / year from North ,
Carolina to Northeast Florida; (2) the south Florida subpopulation occurring from just north of Cape Canaveral on the east coast of Florida and extending up to Naples on the west coast, (3) the Florida Panhandle subpopulation, occurring at 1 Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City and producing approximately 450 nests / year; and (4) the Yucatan subpopulation occurring on the northern and eastern Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico and producing approximately 1,500-2,000 nests / year.
Genetic analyses of benthic immature loggerheads collected from Atlantic foraging grounds identify a mix of the east coast subpopulations that is disproportionate to the number of hatchlings produced in these nesting assemblages. Although the northern nesting subpopulation produces only approximately 9% of 5
- 6. .
the: loggerhead nests ~ loggerheads on foraging grounds-from the Chesapeake Bay to Georgia areEnearly equally. divided:in origin between the~two,subpopulations (Sears,11994; Sears et al. ,1995; Norrgard, 1995). Lof equal-: interest, 57% of the immature.
loggerheads' sampled incthe Mediterranean were from the south FloridaLsubpopulation, while only 43% were from~the local Mediterranean nesting' beaches (Laurent'et"al., 1993; Bowen, 1995). Genetic work has.not-yet been done on. nesting or foraging loggerheads in the Gulf of Mexico.
-The EWG considered nesting data' collected.from index nesting beachesito index the population _ size of loggerheads and to
~
consider trends in the size-of.the" population. They constructed i
-total estimates by considering a ratio between nesting data (and.
~
ass'ociated estimated number of. adult females and therefore. adults' I in nearshore waters), proportion ~of adults represented in the strandings, and in one-method,' aerial survey estimates.- These two methods indicated _that for the 1989-1995/ period, there were averages of 224,321 or 234,'355 benthic loggerheads respectively.
The EWG listed the methods and assumptions in their report, and suggested that these numbere are likely underestimates. Aerial survey results'suggest that' loggerheads in U.S. waters are distributed ~1n the following' proportions: 54% in the southeast U.S. Atlantic, 29% in'the' northeast U.S. Atlantic,_12% in the-eastern-Gulf of Mexico, and 5% in the western Gulf of Mexico, i' .
The EWG co'nsidered long-term index' nesting beach datasets when available to identify trends in the;1oggerhead population.-
Overall, they determined that trends could be identified for two l'oggerhead subpopulations.: The northern subpopulation appears to ;
' be stabilizing after a period of decline; the south Florida i subpopulation appears'to have shown significant increases over the last 25 years suggesting.the population is recovering,.
although the trend could.not be detected over the most recent 7 j jears'of nesting. An increase in the numbers of adult loggerheads hasibeen reported in recent years in Florida waters-without-a concomitant-increase in benthic immatures. These data
~
may forecast limited recruitment to south Florida nesting beaches ;
in.the future. Since loggerheads take approximately 20-30 years ,
to mature,.the effects of' decline in immature loggerheads might !
_not>be' apparent on nesting. beaches for decades. Therefore, the i EWG cautions against considering trends in nesting too -j g optimistically.
Briefly, the EWG made a number of conclusions regarding the loggerhead. population. They concluded that four distinct nesting populations exist based on genetic evidence, although separate !
management is not possible because of insufficient information on C '
the in-water distribution of each subpopulation. They concluded that the recovery goal of more than 12,800 nests for the northern 6
m
subpopulation was not likely to be met. Currently, nests number about 6,200 and no perceptible increase has been documented. The recovery goal or " measurable increases" for the South Florida subpopulation (south of Canaveral and including southwest Florida) appears to have been met, and this population appears to be stable or increasing. However, index nesting surveys have been done for too short a time, therefore it is difficult to evaluate trends throughout the region. Recovery rates for the entire subpopulation cannot be determined with certainty at this time. However, caution is warranted because, although nesting activity has been increasing, catches of benthic immature turtles at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant intake canal, which acts as a passive turtle collector on Florida's east coast, have not been increasing. The EWG recommended establishing index nest survey areas in the Gulf of Mexico to monitor those populations, which do not currently have recovery goals assigned to them.
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Green turtles are distributed circumglobally, mainly in waters between the northern and southern 20 C isotherms (Hirth, 1971).
In the western Atlantic, several major nesting assemblages have been identified and studied. Most green turtle nesting in the continental United States occurs on the Atlantic Coast of Florida (Ehrhart, 1979). Green turtle nesting numbers show biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally positive trend during the six years of regular monitoring since establishment of the index beaches in 1989.
While nesting activity is obviously important in determining population distributions, the remaining portion of the green turtle's life is spent on nearshore foraging grounds. Some of the principal feeding pastures in the western Atlantic Ocean include Florida, the northwestern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, the south coast of Cuba, the Miskito Coast of Nicaragua, the Caribbean Coast of Panama, and scattered areas along Colombia and Brazil (Hirth, 1971). Evidence provided by Mendonca and Ehrhart (1982) indicates that immature green turtles may utilize estuarine systems during periods of their lives. These authors identified a population of young green turtles (carapace length 29.5-75.4 cm) believed to be resident in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. The Indian River system, of which Mosquito Lagoon is a part, supported a green turtle fishery during the late 1800s (Ehrhart, 1983), and these turtles may be remnants of this historical colony. Additional juvenile green turtles occur north to Long Island Sound, presumably foraging in coastal embayments.
In North Carolina, green turtles occur in estuarine and oceanic waters (Epperly et al., 1995), but nesting is minimal with 7
generally less than five nests reported each year.
Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
The Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea)
.contains a description of the natural history rid taxonomy of this species (USFWS and NMFS, 1992b). Leatherbacis are widely distributed but are predominantly pelagic, feeding primarily on jellyfish such as Stomolophus, Chryaora, and Aurelia (Rebel, 1974).
The status of the leatherback population is the most difficult to assess since major nesting beaches occur over broad areas within tropical waters outside the United States. The primary leatherback nesting beaches occur in French Guiana and Suriname in the western Atlantic and in Mexico in the eastern Pacific.
Although increased observer effort on some nesting beaches has resulted in increased reports of leatherback nesting, declines in nest abundance have been reported from the beaches of greatest nesting densities. At Mexiquillo, Michoacan, Mexico, Sarti et al. (1996) reported an average annual decline in leatherback nesting of about 23% between 1984 and 1996. The total number of females nesting on the Pacific coast of Mexico during the 1995-1996 season was estimated at fewer than 1,000. The major western Atlantic nesting area for leatherbacks is located in the Suriname-French Guiana trans-boundary region. Chevalier and Girondot (1998) report that combined nesting in the two countries has been declining since 1992. Some nesting occurs on Florida's east coast, although nests are likely under-reported because surveys are not conducted during the entire period that leatherbacks may nest. Nesting on Hatteras Island, North Carolina, was reported in 1998, with 3 crawls and 2 confirmed nests (Ruth Boettcher, North Carolina Sea Turtle Coordinator (NCSTC), personal communication). Based on a photograph, a crawl in has also been reported on Asseateague Island, Virginia, in 1996, but no nest was found (Shanan Ramsey, U.S. Park Service, personal communication). In the eastern Caribbean, nesting occurs primarily in the Dominican Republic, the Virgin Islands, and on islands near Puerto Rico. Sandy Point, on the western edge of St. Croix, Virgin Islands, has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as critical habitat for nesting leatherback turtles. Anecdotal information suggests nesting has declined at Caribbean beaches over the last several decades (NMFS and USFWS, 1995).
Leatherbacks are the largest of sea turtles, and are able to maintain body temperatures several degrees above ambient i temperatures, likely by virtue of their size, insulating 8
I subdermal fat, and an arrangement of blood vessels in the skin L andiflippers.that enables retention of heat generated during <
l ' swimming (Paladino et al., 1990). Although their tolerance of l l low temperatures is greater than for other sea turtles, I leatherbacks are generally absent from temperate Atlantic waters in winter and spring. Stranding patterns suggest that
-leatherbacks move north along the coast with increasing water temperatures.
Periodically, large numbers of leatherback strandings occur from northern ~ Florida-in-January and February, through North Carolina !
'in May. Aerial surveys conducted during stranding events l confirmed the' abundance of leatherback turtles. Two separate i studies, one involving aerial surveys for right whales off Georgia and northern Florida (Kraus and Knowlton, pers. comm.) !
and the other involving public reporting of leatherback sightings 1 off North Carolina (Braun and Epperly, unpublished) illustrate I peaks in May-of leatherback abundance in~nearshore waters.
Hawksbill turtle (Kretmochelys imbricata)
-The hawksbill turtle is relatively uncommon in the waters of the continental United States. 'Hawksbills prefer coral reefs, such ,
as those found in the Caribbean and Central America.
Hawksbills feed primarily on a wide variety of sponges but also consume bryozoans, coelenterates, and mollusks. Known important foraging habitats in U.S. waters are confined to the Caribbean. l Nesting areas in the western North Atlantic include Puerto Rico i and the Virgin Islands, i 1
In the Atlantic, small hawksbills have stranded as far north as
-Cape Cod, Massachusetts (STSSN database, 1990). Many of these
'strandings were observed after hurricanes or offshore storms.
Although there have been no reports of hawksbills in the Chesapeake Bay, one has been observed taken incidentally in a fishery just south of the Bay (Anon, 1992).
I Researchers believe that hawksbills occurring in U.S. waters are
.from populations that are depleted but are no longer declining (NMFS, 1995). Habitat loss, fisheries, and continued exploitation are all identified as factors preventing recovery. l Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kamp11)
Of the seven. extant species of sea turtles of the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the lowest population level. The Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempil) (USFWS and NMFS, 1992b) contains a description of the 9
L m
m i
i natural history, taxonomy, and distribution of the Kemp's or l
Atlantic ridley turtle. Kemp's ridleys nest in daytime aggregations known as.arribadas, primarily at Rancho Nuevo, a stretch of beach in Mexico. Most of the population of adult females nest in this single locality (Pritchard, 1969). When 1 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 1970's, the world population estimate of mature female Kemp's ridleys had.
been reduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals. The population declined further through the mid-1980's. Recent observations of increased nesting, discussed below, suggest that the decline in the ridley population has stopped, and there is cautious optimism that the !
population is now increasing. J Adult Kemp's ridleys are found primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. .
Adult females nest in daytime aggregations known as arribadas, primarily at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. Most of the population of i adult females nest in this single locality (Pritchard, 1969). '
Ridley hatchlings leave the nesting beach and are not seen again until they reach ovt- 20 cm in length, when they are found in the northern Gulf of Me- :o and the embayments along the eastern Atlantic seaboard < far north as Cape Cod Bay. Nothing is known about the specific evements of hatchling Kemp's ridley turtles, )
although it is bell. red that they may be controlled by current patterns: either the loop current for northward transport or an .
eddy for southward transport with occasional transportation through the Florida Straits via the Gulf Stream system (Hildebrand, 1982). Pritchard and Marquez (1973) suggest that passive transportation via the Gulf Stream up the eastern coast of the United States may be the usual dispersal pattern of young Kemp's ridley turtles. It is widely believed that hatchlings inhabit and forage in Sargassum rafts that occur at fronts and eddies (Carr, 1987). However, some authors have observed that Sargassum may be used for resting only, since ample food is available throughout the water column, where the likelihood of aggregated predators may be lower (Collard, 1990).
Pritchard and Marquez (1973) speculated that ridleys feed and grow rapidly during passive transport, and by the time they reach offshore waters of New England are large enough for active swimming. However, Morreale et al. (1992) hypothesize that parsive drifting would result in only sporadic occurrence of riuleys in the northeast United States and that the observed annual occurrence suggests some alternative mechanism.
Regardless of the mechanism, small juvenile ridleys enter l Atlantic coastal embayments in the summer, when water
! temperatures approach 20 C (Burke et al., 1989, Musick et al., 1 10
1964) and become benthic feeders. Ridleys leave the northern embayments in the fall, when water temperatures cool (Burke et al., 1991). Morraale et al. (1992), give evidence for directed movements of Kemp's ridleys south, out of northeastern coastal waters, Las temperatures drop below 14 C, generally in late October (Morreale, pers. comm.). Keinath et al. (1987) observed sea turtle emigration from the Chesapeake Bay when waters dropped below 18 C in November. High Kemp's ridley mortality during November and December in some years associated with the summer flounder fishery off North Carolina suggest that sea turtles emigrating from northern waters in fall and winter months may concentrate in.nearshore and southerly areas influenced by warmer Gulf stream waters (Epperly et al., 1995).
In recent years, unprecedented numbers of Kemp's ridley carcasses have been reported from Texas and Louisiana beaches during periods of high levels of shrimping effort. Analyses conducted by the EWG have indicated that the Kemp's ridley population is in the early stages of recovery; however, strandings in some years have increased at rates higher than the rate of increase in the Kemp's population (Expert Working Group, June 1996). While many of the stranded turtles observed in recent years in Texas and Louisiana are believed to have been incidentally taken in the shrimp fishery, other sources of mortality exist in these waters.
These stranding events illustrate the vulnerability of Kemp's ridley and loggerhead turtles to the impacts of human activities in nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters.
The EWG focused on determining population estimates for Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles, the species of greatest concern in the Gulf of Mexico due to high historical incidental take levels in the shrimp fishery. Internal reports submitted by the EWG, entitled "Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempff) Sea Turtle Status Report" dated June 28, 1996 and the " Status of the Loggerhead Turtle Population (Caretta caretta) in the Western North Atlantic" dated July 1, 1996 were submitted in early July of 1996.
The EWG developed a population model to evaluate trends in the Kemp's ridley population through the application of empirical data and life history parameter estimates chosen by the EWG.
Model results identified three trends in benthic immature Kemp's ridleys. Benthic immatures are those turtles that are not yet reproductively mature but have recruited to feed in the nearshore benthic environment, where they are available to nearshore mortality sources that often result in strandings. Benthic immature ridleys are estimated to be 2-9 years of age and 20-60 cm in length. Increased production of hatchlings from the 11 I
L
m nesting beach beginning in 1966 resulted in an increase in benthic ridleys.that leveled off in the late 1970's. 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 USFWS and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Pesca (INP) 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 survival-rates of immature turtles beginning in 1990 due, in part, to the introduction of TEDS.
The EWG was unable to estimate the total population size and current mortality rates for the Kemp's ridley population.
However, they listed a number of preliminary conclusions. They indicated that the Kemp's ridley population appears to be in the early stage of exponential expansion. Over the period 1987 to 1995, the rate of increase in the annual number of nests accelerated in a trend that would continue with enhanced hatchling' production and the use of turtle excluder devices.
Nesting data indicated that the number of adults declined from a population that produced 6,000 nests in 1966 to a population that produced 924 nests in 1978 and a low of 702 nests in 1985. This trajectory of adult abundance tracks trends in nest abundance from an estimate of 9,600 in 1966 to 1,050 in 1985. The EWG estimated that in 1995 there were 3,000 adult ridleys. The increased recruitment of new adults is illustrated in the proportion of neophyte, or first time nesters, which has increased from 6% to 28% from 1981 to 1989 and from 23% to 41%
from 1990 to 1994. The EWG's population model 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-plugged into their model are correct.
They determined that the data they reviewed suggested that adult Kemp's ridley turtles were restricted somewhat to the Gulf 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.
The EWG identified an average Kemp's ridley population growth rate of 13% per year between 1991 and 1995. Total nest numbers have. continued to increase. However, the 1996 and 1997 nest numbers reflected a slower rate of growth, while the increase in the 1998 nesting level has been much higher. The population growth rate does not appear as steady as originally forecasted by the EWG, but annual fluctuations, due in part to irregular 12
~
' interesting periods, are normal for other sea turtle populations.
The area surveyed for ridley nests in Mexico was expanded in 1990
'due to destruction of'the primary nesting beach by Hurricane Gilbert. :The'EWG assumed that the increased nesting observed
.particularly since 1990 was a.true increase, rather than the result of expanded beach coverage. Because systematic surveys of' the adjacent beaches ~were not conducted prior to 1990, there'is no'way'to determine what proportion of the nesting increase documented since that time is due to the increased. survey effort rather than :an expanding ridley nesting range. As noted by the EWG, trends in Kemp's ridley nesting even on the Rancho Nuevo beaches alone suggest that recovery of this population has begun but. continued caution is necessary:to ensure recovery and to meet the goals identified in the Kemp's Ridley Recovery Plan.
Fish Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
The December 1998 Final Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan (NMFS, 1998a), gives the current,~best available information on the distribution and abundance of shortnose sturgeon.. South of the Chesapeake Bay, there is inadequate information to estimate the shortnose sturgeon population size in most rivers.
i
~ Generally in southern rivers, adult sturgeon remain in estuaries i and at.the interface of salt.and freshwater until late winter, ,
when they move upriver to spawn. Embryos produced tend to remain 1 in-areas of irregular bottom,.where they-appear to seek cover.
Juveniles,'like adults, occur primarily at the interface between salt and freshwater. Recent observations suggest that salini,ty )
levels greater then 7 ppt are harmful (Smith et al . , 1992) . In !
the' Savannah River, shortnose sturgeon are found over sand / mud substrate in 10-14 m. depths (Hall et al., 1991). Spawning I occurs in upstream channels of the Savannah, where the substrate j consists of gravel, sand and logs (Hall et al., 1991). Shortnose ;
sturgeon feed on crustaceans, insect larvae, and molluscs (NMFS, 1995).
Although genetic variation within and among shortnose sturgeon occurring in different river systems is not known, life history studies' indicate that the shortnose sturgeon populations from different river systems are substantially reproductively isolated (Kynard, 1997) and, therefore, should be considered discrete.
Based on the biological and ecological differences, NMFS recognizes 20 distinct population segments of the shortnose sturgeon inhabiting 25 river systems ranging from Saint Johns 13
R 1 1
4 River <in New Brunswick, Canada, to the Saint Johns River, Florida )
(NMFS, 1998b)'. l The~ range:of the shortnose sturgeon brings it into direct j conflict with human activity. Activities such as commercial.and
~
j
, recreational fishing, bridge construction, . contaminants, dams, j l reduction of dissolved oxygen due~to industry, dredging activities,' reservoir. operations, and cooling water intakes at
. power plants have had significant negative impacts to the species along'its whole range: including the Cape Fear River.
Direct harvest of shortnose sturgeon is prohibited by the ESA; however, .shortnose' sturgeon are taken incidentally to' commercial and recreational fishing. They'are also targeted by poachers "
-(Dadswell, 1979; Dovel et al. , ' 1992;. . Collins et al. ,1996) .
Collins:et al. (1996) reported that the shad gillnet fishery l l accounted for 83% (n=10) of the shortnose sturgeon takes in the L Georgia coastal. fishery.. In the. Saint John's River estuary, shortnose sturgeon are taken incidentally in shad,' salmon, J
striped bass, and alewife fisheries. In most cases the fish are returned to the river' unharmed (NMFS, 1998a). Moser and Ross y (1993) found that captures of shortnose sturgeon in commercial I shad nets disrupted spawning' migrations in the Cape Fear River, and Weber (1996) reported ~that these incidental captures caused L
abandonment of spawning migrations in the ogeechee River,
l D Bridge construction.and. demolition projects may interfere with normal shortnose sturgeon migratory movements and disturb sturgeon concentration areas (NMFS, 1998a). During bridge construction upstream of sturgeon spawning habitat in the Connecticut River, concerns were raised that fine sediment
_ emanating from the construction site might build up in the downstream spawning site and impair egg survival. In that ;
instance, concerns abated after it was demonstrated that fine sediments are cleanly dislodged from the. spawning site duringgthe high spring flood (NMFS, 1998a). Bridge demolition may include plans for blasting piers with powerful explosives. Unless appropriate precautions are made to mitigate the potentially i harmful effects.of shock wave transmission to physostomous (i.e., l
! air-bladder connected'to the gut) fish like the shortnose sturgeon, internal damage and/or death may occur (NMFS,-1998a).
Contaminants, including toxic metals, polychlorinated aromatic
- hydrocarbons . (PAHs) , pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can have substantial deleterious effects on aquatic life including production of acute lesions, growth retardation, and reproductive-impairment (Cooper, 1989; Sindermann, 1994).
1 14 l
i-l
Ultimately, toxins introduced to the water column become associated with the benthos and can be particularly harmful to benthic organisms like sturgeon. Heavy metals and organochlorine compounds are known to accumulate in fat tissues of sturgeon, but l their long term effects are not yet known (NMFS, 1998a). l Available data suggest that early' life stages of fish are more ;
susceptible to environmental and pollutant stress than older life stages ~(Rosenthal and Alderdice, 1976).
Hydroelectric power operations (dams) may affect shortnose sturgeon by restricting habitat, altering river flows or temperatures necessary for successful spawning and/or migration, and causing mortalities to fish that become entrained in )
turbines. In.all but one of the rivers supporting sturgeon l
populations, the first dam on the river marks the upstream limit l of the shortnose sturgeon population range (Kynard, 1997). An l inability to move upstream and use potentially beneficial i habitats may restrict population growth (NMFS, 1998a). Since sturgeon require adequate river flows and water temperatures for spawning, any alterations that dam operations pose on a river's
)
1 l
flow pattern, including increased or decreased discharges, can be i detrimental to sturgeon reproductive success (NMFS, 1998a).
Maintenance dredging of federal navigational channels can adversely affect or jeopardize shortnosa sturgeon populations. 1 In particular, hydraulic dredges can lethally harm sturgeon by entraining them in dredge dragarms and impeller pumps (NMFS, l 1998a). In' addition to direct effects, dredging operations may '
also impact shortnose sturgeon by destroying benthic feeding i areas, disrupting spawning migrations, and filling spawning habitat with resuspended fine sediments. Other dredging methods l may also adversely affect sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon were killed in both hydraulic pipeline and bucket-and-barge operations in the Cape Fear River (NMFS, 1998a). Two shortnose sturgeon carcasses were discovered in a dredge spoil near Tullytown, Pennsylvania and apparently killed by a hydraulic pipeline dredge l operating in the Delaware River in March 1996 (NMFS, 1998a). In early 1998, three shortnose sturgeon were killed by a hydraulic pipeline dredge operating in the Florence to Trenton section of l the upper Delaware River (NMFS, 1998a).
1 The COE's operation of reservoirs in major rivers may impact sturgeon by altering natural river flow rate and volume (NMFS, 1998a). Unplanned but controlled reservoir releases can diminish or_ reduce sturgeon spawning success by artificially extending
, high flow periods during the time when water temperatures reach l ideal ranges for spawning (NMFS, 1998a).
Shortnose sturgeon are susceptible to impingement on cooling water intake screens. Documented mortalities of sturgeon have 15 L
.j occurred in the Delaware, Hudson, Connecticut, Savannah and
-Santee Rivers. Between 1969 and 1979, 39 shortnose sturgeon were
, impinged at power plants-in the Hudson River (Hoff and Klauda,
- 1979). Approximately 160 shortnose sturgeon were estimated to be impinged on intake screens at the Albany Steam Generating Station between Oct.1982 and Sept.1983 (NMFS, 1998a)'. Eight shortnose sturgeon were discovered on the intake trash. bars of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station in the Delaware River between June 1978 and.Nov.1992 (NMFS, 1998a). The operation of power plan *3 can also have unforeseen and extremely detrimental impacts to water quality in areas where listed species occur. The St. Stephen Power Plant near Lake Moultrie, South Carolina was shut down for several days in June 1991, when large mats of aquatic vegetation entered the plant's intake canal and clogged the cooling water intake gates. Decomposing plant material in the canal coupled with the turbine shut down triggered a low dissolved oxygen water condition downstream-and a subsequent fish kill. The' South.
Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department reported.that
'20 shortnose sturgeon were killed in the die-off (NMFS, 1998a).
Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected Of the above listed species occurring in the action area, NMFS believes that Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action.
Leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles and the shortnose sturgeon may also be adversely affected, but their occurrence in the action area is far less likely.
According to BSEP's biological assessment, Kemp's ridley, green and loggerhead have stranded in the intake canal. There are no records of leatherback or-hawksbill strandings in the canal; however because they may possibly occur in the action area the proposed action could also adversely affect them.
The Final Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan (NMFS, 1998a, 1998b) lists the Cape Fear River as having one of 20 distinct population segments. This segment is thought to consist of less than 50 fish. The loss of a single population segment may risk the
. permanent loss of unique genetic information that is critical to tbo survival and recovery of the species. Even though the
. diversion structure was designed to keep large fish and shellfish out of the intake canal andithere is no record of shortnose sturgeon being found in the canal, nor is there any record of shortnose sturgeon being found in that section of the Cape Fear River,-it is still a remote possibility that a shortnose sturgeon could travel to that section of the river during times of heavy rains when salinity is lower than normal and get through a 16
l I
I l
i blowout in the screen as do the turtles. The small size of this population-segment makes it imperative that NMFS analyze even the ;
small possibility that an activity may have an adverse impact on this segment. )
I1 IV . - Environmental Baseline j j
Status of the Species Within the Action Area The five species of sea turtles that occur in the action area are I all highly migratory. NMFS believes that no individual members of any of the species are likely to be year-round residents of the action area. Individual animals will make migrations into nearshore waters as well as other areas of the North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Therefore, the range-wide status of the five species, given in section II above, most reflects the species' status within the action area.
As noted above, the Final Recovery Plan for The Shortnose Sturgeon, lists the Cape Fear River as a distinct population segment with a population of less than 50 fish (NMFS, 1998a).
This information, combined with the information in section II above, reflects the species' status within the action area.
Factors Affecting the Species Within the Action Area As discussed above, sea turtles are not strict residents of the action area and may be affected by human activities throughout ,
their migratory range. Therefore,.this section will discuss the l impacts of Federal actions on sea turtles throughout the western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Federally-regulated commercial fishing operations represent the ,
major human source of sea turtle injury and mortality in U.S. j waters. Shrimp trawlers in the southeastern U.S. are required to use TEDS, which reduce a trawler's capture rate by 97%. Even so, NMFS estimated that 4,100 turtles may be captured annually by shrimp trawling, including 650 leatherbacks that cannot be released through TEDS, 1,700 turtles taken in try nets, and 1750 turtles that' fail to escape through the TED (NMFS, 1998). .
l Henwood and Stuntz (1987) reported that the mortality rate for l trawl-caught turtles ranged between 21% and 39%, although l Magnuson et al. (1990) suggested Henwood and Stuntz's estimates were very conservative and likely an underestimate of the true mortality rate. The mid-Atlantic and northeast fishery for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass uses otter trawl gear that also captures turtles. Summer flounder trawlers fishing south of Cape Henry, Virginia (south of Oregon Inlet, North 17 l
L E
i Carolina from January 15 to March 15) are required to use TEDS.
Participants in this fishery who use a type of trawl known as a
- flynet, however, are not required to use TEDS, as TEDS for flynets have not been researched and NMFS'is collecting further observer information on turtle bycatch by flynet vessels. The estimated, observed annual take rates for turtles in this multispecies fishery is 15 loggerheads and 3 leatherbacks, hawksbills, greens, or Kemp's ridley, in combination (NUFS, 1996a). The pelagic fishery for swordfish, tuna, and shark, which is prosecuted over large areas of the northwestern Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, including the action area, also has a fairly large by catch of sea turtles. NMFS (1997b) estimated that the longline component of this fishery would annually take, through hooking or entanglement, 690 leatherbacks, 1,541 loggerheads, 46 green, and 23 Kemp's ridley turtles, with a projected mortality rate of 30%. In the driftnet component of the fishery, estimated annual levels of injury or mortality are 40 leatherbacks, 58 loggerheads, 4 Kemp's ridleys, 4 greens, and 2 hawksbills.
Military activities, including vessel operations and ordnance detonation, also affect listed species of sea turtles. U.S. Navy aerial bombing training in the ocean off the southeast U.S.
coast, involving drops of live ordnance (500 and 1,000-lb bombs) is estimated to injure or kill, annually, 84 loggerheads, 12 leatherbacks, and 12 greens or Kemp's ridley, in combination (NMFS, 1997a). The U.S. Navy will also conduct ship-shock l testing for the new SEAWOLF submarine off the Atlantic coast of Florida, using 5 submerged detonations of 10,000 lb explosive charges. This testing is estimated to injure or kill 50 loggerheads, 6 leatherbacks, and 4 hawksbills, greens, or Kemp's ridleys, in combination (NMFS, 1996b). The U.S. Coast Guard's operation of their boats and cutters, meanwhile, is estimated to ,
take no more than one individual turtle of any species per year (NMFS, 1995). Formal consultation on Coast Guard or Navy activities in the Gulf of Mexico has not been conducted.
The construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels has also been identified as a source of turtle mortality. Hopper dredges, which are frequently used in ocean bar channels and sometimes in harbor channels and offshore borrow areas, move relatively rapidly and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag arm of the moving dredge overtakes the !
slower moving turtle. Along the Atlantic Coast of the i southeastern' United States, NMFS estimates that annual, observed injury or mortality of sea turtles from hopper dredging may reach 35 loggerheads, 7 greens, 7 Kemp's ridleys, and 2 hawksbills (NMFS, 1997c). Along the north and west coasts of the Gulf of 18
Mexicos channel maintenance dredging using a hopper dredge may
' injure or kill. 30 loggerhead, 8 green, 14 Kemp's ridley, and 2 hawksbill sea turtles annually (NMFS, 1997d) .- NMFS issued a
- biological opinion 11n September,-1996,- and 3 subsequent amendments'on the widening of-the Wilmington Harbor channel.
This opinion. anticipated an annual incidental take from this action of-one loggerhead,'kemp's ridley, or green sea turtle.
Sea-turtles entering coastal or inshore.Lareas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling-water. systems-of electrical generating plants. At the'St. Lucie nuclear power plant at Hutchinson Island, Florida, .large numbers of green.and loggerhead- -]
-turtles have been captured in the seawater intake canal in the'
.past several years. Annual capture levels from 1994-1997 have ~
ranged from almost-200 to almost 700 green turtles and from about 1501to over 350 loggerheads. Almost all of the turtles are caught'and released alive; NMFS estimates the survival rate st (
98.5% or greater (NMFS, 1997e). Another power plant in west Florida has-also reported low levels of sea turtle entrainment, but formal consultation on this plant's operations has not been
-completed.
i Sea turtles are vulnerable to blast injury and' death from the use oof underwater explosives. Klima ~et al. (1988) reported a j dramatic elevation in the number of sea' turtle strandings along the north Texas coast, coinciding with a large number of explosive removals of offshore oil platforms-in-the area. Since then, protective measures implemented by NMFS, the Corpsoof Engineers,'and the Minerals Management. Service, including required observers at explosive rig-removals, have been effective in minimizing.the impacts of explosive rig-removals on sea turtles. ; ' From' 1987 to 1997,: a total of'1,013 platform removals took place with'NMFS observers present. Sea turtles were observed at 112 of those sites, andLtwo-loggerhead turtles were recovered injured after blasting.. Thosefanimals were rehabilitated and released. In 1998, ene loggerhead has been-killed as airesult of rig-removal blasting. Although some mortality may occur and go undetected, the overall number of turtles. impacted by rig-removal actions has been very low since the adoption of protective measures.
Sh'ortnose sturgeon are migratory throughout'the Cape Fear River; therefore, human activities may have a significant effects on the-
~
Cape Fear River shortnose sturgeon population. The Cape Fear River drainage basin is completely contained.within the State of North Carolina. Over 1,465,451 people live in the basin within 114' municipalities.
i 19
/
r Land uses in the basin are diverse. In addition to the large urban populations, the basin includes one of the most concentrated turkey and hog production regions in the country.
Two counties in the basin, Duplin and Sampson, produce more hogs than any other. county in the United States. This activity can lead to fecal coliform contamination, via runoff from the production areas.
Approximately 27% of the basin's estuarine waters are use- )
impaired. This is due to fecal coliform bacteria and low oxygen levels. There has been an increase in the number of shellfish bed closures because of pollution caused primarily by development I (CALS NCSU WOP, 1997).
About 35% of the streams in the Cape Fear drainage basin are considered threatened and 18% impaired by pollution (College of Agriculture and Life Science (CALS), NCSU Water Quality Programs ;
(WQP), 1997). Sediment is the major pollutant, but other types i of pollution which pose significant threats to water quality include nutrients, oxygen-demanding wastes, and toxic substances ;
(CALS NCSU WQP, 1997). Sediment disrupts spawning migrations by i filling spawning habitat with resuspended fine sediment (NMFS, 1998). Oxygen-demanding wastes from agricultural sources can reduce dissolved oxygen levels. Jenkins et al. (1993) found that juvenile shortnose sturgeon experience relatively high mortality ,
(86%) when exposed to dissolved oxygen concentrations of 2.5 mg/l l or less. Heavy metals and organochlorines are known to accumulate in fat tissues of sturgeon, but_their long-term effects are not yet known (Ruelle and Henry, 1992). Available data suggest that early life stages of fish are more susceptible to environmental pollution stress than older fish (Rosenthal and Alderdice, 1976).
NMFS issued a biological opinion in September 1996 and three subsequent amendments on the widening of the Wilmington Harbor channel. This opinion anticipated an incidental lethal or non-lethal take of one shortnose sturgeon for the length of the operation.
Direct harvest of shortnose sturgeon is prohibited by the ESA.
However as previously noted, shortnose sturgeon are taken incidentally in other anadromous fisheries along the east coast and are probably targeted by poachers (NMFS, 1998). Commercial and recreational shad fisheries operating in the Cape Fear River are known to incidentally capture shortnose sturgeon. Moser and Ross (1993) foun't that captures of shortnose sturgeon in commercial shad ,ets disrupted spawning migrations in the Cape Fear River.
20
I V. Effects of The Action
-BSEP has been monitoring turtle take since 1%^1. The operation i of BSEP has resulted ir. 123 incidental takes of sea turtles from
! 1986 through 1996; of these, 22 have been lethal. When Lurtles are stranded in the intake canal they can suffer starvation if not observed and-removed in a timely manner; they can also be impinged on the trash racks if they are in a weakened state while
.in the canal. The breakdown of these takes are (these numbers
- are only for 1992 to 1996 as 1992 is the year BSEP started I recording take by species)
- 6 Kemp's ridley (1 dead); 11 green ,(2 dead); and 63 loggerhead. (4 dead) . There is a possibility that some of-the lethal take attributed to the intake system may be animals that were already dead and washed into the canal through a blowout or flood tide.
Most turtles.taken at BSEP are immature based on their carapace length (North Carolina Sea Turtle Coordinator (NCSTC), 1996).
The young turtles move into the Cape Fear estuary for feeding and l foraging. It has been confirmed that immature turtles use shallow waters for foraging areas in' coastal North Carolina waters, particularly during the months of April through June (Epperly, et al. 1995). During the years 1986 through 1996 only one incidentally taken turtle (loggerhead) at BSEP has been an
. adult of reproductive age.
BSEP's incidental take of sea turtles in 1996 was 49. This was the largest take for any year recorded by BSEP and coincides with the largest recording of strandings along the North Carolina coast at 502. Currently, NCSTC believes there could be numerous factors for increased turtle strandings along North Carolina.
Some of-these factors include fluctuations in fishing effort, changes in environmental conditions,-changes in turtle I distribution, and increased vigilance in reporting strandings (Ruth Boettcher, NCSTC, personal. communication).
l~
l Forty-two of the turtles taken at BSEP in 1996 were loggerheads, 4 were Kemp's ridley, and 3 were green. There have never been leatherback nor hawksbill turtles taken at BSEP. From 1988 to 1996 there were never more than 5 lethal takes in any given year, with 5 lethal takes in 1988. The average lethal take from 1986
.through 1996, at BSEP, was 2 per year. Based on these r.anbers
.NMFS expects that there will be 16 sea turtles taken annually with 3 being lethal. However, based on the above numbers, the variability of the species mix in the action area, and the fact that-another-anomalous year such as 1996 is possible, NMFS i believes that the level of live take of sea turtles in BSEP's intake canal may reach 50 loggerhead, 8 Kemp's ridley, and 5 21 1
I green turtles biannually. NMFS also believes the total lethal take of turtles may reach 6 loggerhead, 2 Kemp's ridley or 3 green turtles biennially (=every two years).
As stated above no leatherback or hawksbill turtles have been '
taken by BSEP. The North Carolina Wildlife-Resources Commission
. reports only 30 leatherback turtles and no hawksbill turtles have been recorded stranded from 1995 through 1996 in the State of North Carolina. Therefore,-there is only a remote chance that the proposed action could take 1 leatherback or 1 hawksbill (live or dead) turtle (n) a biennial basis.
The BSEP has no record of takings'of shortnose sturgeon. -Adult shortnose sturgeon in southern rivers forage at the interface of fresh tidal water and saline estuaries and enter the upper reaches of rivers to spawn in early spring (NMFS, 1998a). They also have been known to spend time in the estuaries and the sea I (NMFS, 1998a). The fresh / salt water interface is approximately 12 to 18 miles from the mouth of the intake canal. Moser (1998) has recorded only one individual getting to within 2 miles of the intake canal. It is thought that a young of the year or older >
sturgeon could not be impinged against the diversion structure and most likely would not leave the deep.part of the river to enter a blowout in the diversion structure (M. Moser, University-of North Carolina-Wilmington, personal communication).
Therefore, given this low potential for take, the potential for adverse effects to shortnose sturgeon due to the proposed action are considered unlikely and discountable.
VI. 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. Future 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 developments in human activities, that are not part of a Federal action, are anticipated. As discussed in Section III, listed species of turtle, migrate throughout their j range and may Le affected during their life cycles by non-Federal activities outside the action area. The Cape Fear River !
population of the shortnose sturgeon may be more directly affected by future development in the river basin.
Throughout the coastal southeastern United States, the loss of thousands"of' acres of wetlands is occurring due to natural i subsidence and erosion, as well as reduced sediment' input. ;
22
Impacts caused by residential,_ commercial, and agricultural.
developments appear to be the primary causes of wetland loss in North Carolina.
Oil spills from tankers transporting oil as well as the illegal discharge of oil and tar from vessels discharging bilge water will continue to affect water quality in the Atlantic.
Cumulatively,-these' sources and natural oil seepage contribute most of the oil discharged into the Atlantic Ocean.
Marine debr's i will likely persist in the action area in spite of' MARPOL prohibitions. In Texas and Florida, approximately half of the stranded' turtles examined have ingested marine debris (Plotkin and Amos, 1990 and Bolten and Bjorndal, 1991).
Coastal runoff and river discharges carry large volumes of sediment and contaminants from agricultural activities, cities and industries into the Atlantic Ocean. Although the contaminants are not likely to affect the more pelagic waters around the action area, the species of turtles analyzed in this biological' opinion travel between nearshore and offshore habitats and may be exposed to these contaminants when they are in the action area.
State-regulated commercial and recreational fishing activities in the Atlantic Ocean take endangered species. These takes are not reported and are unauthorized. It is expected that states will
. continue to license / permit large ve3sel and thrill-craft operations which do not fall under the purview of a Federal agency and will issue regulations that_will affect fishery activities. NMFS will continue to work with states to develop ESA section.6 agreements and section 10 permits to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate these takes. Increased recreational vessel activity in inshore waters of the coast of North Carolina will likely increase the number of turtles taken by injury or mortality in vessel collisions. Recreational hook-and-line fisheries have been known to lethally take sea turtic,,
including Kemp's ridleys. In'a study conducted by the NMFS Galveston Laboratory between 1993 through 1995, 170 ridleys were reported associated with recreational hook-and-line gear; including 18 dead stranded turtles, 51 rehabilitated turtles, 5 that died during rehabilitation, and 96 that were released by fishermen-(Cannon and Flanagan, 1996). The Sea Turtle Stranding
.and Salvage Network (STSSN) also receives stranding reports that identify carcass anomalies that may be associated with the recreational fishery (entangled in line or net, fish line protruding, fish hook in mouth or digestive tract, fish line in digestive tract). The reports do not distinguish between commercial or recreational sources of gear, such as hook, net, and line, which may be used in both sectors. Cumulatively, fishery entanglement anomalies are noted in fewer than 4% of the 23
r i
stranded sea turtle carcasses reported between 1990 and 1996, and some carcasses carry more than one anomaly (e.g., fishing line in digestive tract / fishing line protruding from mouth or cloaca),
1 therefore summing these reports may result in some double counting. I l As stated in section III of this opinion, commercial and recreational fisheries incidentally take shortnose sturgeon. The state of North Carolina allows the gill net fishing of the j American shad on the river. Although most shortnose sturgeon l taken are released unharmed, Moser and Ross (1993) have shown ;
that these takes disrupt spawning migrations. The state of North j Carolina has not proposed any changes in the regulation of the shad fishery on the Cape Fear River, therefore the impacts from this fishery are expected to continue.
Degradation of the water quality in the Cape Fear River is also a major factor affecting the recovery of the Cape Fear River shortnose sturgeon population. Runoff from agricultural activities, and the activities of the 114 municipalities that are contained within the river basin have caused 27% of the river's estuarine waters to be use impaired and 18% of the streams that feed the river to be impaired by pollution. The main forms of pollution are oxygen demanding wastes, toxic substances, and .
increased sediment load. l The Clean Water Responsibility and Environmentally Sound Policy Act, signed by North Carolina's governor on August 26, 1997 puts a moratorium on hog farmn, requires comprehensive planning across the state to ensure clea; water and gives counties the right to ;
zone large hog farms and restricts where hog farms can be built.
The new law also tightens limits on the amount of nitrogen cities and industries can discharge into nutrient sensitive waters, requires additional stormwater controls and authorizes studies of water pollution. l The Lower Cape Fear River Program is a collaboration among academia, government, industry and the public. UNCW's Center for Marine Science Research oversees the program which is a large-scale water quality assessment program covering estuaries and a large portion of the lower watershed. Program objectives are to develop an understanding of the fundamental scientific processes shaping and controlling the Cape Fear River system and provide a mechanism for information exchange and public education. Numerous physical, chemical, and biological measurements are collected at thirty-four different sites on a l
regular basis so biologists, chemists, physicists, and geologists will be able to understand freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore 24
p p,
i . marine environments. This research will complement and refine the current basin wide management plans being developed by the State of' North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. At present, the Lower Cape Fear River Program focuses on the. lower-basin but will be. expanded to include the middle basin of the river. LThis initiative combined with the Clean Water Responsibility and Environmentally Sound Policy Act should help. improve water quality of the Cape Fear River and aid in the recovery oflthe river's shortnose sturgeon population.
-VII. Conclusion After reviewing the current status.of the affected species of sea turtles and'the shortnose sturgeon, the environmental baseline for the action area, and the effects of the action, it is NMFS's biological opinion that the operation of the water intake system of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant as outlined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Biological Assessment, dated Maren-9, 1998 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the loggerhead, leatherback,. green, hawksbill, or Kemp's ridley sea turtles. This accion is also not likely to adversely affect the
[ Cape Fear River shortnose sturgeon population. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the action area; therefore, none will be affected. This conclusion is based on the proposed action's anticipated effects on these species being limited to-the direct take, through death or injury, of a small number of sub-adult and adult sea turtles per year, and the continued lack of observed take of any kind of the shortnose sturgeon.
VIII. Incidental Take Statement Section 7 (b) (4) of the ESA requires that when a proposed agency action is found to be consistent with section 7 (a) (2) of the ESA and the-proposed action may incidentally take' individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a statement-that specifies the impact of any incidental taking-of endangered or threatened species. It also states that reasonable and prudent measures, and. terms and conditions to implement the measures, shall be provided that are necessary to monitor and minimize such impacts.
Only incidental taking resulting from~the agency action as described in.the proposed action of the biological opinion, including incidental takings caused by activities approved by the agency, and that-comply with the specified reasonable and prudent measures and' terms and conditions, are exempt from the takings prohibition of section 9(a)~ pursuant to section 7(o) of the ESA.
l -Section 7 (a) (2). of the ESA specifies that each federal agency 25
shall,-.in' consultation'with and with.the assistance of the cSecretary, insure:that any action authorized, funded, or carried out byfsuch is not likely to1 jeopardize the continued existence
-of-any' endangered or threatened species.- With the Cape Fear Riverfshortnose sturgeon population being small (< 50 individuals).andilisted by NMFS as a distinct population segment with; distinct genetic information,-it is reasonable to' expect. >
that the-take of one. individual could jeopardize the existence of-this-population segment.- However, the taking of any shortnose sturgeon due to.the-proposed' action is anticipated to be unlikely and discountable.- Noftake.of the shortnose sturgeon by the
. proposed: action is anticipated, and no authorization is provided in'this incidental take statement. If a shortnose sturgeon is-taken BSEP'must immediately reinitiate consultation'with NMFS, NMFS has estimated the impact of BSEP's. operation of its cooling water intake system on listed species of sea turtles (see Assessment of Impacts above). Based on this analysis, NMFS anticipates up to 50 loggerhead sea turtles'(6 lethal), 5 green sea turtles (2 lethal),'8 Kemp's ridley sea turtles (2 lethal),
and 1 (lethal or live) leatherback or hawksbill sea turtle could be incidentally taken biennially (= every two years: each year's
-records must'be between January 1 - December 31), as a result of this action. The effects of this level of take is not likely to A 1 jeopardize the continued existence of the species considered in
.this= Opinion.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4 (d) oof the Act 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'or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such c'onduct. ~ Incidental take is-defined 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 (o)~(2), taking that is incidental to and not ' intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms andfconditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The' measures. described below are non-discretionary, and must be L . undertaken'by the U.S. . Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) so L that they.become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the BSEP, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7 (o) (2) to apply. The NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the NRC (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions of the 26
l i
incidental'take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7 (o) (2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the BESP'must report the progress of the action and its impact- on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR S 4 02.14 (1) (3) ]
.NMFS believes the.following. reasonable and prudent measures, and
-their implementing terms and conditions,,as required by 50 CFR 402.14 (i) (1) (11) and (iv) are necessary and appropriate to monitor the-level of incidental take and to minimize associated mortality.
- 1. BSEP shall conduct patrols of the cooling water intake system to look for signs of sea turtle strandings. ;
- 2. BSEP shall inspect and maintain the diversion structure.
- 3. BSEP shall have a program in place to rescue and release sea turtles stranded in the intake canal.
- 4. BSEP-shall maintain records on all sea turtle takings.
Terms and conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the NRC must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting / monitoring requirements. i These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.
- 1. BSEP shall conduct daily sea turtle patrols, depending on tides, weather and personnel weekend schedules, to inspect l intake trash racks as near to low tide as possible during the period from late April through August. This period coincides with the historical higher-than-average occurrences'of sea turtles in the area. The inspection will ;
consist of visual observations of the entire length of the
. canal from the diversion structure to the plant's intake trash racks. As part of this protocol, visual examinations of one-half hour to one hour of the plant's intake and diversion structures are required to note sea turtle surfacing.
- 2. Plant personnel will inspect the diversion structure each year, prior to the turtle season, to ensure its integrity.
The inspection will include a subsurface check by divers.
- 3. Daily inspections of the intake canal and annual inspections of the diversion structure will be annotated in a logbook.
This logbook will be made available to NMFS personnel upon request.
- 4. Crews that maintain the diversion structure on a year-round 27
]
l l
l basis will also look for signs of sea turtles inside the J canal, on the diversion structure, or outside the diversion !
structure on the river side, while completing their duties.
Plant security will report any signs of sea turtles in the canal noticed while on patrol.
- 5. Once a-turtle is sighted, plant environmental personnel will j attempt to capture the turtle following the procedures i outlined in the biological assessment. Live turtles will be photographed, tagged, and released in the surf at Yaupon l
Beach, North Carolina or other area. beach as determined through consultation with the North Carolina Sea Turtle Coordinator. Injured sea turtles will be given appropriate medical treatment or.if severely injured the North Carolina Sea Turtle Coordinator will be consulted to determine the appropriate action. Dead turtles will be removed from the d
)
canal, photographed, and a necropsy, or other action determined appropriate by the North Carolina Sea Turtle Coordinator, will be performed. ,
6.
If any listed species are apparently injured or killed in the intake canal, or the diversion structure or the trash racks, a report, summarizing the incident, must be provided within 14 days to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office's Chief of Protect Resources.
- 7. All sea turtle takings will be recorded by species, size and time of year taken. These records will be made available to NMFS no later than 30 days after the first of the year or upon request.
NMFS believes that no more than 50 loggerhead sea turtles (6 lethal), 5 green sea turtles (2 lethal), 8 Kemp's ridley sea turtles (2 lethal), and 1 (lethal or live) leatherback or hawksbill sea turtle could be incidentally taken biennially (=
every two years: each year's records must be between January 1 -
December 31), as a result of this proposed action. The reasonable and prudent measures, with 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 the action, this level of incidental take is !
exceeded, such incidental take represents new information i requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the !
- reasonable and prudent measures provided. The NRC must l
immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking L and-review with NMFS the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.
IX. Conservation Recommandations Section 7 (a) (1) of the Act, directs Federal agencies to utilize 28 L
l
.their authorities,to further the purposes of the Act by carrying l Lout conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. . Conservation recommendations are
! discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse l
effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to. help implement recovery plans, or to develop l
.information.. The following conservation recommendations are made i
- to assist the'NRC in reducing / eliminating. impacts to listed and proposed species and promoting their conservation and recovery.
- 1. BSEP should conduct inspections oflthe diversion structure,
. to ensure the structure's integrity, to include subsurface l
inspections at least twice during the time between late
, . April through August and one time outside that time period.
l 2. BSEP should monitor the trash racks, canal an'd diversion l
structure for signs of shortnose sturgeon.
- 3. BSEP should contact the Fisheries Department of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington on at least a yearly L basis to determine if shortnose sturgeon have been tracked near the area of the intake canal.
- 4. BSEP should conduct tissue sampling for the genetic identity of turtles interacting with the plant's cooling water intake l p2 system. !
In order for NMFS to be kept informed of actions minimizing or l avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their j l
habitats, NMFS requests notification of.the implementation of'any ;
conservation recommendations. '
X. Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your I
' March 9, 1998 request for formal consultation. As provided in 50
--CFR S 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 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 wasLnot. 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 i immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation.
i L
29 i
References Aguilar,.R.,1 J.'_ Mas,'and X. Pastor. 1992.-Impact of Spanish swordfish longlineLfisheries on loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, population in the western Mediterranean. Presented'at the112th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle, Biology'and Conservation.
.Feb. 25-29 1992. Jekyll island,'GA.
. Babcock, H.L. 1937. The sea turtles of the Bermuda Islands with a survey of the present state of the turtle fishing industry.
' Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.~107: 595-601.
l-Balazs, G.H., 9.G. Pooley, and S. K..Murakawa. 1995. Guidelines
'for handling marine turtles hooked or entangled in the' Hawaii longline fishery: Results of an expert workshop held in Honolulu, Hawaii, March 15-17, 1995. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-222.
Balazs, G.H. and S. G. Pooley. 1994. Research plan to assess marine turtle hooking mortality: results of an expert workshop held in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 16-18, 1993. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-201.
l Best, P.3. 1979. Social organization in sperm whales, Physeter macrocechalus. In: H.E. Winn and B.L. Olla
! (Eds.) Behavior of marine animals, volume 3: cetaceans, p.227-289. Plenum Fress, N.Y.
Bellmund, S~ , J.A. Musick,.R.A. Byles, J.A. Keinath, and D.E.
Barnard. 1987. Ecology of sea turtles in Virginia. Special Scientific Report No. 118 to National Marine Fisheries Service.
Contract No. NA80FAC-00004, July 1987.
Bigelow, H.B. and.W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of l Maine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisherr Bulletin, 53. 577 PP-1 Bolten, A.B. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Effects of marine debris on
- juvenile, pelagic. sea turtles. Interim project report to the National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Entanglement Research' Program. 41pp.
Burke, V.J., E.A. Standora and S.J. Morreale. 1989.
Environmental factors and seasonal occurrence of sea turtles in Long Island, New York. In: Eckert,. S.A., K.L. Eckert and T.H.
Richardson (Compilers). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. pp. 21-23.
t 30 t
h 2
' Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale and E.A. Standora. 19'90 (a) .
Comparisons ~ of Diet and Growth ;of Kemp's ' ridley and loggerhead turtles from the northeastern United' States. In: Richardson,
.T.H.,J.I.-Richardson, and M.Donnelly (Compilers). 1990.
Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278. pp.
135.;
Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale,.and E.A. Standora. 1990 (b) .- Diet of the Kemp's ridley. sea turtlelin Long "uland, New York. Report to.
4 the National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland.
~ Burke, V.J., E.A. Standora,.and S.J. Morreale.. 1991. . Factors affecting strandings of' cold-stunned-juvenile Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles in Long Island, New York. Copeia. 4:1136-1138.
Butler, R.W.,-W.A. Nelson, and T.A. Henwood. 1987. A trawl
. survey method for estimating loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, abundance in five eastern Florida channels and inlets. Fishery
. Bulletin. 85(3). >
l Byles, R.A. 1988. Behavior and ecology of. sea turtles from Chesapeake Bay,._ Virginia. A dissertation presented to the faculty of the School of Marine Science, The College of William I and: Mary in Virginia, in partialtfulfillment of the requirements for.the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Byles, R.A., C. Caillouet,.D. Crouse, L. Crowder, S. Epperly, W. Gabriel, B.. Galloway, M. Harris, T. Henwood, S. Heppell, R.
Marquez-M, S. Murphy, W. Teas, N. Thompson, and B.Witherington 1996. A Report _of the; Turtle Expert Working Group: Results of a Series of Deliberations Held in Miami, Florida. National Marine Fisheries Service unpublished.
lCarr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Carr, A.F. 1954. The passing of the fleet. A.I.B.S. Bull.
4(5):17-19.
Carr, A.F. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 4. The green turtle.in the Caribbean Sea. Bull. Amer. :
Mus. Nat. Hist . 131 (1) : 1-4 8.
Carr, A.F. 1963. Panspecific reproductive' convergence in !
Lepidochelys kempil. Ergebn. Biol. 26:298-303. J
- .31
Carr, A.F., M.H. Carr and A.B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 7. The western Caribbean green turtle colony. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162(1):1-46.
CeTAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north-Atlantic areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf, Final Report. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA551-CT8-48, Washington, D.C. 538 pp.
Collins, M.R., S.G. Rogers, ~and T.I.J. Smith. 1996. Bycatch of sturgeons along the southern Atlantic coast of the USA. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:24-29.
Cooper, K. 1989. Effects of Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans on aquatic organisms. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences 1(2):227-242.
Dadswell, M.J. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyse: Acipenseridae), in the St. Johns River estuary, New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210.
Doval, W.L., A.W. Pekovitch and T.J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrun LeSueur, 1818) in the Hudson River estuary, New York. Pages 187-216 in C.L. Smith,
.ditor, Estuarine Research in the 1980's. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.
Davenport, J. and J. Wrench. 1990. Metal levels in a leatherback turtle. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 21(1):40-41.
Dickerson, D.D., K.J. Reine, D.A. Nelson and C.E. Dickerson.
1994. Assessment of Sea Turtle Abundance in Six South Atlantic U.S. Channels. Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ,
October 1994.
Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. A survey of marine turtic nesting at Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, North Brevard County, Florida, 1-122. Unpublished report to Division of Marine Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, Fla. Dept. Nat.
Res.
l l
Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River lagoon !
system. Florida Sci. 46(3/4):337-346.
Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington Kentucky. !
l i
32 l
, Hall, W.'J., T.I.J.s Smith, and S.D. Lamprecht. 1991. Movements and l habitats ~of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum in the l Savannah River. Copeia (3) 695-702.
1 Henwood, T A. 1987.-Movement's and seasonal changes in loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, aggregations in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida (1978-84). Biol. Conserv. 40(3):191-202.
l Henwood, T.A. and L.H. 0gren. 1987.
Distribution and migrations oof immature'Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) and green i turtles (Chelonia mydas) off Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. )
Northeast Gulf Science. 9(2):153-159.
Henwood,.T.A., and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during commercial shrimp trawling.
Fishery Bulletin. 85(4).
L
, Hildebrand, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la l -tortuga marina "lora," Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la costa occidental del Gulfo de Mexico. Ciencia, Mex . 22 (4 ) :105-112.
l Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of Mexico. pp. 447-453 In: Biology and conservation of sea turtles. K.A. Bjorndal.
(Ed.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
l Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green j l turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus) 1758. FAO Fisheries Synopsis.
85:1-77.
1 Jenkins, W.E., T.I.J. Smith, L.D. Heyward, and D.M. Knott. 1993.
Tolerance of shortnose sturgeon juveniles to different salinity l and dissolved onygen concentrations. Proceedings of the J i Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Atlanta, Georgia.
Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-1986. Virginia Journal of Science. 38(4):329-336. I Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of l
the explosive removal of offshore petroleum platforms on sea L , turtles and dolphins. Marine Fisheries Review 50(3)pp 33-42.
l I Kynard, B. 1997. Life History, latitudinal patterns, and status of shortnose sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:319-
.334.
33
L _
Lazell,-J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia. '1980 (2) :290-295.
Lenhardt, Martin.L. 1994. Seismic and Very Low Frequency Sound Induced Behaviors in Captive Loggerhead Marine Turtles ( Caret ta caretta). pp. 238-241.EIn: Bjordal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A.
1 Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual-Symposium on Sea' Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA. Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Lutcavage, M. 1981. The status of marine turtles in Chesapeake Bay and Virginia coastal waters. Masters Thesis, College of
' William and Mary.
Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W.
Owens, P.C.H. Pritchard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W.
West. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 274 pp.
Mendonca, M.T. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity, population size and structure of immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia. (1):161-167.
Mexico. 1966. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones-Biologico-Pesqueras. Programa nacional de marcado de tortugas marinas. Mexico, INIBP:1-39.
Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M.
Lenhardt, and-R. George. 1994. Evaluation of Seismic Sources for Repelling Sea Turtles from Hopper Dredges. Draft Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
Morreale, S.J.; A.B. Meylan; E.A. Standora and S.S. Sadove.
1992. Annual occurrence and winter mortality of.Lepidochelys kempli and other marine turtles in New York waters. Journal of Herpetology. 26(3):301-308.
.Morreale, S.J., A~.'Meylan, B. Baumann. 1989. Sea turtles in Long-Island Sound, New York: a historical perspective. In: Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert and T.H. Richardson (Compilers). 1989.
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshoo on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFC-232:121-124.
Morreale, S .' J . , E. Standora. 1998. Migration Patterns of Northeastern U.S. Sea Turtles. New York State Department on Environmental Conservation 34
Mortimer, J. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles. pp. 103-109.
In: Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. K.A. Bjorndal (ed). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Moser, M.L., and S.W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and movements of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevrlostrum) and other anadromous
-fishes of the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Final Report ta) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
l l
Musick, J.A., R. Byles, R.E. Klinger, and S. Bellmund. 1984.
Mortality and behavior of sea turtles in the Chesapeake Bay, Summary Report to NMFS for 1979 through 1983, Contract No.
NA80FAC00004. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Technical Draft Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).
Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for NMFS.
February 6, 1995 Draft.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Status Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
NMFS and USFWS. 1992. Recovery Plan for leatherback turtles in j the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS, Washington, D.C. i NMFS. 1998a. Final Recovery Plan for the shortnose sturgeon.
Prepared by the Shrotnose Sturgeon Recovery Team, Silver Springs, Maryland. 104pp NMFS. 1998b. Notice of Availability for the Final Recovery Plan for Shortnose Sturgeon. (63 FR 69613, 12/17/98)
NMFS. 1996a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Summer Flounder to include the management and fishing activity under draft FMPs for Scup and Black Sea Bass. Biological Opinion, February 29. 50pp.
NMFS. 1996b. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the proposed shock testing of the SEAWOLF submarine off the Atlantic Coast of Florida during the summer of 1997. Biological Opinion, December 12. 50pp.
NMFS. 1997a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on 35
F.-
L Navy Activities off the Southeastern United States along the L Atlantic Coast, May 15. 73pp.
NMFS. 1997b. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the Atlantic! Pelagic ~ Fishery for Swordfish,. Tuna, and Shark, in
- the Exclusive-Economic Zone.: Biological Opinion, May 29, 95pp.
l l NMFS. 1997c. Endangered: Species Act'section 7 consultation on the i continued. hopper dredging of channels and borrow-areas in the Southeastern United States. Biological Opinion, September 25.
l 15pp_
NMFS. 1997d.l Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on i . channel' maintenance dredging using hopper dredge in the Galveston and New Orleans Districts'of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Biological Opinion,-September 22. 15pp.
NMFS. 1997e. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the continued operation of circulating water system of the St. Lucie nuclear generating plant. Biological Opinion, February 7. 39pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1997. Number of quarterly sea turtleJstrandings in North Carolina.
l Paladino, .- F. V . , M.P. O'Connor, and J.R. Spotila, 1990.
Metabolism of leatherback turtles, gigantothermy and thermoregulation of dinosaurs. Nature - 344:858-860.
l Parsons, J.J. 1962. The green turtle and man.
Gainesville, University of Florida Press.
Peters, J.A. 1954. The amphibians and reptiles of the coastand coastal" sierra of Michoacan-Mexico. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool.
554:1-37.
Prescott, R.L. 1988. Leatherbacks in Cape Cod Bay, )
Massachusetts, 1977-1987. In: chroeder, B.A. (compiler).
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214:83-84.
Plotkin, P.T.-and A.F. Amos. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in.the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (eds.). Proceedings of the second
-International Conference on Marine Debris. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS- I SWFSC-154: 736-743.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Fla.
State Mus. 13(2):1-139.
36
?? \
ti
- -1 5 , I
\ -
l Pritchard, P.C.H. and R.EMarquez. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or Atlantic ridley. -I.U.C.N. Monograph.No. 2, Morges,-Switzerland.
I
, Pritcha'rd, P.C.H.-1990. Kemp's ridleys are rarer.than we L5- : thought. Marine Turtle, Newsletter. 49:1-3. '
. Rebel,"T.P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West, Indies, Florida *and the Gulf of Mexico. Univ. Miami Press,
< Coral Gables, Florida.
,Rosenthal, H., and'D.F. Alderdice. 1976. Sublethal effects of environmental: stressors, natural'and pollutional, on-marine fish eggs and larvae, Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada'
'33:2047-2066.
Ruelle, R., and C. Henry. 1992. Organochlorine Compounds in Pallid Sturgeon. Contaminant Information Bulletin, June, 1992.
Sea-Turtle Stranding and Salvage-Network (STSSN). 1990. NMFS, SEFC; Shoop,.C.R.:and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance:of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs.
6:43-67.
Shoop, C., T. . Doty and N. Bray. 1982. A. characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north-Atlantic' areas offthe U.S. outer continental shelf:fFinal Report, December-1982.
Univ'. Rhode Island,' Kingston.
Sindermann,_C.J. _1994. Quantitative effects of pollution on
~
' marine'and anadromous-fish populations. .NOAA Technical-
" Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-104, National' Marine Fisheries' Service, Woods Hole,' Massachusetts.
~ Smith, T.I.J., E. Kennedy and.M.R. Collins.,1992. Identification
-of critical habitat requirements of shortnose sturgeon in South Carolina. Final Report to the U.S.. Fish'and Wildlife Service.
Project No,'AFS-17.
Thayer, Victoria. 1995. Personal communication. NMFS Beaufort Lab.'Underwood, G. 1951. Introduction to the study of Jamaican reptiles. Part 5. Nat. Hist. Notes Nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica.
46:209-213.
USFWS and NMFS. 1992.. Recovery Plan for-the Kemp's ridley sea
.turtl'e (Lepidochelys kem.pli). NMFS, St. Petersburg, Florida.
37 )
l
l
\
Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleep and G. Bossart. 1986.
Final report: Study of effects of oil on marine turtles. Tech.
Rep. O.C.S. study MMS 86-0070. Vol. 2, 181 pp.
~
Weber, W. 1996. Population size and habitat use of shortnose !
sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the Ogeechee River system, Georgia. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, Athans, Georgia.
l, i
I l
I i
38 .