ML11353A254

NRR E-mail Capture - Draft Salem and Hope Creek Opinion

ML11353A254
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/08/2011
From:	Crocker J US Dept of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
To:	Logan D Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML11353A254 (143)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Julie Crocker [Julie.Crocker@Noaa.Gov]

Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:45 AM To: Logan, Dennis Cc: Imboden, Andy; Balsam, Briana

Subject:

draft Salem and Hope Creek Opinion Attachments: draft Salem BiOp 120811.pdf; draft transmittal letter for Salem BO 12082011.pdf Hi Dennis -

Please find attached 2 documents - our draft Opinion for the Salem/Hope Creek facilities as well as a draft transmittal letter. I've included the draft letter because it contains our analysis related to Atlantic sturgeon.

We look forward to continuing to work with you on this. If you could let me know if this is shared with the licensee and any estimate of when we might expect comments, that would be great (I know it is a crazy time of year for everyone)!

Thanks, Julie On 11/28/2011 2:53 PM, Logan, Dennis wrote:

> Julie,

>

> Both Andy and I were out of town, so we just received this today. Briana and I reviewed this, and we have an initial question about the ITS for the Oyster Creek biological opinion that we are hoping you can clarify.

>

> The ITS specifies the anticipated take as a total number from November 21, 2011, through the end of the license (April 2029). This part is clear. The cover letter, however, references an "estimated annual take" in this sentence:

>

> "As noted in the ITS, in any year when the estimated annual level of take (lethal and non-lethal is exceeded), NRC must work with us to determine whether the additional take represents new information revealing effects of the action that may not have been previously considered."

>

> Term and Condition #10 on Page 82 also references the same term.

>

> To what does the "estimated annual take" refer?

>

> The ITS only specifies the total take over the remainder of the license. We thought that perhaps the "estimated annual take" might refer to the total take per species over the 19 years (for the number of years remaining under Oyster Creek's license). In this case, we would contact NMFS if>4 Kemp's ridleys (>2 lethal),> 1 loggerhead (1 lethal), or>1 green turtle (1 lethal) were taken in a given year (rounding up).

>

> We want to check with you to make sure that this assumption is correct, though, so that we ensure that we are fully complying with the ITS's terms and conditions.

>

> This question came from our initial review, so it is possible that we or the licensee may have other questions after further review.

>

> Thanks,

> Dennis 1

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Julie Crocker [1]

> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 11:49 AM

> To: Logan, Dennis; Imboden, Andy

>

Subject:

Oyster Creek Biological Opinion

>

> Hi Andy and Dennis -

>

> Signed Oyster Creek Opinion is attached - it isn't radically different than past iterations but you will notice that we considered effects to the Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerheads (rather than loggerheads globally; the new listing of 9 DPSs replaced the global listing of one unit). We also changed the structure of the take limit - it is now a "total" number of takes over the life of the license (rather than an annual max) with a requirement that if the annual estimate is exceeded we work together to decide if that represents new information requiring re-initiation. Please also note that as described in the cover letter, we do not anticipate any impacts to Atlantic sturgeon (currently proposed for listing) and have determined no conference is necessary.

> As such, if the Atlantic sturgeon listing is finalized, this Opinion would not need to be reinitiated to consider effects to Atlantic sturgeon.

>

> Please let me know if you have any questions.

>

> Happy Thanksgiving,

> Julie 2

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 217 Mail Envelope Properties (4EE0E96F.2010303)

Subject:

draft Salem and Hope Creek Opinion Sent Date: 12/8/2011 11:44:31 AM Received Date: 12/8/2011 11:44:58 AM From: Julie Crocker Created By: Julie.Crocker@Noaa.Gov Recipients:

"Imboden, Andy" <Andy.Imboden@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Balsam, Briana" <Briana.Balsam@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Logan, Dennis" <Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: noaa.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3450 12/8/2011 11:44:58 AM draft Salem BiOp 120811.pdf 1198524 draft transmittal letter for Salem BO 12082011.pdf 84925 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION BIOLOGICAL OPINION Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Activity: Continued Operation of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations F/NER/2010/06581 Conducted by: NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Date Issued: DRAFT 12-08-11 Approved by: DRAFT INTRODUCTION This constitutes NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) biological opinion (Opinion) issued in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, on the effects of the continued operation of the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations pursuant to renewed operating licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (68 Stat.

919) and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).

This Opinion is based on information provided in a Biological Assessment dated December 2010, the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 45 Regarding Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 dated October 2010, permits issued by the State of New Jersey, previous Biological Opinions completed for these facilities and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation will be kept on file at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORY The Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear generating facility consists of three units located on Artificial Island along the Delaware River. NRC issued the original operating license for Salem Unit 1 on December 1, 1976 and for Salem Unit 2 on May 20, 1981. Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service June 1977 and October 1981, respectively and operate with a once-through cooling system. The license for Hope Creek was issued on July 25, 1986 and became operational later that year. Hope Creek operates with a closed-cycle cooling system (cooling towers). All three units are operated by PSEG Nuclear.

PSEG Nuclear operates two nuclear power plants pursuant to licenses issued by the NRC. These facilities are the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations (Salem and HCGS), which are located on adjacent sites within a 740-acre parcel of property at the southern end of Artificial 1

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. Consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA between NRC and NMFS on the effects of the operation of these facilities has been ongoing since 1979. A Biological Opinion was issued by NMFS in April 1980 in which NMFS concluded that the ongoing operation of the Salem facility was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon. Consultation was reinitiated in 1988 due to the documentation of impingement of sea turtles at the Salem facility. An Opinion was issued on January 2, 1991 in which NMFS concluded that the ongoing operation was not likely to jeopardize shortnose sturgeon, Kemps ridley, green or loggerhead sea turtles. Consultation was reinitiated in 1992 due to the number of sea turtle impingements at the Salem intake exceeding the number exempted in the 1991 Incidental Take Statement (ITS). A new Opinion was issued on August 4, 1992. Consultation was again reinitiated in January 1993 when the number of sea turtle impingements exceeded the 1992 ITS; a new Opinion was issued on May 14, 1993. The 1993 Biological Opinion (NMFS 1993) required that PSEG track all loggerhead sea turtles taken alive at the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) and released. Also in 1993, PSEG implemented a policy of removing the ice barriers from the trash racks on the intake structure during the period between May 1 and October 24, which resulted in substantially lower turtle impingement rates at Salem.

In 1998, NRC requested that NMFS modify the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions of the ITS, and, specifically, remove a requirement to conduct studies of released turtles. NRC made this request based on the reduction in the number of turtles impinged after the 1993 change in procedure regarding the removal of ice barriers. NMFS responded to this request in a letter dated January 21, 1999. In this letter NMFS stated that these studies could be discontinued because it appeared that the reason for the relatively high impingement numbers previously was the ice barriers that had been left on the intake structure during the warmer months (NMFS, 1999). Accompanying this letter was a revised ITS which served to amend the May 14, 1993 Opinion. The 1999 ITS exempts the annual take (capture at intake with injury or mortality) of 5 shortnose sturgeon, 30 loggerhead sea turtles, 5 green sea turtles, and 5 Kemps ridleys. The RPMs included as part of the ITS require ice barrier removal by May 1 and replacement after October 24, and it requires that in the warmer months the trash racks must be cleaned weekly and inspected every other hour, and in the winter they must be cleaned every other week. The RPMs also require that in any year that a dead sea turtle is removed from the racks, the racks must be inspected every hour for the rest of the warm season. Dead shortnose sturgeon are required to be inspected for tags, and live sturgeon are to be tagged and released (NMFS, 1999). This Opinion is a reinitiation of the 1993 consultation and will replace the Opinion issued in May 1993 and the amended ITS issued in January 1999.

With the exception of 1991 and 1992, when 23 and 10 sea turtles were captured at the intakes, the actual level of take has been far lower than the exempted level. Since 1978, a total of 2 green, 24 Kemps ridley and 65 loggerheads have been captured or impinged at the intakes. No sea turtles have been captured at Salem since 2001. Since monitoring of the intakes was initiated in 1978, 18 shortnose sturgeon have been recovered from the Salem intakes. No shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles have been observed at the Hope Creek intakes.

In advance of the current relicensing process, NRC began coordination with NMFS in 2009. In a letter dated December 23, 2009, NRC requested information on the occurrence of threatened, 2

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 endangered, or other protected species in the vicinity of the site and the potential for impacts on those species from license renewal. On February 11, 2010, NMFS provided information to NRC on the listed species likely to occur in the action area. On December 29, 2010, NMFS received a BA from NRC. Conference calls between NRC staff and staff from NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service were held on February 7, 2011 and March 4, 2011 to clarify the scope of NRCs proposed action. Additional coordination between NRC staff and NMFS staff has been ongoing through the spring and summer of 2011 to clarify NRCs authorities regarding the proposed action.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed activity is the continued operation of Salem Unit 1, Salem Unit 2 and Hope Creek Unit 1 under the terms of renewed operating licenses. The renewed operating licenses extend the original authorized operations period by twenty years. Salem 1 will operate through August 13, 2036, Salem 2 through April 18, 2040 and HCGS through April 44, 2046.

Details on the operation of the facilities, as licensed by NRC, are described below. Both facilities withdraw water from and discharge water to, the Delaware River. In 1972, Congress assigned authority to administer the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA further allowed EPA to delegate portions of its CWA authority to states. On April 13, 1982, EPA authorized the State of New Jersey to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. New Jerseys NPDES, or State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), program is administered by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). NJDEP issues and enforces SPDES permits for Salem and Hope Creek.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). EPA regulates impingement and entrainment under Section 316(b) of the CWA through the NPDES permit process.

Administration of Section 316(b) has also been delegated to NJDEP, and that provision is implemented through the SPDES program.

Salem and Hope Creek cannot operate without cooling water. Intake and discharge of water through the cooling water system would not occur but for the operation of the facility pursuant to a renewed license; therefore, the effects of the cooling water system on listed species are a direct effect of the proposed action. NRC staff state that the authority to regulate cooling water intakes and discharges under the CWA lies with EPA, or in this case, NJDEP, as the state has been delegated NPDES authority by EPA. Pursuant to NRCs regulations, operating licenses are conditioned upon compliance with all applicable law, including but not limited to CWA Section 401 Certifications and NPDES/SPDES permits. Therefore, the effects of the proposed Federal action-- the continued operation of Salem Unit 1, Salem Unit 2 and Hope Creek pursuant to the renewed operating licenses, which necessarily involves the removal and discharge of water from the Delaware River-- are shaped not only by the terms of the renewed operating license but also by the SPDES permit as issued by the NJDEP. This Opinion will consider the effects of the operation of Salem Unit 1, Salem Unit 2, and Hope Creek over the term of the extended operating licenses pursuant to the Operating License issued by the NRC in 2011 and the SPDES 3

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 permit issued by NYDEP that is already in effect. A complete history of NJDEP permits is included in NRCs FSEIS at Section 4.5.2 (Regulatory Background).

Salem Generating Station Salem is a two-unit plant, which uses pressurized water reactors (PWR) designed by Westinghouse Electric. Each unit has a current licensed thermal power at 100 percent power of 3,459 megawatt-thermal (MW[t]). Salem Units 1 and 2 entered commercial service June 1977 and October 1981, respectively. At 100 percent reactor power, the currently anticipated net electrical output is approximately 1,195 megawatt-electric (MW[e]) for Unit 1 and 1,196 MW (e) for Unit 2. The Salem units have once-through circulating water systems for condenser cooling that withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary through one intake structure located at the shoreline on the south end of the site.

In the PWR power generation system, reactor heat is transferred from the primary coolant to a lower pressure secondary coolant loop, allowing steam to be generated in the steam supply system. The nuclear steam supply for each unit includes a pressurized water reactor, reactor coolant (RCS), and associated auxiliary fluid systems. The RCS is arranged as four closed reactor coolant loops connected in parallel to the reactor vessel, each with a reactor coolant pump and a steam generator. Each steam generator is a vertical, Utube-and-shell heat exchanger that produces superheated steam at a constant pressure over the reactor operating power range. From the turbine the steam is directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, which generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser, where the steam is cooled and condensed back in liquid water. This cooled water is then cycled back to the steam generator, completing the loop.

The containment building serves as a biological radiation shield and a pressure container for the entire RCS. The reactor containment structures are vertical cylinders with 16-ft (4.9-m) thick flat foundation mats and 2- to 5-ft (0.6- to 1.5-m) thick reinforced concrete slab floors topped with hemispherical dome roofs. The side walls of each containment building are 142 ft (43.3 m) high and the inside diameter is 140 ft (43 m). The concrete walls are 4.5 ft (1.4 m) thick and the containment building dome roofs are 3.5 ft (1.1 m) thick. The inside surface of the reactor building is lined with a carbon steel liner with varying thickness ranging from 0.25 inch (0.64 centimeter [cm]) to 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) (PSEG, 2007a).

The nuclear fueled cores of the Salem reactors are moderated and cooled by a moderator, which slows the speed of neutrons thereby increasing the likelihood of fission of an uranium-235 atom in the fuel. The cooling water is circulated by the reactor coolant pumps. These pumps are vertical, single-stage centrifugal pumps equipped with controlled-leakage shaft seals (PSEG, 2007b).

Both Salem units use slightly enriched uranium dioxide (UO2) ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy cladding (PSEG, 2007b). Fuel pellets are loaded into fuel rods, and fuel rods are joined together in fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies consist of 264 fuel rods arranged in a square array.

Salem uses fuel that is nominally enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by weight). The combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of about 60,000 megawatt-days (MW [d]) per metric ton uranium (PSEG, 2009a). The original Salem steam 4

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 generators have been replaced. In 1997, the Unit 1 steam generators were replaced and in 2008 the Unit 2 steam generators were replaced (PSEG, 2009a).

Hope Creek Generating Station HCGS is a one-unit station, which uses a boiling water reactor (BWR) with a Mark I containment designed by General Electric. The power plant has a current licensed thermal power output of 3,840 MW (t) with an electrical output estimated to be approximately 1, 265 MW (e) (73 FR 13032). HCGS has a closed-cycle circulating water system for condenser cooling that consists of a natural draft cooling tower and associated withdrawal, circulation, and discharge facilities.

HCGS withdraws brackish water with the service water system (SWS) from the Delaware Estuary (PSEG, 2009b).

In the BWR power generation system, heat from the reactor causes the cooling water which passes vertically through the reactor core to boil, producing steam. The steam is directed to a turbine, causing it to spin. The spinning turbine is connected to a generator, which generates electricity. The steam is directed to a condenser, where the steam is cooled and is condensed to liquid water. This water is then cycled back to the reactor core, completing the loop.

The reactor building houses the reactor, the primary containment, and fuel handling and storage areas. The primary containment is a steel shell, shaped like a light bulb, enclosed in reinforced concrete, and interconnected to a torus-type steel suppression chamber. The reactor building is capable of containing any radioactive materials that might be released due to a loss-of-coolant accident. (PSEG 2009b)

The HCGS reactor uses slightly enriched UO2 ceramic fuel pellets in zircaloy cladding (PSEG, 2007b). Fuel pellets are loaded into fuel rods and fuel rods are joined together in fuel assemblies.

HCGS uses fuel that is nominal enriched to 5.0 percent (percent uranium-235 by weight) and the combined fuel characteristics and power loading result in a fuel burn-up of about 60,000 MW (d) per metric ton uranium.

Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems The Delaware Estuary provides condenser cooling water and service water for both Salem and HCGS (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b). Salem and HCGS use different systems for condenser cooling, but both withdraw from and discharge water to the estuary. Salem Units 1 and 2 use once-through CWS. HCGS uses a closed-cycle system that employs a single natural draft cooling tower. Unless otherwise noted, the discussions below were adapted from the Salem and HCGS ERs (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b) or information gathered at the site audit. Both sites use groundwater as the source for fresh potable water, fire protection water, industrial process makeup water, and for other sanitary water supplies. Under authorization from the NJDEP (NJDEP, 2004) and Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) (DRBC, 2000), PSEG can service both facilities with up to 43.2 million gallons (164,000 cubic meters [m3]) of groundwater per month.

Salem Nuclear Generating Station 5

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 The Salem facility includes two intake structures, one for the circulating water system (CWS),

and the other for the service water system (SWS). The CWS are equipped with the following features to prevent intake of debris and biota into the pumps (PSEG, 2006c):

Ice Barriers. During the winter, removable ice barriers are installed in front of the intakes to prevent damage to the intake pumps from ice formed on the Delaware Estuary. These barriers consist of pressure-treated wood bars and underlying structural steel braces. The barriers are removed early in the spring and replaced in the late fall.

Trash Racks. After intake water passes through the ice barriers (if installed), it flows through fixed trash racks. These racks prevent large organisms and debris from entering the pumps. The racks are made from 0.5 inch (1.3 cm) steel bars placed on 3.5-inch (8.9 cm) centers, creating a 3-inch (7.6 cm) clearance between each bar. The racks are inspected by PSEG employees, who remove any debris caught on them with mechanical, mobile, clamshell-type rakes. These trash rakes include a hopper that stores and transports removed debris to a pit at the end of each intake, where it is dewatered by gravity and disposed of off-site.

Traveling Screens. After the coarse-grid trash racks, the intake water passes through finer vertical travelling screens. These are modified Ristroph screens designed to remove debris and biota small enough to have passed through the trash racks while minimizing death or injury. The travelling screens have a fine mesh with openings 0.25 inch x 0.5 inch (0.64 cm x 1.3 cm). The velocity through the Salem intake screens is approximately 1 foot per second (fps) (0.3 meters per second [m/s]) at mean low tide.

-ft (3 m) long fish bucket attached across the bottom support member. As the travelling screen reaches the top of each rotation, fish and other organisms caught in the fish bucket slide along a horizontal catch screen. As the travelling screen continues to rotate, the bucket is inverted. A low-pressure water spray washes fish off the screen, and they slide through a flap into a two-way fish trough. Debris is then washed off the screen by a high-pressure water spray into a separate debris trough, and the contents of both fish and debris troughs return to the estuary. The troughs are designed so that when the fish and debris are released, the tidal flow tends to carry them away from the intake, reducing the likelihood of re-impingement. Thus, the troughs empty on either the north or south side of the intake structure depending on the direction of tidal flow.

The CWS withdraws brackish water from the Delaware Estuary using 12 circulating water pumps through a 12-bay intake structure located on the shoreline at the south end of the site.

Water is discharged north of the CWS intake structure via a pipe that extends 500 ft (152 m) from the shoreline. No biocides are required in the CWS.

PSEG has an NJPDES permit for Salem from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The permit sets the maximum water usage from the Delaware Estuary to a 30-day average of 3,024 million gallons per day (MGD; 11.4 million m3/day) of circulating water. The CWS provides approximately 1,050,000 gallons per minute (gpm; 4,000 m3/min) to each of Salems two reactor units.

The total design flow is 1,110,000 gpm (4,200 m3/min) through each unit. The intake velocity is approximately 1 ft/s (0.3 m/s) at mean low tide, which is a rate that is compatible with the 6

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 protection of aquatic wildlife (EPA 2001). The CWS provides water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine and the heated water is returned back to the estuary.

The service water system (SWS) intake is located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the CWS intake. The SWS intake has four bays, each containing three pumps. The 12 service water pumps have a total design rating of 130,500 gpm (494 m3/min). The average velocity throughout the SWS intake is less than 1 fps (0.3 m/s) at the design flow rate. The SWS intake structure is equipped with trash racks, traveling screens, and filters to remove debris and biota from the intake water stream. Backwash water is returned to the estuary.

To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, sodium hypochlorite is injected into the system. SWS water is discharged via the discharge pipe shared with the CWS. Residual chlorine levels are maintained in accordance with the sites NJPDES Permit.

Circulating water from Salem is discharged through six adjacent pipes that are 7 ft (2 m) in diameter and spaced 15 ft (4.6 m) apart on center that merge into three pipes 10 ft (3 m) in diameter (PSEG, 2006c). The discharge piping extends approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the shore (PSEG, 1999). The discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they discharge horizontally into the water of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 35 ft (9.5 m). The discharge is approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. At full power, Salem is designed to discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s) (PSEG, 1999).

Hope Creek Generating Station HCGS uses a single intake structure to supply water from the Delaware Estuary to the SWS. The intake structure consists of four active bays that are equipped with pumps and associated equipment (trash racks, traveling screens, and a fish-return system) and four empty bays that were originally intended to service a second reactor which was never built. Water is drawn into the SWS through trash racks and passes through the traveling screens at a maximum velocity of 0.35 fps (0.11 m/s). The openings in the wire mesh of the screens are 0.375 inches (0.95 cm) square. After passing through the traveling screens, the estuary water enters the service water pumps. Depending on the temperature of the Delaware Estuary water, two or three pumps are normally needed to supply service water. Each pump is rated at 16,500 gpm (62 m3/min). To prevent organic buildup and biofouling in the heat exchangers and piping of the SWS, sodium hypochlorite is continuously injected into the system.

The SWS also provides makeup water for the CWS by supplying water to the cooling tower basin. The cooling tower basin contains approximately 9 million gallons (34,000 m3) of water and provides approximately 612,000 gpm (2,300 m3/min) of water to the CWS via four pumps.

The CWS provides water to the main condenser to condense steam from the turbine and the heated water is returned back to the Estuary.

The cooling tower blowdown and other facility effluents are discharged to the estuary through an underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS SWS intake. The HCGS discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3.0 m) offshore and is situated at mean tide level. The discharge 7

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 from HCGS is regulated under the terms of NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 (NJDEP, 2001b).

The HCGS cooling tower is a 512-foot (156-meter) high single counterflow, hyperbolic, natural draft cooling tower (PSEG, 2008b). While the CWS is a closed-cycle system, water is lost due to evaporation. Monthly losses average from 9,600 gpm (36 m3/min) in January to 13,000 gpm (49 m3/min) in July. Makeup water is provided by the SWS.

Facility Water Use and Quality The Salem and HCGS facilities rely on the Delaware Estuary as their source of makeup water for its cooling water system, and they discharge various waste flows to the Estuary. An onsite well system provides groundwater for other site needs. The following sections describe the water use from these resources.

Surface Water Use Salem and HCGS are located on the eastern shore of the Delaware Estuary, approximately 18 mi (29 km) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The Delaware Estuary at the facility location is an estuary approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) wide. The Delaware River is the source of condenser cooling water and service water for both the Salem and HCGS facilities (PSEG, 2009a; PSEG, 2009b).

The Salem units are both once-through circulating water systems that withdraw brackish water from the Delaware Estuary through a single CWS intake located at the shoreline on the southern end of Artificial Island. The CWS intake structure consists of 12 bays, each outfitted with removable ice barriers, trash racks, traveling screens, circulating water pumps, and a fish return system. The pump capacity of the Salem CWS is 1,110,000 gpm (4,200 m3/min) for each unit, or a total of 2,220,000 gpm (8,400 m3/min) for both units combined. Although the initial design included use of sodium hypochlorite biocides, these were eliminated once enough operational experience was gained to indicate that they were not needed. Therefore, the CWS water is used without treatment (PSEG, 2009a).

In addition to the CWS intake, the Salem units withdraw water from the Delaware River for the SWS, which provides cooling for auxiliary and reactor safeguard systems. The Salem SWS is supplied through a single intake structure located approximately 400 ft (122 m) north of the CWS intake. The Salem SWS intake is also fitted with trash racks, traveling screens, and filters to remove debris and biota from the intake water stream. The pump capacity of the Salem SWS is 65,250 gpm (247 m3/min) for each unit, or a total of 130,500 gpm (494 m3/min) for both units combined (PSEG, 2009a).

The withdrawal of Delaware River water for the Salem CWS and SWS systems is regulated under the terms of Salem NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622 and is also authorized by the DRBC.

The NJPDES permit limits the total withdrawal of Delaware Estuary water to 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m3/day), for a monthly maximum of 90,720 million gallons (342 million m3) (NJDEP, 2001a). The DRBC authorization allows withdrawals not to exceed 97,000 million gallons (367 million m3/day) in a single 30-day period (DRBC, 1977; DRBC, 2001). The withdrawal volumes are reported to NJDEP through monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), and copies of the DMRs are submitted to DRBC. Water usage reports also submitted to the DRBC (DRBC, 2001).

8

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Both the CWS and SWS at Salem discharge water back to the Delaware River through a single return that serves both systems. The discharge location is situated between the CWS and Salem SWS intakes, and consists of six separate discharge pipes; each extending 500 ft (152 m) into the river and discharging water at a depth of 35 ft (11 m) below mean tide. The pipes rest on the river bottom with a concrete apron at the end to control erosion and discharge water at a velocity of 10.5 fps (3.2 m/s) (PSEG, 2006c). The discharge from Salem is regulated under the terms of NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622 (NJDEP, 2001a).

The HCGS facility uses a closed-cycle circulating water system, with a natural draft cooling tower, for condenser cooling. Like Salem, HCGS withdraws water from the Delaware Estuary to supply the SWS, which cools auxiliary and other heat exchange systems. The outflow from the HCGS SWS is directed to the cooling tower basin, and serves as makeup water to replace water lost through evaporation and blowdown from the cooling tower. The HCGS SWS intake is located on the shore of the river and consists of four separate bays with service water pumps, trash racks, traveling screens, and fish-return systems. The structure includes an additional four bays that were originally intended to serve a second HCGS unit, which was never constructed.

The pump capacity of the HCGS SWS is 16,500 gpm (62 m3/min) for each pump, or a total of 66,000 gpm (250 m3/min) when all four pumps are operating. Under normal conditions, only two or three of the pumps are typically operated. The HCGS SWS water is treated with sodium hypochlorite to prevent biofouling (PSEG, 2009b).

The discharge from the HCGS SWS is directed to the cooling tower basin, where it acts as makeup water for the HCGS CWS. The natural draft cooling tower has a total capacity of 9 million gallons (34,000 m3) of water, and circulates water through the CWS at a rate of 612,000 gpm (2,300 m3/min). Water is removed from the HCGS CWS through both evaporative loss from the cooling tower and from blowdown to control deposition of solids within the system.

Evaporative losses result in consumptive loss of water from the Delaware River. The volume of evaporative losses vary throughout the year depending on the climate, but range from approximately 9,600 gpm (36 m3/min) in January to 13,000 gpm (49 m3/min) in July.

Blowdown water is returned to the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 2002b). The withdrawal of Delaware Estuary water for the HCGS CWS and SWS systems is regulated under the terms of HCGS NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 and is also authorized by the DRBC. Although it requires measurement and reporting, the NJPDES permit does not specify limits on the total withdrawal volume of Delaware River water for HCGS operations (NJDEP, 2003). Actual withdrawals average 66.8 MGD (253,000 m3/day), of which 6.7 MGD (25,000 m3/day) are returned as screen backwash, and 13 MGD (49,000 m3/day) is evaporated. The remainder (approximately 46 MGD [174,000 m3/day]) is discharged back to the river (PSEG, 2009b). The HCGS DRBC contract allows withdrawals up to 16.998 billion gallons (64 million m3) per year, including up to 4.086 billion gallons (15 million m3) of consumptive use (DRBC, 1984a; 1984b). To compensate for evaporative losses in the system, the DRBC authorization requires releases from storage reservoirs, or reductions in withdrawal, during periods of low-flow conditions at Trenton, NJ (DRBC, 2001). To accomplish this, PSEG is one of several utilities which owns and operates the Merrill Creek reservoir in Washington, NJ. Merrill Creek reservoir is used to release water during low-flow conditions, as required by the DRBC authorization 9

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 (PSEG, 2009b).

The SWS and cooling tower blowdown water from HCGS is discharged back to the Delaware River through an underwater conduit located 1,500 ft (460 m) upstream of the HCGS SWS intake. The HCGS discharge pipe extends 10 ft (3 m) offshore, and is situated at mean tide level.

The discharge from HCGS is regulated under the terms of NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 (NJDEP, 2001a).

NPDES/SPDES PERMITS Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). In July 2004, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Phase II Rule implementing Section 316(b) of the CWA for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), which applied to large power producers that withdraw large amounts of surface water for cooling (50 MGD or more) (189,000 m3/day or more). The rule became effective on September 7, 2004 and included numeric performance standards for reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment that would demonstrate that the cooling water intake system constitutes BTA for minimizing impingement and entrainment impacts. Existing facilities subject to the rule were required to demonstrate compliance with the rules performance standards during the renewal process for their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit through development of a Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS). As a result of a Federal court decision, EPA officially suspended the Phase II rule on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37107) pending further rulemaking.

EPA instructed permitting authorities to utilize best professional judgment in establishing permit requirements on a case by-case basis for cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities until it has resolved the issues raised by the courts ruling.

Salem In 1990, NJDEP issued a draft New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit that proposed closed-cycle cooling as BTA for Salem. In 1993, NJDEP concluded that the cost of retrofitting Salem to closed-cycle cooling would be wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefits realized, and a new draft permit was issued in 1994 (PSEG, 1999a). The 1994 final NJPDES permit stated that the existing cooling water intake system was BTA for Salem, with certain conditions (NJDEP, 1994).

Conditions of the 1994 permit included improvements to the screens and Ristroph buckets, a monthly average limitation on cooling water flow of 3,024 MGD (11.4 million m3/day), and a pilot study for the use of a sound deterrent system. In addition to technology and operational measures, the 1994 permit required restoration measures that included a wetlands restoration and enhancement program designed to increase primary production in the Delaware Estuary and fish ladders at dams along the Delaware River to restore access to traditional spawning runs for anadromous species such as blueback herring and alewife. A Biological Monitoring Work Plan (BMWP) was also required to monitor the efficacy of the technology and operational measures employed at the site and the restoration programs funded by PSEG (NJDEP, 1994). The BMWP included monitoring plans for fish utilization of restored wetlands, elimination of impediments to fish migration, bay-wide trawl survey, and beach seine survey, in addition to the entrainment and 10

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 impingement abundance monitoring (PSEG, 1994). The main purpose of these studies was to monitor the success of the wetland restoration activities and screen modifications undertaken by PSEG.

The 2001 NJPDES permit required continuation of the restoration programs implemented in response to the 1994 permit, an Improved Biological Monitoring Work Plan (IBMWP), and a more detailed analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment losses at the facility (NJDEP, 2001). The 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application responded to the requirement for a detailed analysis by including a CDS as required by the Phase II rule and an assessment of alternative intake technologies (AIT). The AIT assessment includes a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the existing intake configuration and alternatives along with an analysis of the costs and benefits of the wetlands restoration program that PSEG implemented in response to the requirements of the 1994 NJPDES permit (PSEG, 2006c).

The IBMWP was submitted to NJDEP in April 2002 and approved in July 2003. A reduction in the frequency of monitoring at fish ladder sites that successfully pass river herring was submitted in December 2003 and approved was in May 2004. In 2006 PSEG submitted a revised IBMWP that proposed a reduction in sampling at the restored wetland sites. Sampling would be conducted at representative locations instead of at every restoration site (PSEG, 2006c).

Salems 2006 NJPDES permit renewal application included a CDS because the Phase II rule was still in effect at that time. The CDS for Salem was completed in 2006 and included an analysis of impingement mortality and entrainment at the facilitys cooling water intake system. According to PSEG (2006c), this analysis shows that the changes in technology and operation of the Salem cooling water intake system satisfied the performance standards of the Phase II rule and that the current configuration constitutes BTA. In 2006, NJDEP administratively continued Salems 2001 NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), and no timeframe has been determined for issuance of the new NJPDES permit.

Hope Creek The current NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025411 for the HCGS facility was issued in early 2003, with an effective date of March 1, 2003, and an expiration date of February 29, 2008 (NJDEP, 2003). A renewal application was filed on August 30, 2007; as of November 15, 2011, no final permit had been issued.

The HCGS NJPDES permit regulates water withdrawals and discharges associated with both stormwater and industrial wastewater, including discharges of cooling tower blowdown (NJDEP, 2003). The cooling tower blowdown and other effluents are discharged through an underwater pipe located on the bank of the river, 1,500 ft (457 m) upstream of the SWS intake.

Industrial wastewater is regulated at five locations, designated DSNs 461A, 461C, and 462B.

Discharge DSN 461A is the discharge for the cooling water blowdown, and the permit established reporting and compliance limits for intake and discharge volume (in MGD), pH, chlorine-produced oxidants, intake and discharge temperature, total organic carbon, and heat content in millions of BTUs per hour, in both summer and winter (NJDEP, 2003). Discharge DSN 461C is a discharge for the oil/water separator system and has established reporting and 11

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 compliance limits for discharge volume, total suspended solids, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, and total organic carbon (NJDEP, 2003).

In this consultation, NMFS has considered effects of the operation of Salem and Hope Creek through the extended operating period with the 2001 and 2003 SPDES permits in effect. This scenario is the one defined by NRC as its proposed action in its Final GSEIS and the BA provided to NMFS in which NRC considered effects of the operation of the facility during the extended operating period on listed species. Therefore, it is the subject of this consultation.

However, if a new final SPDES permit is issued for either facility, NRC and NMFS would have to determine if reinitiation of this consultation is necessary to consider any effects of the operation of the facility on shortnose sturgeon that were not considered in this Opinion.

Action Area The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) are located at the southern end of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The facilities are located at River Mile (RM) 50 (River Kilometer 80 [RK 80]) and RM 51 (RK 82) on the Delaware River, respectively, approximately 17 miles (mi) (27 kilometers

[km]) south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Philadelphia is about 35 mi (56 km) northeast and the city of Salem, New Jersey is 8 mi (13 km) northeast of the site (AEC, 1973). Figure 1 shows the location of Salem and HCGS within a 6-mi (10 km) radius, and Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the site. The Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations are located on the southern end of Artificial Island, New Jersey on the eastern shore of the Delaware River Estuary, about 30 miles south of Philadelphia. Artificial Island is a peninsula created from a natural sand bar in the early 1900s by the Army Corps of Engineers. The tidal river in this area narrows upstream of Artificial Island and turns nearly 60 degrees. Most of the river in this area is less than 18 feet deep. Deeper parts include the navigation channel that extends from the mouth of the bay to Trenton, New Jersey and has depths of up to 40 feet near Artificial Island. The action area includes the project footprint and the area of the river affected by the discharge of heated effluent (the thermal plume). The plume is narrow and approximately follows the contour of the shoreline at the discharge. The width of the plume varies from about 4,000 ft (1,200 m) on the flood tide to about 10,000 ft (3,000 m) on the ebb tide. The maximum plume length extends to approximately 43,000 ft (13,000 m) upstream and 36,000 ft (11,000 m) downstream (PSEG, 1999c).

LISTED SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA NMFS has determined that the following endangered or threatened species may be affected by the proposed action:

Sea turtles Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Threatened Kemps ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered Green (Chelonia mydas) Endangered Fish 12

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for species under NMFS jurisdiction in the action area.

Thus, effects to critical habitat will not be considered in this Opinion.

Status of Sea Turtles With the exception of loggerheads, sea turtles are listed under the ESA at the species level rather than as subspecies or distinct population segments (DPS). Therefore, information on the range-wide status of Kemps ridley and green sea turtles is included to provide the status of each species, overall. Information on the status of loggerheads will only be presented for the DPS affected by this action. Additional background information on the range-wide status of these species can be found in a number of published documents, including sea turtle status reviews and biological reports (NMFS and USFWS 1995; Hirth 1997; Marine Turtle Expert Working Group

[TEWG] 1998, 2000, 2007, 2009; NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d; Conant et al. 2009), and recovery plans for the loggerhead sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 2008), Kemps ridley sea turtle (NMFS et al. 2011), and green sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 1998b).

2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill The April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig affected sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. There is an on-going assessment of the long-term effects of the spill on Gulf of Mexico marine life, including sea turtle populations. Following the spill, juvenile Kemps ridley, green, and loggerhead sea turtles were found in Sargassum algae mats in the convergence zones, where currents meet and oil collected. Sea turtles found in these areas were often coated in oil and/or had ingested oil. Approximately 536 live adult and juvenile sea turtles were recovered from the Gulf and brought into rehabilitation centers; of these, 456 were visibly oiled (these and the following numbers were obtained from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/). To date, 469 of the live recovered sea turtles have been successfully returned to the wild, 25 died during rehabilitation, and 42 are still in care but will hopefully be returned to the wild eventually.

During the clean-up period, 613 dead sea turtles were recovered in coastal waters or on beaches in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and the Florida Panhandle. As of February 2011, 478 of these dead turtles had been examined. Many of the examined sea turtles showed indications that they had died as a result of interactions with trawl gear, most likely used in the shrimp fishery, and not as a result of exposure to or ingestion of oil.

During the spring and summer of 2010, nearly 300 sea turtle nests were relocated from the northern Gulf to the east coast of Florida with the goal of preventing hatchlings from entering the oiled waters of the northern Gulf. From these relocated nests, 14,676 sea turtles, including 14,235 loggerheads, 125 Kemps ridleys, and 316 greens, were ultimately released from Florida beaches.

A thorough assessment of the long-term effects of the spill on sea turtles has not yet been completed. However, the spill resulted in the direct mortality of many sea turtles and may have had sublethal effects or caused environmental damage that will impact other sea turtles into the future. The population level effects of the spill and associated response activity are likely to remain unknown for some period into the future.

13

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Loggerhead sea turtle The loggerhead is the most abundant species of sea turtle in U.S. waters. Loggerhead sea turtles are found in temperate and subtropical waters and occupy a range of habitats including offshore waters, continental shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons. They are also exposed to a variety of natural and anthropogenic threats in the terrestrial and marine environment.

Listing History Loggerhead sea turtles were listed as threatened throughout their global range on July 28, 1978.

Since that time, several status reviews have been conducted to review the status of the species and make recommendations regarding its ESA listing status. Based on a 2007 5-year status review of the species, which discussed a variety of threats to loggerheads including climate change, NMFS and FWS determined that loggerhead sea turtles should not be delisted or reclassified as endangered. However, it was also determined that an analysis and review of the species should be conducted in the future to determine whether DPSs should be identified for the loggerhead (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). Genetic differences exist between loggerhead sea turtles that nest and forage in the different ocean basins (Bowen 2003; Bowen and Karl 2007).

Differences in the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA also exist between loggerhead nesting groups that occur within the same ocean basin (TEWG 2000; Pearce 2001; Bowen 2003; Bowen et al. 2005; Shamblin 2007; TEWG 2009; NMFS and USFWS 2008). Site fidelity of females to one or more nesting beaches in an area is believed to account for these genetic differences (TEWG 2000; Bowen 2003).

In part to evaluate those genetic differences, in 2008, NMFS and FWS established a Loggerhead Biological Review Team (BRT) to assess the global loggerhead population structure to determine whether DPSs exist and, if so, the status of each DPS. The BRT evaluated genetic data, tagging and telemetry data, demographic information, oceanographic features, and geographic barriers to determine whether population segments exist. The BRT report was completed in August 2009 (Conant et al. 2009). In this report, the BRT identified the following nine DPSs as being discrete from other conspecific population segments and significant to the species: (1) North Pacific Ocean, (2) South Pacific Ocean, (3) North Indian Ocean, (4) Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, (5)

Southwest Indian Ocean, (6) Northwest Atlantic Ocean, (7) Northeast Atlantic Ocean, (8)

Mediterranean Sea, and (9) South Atlantic Ocean.

The BRT concluded that although some DPSs are indicating increasing trends at nesting beaches (Southwest Indian Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean), available information about anthropogenic threats to juveniles and adults in neritic and oceanic environments indicate possible unsustainable additional mortalities. According to an analysis using expert opinion in a matrix model framework, the BRT report stated that all loggerhead DPSs have the potential to decline in the foreseeable future. Based on the threat matrix analysis, the potential for future decline was reported as greatest for the North Indian Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs (Conant et al. 2009). The BRT concluded that the North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea DPSs were at risk of extinction. The BRT concluded that although the Southwest Indian Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs were likely not currently at immediate risk of extinction, the extinction risk was likely to increase in the foreseeable future.

14

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 On March 16, 2010, NMFS and USFWS published a proposed rule (75 FR 12598) to divide the worldwide population of loggerhead sea turtles into nine DPSs, as described in the 2009 Status Review. Two of the DPSs were proposed to be listed as threatened and seven of the DPSs, including the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, were proposed to be listed as endangered. NMFS and the USFWS accepted comments on the proposed rule through September 13, 2010 (75 FR 30769, June 2, 2010). On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15932), NMFS and USFWS extended the date by which a final determination on the listing action will be made to no later than September 16, 2011. This action was taken to address the interpretation of the existing data on status and trends and its relevance to the assessment of risk of extinction for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, as well as the magnitude and immediacy of the fisheries bycatch threat and measures to reduce this threat. New information or analyses to help clarify these issues were requested by April 11, 2011.

On September 22, 2011, NMFS and USFWS issued a final rule (76 FR 58868), determining that the loggerhead sea turtle is composed of nine DPSs (as defined in Conant et al., 2009) that constitute species that may be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Five DPSs were listed as endangered (North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea), and four DPSs were listed as threatened (Northwest Atlantic Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, and Southwest Indian Ocean). Note that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA) DPS and the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS were original proposed as endangered. The NWA DPS was determined to be threatened based on review of nesting data available after the proposed rule was published, information provided in public comments on the proposed rule, and further discussions within the agencies. The two primary factors considered were population abundance and population trend. NMFS and USFWS found that an endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted given the large size of the nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread, the trend for the nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts are underway to address threats. This final listing rule became effective on October 25, 2011.

The September 2011 final rule also noted that critical habitat for the two DPSs occurring within the U.S. (NWA DPS and North Pacific DPS) will be designated in a future rulemaking.

Information from the public related to the identification of critical habitat, essential physical or biological features for this species, and other relevant impacts of a critical habitat designation was solicited. Currently, no critical habitat is designated for any DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, and therefore, no critical habitat for any DPS occurs in the action area.

Presence of loggerhead sea turtles in the action area The effects of this proposed action are only experienced within New Jersey state waters. NMFS has considered the available information on the distribution of the 9 DPSs to determine the origin of any loggerhead sea turtles that may occur in the action area. As noted in Conant et al. (2009),

the range of the four DPSs occurring in the Atlantic Ocean are as follows: NWA DPS - north of the equator, south of 60° N latitude, and west of 40° W longitude; Northeast Atlantic Ocean (NEA) DPS - north of the equator, south of 60° N latitude, east of 40° W longitude, and west of 5° 36 W longitude; South Atlantic DPS - south of the equator, north of 60° S latitude, west of 20° E longitude, and east of 60° W longitude; Mediterranean DPS - the Mediterranean Sea east 15

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 of 5° 36 W longitude. These boundaries were determined based on oceanographic features, loggerhead sightings, thermal tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. While adults are highly structured with no overlap, there may be some degree of overlap by juveniles of the NWA, NEA, and Mediterranean DPSs on oceanic foraging grounds (Laurent et al. 1993, 1998; Bolten et al.

1998; LaCasella et al. 2005; Carreras et al. 2006, Monzón-Argüello et al. 2006; Revelles et al.

2007). Previous literature (Bowen et al. 2004) has suggested that there is the potential, albeit small, for some juveniles from the Mediterranean DPS to be present in U.S. Atlantic coastal foraging grounds. These conclusions must be interpreted with caution however, as they may be representing a shared common haplotype and lack of representative sampling at Eastern Atlantic rookeries rather than an actual presence of Mediterranean DPS turtles in US Atlantic coastal waters. A re-analysis of the data by the Atlantic loggerhead Turtle Expert Working Group has found that that it is unlikely that U.S. fishing fleets are interacting with either the Northeast Atlantic loggerhead DPS or the Mediterranean loggerhead DPS (Peter Dutton, NMFS, Marine Turtle Genetics Program, Program Leader, personal communication, September 10, 2011).

Given that the action area is a subset of the area fished by US fleets, it is reasonable to assume that based on this new analysis, no individuals from the Mediterranean DPS or Northeast Atlantic DPS would be present in the action area. Sea turtles of the South Atlantic DPS do not inhabit the action area of this consultation (Conant et al. 2009). As such, the remainder of this consultation will only focus on the NWA DPS, listed as threatened.

Distribution and Life History Ehrhart et al. (2003) provided a summary of the literature identifying known nesting habitats and foraging areas for loggerheads within the Atlantic Ocean. Detailed information is also provided in the 5-year status review for loggerheads (NMFS and USFWS 2007a), the TEWG report (2009), and the final revised recovery plan for loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NMFS and USFWS 2008), which is a second revision to the original recovery plan that was approved in 1984 and subsequently revised in 1991.

In the western Atlantic, waters as far north as 41 N to 42 N latitude are used for foraging by juveniles, as well as adults (Shoop 1987; Shoop and Kenney 1992; Ehrhart et al. 2003; Mitchell et al. 2003). In U.S. Atlantic waters, loggerheads commonly occur throughout the inner continental shelf from Florida to Cape Cod, Massachusetts and in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Texas, although their presence varies with the seasons due to changes in water temperature (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b; Braun and Epperly 1996; Braun-McNeill et al. 2008; Mitchell et al. 2003). Loggerheads have been observed in waters with surface temperatures of 7 C to 30 C, but water temperatures 11 C are most favorable (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995b). The presence of loggerhead sea turtles in U.S.

Atlantic waters is also influenced by water depth. Aerial surveys of continental shelf waters north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina indicated that loggerhead sea turtles were most commonly sighted in waters with bottom depths ranging from 22 m to 49 m deep (Shoop and Kenney 1992). However, more recent survey and satellite tracking data support that they occur in waters from the beach to beyond the continental shelf (Mitchell et al. 2003; Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2004; Mansfield 2006; Blumenthal et al. 2006; Hawkes et al. 2006; McClellan and Read 2007; Mansfield et al. 2009).

16

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Loggerhead sea turtles occur year round in ocean waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In these areas of the South Atlantic Bight, water temperature is influenced by the proximity of the Gulf Stream. As coastal water temperatures warm in the spring, loggerheads begin to migrate to inshore waters of the Southeast United States (e.g., Pamlico and Core Sounds) and also move up the U.S. Atlantic coast (Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1995c; Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2004), occurring in Virginia foraging areas as early as April/May and on the most northern foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine in June (Shoop and Kenney 1992). The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. The large majority leave the Gulf of Maine by mid-September but some turtles may remain in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas until late fall. By December, loggerheads have migrated from inshore and more northern coastal waters to waters offshore of North Carolina, particularly off of Cape Hatteras, and waters further south where the influence of the Gulf Stream provides temperatures favorable to sea turtles (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995b).

Recent studies have established that the loggerheads life history is more complex than previously believed. Rather than making discrete developmental shifts from oceanic to neritic environments, research is showing that both adults and (presumed) neritic stage juveniles continue to use the oceanic environment and will move back and forth between the two habitats (Witzell 2002; Blumenthal et al. 2006; Hawkes et al. 2006; McClellan and Read 2007; Mansfield et al. 2009). One of the studies tracked the movements of adult post-nesting females and found that differences in habitat use were related to body size with larger adults staying in coastal waters and smaller adults traveling to oceanic waters (Hawkes et al. 2006). A tracking study of large juveniles found that the habitat preferences of this life stage were also diverse with some remaining in neritic waters and others moving off into oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 2007). However, unlike the Hawkes et al. (2006) study, there was no significant difference in the body size of turtles that remained in neritic waters versus oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 2007).

Pelagic and benthic juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988; NMFS and USFWS 2008). Sub-adult and adult loggerheads are primarily coastal dwelling and typically prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hard bottom habitats (NMFS and USFWS 2008).

As presented below, Table 3 from the 2008 loggerhead recovery plan highlights the key life history parameters for loggerheads nesting in the United States.

17

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Population Dynamics and Status By far, the majority of Atlantic nesting occurs on beaches of the southeastern United States (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). For the past decade or so, the scientific literature has recognized five distinct nesting groups, or subpopulations, of loggerhead sea turtles in the Northwest Atlantic, divided geographically as follows: (1) a northern group of nesting females that nest from North Carolina to northeast Florida at about 29 N latitude; (2) a south Florida group of nesting females that nest from 29 N latitude on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast; (3) a 18

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Florida Panhandle group of nesting females that nest around Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida; (4) a Yucatán group of nesting females that nest on beaches of the eastern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico; and (5) a Dry Tortugas group that nests on beaches of the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida and on Cal Sal Bank (TEWG 2009).

Genetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA, which a sea turtle inherits from its mother, indicate that there are genetic differences between loggerheads that nest at and originate from the beaches used by each of the five identified nesting groups of females (TEWG 2009). However, analyses of microsatellite loci from nuclear DNA, which represents the genetic contribution from both parents, indicates little to no genetic differences between loggerheads originating from nesting beaches of the five Northwest Atlantic nesting groups (Pearce and Bowen 2001; Bowen 2003; Bowen et al. 2005; Shamblin 2007). These results suggest that female loggerheads have site fidelity to nesting beaches within a particular area, while males provide an avenue of gene flow between nesting groups by mating with females that originate from different nesting groups (Bowen 2003; Bowen et al. 2005). The extent of such gene flow, however, is unclear (Shamblin 2007).

The lack of genetic structure makes it difficult to designate specific boundaries for the nesting subpopulations based on genetic differences alone. Therefore, the Loggerhead Recovery Team recently used a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic separation, and geopolitical boundaries, in addition to genetic differences, to reassess the designation of these subpopulations to identify recovery units in the 2008 recovery plan.

In the 2008 recovery plan, the Loggerhead Recovery Team designated five recovery units for the Northwest Atlantic population of loggerhead sea turtles based on the aforementioned nesting groups and inclusive of a few other nesting areas not mentioned above. The first four of these recovery units represent nesting assemblages located in the Southeast United States. The fifth recovery unit is composed of all other nesting assemblages of loggerheads within the Greater Caribbean, outside the United States, but which occur within U.S. waters during some portion of their lives. The five recovery units representing nesting assemblages are: (1) the Northern Recovery Unit (NRU: Florida/Georgia border through southern Virginia), (2) the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU: Florida/Georgia border through Pinellas County, Florida), (3) the Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU: islands located west of Key West, Florida), (4) the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU: Franklin County, Florida through Texas),

and (5) the Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU: Mexico through French Guiana, Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles).

The Recovery Team evaluated the status and trends of the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population for each of the five recovery units, using nesting data available as of October 2008 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The level and consistency of nesting coverage varies among recovery units, with coverage in Florida generally being the most consistent and thorough over time. Since 1989, nest count surveys in Florida have occurred in the form of statewide surveys (a near complete census of entire Florida nesting) and index beach surveys (Witherington et al.

2009). Index beaches were established to standardize data collection methods and maintain a constant level of effort on key nesting beaches over time.

Note that NMFS and USFWS (2008), Witherington et al. (2009), and TEWG (2009) analyzed 19

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 the status of the nesting assemblages within the NWA DPS using standardized data collected over periods ranging from 10-23 years. These analyses used different analytical approaches, but found the same finding that there had been a significant, overall nesting decline within the NWA DPS. However, with the addition of nesting data from 2008-2010, the trend line changes showing a very slight negative trend, but the rate of decline is not statistically different from zero (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). The nesting data presented in the Recovery Plan (through 2008) is described below, with updated trend information through 2010 for two recovery units.

From the beginning of standardized index surveys in 1989 until 1998, the PFRU, the largest nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic by an order of magnitude, had a significant increase in the number of nests. However, from 1998 through 2008, there was a 41% decrease in annual nest counts from index beaches, which represent an average of 70% of the statewide nesting activity (NMFS and USFWS 2008). From 1989-2008, the PFRU had an overall declining nesting trend of 26% (95% CI: -42% to -5%; NMFS and USFWS 2008). With the addition of nesting data through 2010, the nesting trend for the PFRU does not show a nesting decline statistically different from zero (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). The NRU, the second largest nesting assemblage of loggerheads in the United States, has been declining at a rate of 1.3% annually since 1983 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The NRU dataset included 11 beaches with an uninterrupted time series of coverage of at least 20 years; these beaches represent approximately 27% of NRU nesting (in 2008). Through 2008, there was strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline, but with the inclusion of nesting data through 2010, nesting for the NRU is showing possible signs of stabilizing (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). Evaluation of long-term nesting trends for the NGMRU is difficult because of changed and expanded beach coverage. However, the NGMRU has shown a significant declining trend of 4.7% annually since index nesting beach surveys were initiated in 1997 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). No statistical trends in nesting abundance can be determined for the DTRU because of the lack of long-term data. Similarly, statistically valid analyses of long-term nesting trends for the entire GCRU are not available because there are few long-term standardized nesting surveys representative of the region. Additionally, changing survey effort at monitored beaches and scattered and low-level nesting by loggerheads at many locations currently precludes comprehensive analyses (NMFS and USFWS 2008).

Sea turtle census nesting surveys are important in that they provide information on the relative abundance of nesting each year, and the contribution of each nesting group to total nesting of the species. Nest counts can also be used to estimate the number of reproductively mature females nesting annually. The 2008 recovery plan compiled information on mean number of loggerhead nests and the approximated counts of nesting females per year for four of the five identified recovery units (i.e., nesting groups). They are: (1) for the NRU, a mean of 5,215 loggerhead nests per year (from 1989-2008) with approximately 1,272 females nesting per year; (2) for the PFRU, a mean of 64,513 nests per year (from 1989-2007) with approximately 15,735 females nesting per year; (3) for the DTRU, a mean of 246 nests per year (from 1995-2004, excluding 2002) with approximately 60 females nesting per year; and (4) for the NGMRU, a mean of 906 nests per year (from 1995-2007) with approximately 221 females nesting per year. For the GCRU, the only estimate available for the number of loggerhead nests per year is from Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where a range of 903-2,331 nests per year was estimated from 1987-2001 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). There are no annual nest estimates available for the Yucatán since 20

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 2001 or for any other regions in the GCRU, nor are there any estimates of the number of nesting females per year for any nesting assemblage in this recovery unit. Note that the above values for average nesting females per year were based upon 4.1 nests per female per Murphy and Hopkins (1984).

Genetic studies of juvenile and a few adult loggerhead sea turtles collected from Northwest Atlantic foraging areas (beach strandings, a power plant in Florida, and North Carolina fisheries) show that the loggerheads that occupy East Coast U.S. waters originate from these Northwest Atlantic nesting groups; primarily from the nearby nesting beaches of southern Florida, as well as the northern Florida to North Carolina beaches, and finally from the beaches of the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (Rankin-Baransky et al. 2001; Witzell et al. 2002; Bass et al. 2004; Bowen et al. 2004). The contribution of these three nesting assemblages varies somewhat among the foraging habitats and age classes surveyed along the east coast. The distribution is not random and bears a significant relationship to the proximity and size of adjacent nesting colonies (Bowen et al. 2004). Bass et al. (2004) attribute the variety in the proportions of sea turtles from loggerhead turtle nesting assemblages documented in different east coast foraging habitats to a complex interplay of currents and the relative size and proximity of nesting beaches.

Unlike nesting surveys, in-water studies of sea turtles typically sample both sexes and multiple age classes. In-water studies have been conducted in some areas of the Northwest Atlantic and provide data by which to assess the relative abundance of loggerhead sea turtles and changes in abundance over time (Maier et al. 2004; Morreale et al. 2005; Mansfield 2006; Ehrhart et al.

2007; Epperly et al. 2007). The TEWG (2009) used raw data from six in-water study sites to conduct trend analyses. They identified an increasing trend in the abundance of loggerheads from three of the four sites located in the Southeast United States, one site showed no discernible trend, and the two sites located in the northeast United States showed a decreasing trend in abundance of loggerheads. The 2008 loggerhead recovery plan also includes a full discussion of in-water population studies for which trend data have been reported, and a brief summary will be provided here.

Maier et al. (2004) used fishery-independent trawl data to establish a regional index of loggerhead abundance for the southeast coast of the United States (Winyah Bay, South Carolina to St. Augustine, Florida) during the period 2000-2003. A comparison of loggerhead catch data from this study with historical values suggested that in-water populations of loggerhead sea turtles along the southeast U.S. coast appear to be larger, possibly an order of magnitude higher than they were 25 years ago, but the authors caution a direct comparison between the two studies given differences in sampling methodology (Maier et al. 2004). A comparison of catch rates for sea turtles in pound net gear fished in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex of North Carolina between the years 1995-1997 and 2001-2003 found a significant increase in catch rates for loggerhead sea turtles for the latter period (Epperly et al. 2007). A long-term, on-going study of loggerhead abundance in the Indian River Lagoon System of Florida found a significant increase in the relative abundance of loggerheads over the last 4 years of the study (Ehrhart et al.

2007). However, there was no discernible trend in loggerhead abundance during the 24-year time period of the study (1982-2006) (Ehrhart et al. 2007). At St. Lucie Power Plant, data collected from 1977-2004 show an increasing trend of loggerheads at the power plant intake structures (FPL and Quantum Resources 2005).

21

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 In contrast to these studies, Morreale et al. (2005) observed a decline in the percentage and relative numbers of loggerhead sea turtles incidentally captured in pound net gear fished around Long Island, New York during the period 2002-2004 in comparison to the period 1987-1992, with only two loggerheads (of a total 54 turtles) observed captured in pound net gear during the period 2002-2004. This is in contrast to the previous decades study where numbers of individual loggerheads ranged from 11 to 28 per year (Morreale et al. 2005). No additional loggerheads were reported captured in pound net gear in New York through 2007, although two were found cold-stunned on Long Island bay beaches in the fall of 2007 (Memo to the File, L.

Lankshear, December 2007). Potential explanations for this decline include major shifts in loggerhead foraging areas and/or increased mortality in pelagic or early benthic stage/age classes (Morreale et al. 2005). Using aerial surveys, Mansfield (2006) also found a decline in the densities of loggerhead sea turtles in Chesapeake Bay over the period 2001-2004 compared to aerial survey data collected in the 1980s. Significantly fewer loggerheads (p<0.05) were observed in both the spring (May-June) and the summer (July-August) of 2001-2004 compared to those observed during aerial surveys in the 1980s (Mansfield 2006). A comparison of median densities from the 1980s to the 2000s suggested that there had been a 63.2% reduction in densities during the spring residency period and a 74.9% reduction in densities during the summer residency period (Mansfield 2006). The decline in observed loggerhead populations in Chesapeake Bay may be related to a significant decline in prey, namely horseshoe crabs and blue crabs, with loggerheads redistributing outside of Bay waters (NMFS and USFWS 2008).

As with other turtle species, population estimates for loggerhead sea turtles are difficult to determine, largely given their life history characteristics. However, a recent loggerhead assessment using a demographic matrix model estimated that the loggerhead adult female population in the western North Atlantic ranges from 16,847 to 89,649, with a median size of 30,050 (NMFS SEFSC 2009). The model results for population trajectory suggest that the population is most likely declining, but this result was very sensitive to the choice of the position of the parameters within their range and hypothesized distributions. The pelagic stage survival parameter had the largest effect on the model results. As a result of the large uncertainty in our knowledge of loggerhead life history, at this point predicting the future populations or population trajectories of loggerhead sea turtles with precision is very uncertain. It should also be noted that additional analyses are underway which will incorporate any newly available information.

As part of the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS), line transect aerial abundance surveys and turtle telemetry studies were conducted along the Atlantic coast in the summer of 2010. AMAPPS is a multi-agency initiative to assess marine mammal, sea turtle, and seabird abundance and distribution in the Atlantic. Aerial surveys were conducted from Cape Canaveral, Florida to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Satellite tags on juvenile loggerheads were deployed in two locations - off the coasts of northern Florida to South Carolina (n=30) and off the New Jersey and Delaware coasts (n=14). As presented in NMFS NEFSC (2011), the 2010 survey found a preliminary total surface abundance estimate within the entire study area of about 60,000 loggerheads (CV=0.13) or 85,000 if a portion of unidentified hard-shelled sea turtles were included (CV=0.10). Surfacing times were generated from the satellite tag data collected during the aerial survey period, resulting in a 7% (5%-11% inter-quartile range) median surface time in the South Atlantic area and a 67% (57%-77% inter-quartile range) 22

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 median surface time to the north. The calculated preliminary regional abundance estimate is about 588,000 loggerheads along the U.S. Atlantic coast, with an inter-quartile range of 382,000-817,000 (NMFS NEFSC 2011). The estimate increases to approximately 801,000 (inter-quartile range of 521,000-1,111,000) when based on known loggerheads and a portion of unidentified turtle sightings. The density of loggerheads was generally lower in the north than the south; based on number of turtle groups detected, 64% were seen south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 30% in the southern Mid-Atlantic Bight, and 6% in the northern Mid-Atlantic Bight.

Although they have been seen farther north in previous studies (e.g., Shoop and Kenney 1992),

no loggerheads were observed during the aerial surveys conducted in the summer of 2010 in the more northern zone encompassing Georges Bank, Cape Cod Bay, and the Gulf of Maine. These estimates of loggerhead abundance over the U.S. Atlantic continental shelf are considered very preliminary. A more thorough analysis will be completed pending the results of further studies related to improving estimates of regional and seasonal variation in loggerhead surface time (by increasing the sample size and geographical area of tagging) and other information needed to improve the biases inherent in aerial surveys of sea turtles (e.g., research on depth of detection and species misidentification rate). This survey effort represents the most comprehensive assessment of sea turtle abundance and distribution in many years. Additional aerial surveys and research to improve the abundance estimates are anticipated in 2011-2014, depending on available funds.

Threats The diversity of a sea turtles life history leaves them susceptible to many natural and human impacts, including impacts while they are on land, in the neritic environment, and in the oceanic environment. The 5-year status review and 2008 recovery plan provide a summary of natural as well as anthropogenic threats to loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2008).

Amongst those of natural origin, hurricanes are known to be destructive to sea turtle nests. Sand accretion, rainfall, and wave action that result from these storms can appreciably reduce hatchling success. Other sources of natural mortality include cold-stunning, biotoxin exposure, and native species predation.

Anthropogenic factors that impact hatchlings and adult females on land, or the success of nesting and hatching include: beach erosion, beach armoring, and nourishment; artificial lighting; beach cleaning; beach pollution; increased human presence; recreational beach equipment; vehicular and pedestrian traffic; coastal development/construction; exotic dune and beach vegetation; removal of native vegetation; and poaching. An increased human presence at some nesting beaches or close to nesting beaches has led to secondary threats such as the introduction of exotic fire ants, feral hogs, dogs, and an increased presence of native species (e.g., raccoons, armadillos, and opossums), which raid nests and feed on turtle eggs (NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2008).

Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expanses of the Northwest Atlantic coast (in areas like Merritt Island, Archie Carr, and Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuges),

other areas along these coasts have limited or no protection. Sea turtle nesting and hatching success on unprotected high density East Florida nesting beaches from Indian River to Broward County are affected by all of the above threats.

Loggerheads are affected by a completely different set of anthropogenic threats in the marine environment. These include oil and gas exploration, coastal development, and transportation; 23

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 marine pollution; underwater explosions; hopper dredging; offshore artificial lighting; power plant entrainment and/or impingement; entanglement in debris; ingestion of marine debris; marina and dock construction and operation; boat collisions; poaching; and fishery interactions.

A 1990 National Research Council (NRC) report concluded that for juveniles, subadults, and breeders in coastal waters, the most important source of human caused mortality in U.S. Atlantic waters was fishery interactions. The sizes and reproductive values of sea turtles taken by fisheries vary significantly, depending on the location and season of the fishery, and size-selectivity resulting from gear characteristics. Therefore, it is possible for fisheries that interact with fewer, more reproductively valuable turtles to have a greater detrimental effect on the population than one that takes greater numbers of less reproductively valuable turtles (Wallace et al. 2008). The Loggerhead Biological Review Team determined that the greatest threats to the NWA DPS of loggerheads result from cumulative fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic habitats (Conant et al. 2009). Attaining a more thorough understanding of the characteristics, as well as the quantity of sea turtle bycatch across all fisheries is of great importance.

Of the many fisheries known to adversely affect loggerheads, the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries were considered to pose the greatest threat of mortality to neritic juvenile and adult age classes of loggerheads, accounting for an estimated 5,000 to 50,000 loggerhead deaths each year (NRC 1990). Significant changes to the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries have occurred since 1990, and the effects of these shrimp fisheries on ESA-listed species, including loggerhead sea turtles, have been assessed several times through section 7 consultation. There is also a lengthy regulatory history with regard to the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries (Epperly and Teas 2002; NMFS 2002a; Lewison et al. 2003). The current section 7 consultation on the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries was completed in 2002 and estimated the total annual level of take for loggerhead sea turtles to be 163,160 interactions (the total number of turtles that enter a shrimp trawl, which may then escape through the TED or fail to escape and be captured) with 3,948 of those takes being lethal (NMFS 2002a).

In addition to improvements in TED designs and TED enforcement, interactions between loggerheads and the shrimp fishery have also been declining because of reductions in fishing effort unrelated to fisheries management actions. The 2002 Opinion take estimates are based in part on fishery effort levels. In recent years, low shrimp prices, rising fuel costs, competition with imported products, and the impacts of recent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have all impacted the shrimp fleets; in some cases reducing fishing effort by as much as 50% for offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC 2007). As a result, loggerhead interactions and mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico have been substantially less than projected in the 2002 Opinion.

Currently, the estimated annual number of interactions between loggerheads and shrimp trawls in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery is 23,336, with 647 (2.8%) of those interactions resulting in mortality (Memo from Dr. B. Ponwith, Southeast Fisheries Science Center to Dr. R. Crabtree, Southeast Region, PRD, December 2008). Section 7 consultation on the Shrimp FMP has recently been reinitiated and a new Biological Opinion is forthcoming.

Loggerhead sea turtles are also known to interact with non-shrimp trawl, gillnet, longline, dredge, pound net, pot/trap, and hook and line fisheries. The NRC (1990) report stated that other 24

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 U.S. Atlantic fisheries collectively accounted for 500 to 5,000 loggerhead deaths each year, but recognized that there was considerable uncertainty in the estimate. The reduction of sea turtle captures in fishing operations is identified in recovery plans and 5-year status reviews as a priority for the recovery of all sea turtle species. In the threats analysis of the loggerhead recovery plan, trawl bycatch is identified as the greatest source of mortality. While loggerhead bycatch in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear was previously estimated for the period 1996-2004 (Murray 2006, 2008), a recent bycatch analysis estimated the number of loggerhead sea turtle interactions with U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear from 2005-2008 (Warden 2011a). Northeast Fisheries Observer Program data from 1994-2008 were used to develop a model of interaction rates and those predicted rates were applied to 2005-2008 commercial fishing data to estimate the number of interactions for the trawl fleet. The number of predicted average annual loggerhead interactions for 2005-2008 was 292 (CV=0.13, 95% CI=221-369),

with an additional 61 loggerheads (CV=0.17, 95% CI=41-83) interacting with trawls but being released through a TED. Of the 292 average annual observable loggerhead interactions, approximately 44 of those were adult equivalents. Warden (2011b) found that latitude, depth and SST were associated with the interaction rate, with the rates being highest south of 37°N latitude in waters < 50 m deep and SST > 15°C. This estimate is a decrease from the average annual loggerhead bycatch in bottom otter trawls during 1996-2004, estimated to be 616 sea turtles (CV=0.23, 95% CI over the 9-year period: 367-890) (Murray 2006, 2008).

There have been several published estimates of the number of loggerheads taken annually as a result of the dredge fishery for Atlantic sea scallops, ranging from a low of zero in 2005 (Murray 2007) to a high of 749 in 2003 (Murray 2004). Murray (2011) recently re-evaluated loggerhead sea turtle interactions in scallop dredge gear from 2001-2008. In that paper, the average number of annual observable interactions of hard-shelled sea turtles in the Mid-Atlantic scallop dredge fishery prior to the implementation of chain mats (January 1, 2001 through September 25, 2006) was estimated to be 288 turtles (CV = 0.14, 95% CI: 209-363) [equivalent to 49 adults], 218 of which were loggerheads [equivalent to 37 adults]. After the implementation of chain mats, the average annual number of observable interactions was estimated to be 20 hard-shelled sea turtles (CV = 0.48, 95% CI: 3-42), 19 of which were loggerheads. If the rate of observable interactions from dredges without chain mats had been applied to trips with chain mats, the estimated number of observable and inferred interactions of hard-shelled sea turtles after chain mats were implemented would have been 125 turtles per year (CV = 0.15, 95% CI: 88-163) [equivalent to 22 adults], 95 of which were loggerheads [equivalent to 16 adults]. Interaction rates of hard-shelled turtles were correlated with sea surface temperature, depth, and use of a chain mat.

Results from this recent analysis suggest that chain mats and fishing effort reductions have contributed to the decline in estimated loggerhead sea turtle interactions with scallop dredge gear after 2006 (Murray 2011).

An estimate of the number of loggerheads taken annually in U.S. Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries has also recently been published (Murray 2009a, b). From 1995-2006, the annual bycatch of loggerheads in U.S. Mid-Atlantic gillnet gear was estimated to average 350 turtles (CV=0.20, 95% CI over the 12-year period: 234 to 504). Bycatch rates were correlated with latitude, sea surface temperature, and mesh size. The highest predicted bycatch rates occurred in warm waters of the southern Mid-Atlantic in large-mesh gillnets (Murray 2009a).

25

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 The U.S. tuna and swordfish longline fisheries that are managed under the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) FMP are estimated to capture 1,905 loggerheads (no more than 339 mortalities) for each 3-year period starting in 2007 (NMFS 2004a). NMFS has mandated gear changes for the HMS fishery to reduce sea turtle bycatch and the likelihood of death from those incidental takes that would still occur (Garrison and Stokes 2010). In 2010, there were 40 observed interactions between loggerhead sea turtles and longline gear used in the HMS fishery (Garrison and Stokes 2011a, 2011b). All of the loggerheads were released alive, with the vast majority released with all gear removed. While 2010 total estimates are not yet available, in 2009, 242.9 (95% CI: 167.9-351.2) loggerhead sea turtles are estimated to have been taken in the longline fisheries managed under the HMS FMP based on the observed takes (Garrison and Stokes 2010).

The 2009 estimate is considerably lower than those in 2006 and 2007 and is consistent with historical averages since 2001 (Garrison and Stokes 2010). This fishery represents just one of several longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Lewison et al. (2004) estimated that 150,000-200,000 loggerheads were taken in all Atlantic longline fisheries in 2000 (including the U.S. Atlantic tuna and swordfish longline fisheries as well as others).

Documented takes also occur in other fishery gear types and by non-fishery mortality sources (e.g., hopper dredges, power plants, vessel collisions), but quantitative estimates are unavailable.

The most recent Recovery Plan for loggerhead sea turtles as well as the 2009 Status Review Report identifies global climate change as a threat to loggerhead sea turtles. However, trying to assess the likely effects of climate change on loggerhead sea turtles is extremely difficult given the uncertainty in all climate change models and the difficulty in determining the likely rate of temperature increases and the scope and scale of any accompanying habitat effects. Additionally, no significant climate change-related impacts to loggerhead sea turtle populations have been observed to date. Over the long-term, climate change related impacts are expected to influence biological trajectories on a century scale (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). As noted in the 2009 Status Review (Conant et al. 2009), impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are likely to become more apparent in future years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007). Climate change related increasing temperatures, sea level rise, changes in ocean productivity, and increased frequency of storm events may affect loggerhead sea turtles.

Increasing temperatures are expected to result in rising sea levels (Titus and Narayanan 1995 in Conant et al. 2009), which could result in increased erosion rates along nesting beaches. Sea level rise could result in the inundation of nesting sites and decrease available nesting habitat (Daniels et al. 1993; Fish et al. 2005; Baker et al. 2006). The BRT noted that the loss of habitat as a result of climate change could be accelerated due to a combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an increase in the frequency of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion (Antonelis et al.

2006; Baker et al. 2006; both in Conant et al. 2009). Along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where erosion control structures have been constructed to limit shoreline movement, rising sea levels may cause severe effects on nesting females and their eggs as nesting females may deposit eggs seaward of the erosion control structures potentially subjecting them to repeated tidal inundation. However, if global temperatures increase and there is a range shift northwards, beaches not currently used for nesting may become available for loggerhead sea 26

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 turtles, which may offset some loss of accessibility to beaches in the southern portions of the range.

Climate change has the potential to result in changes at nesting beaches that may affect loggerhead sex ratios. Loggerhead sea turtles exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination.

Rapidly increasing global temperatures may result in warmer incubation temperatures and highly female-biased sex ratios (e.g., Glen and Mrosovsky 2004; Hawkes et al. 2009); however, to the extent that nesting can occur at beaches further north where sand temperatures are not as warm, these effects may be partially offset. The BRT specifically identified climate change as a threat to loggerhead sea turtles in the neritic/oceanic zone where climate change may result in future trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and/or distribution. In the threats matrix analysis, climate change was considered for oceanic juveniles and adults and eggs/hatchlings. The report states that for oceanic juveniles and adults, although the effect of trophic level change fromclimate changeis unknown it is believed to be very low. For eggs/hatchlings the report states that total mortality from anthropogenic causes, including sea level rise resulting from climate change, is believed to be low relative to the entire life stage.

However, only limited data are available on past trends related to climate effects on loggerhead sea turtles; current scientific methods are not able to reliably predict the future magnitude of climate change, associated impacts, whether and to what extent some impacts will offset others, or the adaptive capacity of this species.

However, Van Houtan and Halley (2011) recently developed climate based models to investigate loggerhead nesting (considering juvenile recruitment and breeding remigration) in the North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic. These models found that climate conditions/oceanographic influences explain loggerhead nesting variability, with climate models alone explaining an average 60% (range 18%-88%) of the observed nesting changes over the past several decades. In terms of future nesting projections, modeled climate data show a future positive trend for Florida nesting, with increases through 2040 as a result of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation signal.

While there is a reasonable degree of certainty that certain climate change related effects will be experienced globally (e.g., rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns), due to a lack of scientific data, the specific effects to sea turtles resulting from climate change are not predictable or quantifiable at this time (Hawkes et al. 2009). However, given this uncertainty and the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts (i.e., the century scale), it is unlikely that climate related impacts will have a significant effect on the status of loggerhead sea turtles over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through 2046).

Summary of Status for Loggerhead Sea Turtles Loggerheads are a long-lived species and reach sexual maturity relatively late at around 32-35 years in the Northwest Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The species continues to be affected by many factors occurring on nesting beaches and in the water. These include poaching, habitat loss, and nesting predation that affects eggs, hatchlings, and nesting females on land, as well as fishery interactions, vessel interactions, marine pollution, and non-fishery (e.g., dredging) operations affecting all sexes and age classes in the water (NRC 1990; NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2008). As a result, loggerheads still face many of the original threats that were the cause of their listing under the ESA.

27

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 As mentioned previously, a final revised recovery plan for loggerhead sea turtles in the Northwest Atlantic was recently published by NMFS and FWS in December 2008. The revised recovery plan is significant in that it identifies five unique recovery units, which comprise the population of loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic, and describes specific recovery criteria for each recovery unit. The recovery plan noted a decline in annual nest counts for three of the five recovery units for loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic, including the PFRU, which is the largest (in terms of number of nests laid) in the Atlantic Ocean. The nesting trends for the other two recovery units could not be determined due to an absence of long term data.

NMFS convened a new Loggerhead Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) to review all available information on Atlantic loggerheads in order to evaluate the status of this species in the Atlantic. A final report from the Loggerhead TEWG was published in July 2009. In this report, the TEWG indicated that it could not determine whether the decreasing annual numbers of nests among the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations were due to stochastic processes resulting in fewer nests, a decreasing average reproductive output of adult females, decreasing numbers of adult females, or a combination of these factors. Many factors are responsible for past or present loggerhead mortality that could impact current nest numbers; however, no single mortality factor stands out as a likely primary factor. It is likely that several factors compound to create the current decline, including incidental capture (in fisheries, power plant intakes, and dredging operations), lower adult female survival rates, increases in the proportion of first-time nesters, continued directed harvest, and increases in mortality due to disease. Regardless, the TEWG stated that it is clear that the current levels of hatchling output will result in depressed recruitment to subsequent life stages over the coming decades (TEWG 2009). However, the report does not provide information on the rate or amount of expected decrease in recruitment but goes on to state that the ability to assess the current status of loggerhead subpopulations is limited due to a lack of fundamental life history information and specific census and mortality data.

While several documents reported the decline in nesting numbers in the NWA DPS (NMFS and USFWS 2008, TEWG 2009), when nest counts through 2010 are analyzed, the nesting trends from 1989-2010 are not significantly different than zero for all recovery units within the NWA DPS for which there are enough data to analyze (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). The SEFSC (2009) estimated the number of adult females in the NWA DPS at 30,000, and if a 1:1 adult sex ratio is assumed, the result is 60,000 adults in this DPS. Based on the reviews of nesting data, as well as information on population abundance and trends, NMFS and USFWS determined in the September 2011 listing rule that the NWA DPS should be listed as threatened.

They found that an endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted given the large size of the nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread, the trend for the nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts are underway to address threats.

Kemps ridley sea turtles Distribution and Life History The Kemps ridley is one of the least abundant of the worlds sea turtle species. In contrast to loggerhead, leatherback, and green sea turtles, which are found in multiple oceans of the world, 28

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Kemps ridleys typically occur only in the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean (NMFS et al. 2011).

Kemps ridleys mature at 10-17 years (Caillouet et al. 1995; Schmid and Witzell 1997; Snover et al. 2007; NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Nesting occurs from April through July each year with hatchlings emerging after 45-58 days (NMFS et al. 2011). Females lay an average of 2.5 clutches within a season (TEWG 1998, 2000) and the mean remigration interval for adult females is 2 years (Marquez et al. 1982; TEWG 1998, 2000).

Once they leave the nesting beach, hatchlings presumably enter the Gulf of Mexico where they feed on available Sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species (NMFS et al.

2011). The presence of juvenile turtles along both the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, where they are recruited to the coastal benthic environment, indicates that post-hatchlings are distributed in both the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean (TEWG 2000).

The location and size classes of dead turtles recovered by the STSSN suggests that benthic immature developmental areas occur along the U.S. coast and that these areas may change given resource quality and quantity (TEWG 2000). Developmental habitats are defined by several characteristics, including coastal areas sheltered from high winds and waves such as embayments and estuaries, and nearshore temperate waters shallower than 50 m (NMFS and USFWS 2007c).

The suitability of these habitats depends on resource availability, with optimal environments providing rich sources of crabs and other invertebrates. Kemps ridleys consume a variety of crab species, including Callinectes, Ovalipes, Libinia, and Cancer species. Mollusks, shrimp, and fish are consumed less frequently (Bjorndal 1997). A wide variety of substrates have been documented to provide good foraging habitat, including seagrass beds, oyster reefs, sandy and mud bottoms, and rock outcroppings (NMFS and USFWS 2007c).

Foraging areas documented along the U.S. Atlantic coast include Charleston Harbor, Pamlico Sound (Epperly et al. 1995c), Chesapeake Bay (Musick and Limpus 1997), Delaware Bay (Stetzar 2002), and Long Island Sound (Morreale and Standora 1993; Morreale et al. 2005). For instance, in the Chesapeake Bay, Kemps ridleys frequently forage in submerged aquatic grass beds for crabs (Musick and Limpus 1997). Upon leaving Chesapeake Bay in autumn, juvenile Kemps ridleys migrate down the coast, passing Cape Hatteras in December and January (Musick and Limpus 1997). These larger juveniles are joined by juveniles of the same size from North Carolina sounds and smaller juveniles from New York and New England to form one of the densest concentrations of Kemps ridleys outside of the Gulf of Mexico (Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b; Musick and Limpus 1997).

Adult Kemps ridleys are found in the coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern United States, but are typically rare in the northeastern U.S. waters of the Atlantic (TEWG 2000).

Adults are primarily found in nearshore waters of 37 m or less that are rich in crabs and have a sandy or muddy bottom (NMFS and USFWS 2007c).

Population Dynamics and Status The majority of Kemps ridleys nest along a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS et al. 2011). There is a 29

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 limited amount of scattered nesting to the north and south of the primary nesting beach (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Nesting often occurs in synchronized emergences termed arribadas. The number of recorded nests reached an estimated low of 702 nests in 1985, corresponding to fewer than 300 adult females nesting in that season (TEWG 2000; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS et al. 2011). Conservation efforts by Mexican and U.S. agencies have aided this species by eliminating egg harvest, protecting eggs and hatchlings, and reducing at-sea mortality through fishing regulations (TEWG 2000). Since the mid-1980s, the number of nests observed at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches has increased 14-16% per year (Heppell et al. 2005), allowing cautious optimism that the population is on its way to recovery. An estimated 5,500 females nested in the State of Tamaulipas over a 3-day period in May 2007 and over 4,000 of those nested at Rancho Nuevo (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). In 2008, 17,882 nests were documented on Mexican nesting beaches (NMFS 2011). There is limited nesting in the United States, most of which is located in South Texas. While six nests were documented in 1996, a record 195 nests were found in 2008 (NMFS 2011).

Threats Kemps ridleys face many of the same natural threats as loggerheads, including destruction of nesting habitat from storm events, predators, and oceanographic-related events such as cold-stunning. Although cold-stunning can occur throughout the range of the species, it may be a greater risk for sea turtles that utilize the more northern habitats of Cape Cod Bay and Long Island Sound. In the last five years (2006-2010), the number of cold-stunned turtles on Cape Cod beaches averaged 115 Kemps ridleys, 7 loggerheads, and 7 greens (NMFS unpublished data).

The numbers ranged from a low in 2007 of 27 Kemp's ridleys, 5 loggerheads, and 5 greens to a high in 2010 of 213 Kemp's ridleys, 4 loggerheads, and 14 greens. Annual cold stun events vary in magnitude; the extent of episodic major cold stun events may be associated with numbers of turtles utilizing Northeast U.S. waters in a given year, oceanographic conditions, and/or the occurrence of storm events in the late fall. Although many cold-stunned turtles can survive if they are found early enough, these events represent a significant source of natural mortality for Kemps ridleys.

Like other sea turtle species, the severe decline in the Kemps ridley population appears to have been heavily influenced by a combination of exploitation of eggs and impacts from fishery interactions. From the 1940s through the early 1960s, nests from Ranch Nuevo were heavily exploited, but beach protection in 1967 helped to curtail this activity (NMFS et al. 2011).

Following World War II, there was a substantial increase in the number of trawl vessels, particularly shrimp trawlers, in the Gulf of Mexico where adult Kemps ridley sea turtles occur.

Information from fisheries observers helped to demonstrate the high number of turtles taken in these shrimp trawls (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Subsequently, NMFS has worked with the industry to reduce sea turtle takes in shrimp trawls and other trawl fisheries, including the development and use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs). As described above, there is lengthy regulatory history with regard to the use of TEDs in the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries (NMFS 2002a; Epperly 2003; Lewison et al. 2003). The 2002 Biological Opinion on shrimp trawling in the southeastern United States concluded that 155,503 Kemps ridley sea turtles would be taken annually in the fishery with 4,208 of the takes resulting in mortality (NMFS 2002a).

30

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Although modifications to shrimp trawls have helped to reduce mortality of Kemps ridleys, this species is also affected by other sources of anthropogenic impact (fishery and non-fishery related), similar to those discussed above. Three Kemps ridley captures in Mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries were documented by NMFS observers between 1994 and 2008 (Warden and Bisack 2010), and eight Kemps ridleys were documented by NMFS observers in mid-Atlantic sink gillnet fisheries between 1995 and 2006 (Murray 2009a). Additionally, in the spring of 2000, a total of five Kemps ridley carcasses were recovered from the same North Carolina beaches where 275 loggerhead carcasses were found. The cause of death for most of the turtles recovered was unknown, but the mass mortality event was suspected by NMFS to have been from a large-mesh gillnet fishery for monkfish and dogfish operating offshore in the preceding weeks (67 FR 71895, December 3, 2002). The five Kemps ridley carcasses that were found are likely to have been only a minimum count of the number of Kemps ridleys that were killed or seriously injured as a result of the fishery interaction, since it is unlikely that all of the carcasses washed ashore.

The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center also documented 14 Kemps ridleys entangled in or impinged on Virginia pound net leaders from 2002-2005. Note that bycatch estimates for Kemps ridleys in various fishing gear types (e.g., trawl, gillnet, dredge) are not available at this time, largely due to the low number of observed interactions precluding a robust estimate.

The recovery plan for Kemps ridley sea turtles (NMFS et al. 2011) identifies climate change as a threat; however, as with the other species discussed above, no significant climate change-related impacts to Kemps ridley sea turtles have been observed to date. Atmospheric warming could cause habitat alteration which may change food resources such as crabs and other invertebrates.

It may increase hurricane activity, leading to an increase in debris in nearshore and offshore waters, which may result in an increase in entanglement, ingestion, or drowning. In addition, increased hurricane activity may cause damage to nesting beaches or inundate nests with sea water. Atmospheric warming may change convergence zones, currents and other oceanographic features that are relevant to Kemp's ridleys, as well as change rain regimes and levels of nearshore runoff.

Considering that the Kemps ridley has temperature-dependent sex determination (Wibbels 2003) and the vast majority of the nesting range is restricted to the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, global warming could potentially shift population sex ratios towards females and thus change the reproductive ecology of this species. A female bias is presumed to increase egg production (assuming that the availability of males does not become a limiting factor) (Coyne and Landry 2007) and increase the rate of recovery; however, it is unknown at what point the percentage of males may become insufficient to facilitate maximum fertilization rates in a population. If males become a limiting factor in the reproductive ecology of the Kemp's ridley, then reproductive output in the population could decrease (Coyne 2000). Low numbers of males could also result in the loss of genetic diversity within a population; however, there is currently no evidence that this is a problem in the Kemp's ridley population (NMFS et al. 2011). Models (Davenport 1997, Hulin and Guillon 2007, Hawkes et al. 2007, all referenced in NMFS et al. 2011) predict very long-term reductions in fertility in sea turtles due to climate change, but due to the relatively long life cycle of sea turtles, reductions may not be seen until 30 to 50 years in the future.

Another potential impact from global climate change is sea level rise, which may result in increased beach erosion at nesting sites. Beach erosion may be accelerated due to a combination 31

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an increase in the frequency of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents. In the case of the Kemps ridley where most of the critical nesting beaches are undeveloped, beaches may shift landward and still be available for nesting.

The Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS) shoreline is accreting, unlike much of the Texas coast, and with nesting increasing and the sand temperatures slightly cooler than at Rancho Nuevo, PAIS could become an increasingly important source of males for the population.

As with the other sea turtle species discussed in this section, while there is a reasonable degree of certainty that certain climate change related effects will be experienced globally (e.g., rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns), due to a lack of scientific data, the specific effects of climate change on this species are not predictable or quantifiable at this time (Hawkes et al. 2009). However, given the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts (i.e., the century scale), it is unlikely that climate change will have a significant effect on the status of Kemps ridley sea turtles over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through 2046).

Summary of Status for Kemps Ridley Sea Turtles The majority of Kemps ridleys nest along a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS et al. 2011). The number of nesting females in the Kemps ridley population declined dramatically from the late 1940s through the mid-1980s, with an estimated 40,000 nesting females in a single arribada in 1947 and fewer than 300 nesting females in the entire 1985 nesting season (TEWG 2000; NMFS et al.

2011). However, the total annual number of nests at Rancho Nuevo gradually began to increase in the 1990s (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Based on the number of nests laid in 2006 and the remigration interval for Kemps ridley sea turtles (1.8-2 years), there were an estimated 7,000-8,000 adult female Kemps ridley sea turtles in 2006 (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). The number of adult males in the population is unknown, but sex ratios of hatchlings and immature Kemps ridleys suggest that the population is female-biased, suggesting that the number of adult males is less than the number of adult females (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). While there is cautious optimism for recovery, events such as the Deepwater Horizon oil release, and stranding events associated skimmer trawl use and poor TED compliance in the northern Gulf of Mexico may dampen recent population growth.

As with the other sea turtle species, fishery mortality accounts for a large proportion of annual human-caused mortality outside the nesting beaches, while other activities like dredging, pollution, and habitat destruction account for an unknown level of other mortality. Based on their 5-year status review of the species, NMFS and USFWS (2007c) determined that Kemps ridley sea turtles should not be reclassified as threatened under the ESA. A revised bi-national recovery plan was published for public comment in 2010, and in September 2011, NMFS, USFWS, and the Services and the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico (SEMARNAT) released the second revision to the Kemps ridley recovery plan.

Green sea turtles Green sea turtles are distributed circumglobally, and can be found in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans as well as the Mediterranean Sea (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 2007d; Seminoff 2004). In 1978, the Atlantic population of the green sea turtle was listed as threatened under the ESA, except for the breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which 32

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 were listed as endangered. As it is difficult to differentiate between breeding populations away from the nesting beaches, all green sea turtles in the water are considered endangered.

Pacific Ocean Green sea turtles occur in the western, central, and eastern Pacific. Foraging areas are also found throughout the Pacific and along the southwestern U.S. coast (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). In the western Pacific, major nesting rookeries at four sites including Heron Island (Australia),

Raine Island (Australia), Guam, and Japan were evaluated and determined to be increasing in abundance, with the exception of Guam which appears stable (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). In the central Pacific, nesting occurs on French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, which has also been reported as increasing with a mean of 400 nesting females annually from 2002-2006 (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The main nesting sites for the green sea turtle in the eastern Pacific are located in Michoacan, Mexico and in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The number of nesting females per year exceeds 1,000 females at each site (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). However, historically, greater than 20,000 females per year are believed to have nested in Michoacan alone (Cliffton et al. 1982; NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The Pacific Mexico green turtle nesting population (also called the black turtle) is considered endangered.

Historically, green sea turtles were used in many areas of the Pacific for food. They were also commercially exploited, which, coupled with habitat degradation, led to their decline in the Pacific (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). Green sea turtles in the Pacific continue to be affected by poaching, habitat loss or degradation, fishing gear interactions, and fibropapillomatosis, which is a viral disease that causes tumors in affected turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1998b; NMFS 2004b).

Indian Ocean There are numerous nesting sites for green sea turtles in the Indian Ocean. One of the largest nesting sites for green sea turtles worldwide occurs on the beaches of Oman where an estimated 20,000 green sea turtles nest annually (Hirth 1997; Ferreira et al. 2003). Based on a review of the 32 Index Sites used to monitor green sea turtle nesting worldwide, Seminoff (2004) concluded that declines in green sea turtle nesting were evident for many of the Indian Ocean Index Sites. While several of these had not demonstrated further declines in the more recent past, only the Comoros Island Index Site in the western Indian Ocean showed evidence of increased nesting (Seminoff 2004).

Mediterranean Sea There are four nesting concentrations of green sea turtles in the Mediterranean from which data are available - Turkey, Cyprus, Israel, and Syria. Currently, approximately 300-400 females nest each year, about two-thirds of which nest in Turkey and one-third in Cyprus. Although green sea turtles are depleted from historic levels in the Mediterranean Sea (Kasparek et al. 2001), nesting data gathered since the early 1990s in Turkey, Cyprus, and Israel show no apparent trend in any direction. However, a declining trend is apparent along the coast of Palestine/Israel, where 300-350 nests were deposited each year in the 1950s (Sella 1982) compared to a mean of 6 nests per year from 1993-2004 (Kuller 1999; Y. Levy, Israeli Sea Turtle Rescue Center, unpublished data).

A recent discovery of green sea turtle nesting in Syria adds roughly 100 nests per year to green sea turtle nesting activity in the Mediterranean (Rees et al. 2005). That such a major nesting concentration could have gone unnoticed until recently (the Syria coast was surveyed in 1991, 33

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 but nesting activity was attributed to loggerheads) bodes well for the ongoing speculation that the unsurveyed coast of Libya may also host substantial nesting.

Atlantic Ocean Distribution and Life History As has occurred in other oceans of its range, green sea turtles were once the target of directed fisheries in the United States and throughout the Caribbean. In 1890, over one million pounds of green sea turtles were taken in a directed fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (Doughty 1984).

However, declines in the turtle fishery throughout the Gulf of Mexico were evident by 1902 (Doughty 1984).

In the western Atlantic, large juvenile and adult green sea turtles are largely herbivorous, occurring in habitats containing benthic algae and seagrasses from Massachusetts to Argentina, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Wynne and Schwartz 1999). Green sea turtles occur seasonally in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast waters such as Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound (Musick and Limpus 1997; Morreale and Standora 1998; Morreale et al. 2005), which serve as foraging and developmental habitats.

Some of the principal feeding areas in the western Atlantic Ocean include the upper west coast of Florida, the Florida Keys, and the northwestern coast of the Yucatán Peninsula. Additional important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include the Mosquito and Indian River Lagoon systems and nearshore wormrock reefs between Sebastian and Ft. Pierce Inlets in Florida, Florida Bay, the Culebra archipelago and other Puerto Rico coastal waters, the south coast of Cuba, the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua, the Caribbean coast of Panama, and scattered areas along Colombia and Brazil (Hirth 1971). The waters surrounding the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys are designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle.

Age at maturity for green sea turtles is estimated to be 20-50 years (Balazs 1982; Frazer and Ehrhart 1985; Seminoff 2004). As is the case with the other sea turtle species described above, adult females may nest multiple times in a season (average 3 nests/season with approximately 100 eggs/nest) and typically do not nest in successive years (NMFS and USFWS 1991; Hirth 1997).

Population Dynamics and Status Like other sea turtle species, nest count information for green sea turtles provides information on the relative abundance of nesting, and the contribution of each nesting group to total nesting of the species. Nest counts can also be used to estimate the number of reproductively mature females nesting annually. The 5-year status review for the species identified eight geographic areas considered to be primary sites for threatened green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic/Caribbean, and reviewed the trend in nest count data for each (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). These include: (1) Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, (2) Tortuguero, Costa Rica, (3) Aves Island, Venezuela, (4) Galibi Reserve, Suriname, (5) Isla Trindade, Brazil, (6) Ascension Island, United Kingdom, (7) Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, and (8) Bijagos Achipelago, Guinea-Bissau (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Nesting at all of these sites is considered to be stable or increasing with the exception of Bioko Island, which may be declining. However, the lack of sufficient data precludes a meaningful trend assessment for this site (NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

34

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Seminoff (2004) reviewed green sea turtle nesting data for eight sites in the western, eastern, and central Atlantic, including all of the above threatened nesting sites with the exception that nesting in Florida was reviewed in place of Isla Trindade, Brazil. He concluded that all sites in the central and western Atlantic showed increased nesting with the exception of nesting at Aves Island, Venezuela, while both sites in the eastern Atlantic demonstrated decreased nesting.

These sites are not inclusive of all green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic Ocean. However, other sites are not believed to support nesting levels high enough that would change the overall status of the species in the Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

By far, the most important nesting concentration for green sea turtles in the western Atlantic is in Tortuguero, Costa Rica (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Nesting in the area has increased considerably since the 1970s and nest count data from 1999-2003 suggest nesting by 17,402-37,290 females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The number of females nesting per year on beaches in the Yucatán, at Aves Island, Galibi Reserve, and Isla Trindade number in the hundreds to low thousands, depending on the site (NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

The status of the endangered Florida breeding population was also evaluated in the 5-year review (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The pattern of green sea turtle nesting shows biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally positive trend since establishment of the Florida index beach surveys in 1989. This trend is perhaps due to increased protective legislation throughout the Caribbean (Meylan et al. 1995), as well as protections in Florida and throughout the United States (NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

The statewide Florida surveys (2000-2006) have shown that a mean of approximately 5,600 nests are laid annually in Florida, with a low of 581 in 2001 to a high of 9,644 in 2005 (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Most nesting occurs along the east coast of Florida, but occasional nesting has been documented along the Gulf coast of Florida, at Southwest Florida beaches, as well as the beaches in the Florida Panhandle (Meylan et al. 1995). More recently, green sea turtle nesting occurred on Bald Head Island, North Carolina (just east of the mouth of the Cape Fear River),

Onslow Island, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore. One green sea turtle nested on a beach in Delaware in 2011, although its occurrence was considered very rare.

Threats Green sea turtles face many of the same natural threats as loggerhead and Kemps ridley sea turtles. In addition, green sea turtles appear to be particularly susceptible to fibropapillomatosis, an epizootic disease producing lobe-shaped tumors on the soft portion of a turtles body.

Juveniles appear to be most affected in that they have the highest incidence of disease and the most extensive lesions, whereas lesions in nesting adults are rare. Also, green sea turtles frequenting nearshore waters, areas adjacent to large human populations, and areas with low water turnover, such as lagoons, have a higher incidence of the disease than individuals in deeper, more remote waters. The occurrence of fibropapilloma tumors may result in impaired foraging, breathing, or swimming ability, leading potentially to death (George 1997).

As with the other sea turtle species, incidental fishery mortality accounts for a large proportion of annual human-caused mortality outside the nesting beaches. Witherington et al. (2009) observes 35

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 that because green sea turtles spend a shorter time in oceanic waters and as older juveniles occur on shallow seagrass pastures (where benthic trawling is unlikely), they avoid high mortalities in pelagic longline and benthic trawl fisheries. Although the relatively low number of observed green sea turtle captures makes it difficult to estimate bycatch rates and annual take levels, green sea turtles have been observed captured in the pelagic driftnet, pelagic longline, southeast shrimp trawl, and mid-Atlantic trawl and gillnet fisheries. Murray (2009a) also lists five observed captures of green turtle in Mid-Atlantic sink gillnet gear between 1995 and 2006. Other activities like channel dredging, marine debris, pollution, vessel strikes, power plant impingement, and habitat destruction account for an unquantifiable level of other mortality.

Stranding reports indicate that between 200-400 green sea turtles strand annually along the eastern U.S. coast from a variety of causes most of which are unknown (STSSN database).

The five year status review for green sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 2007d) notes that global climate change is affecting green sea turtles and is likely to continue to be a threat. There is an increasing female bias in the sex ratio of green turtle hatchlings. While this is partly attributable to imperfect egg hatchery practices, global climate change is also implicated as a likely cause as warmer sand temperatures at nesting beaches are likely to result in the production of more female embryos. At least one nesting site, Ascension Island, has had an increase in mean sand temperature in recent years (Hays et al. 2003 in NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Climate change may also impact nesting beaches through sea level rise which may reduce the availability of nesting habitat and increase the risk of nest inundation. Loss of appropriate nesting habitat may also be accelerated by a combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes, such as an increase in the frequency of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion. Oceanic changes related to rising water temperatures could result in changes in the abundance and distribution of the primary food sources of green sea turtles, which in turn could result in changes in behavior and distribution of this species.

Seagrass habitats may suffer from decreased productivity and/or increased stress due to sea level rise, as well as salinity and temperature changes (Short and Neckles 1999; Duarte 2002).

As noted above, the increasing female bias in green sea turtle hatchlings is thought to be at least partially linked to increases in temperatures at nesting beaches. However, due to a lack of scientific data, the specific future effects of climate change on green sea turtles species are not predictable or quantifiable to any degree at this time (Hawkes et al. 2009). For example, information is not available to predict the extent and rate to which sand temperatures at the nesting beaches used by green sea turtles may increase over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through 2046) and the extent to which green sea turtles may be able to cope with this change by selecting cooler areas of the beach or shifting their nesting distribution to other beaches at which increases in sand temperature may not be experienced.

Summary of Status of Green Sea Turtles A review of 32 Index Sites1 distributed globally revealed a 48-67% decline in the number of mature females nesting annually over the last three generations2 (Seminoff 2004). An evaluation 1

The 32 Index Sites include all of the major known nesting areas as well as many of the lesser nesting areas for which quantitative data are available.

2 Generation times ranged from 35.5 years to 49.5 years for the assessment depending on the Index Beach site 36

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 of green sea turtle nesting sites was also conducted as part of the 5-year status review of the species (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Of the 23 threatened nesting groups assessed in that report for which nesting abundance trends could be determined, ten were considered to be increasing, nine were considered stable, and four were considered to be decreasing (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Nesting groups were considered to be doing relatively well (the number of sites with increasing nesting were greater than the number of sites with decreasing nesting) in the Pacific, western Atlantic, and central Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). However, nesting populations were determined to be doing relatively poorly in Southeast Asia, eastern Indian Ocean, and perhaps the Mediterranean. Overall, based on mean annual reproductive effort, the report estimated that 108,761 to 150,521 females nest each year among the 46 threatened and endangered nesting sites included in the evaluation (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). However, given the late age to maturity for green sea turtles, caution is urged regarding the status for any of the nesting groups since no area has a dataset spanning a full green sea turtle generation (NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

Seminoff (2004) and NMFS and USFWS (2007d) made comparable conclusions with regard to nesting for four nesting sites in the western Atlantic that indicate sea turtle abundance is increasing in the Atlantic Ocean. Each also concluded that nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica represented the most important nesting area for green sea turtles in the western Atlantic and that nesting had increased markedly since the 1970s (Seminoff 2004; NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

However, the 5-year review also noted that the Tortuguero nesting stock continued to be affected by ongoing directed take at their primary foraging area in Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The endangered breeding population in Florida appears to be increasing based upon index nesting data from 1989-2010 (NMFS 2011).

As with the other sea turtle species, fishery mortality accounts for a large proportion of annual human-caused mortality outside the nesting beaches, while other activities like hopper dredging, pollution, and habitat destruction account for an unknown level of other mortality. Based on its 5-year status review of the species, NMFS and USFWS (2007d) determined that the listing classification for green sea turtles should not be changed. However, it was also determined that an analysis and review of the species should be conducted in the future to determine whether DPSs should be identified (NMFS and USFWS 2007d).

Shortnose Sturgeon Shortnose sturgeon life history Shortnose sturgeon are benthic fish that mainly occupy the deep channel sections of large rivers.

They feed on a variety of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates including mollusks, crustaceans (amphipods, chironomids, isopods), and oligochaete worms (Vladykov and Greeley 1963; Dadswell 1979 in NMFS 1998). Shortnose sturgeon have similar lengths at maturity (45-55 cm fork length) throughout their range, but, because sturgeon in southern rivers grow faster than those in northern rivers, southern sturgeon mature at younger ages (Dadswell et al. 1984).

Shortnose sturgeon are long-lived (30-40 years) and, particularly in the northern extent of their range, mature at late ages. In the north, males reach maturity at 5 to 10 years, while females mature between 7 and 13 years. Based on limited data, females spawn every three to five years 37

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 while males spawn approximately every two years. The spawning period is estimated to last from a few days to several weeks. Spawning begins from late winter/early spring (southern rivers) to mid to late spring (northern rivers)3 when the freshwater temperatures increase to 8-9ºC. Several published reports have presented the problems facing long-lived species that delay sexual maturity (Crouse et al. 1987; Crowder et al. 1994; Crouse 1999). In general, these reports concluded that animals that delay sexual maturity and reproduction must have high annual survival as juveniles through adults to ensure that enough juveniles survive to reproductive maturity and then reproduce enough times to maintain stable population sizes.

Total instantaneous mortality rates (Z) are available for the Saint John River (0.12 - 0.15; ages 14-55; Dadswell 1979), Upper Connecticut River (0.12; Taubert 1980b), and Pee Dee-Winyah River (0.08-0.12; Dadswell et al. 1984). Total instantaneous natural mortality (M) for shortnose sturgeon in the lower Connecticut River was estimated to be 0.13 (T. Savoy, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication). There is no recruitment information available for shortnose sturgeon because there are no commercial fisheries for the species. Estimates of annual egg production for this species are difficult to calculate because females do not spawn every year (Dadswell et al. 1984). Further, females may abort spawning attempts, possibly due to interrupted migrations or unsuitable environmental conditions (NMFS 1998). Thus, annual egg production is likely to vary greatly in this species. Fecundity estimates have been made and range from 27,000 to 208,000 eggs/female and a mean of 11,568 eggs/kg body weight (Dadswell et al. 1984).

At hatching, shortnose sturgeon are blackish-colored, 7-11mm long and resemble tadpoles (Buckley and Kynard 1981). In 9-12 days, the yolk sac is absorbed and the sturgeon develops into larvae which are about 15mm total length (TL; Buckley and Kynard 1981). Sturgeon larvae are believed to begin downstream migrations at about 20mm TL. Dispersal rates differ at least regionally, laboratory studies on Connecticut River larvae indicated dispersal peaked 7-12 days after hatching in comparison to Savannah River larve that had longer dispersal rates with multiple, prolonged peaks, and a low level of downstream movement that continued throughout the entire larval and early juvenile period (Parker 2007). Synder (1988) and Parker (2007) considered individuals to be juvenile when they reached 57mm TL. Laboratory studies demonstrated that larvae from the Connecticut River made this transformation on day 40 while Savannah River fish made this transition on day 41 and 42 (Parker 2007).

The juvenile phase can be subdivided in to young of the year (YOY) and immature/ sub-adults.

YOY and sub-adult habitat use differs and is believed to be a function of differences in salinity tolerances. Little is known about YOY behavior and habitat use, though it is believed that they are typically found in channel areas within freshwater habitats upstream of the saltwedge for about one year (Dadswell et al. 1984, Kynard 1997). One study on the stomach contents of YOY revealed that the prey items found corresponded to organisms that would be found in the channel environment (amphipods) (Carlson and Simpson 1987). Sub-adults are typically described as age one or older and occupy similar spatio-temporal patterns and habitat-use as adults (Kynard 1997). Though there is evidence from the Delaware River that sub-adults may overwinter in different areas than adults and no not form dense aggregations like adults (ERC Inc. 2007). Sub-3 For purposes of this consultation, Northern rivers are considered to include tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay northward to the St. John River in Canada. Southern rivers are those south of the Chesapeake Bay.

38

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 adults feed indiscriminately, typical prey items found in stomach contents include aquatic insects, isopods, and amphipods along with large amounts of mud, stones, and plant material (Dadswell 1979, Carlson and Simpson 1987, Bain 1997).

In populations that have free access to the total length of a river (e.g., no dams within the species range in a river: Saint John, Kennebec, Altamaha, Savannah, Delaware and Merrimack Rivers),

spawning areas are located at the farthest upstream reach of the river (NMFS 1998). In the northern extent of their range, shortnose sturgeon exhibit three distinct movement patterns. These migratory movements are associated with spawning, feeding, and overwintering activities. In spring, as water temperatures reach between 7-9.7ºC, pre-spawning shortnose sturgeon move from overwintering grounds to spawning areas. Spawning occurs from mid/late March to mid/late May depending upon location and water temperature. Sturgeon spawn in upper, freshwater areas and feed and overwinter in both fresh and saline habitats. Shortnose sturgeon spawning migrations are characterized by rapid, directed and often extensive upstream movement (NMFS 1998).

Shortnose sturgeon are believed to spawn at discrete sites within their natal river (Kieffer and Kynard 1996). In the Merrimack River, males returned to only one reach during a four year telemetry study (Kieffer and Kynard 1996). Squires (1982) found that during the three years of the study in the Androscoggin River, adults returned to a 1-km reach below the Brunswick Dam and Kieffer and Kynard (1996) found that adults spawned within a 2-km reach in the Connecticut River for three consecutive years. Spawning occurs over channel habitats containing gravel, rubble, or rock-cobble substrates (Dadswell et al. 1984; NMFS 1998). Additional environmental conditions associated with spawning activity include decreasing river discharge following the peak spring freshet, water temperatures ranging from 8 - 15º, and bottom water velocities of 0.4 to 0.8 m/sec (Dadswell et al. 1984; Hall et al. 1991, Kieffer and Kynard 1996, NMFS 1998). For northern shortnose sturgeon, the temperature range for spawning is 6.5-18.0ºC (Kieffer and Kynard in press). Eggs are separate when spawned but become adhesive within approximately 20 minutes of fertilization (Dadswell et al. 1984). Between 8° and 12°C, eggs generally hatch after approximately 13 days. The larvae are photonegative, remaining on the bottom for several days. Buckley and Kynard (1981) found week old larvae to be photonegative and form aggregations with other larvae in concealment.

Adult shortnose sturgeon typically leave the spawning grounds soon after spawning. Non-spawning movements include rapid, directed post-spawning movements to downstream feeding areas in spring and localized, wandering movements in summer and winter (Dadswell et al. 1984; Buckley and Kynard 1985; OHerron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported that post-spawning migrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and river discharge. Young-of-the-year shortnose sturgeon are believed to move downstream after hatching (Dovel 1981) but remain within freshwater habitats. Older juveniles or sub-adults tend to move downstream in fall and winter as water temperatures decline and the salt wedge recedes and move upstream in spring and feed mostly in freshwater reaches during summer.

Juvenile shortnose sturgeon generally move upstream in spring and summer and move back downstream in fall and winter; however, these movements usually occur in the region above the saltwater/freshwater interface (Dadswell et al. 1984; Hall et al. 1991). Non-spawning 39

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 movements include wandering movements in summer and winter (Dadswell et al. 1984; Buckley and Kynard 1985; OHerron et al. 1993). Kieffer and Kynard (1993) reported that post-spawning migrations were correlated with increasing spring water temperature and river discharge. Adult sturgeon occurring in freshwater or freshwater/tidal reaches of rivers in summer and winter often occupy only a few short reaches of the total length (Buckley and Kynard 1985). Summer concentration areas in southern rivers are cool, deep, thermal refugia, where adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon congregate (Flourney et al. 1992; Rogers et al. 1994; Rogers and Weber 1995; Weber 1996).

While shortnose sturgeon do not undertake the significant marine migrations seen in Atlantic sturgeon, telemetry data indicates that shortnose sturgeon do make localized coastal migrations.

This is particularly true within certain areas such as the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and among rivers in the Southeast. Interbasin movements have been documented among rivers within the GOM and between the GOM and the Merrimack, between the Connecticut and Hudson rivers, the Delaware River and Chesapeake Bay, and among the rivers in the Southeast.

The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not known (Dadswell et al. 1984) but shortnose sturgeon have been found in waters with temperatures as low as 2 to 3ºC (Dadswell et al. 1984) and as high as 34ºC (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). However, temperatures above 28ºC are thought to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon. In the Altamaha River, temperatures of 28-30ºC during summer months create unsuitable conditions and shortnose sturgeon are found in deep cool water refuges. Dissolved oxygen (DO) also seems to play a role in temperature tolerance, with increased stress levels at higher temperatures with low DO versus the ability to withstand higher temperatures with elevated DO (Niklitchek 2001).

Shortnose sturgeon are known to occur at a wide range of depths. A minimum depth of 0.6m is necessary for the unimpeded swimming by adults. Shortnose sturgeon are known to occur at depths of up to 30m but are generally found in waters less than 20m (Dadswell et al. 1984; Dadswell 1979). Shortnose sturgeon have also demonstrated tolerance to a wide range of salinities. Shortnose sturgeon have been documented in freshwater (Taubert 1980; Taubert and Dadswell 1980) and in waters with salinity of 30 parts-per-thousand (ppt) (Holland and Yeverton 1973; Saunders and Smith 1978). Mcleave et al. (1977) reported adults moving freely through a wide range of salinities, crossing waters with differences of up to 10ppt within a two hour period.

The tolerance of shortnose sturgeon to increasing salinity is thought to increase with age (Kynard 1996). Shortnose sturgeon typically occur in the deepest parts of rivers or estuaries where suitable oxygen and salinity values are present (Gilbert 1989).

Status and Trends of Shortnose Sturgeon Rangewide Shortnose sturgeon were listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001), and the species remained on the endangered species list with the enactment of the ESA in 1973. Although the original listing notice did not cite reasons for listing the species, a 1973 Resource Publication, issued by the US Department of the Interior, stated that shortnose sturgeon were in perilgone in most of the rivers of its former range [but] probably not as yet extinct (USDOI 1973).

Pollution and overfishing, including bycatch in the shad fishery, were listed as principal reasons for the species decline. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, shortnose sturgeon commonly were taken in a commercial fishery for the closely related and commercially valuable 40

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus). More than a century of extensive fishing for sturgeon contributed to the decline of shortnose sturgeon along the east coast. Heavy industrial development during the twentieth century in rivers inhabited by sturgeon impaired water quality and impeded these species recovery; possibly resulting in substantially reduced abundance of shortnose sturgeon populations within portions of the species ranges (e.g., southernmost rivers of the species range: Santilla, St. Marys and St. Johns Rivers). A shortnose sturgeon recovery plan was published in December 1998 to promote the conservation and recovery of the species (see NMFS 1998). Shortnose sturgeon are listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.

Although shortnose sturgeon are listed as endangered range-wide, in the final recovery plan NMFS recognized 19 separate populations occurring throughout the range of the species. These populations are in New Brunswick Canada (1); Maine (2); Massachusetts (1); Connecticut (1);

New York (1); New Jersey/Delaware (1); Maryland and Virginia (1); North Carolina (1); South Carolina (4); Georgia (4); and Florida (2). NMFS has not formally recognized distinct population segments (DPS)4 of shortnose sturgeon under the ESA. Although genetic information within and among shortnose sturgeon occurring in different river systems is largely unknown, life history studies indicate that shortnose sturgeon populations from different river systems are substantially reproductively isolated (Kynard 1997) and, therefore, should be considered discrete.

The 1998 Recovery Plan indicates that while genetic information may reveal that interbreeding does not occur between rivers that drain into a common estuary, at this time, such river systems are considered a single population compromised of breeding subpopulations (NMFS 1998).

Studies conducted since the issuance of the Recovery Plan have provided evidence that suggests that years of isolation between populations of shortnose sturgeon have led to morphological and genetic variation. Walsh et al. (2001) examined morphological and genetic variation of shortnose sturgeon in three rivers (Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Hudson). The study found that the Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population differed markedly from the other two rivers for most morphological features (total length, fork length, head and snout length, mouth width, interorbital width and dorsal scute count, left lateral scute count, right ventral scute count).

Significant differences were found between fish from Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers for interorbital width and lateral scute counts which suggests that even though the Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers drain into a common estuary, these rivers support largely discrete populations of shortnose sturgeon. The study also found significant genetic differences among all three populations indicating substantial reproductive isolation among them and that the observed morphological differences may be partly or wholly genetic.

Grunwald et al. (2002) examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from shortnose sturgeon in eleven river populations. The analysis demonstrated that all shortnose sturgeon populations examined showed moderate to high levels of genetic diversity as measured by haplotypic diversity indices. The limited sharing of haplotypes and the high number of private haplotypes are indicative of high homing fidelity and low gene flow. The researchers determined that 4 The definition of species under the ESA includes any subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. To be considered a DPS, a population segment must meet two criteria under NMFS policy. First, it must be discrete, or separated, from other populations of its species or subspecies. Second, it must be significant, or essential, to the long-term conservation status of its species or subspecies. This formal legal procedure to designate DPSs for shortnose sturgeon has not been undertaken.

41

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 glaciation in the Pleistocene Era was likely the most significant factor in shaping the phylogeographic pattern of mtDNA diversity and population structure of shortnose sturgeon.

The Northern glaciated region extended south to the Hudson River while the southern non-glaciated region begins with the Delaware River. There is a high prevalence of haplotypes restricted to either of these two regions and relatively few are shared; this represents a historical subdivision that is tied to an important geological phenomenon that reflects historical isolation.

Analyses of haplotype frequencies at the level of individual rivers showed significant differences among all systems in which reproduction is known to occur. This implies that although higher level genetic stock relationships exist (i.e., southern vs. northern and other regional subdivisions), shortnose sturgeon appear to be discrete stocks, and low gene flow exists between the majority of populations.

Waldman et al. (2002) also conducted mtDNA analysis on shortnose sturgeon from 11 river systems and identified 29 haplotypes. Of these haplotypes, 11 were unique to northern, glaciated systems and 13 were unique to the southern non-glaciated systems. Only 5 were shared between them. This analysis suggests that shortnose sturgeon show high structuring and discreteness and that low gene flow rates indicated strong homing fidelity.

Wirgin et al. (2005), also conducted mtDNA analysis on shortnose sturgeon from 12 rivers (St.

John, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Upper Connecticut, Lower Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, Chesapeake Bay, Cooper, Peedee, Savannah, Ogeechee and Altamaha). This analysis suggested that most population segments are independent and that genetic variation among groups was high.

The best available information demonstrates differences in life history and habitat preferences between northern and southern river systems and given the species anadromous breeding habits, the rare occurrence of migration between river systems, and the documented genetic differences between river populations, it is unlikely that populations in adjacent river systems interbreed with any regularity. This likely accounts for the failure of shortnose sturgeon to repopulate river systems from which they have been extirpated, despite the geographic closeness of persisting populations. This characteristic of shortnose sturgeon also complicates recovery and persistence of this species in the future because, if a river population is extirpated in the future, it is unlikely that this river will be recolonized. Consequently, this Opinion will treat the nineteen separate populations of shortnose sturgeon as subpopulations (one of which occurs in the action area) for the purposes of this analysis.

Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all major rivers and estuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. The range extended from the St John River in New Brunswick, Canada to the Indian River in Florida. Today, only 19 populations remain ranging from the St. Johns River, Florida (possibly extirpated from this system) to the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada. Shortnose sturgeon are large, long lived fish species. The present range of shortnose sturgeon is disjunct, with northern populations separated from southern populations by a distance of about 400 km. Population sizes vary across the species range. From available estimates, the smallest populations occur in the Cape Fear (~8 adults; Moser and Ross 1995) in the south and Merrimack and Penobscot rivers in the north (~ several hundred to several thousand adults depending on population estimates used; M.

42

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Kieffer, United States Geological Survey, personal communication; Dionne 2010), while the largest populations are found in the Saint John (~18, 000; Dadswell 1979) and Hudson Rivers

(~61,000; Bain et al. 1998). As indicated in Kynard 1996, adult abundance is less than the minimum estimated viable population abundance of 1000 adults for 5 of 11 surveyed northern populations and all natural southern populations. Kynard 1996 indicates that all aspects of the species life history indicate that shortnose sturgeon should be abundant in most rivers. As such, the expected abundance of adults in northern and north-central populations should be thousands to tens of thousands of adults. Expected abundance in southern rivers is uncertain, but large rivers should likely have thousands of adults. The only river systems likely supporting populations of these sizes are the St John, Hudson and possibly the Delaware and the Kennebec, making the continued success of shortnose sturgeon in these rivers critical to the species as a whole. While no reliable estimate of the size of either the total species or the shortnose sturgeon population in the Northeastern United States exists, it is clearly below the size that could be supported if the threats to shortnose sturgeon were removed.

Threats to shortnose sturgeon recovery The Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Plan (NMFS 1998) identifies habitat degradation or loss (resulting, for example, from dams, bridge construction, channel dredging, and pollutant discharges) and mortality (resulting, for example, from impingement on cooling water intake screens, dredging and incidental capture in other fisheries) as principal threats to the species survival.

Several natural and anthropogenic factors continue to threaten the recovery of shortnose sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon continue to be taken incidentally in fisheries along the east coast and are probably targeted by poachers throughout their range (Dadswell 1979; Dovel et al. 1992; Collins et al. 1996). Bridge construction and demolition projects may interfere with normal shortnose sturgeon migratory movements and disturb sturgeon concentration areas. Unless appropriate precautions are made, internal damage and/or death may result from blasting projects with powerful explosives. Hydroelectric 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. Maintenance dredging of Federal navigation channels and other areas can adversely affect or jeopardize shortnose sturgeon populations. Hydraulic dredges can lethally take sturgeon by entraining sturgeon in dredge dragarms and impeller pumps. Mechanical dredges have also been documented to lethally take shortnose sturgeon. In addition to direct effects, dredging operations may also impact shortnose sturgeon by destroying benthic feeding areas, disrupting spawning migrations, and filling spawning habitat with resuspended fine sediments. Shortnose sturgeon are susceptible to impingement on cooling water intake screens at power plants. Electric power and nuclear power generating plants can affect sturgeon by impinging larger fish on cooling water intake screens and entraining larval fish. The operation of power plants can have unforeseen and extremely detrimental impacts to water quality which can affect shortnose sturgeon. For example, the St.

Stephen Power Plant near Lake Moultrie, South Carolina was shut down for several days in June 1991 when large mats of aquatic plants entered the plants intake canal and clogged the cooling water intake gates. Decomposing plant material in the tailrace canal coupled with the turbine shut down (allowing no flow of water) triggered a low dissolved oxygen water condition downstream and a subsequent fish kill. The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources 43

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Department reported that twenty shortnose sturgeon were killed during this low dissolved oxygen event.

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; Sinderman 1994). Ultimately, toxins introduced to the water column become associated with the benthos and can be particularly harmful to benthic organisms (Varanasi 1992) like sturgeon. Heavy metals and organochlorine compounds are known to accumulate in fat tissues of sturgeon, but their long term effects are not yet known (Ruelle and Henry 1992; Ruelle and Kennlyne 1993). Available data suggests that early life stages of fish are more susceptible to environmental and pollutant stress than older life stages (Rosenthal and Alderdice 1976).

Although there is scant information available on the levels of contaminants in shortnose sturgeon tissues, some research on other related species indicates that concern about the effects of contaminants on the health of sturgeon populations is warranted. Detectible levels of chlordane, DDE (1,1-dichloro-2, 2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene), DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane),

and dieldrin, and elevated levels of PCBs, cadmium, mercury, and selenium were found in pallid sturgeon tissue from the Missouri River (Ruelle and Henry 1994). These compounds were found in high enough levels to suggest they may be causing reproductive failure and/or increased physiological stress (Ruelle and Henry 1994). In addition to compiling data on contaminant levels, Ruelle and Henry also determined that heavy metals and organochlorine compounds (i.e.

PCBs) accumulate in fat tissues. Although the long term effects of the accumulation of contaminants in fat tissues is not yet known, some speculate that lipophilic toxins could be transferred to eggs and potentially inhibit egg viability. In other fish species, reproductive impairment, reduced egg viability, and reduced survival of larval fish are associated with elevated levels of environmental contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons. A strong correlation that has been made between fish weight, fish fork length, and DDE concentration in pallid sturgeon livers indicates that DDE increases proportionally with fish size (NMFS 1998).

Contaminant analysis was conducted on two shortnose sturgeon from the Delaware River in the fall of 2002. Muscle, liver, and gonad tissue were analyzed for contaminants (ERC 2002).

Sixteen metals, two semivolatile compounds, three organochlorine pesticides, one PCB Aroclor, as well as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) were detected in one or more of the tissue samples. Levels of aluminum, cadmium, PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, DDE (an organochlorine pesticide) were detected in the adverse affect range. It is of particular concern that of the above chemicals, PCDDs, DDE, PCBs and cadmium, were detected as these have been identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals. Contaminant analysis conducted in 2003 on tissues from a shortnose sturgeon from the Kennebec River revealed the presence of fourteen metals, one semivolatile compound, one PCB Aroclor, Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in one or more of the tissue samples. Of these chemicals, cadmium and zinc were detected at concentrations above an adverse effect concentration reported for fish in the literature (ERC 2003). While no directed studies of chemical contamination in shortnose sturgeon have been undertaken, it is evident that the heavy industrialization of the rivers where shortnose sturgeon 44

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 are found is likely adversely affecting this species.

During summer months, especially in southern areas, shortnose sturgeon must cope with the physiological stress of water temperatures that may exceed 28ºC. Flourney et al.(1992) suspected that, during these periods, shortnose sturgeon congregate in river regions which support conditions that relieve physiological stress (i.e., in cool deep thermal refuges). In southern rivers where sturgeon movements have been tracked, sturgeon refrain from moving during warm water conditions and are often captured at release locations during these periods (Flourney et al.1992; Rogers and Weber 1994; Weber 1996). The loss and/or manipulation of these discrete refuge habitats may limit or be limiting population survival, especially in southern river systems.

Pulp mill, silvicultural, agricultural, and sewer discharges, as well as a combination of non-point source discharges, which contain elevated temperatures or high biological demand, can reduce dissolved oxygen levels. Shortnose sturgeon are known to be adversely affected by dissolved oxygen levels below 5 mg/L. Shortnose sturgeon may be less tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels in high ambient water temperatures and show signs of stress in water temperatures higher than 28ºC (Flourney et al. 1992). At these temperatures, concomitant low levels of dissolved oxygen may be lethal.

Status and Distribution of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Delaware River Shortnose sturgeon occur in the Delaware River from the lower bay upstream to at least Lambertville, New Jersey (river mile 148). Tagging studies by OHerron et al. (1993) found that the most heavily used portion of the river appears to be between river mile 118 below Burlington Island and river mile 137 at the Trenton Rapids. Hastings et al. (1987) used Floy T-anchor tags in a tag-and-recapture experiment from 1981 to 1984 to estimate the size of the Delaware River population in the Trenton to Florence reach. Population sizes by three estimation procedures ranged from 6,408 to 14,080 adult sturgeon. These estimates compare favorably with those based upon similar methods in similar river systems. The most recent population estimate for the Delaware River is 12, 047 (95% CI= 10,757-13,580) and is based on mark recapture data collected from January 1999 through March 2003 (ERC Inc. 2006). Comparisons between the population estimate by ERC Inc. and the earlier estimate by Hastings et al. (1987) of 12, 796 (95% CI=10,228-16,367) suggests that the population is stable, but not increasing. This is the best available information on population size, but because the recruitment and migration rates between the population segment studied and the total population in the river are unknown, model assumptions may have been violated.

In the Delaware River, movement to the spawning grounds occurs in early spring, typically in late March5, with spawning occurring through early May. Movement to the spawning areas is triggered in part by water temperature and fish typically arrive at the spawning locations when 5 Based on US Geological Survey (USGS) water temperature data for the Delaware River at the Trenton gage (USGS gage 01463500; the site closest to the Scudders Falls area), for the period 2003-2009, mean daily water temperature reached 8°C sometime between March 26 (2006) and April 21 (2007), with temperatures typically reaching 8°C in the last few days of March. During this period, mean water temperatures at Trenton reached 10°C between March 28 (2004) and April 22 (2007) and 15ºC between April 15 (2006) and May 4 (2007). There is typically a three to four week period with mean daily temperatures between 8 and 15°C.

45

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 water temperatures are between 8-9ºC with most spawning occurring when water temperatures are between 10 and 18ºC. Until recently, actual spawning (i.e., fertilized eggs or larvae) had not been documented in this area; however, the concentrated use of the Scudders Falls region in the spring by large numbers of mature male and female shortnose sturgeon indicated that the area between Scudders Falls and the Trenton rapids (rkm223-214) is the major spawning area, though shortnose sturgeon eggs were collected upstream of Titusville, NJ (rkm 229) in spring 2008 (OHerron et al. 1993; ERC 2009). The same area was identified as a likely spawning area based on the collection of two ripe females in the spring of 1965 (Hoff 1965). The capture of early life stages (eggs and larvae) in this region in the spring of 2008 confirms that this area of the river is used for spawning and as a nursery area (ERC 2009).During the spawning period males remain on the spawning grounds for approximately a week while females only stay for a few days (OHerron and Hastings 1985). After spawning, which typically ceases by the time water temperatures reach 18ºC, shortnose sturgeon move rapidly downstream to the Philadelphia area.

Shortnose sturgeon eggs generally hatch after approximately 9-12 days (Buckley and Kynard 1981). The larvae are photonegative, remaining on the bottom for several days. Buckley and Kynard (1981) found week old larvae to be photonegative and form aggregations with other larvae in concealment. Larvae are expected to begin swimming downstream at 9-14 days old (Richmond and Kynard 1995). Larvae are expected to be less than 20mm TL at this time (Richmond and Kynard 1995). This initial downstream migration generally lasts two to three days (Richmond and Kynard 1995). Studies (Kynard and Horgan 2002) suggest that larvae move approximately 7.5km/day during this initial 2 to 3 day migration. Laboratory studies indicate that young sturgeon move downstream in a 2-step migration: the initial 2-3 day migration followed by a residency period of the Young of the Year (YOY), then a resumption of migration by yearlings in the second summer of life (Buckley and Kynard 1981).

No studies have been conducted on juveniles in the Delaware River. As shortnose sturgeon demonstrate nearly identical migration patterns in all rivers, it is likely that juveniles in the Delaware River exhibit similar migration patterns to sturgeon in other river systems. As such, it is likely that yearlings are concentrated in the upper Delaware River above Philadelphia.

As noted above, due to limited information on juvenile shortnose sturgeon, it is difficult to ascertain their distribution and nursery habitat (OHerron 2000, pers. comm.). Sub-adults are typically described as age one or older and occupy similar spatio-temporal patterns and habitat-use as adults (Kynard 1997). In these systems, juveniles moved back and forth in the low salinity portion of the salt wedge during summer. In the Delaware River the oligohaline/fresh interface can range from as far south as Wilmington, Delaware, north to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, depending upon meteorological conditions such as excessive rainfall or drought. As a result, it is possible that in the Delaware River, juveniles could range from Artificial Island (river mile 54) to the Schuylkill River (river mile 92) (OHerron 2000, pers. comm.). The distribution of juveniles in the river is likely highly influenced by flow and salinity. In years of high flow (for example, due to excessive rains or a significant spring runoff), the salt wedge will be pushed seaward and the low salinity reaches preferred by juveniles will extend further downriver. In these years, shortnose sturgeon juveniles are likely to be found further downstream in the summer months. In years of low flow, the salt wedge will be higher in the river and in these years juveniles are likely to be concentrated further upstream.

46

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 OHerron believes that if juveniles are present within this range they would likely aggregate closer to the downstream boundary in the winter when freshwater input is normally greater (OHerron 2000, pers. comm.). Research in other river systems indicates that juveniles are typically found over silt and sand/mud substrates in deep water of 10-20m. Juveniles feed indiscriminately, typical prey items found in stomach contents include aquatic insects, isopods, and amphipods along with large amounts of mud, stones, and plant material (Dadswell 1979, Carlson and Simpson 1987, Bain 1997). Juvenile sturgeon primarily feed in 10 to 20 meter deep river channels, over sand-mud or gravel-mud bottoms (Pottle and Dadswell 1979). However, little is known about the specific feeding habits of juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River.

As noted above, after spawning, adult shortnose sturgeon migrate rapidly downstream to the Philadelphia area (RM 100). After adult sturgeon migrate to the area around Philadelphia, many adults return upriver to between river mile 127 and 134 within a few weeks, while others gradually move to the same area over the course of the summer (OHerron 1993). By the time water temperatures have reached 10°C, typically by mid-November6, adult sturgeon have returned to the overwintering grounds in the Roebling (rkm 199), Bordentown (rkm 207), or Trenton reaches (rkm 214). These patterns are generally supported by the movement of radio-tagged fish in the region between river mile 125 and river mile 148 as presented by Brundage (1986). Based on water temperature data collected at the USGS gage at Philadelphia, in general, shortnose sturgeon are expected to be at the overwintering grounds between early December and March. Adult sturgeon overwinter in dense sedentary aggregations in the upper tidal reaches of the Delaware between river mile 118 and 131. The areas around Duck Island and Newbold Island seem to be regions of intense overwintering concentrations. However, unlike sturgeon in other river systems, shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware do not appear to remain as stationary during overwintering periods. Overwintering fish have been found to be generally active, appearing at the surface and even breaching through the skim ice (OHerron 1993). Due to the relatively active nature of these fish, the use of the river during the winter is difficult to predict.

However, OHerron et al. (1993) found that the typical overwintering movements are fairly localized and sturgeon appear to remain within 1.24 river miles of the aggregation site (OHerron and Able 1986). Investigations with video equipment by the ACOE in March 2005 (Versar 2006) documented two sturgeon of unknown species at Marcus Hook and 1 sturgeon of unknown species at Tinicum. Gillnetting in these same areas caught only one Atlantic sturgeon and no shortnose sturgeon. Video surveys of the known overwintering area near Newbold documented 61 shortnose sturgeon in approximately 1/3 of the survey effort. This study supports the conclusion that the vast majority of shortnose sturgeon overwinter near Duck and Newbold Island but that a limited number of shortnose sturgeon occur in other downstream areas, including Marcus Hook, during the winter months. Preliminary tracking studies of juveniles indicate that the entire lower Delaware River from Philadelphia (rkm 161) to below Artificial Island (rkm 79) may beutilized as an overwintering area by juvenile shortnose sturgeon (ERC 2007). There is also evidence that unlike adults, juveniles do not form dense aggregations and instrad are more dispersed in overwintering areas (ERC 2007).

6 Based on information from the USGS gage at Philadelphia (01467200) during the 2003-2008 time period, mean water temperatures reached 10°C between October 29 (2005 and 2006) and November 14 (2003). In the spring, mean water temperature reached 10°C between April 2 (2006) and April 21 (2009).

47

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Shortnose sturgeon appear to be strictly benthic feeders (Dadswell 1984). Adults eat mollusks, insects, crustaceans and small fish. Juveniles eat crustaceans and insects. While shortnose sturgeon forage on a variety of organisms, in the Delaware River, sturgeon primarily feed on the Asiatic river clam (Corbicula manilensis). Corbicula is widely distributed at all depths in the upper tidal Delaware River, but it is considerably more numerous in the shallows on both sides of the river than in the navigation channels. Foraging is heaviest immediately after spawning in the spring and during the summer and fall, and lighter in the winter.

Historically, sturgeon were relatively rare below Philadelphia due to poor water quality. Since the 1990s, the water quality in the Philadelphia area has improved leading to an increased use of the lower river by shortnose sturgeon. Few studies have been conducted to document the use of the river below Philadelphia by sturgeon. Brundage and Meadows (1982) have reported incidental captures in commercial gillnets in the lower Delaware. During a study focusing on Atlantic sturgeon, Shirey et al. (1999) captured 9 shortnose sturgeon in 1998. During the June through September study period, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were found to use the area on the west side of the shipping channel between Deep Water Point, New Jersey and the Delaware-Pennsylvania line. The most frequently utilized areas within this section were off the northern and southern ends of Cherry Island Flats in the vicinity of the Marcus Hook Bar. A total of 25 shortnose sturgeon have been captured by Shirey in this region of the river from 1992 - 2004, with capture rates ranging from 0-10 fish per year (Shirey 2006). Shortnose sturgeon have also been documented on the trash racks of the Salem nuclear power plant in Salem, New Jersey at Artificial Island. The intakes for this plant are located in Delaware Bay. While the available information does not identify the area below Philadelphia as a concentration area for adult shortnose sturgeon, it is apparent that this species does occur in the lower Delaware River and upper Delaware Bay.

In May 2005, a one-year survey for juvenile sturgeon in the Delaware River in the vicinity of the proposed Crown Landing LNG project was initiated. The objective of the survey was to obtain information on the occurrence and distribution of juvenile shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon near the proposed project site to be located near RM 78, approximately 20 miles south of Philadelphia. Sampling for juvenile sturgeon was performed using trammel nets and small mesh gill nets. The nets were set at three stations, one located adjacent to the project site, one at the upstream end of the Marcus Hook anchorage (approximately 2.7 miles upstream of the project site, at RM 81), and one near the upstream end of the Cherry Island Flats (at RM 74; approximately 3.8 miles downstream of the site). Nets were set within three depth ranges at each station: shallow (<10 feet at MLW), intermediate (10-20 feet at MLW) and deep (20-30+ feet at MLW). Each station/depth zone was sampled once per month. Nets were fished for at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> when water temperatures were less than 27°C and limited to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> when water temperature was greater than 27°C. The sampling from April through August 2005 yielded 3,014 specimens of 22 species, including 3 juvenile shortnose sturgeon. Juvenile shortnose sturgeon were collected one each during the June, July and August sampling events. Two of the shortnose sturgeon were collected at RM 78 and one was taken at the downstream sampling station at RM

74. Total length ranged from 311-367mm. During the September - December sampling, one juvenile shortnose sturgeon was caught in September at RM 78 and one in November at the same location. One adult shortnose sturgeon was captured in October at RM 74. All of the shortnose 48

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 sturgeon were collected in deep water sets (greater than 20 feet). These depths are consistent with the preferred depths for foraging shortnose sturgeon juveniles reported in the literature (NMFS 1998). The capture of an adult in the Cherry Island Flats area (RM 74) is consistent with the capture location of several adult sturgeon reported by Shirey et al. 1999 and Shirey 2006.

Brundage compiled a report presenting an analysis of telemetry data from receivers located at Torresdale RM 93, Tinicum RM 86, Bellevue RM 73 and New Castle RM 58 during April through December 2003. The objective of the study was to provide information on the occurrence and movements of shortnose sturgeon in the general vicinity of the proposed Crown Landing LNG facility. A total of 60 shortnose sturgeon had been tagged with ultrasonic transmitters: 30 in fall 2002, 13 in early summer 2003 and 13 in fall 2003. All fish tagged were adults tagged after collection in gill nets in the upper tidal Delaware River, between RM 126-132. Of the 60 tagged sturgeon, 39 (65%) were recorded at Torresdale, 22 (36.7%) were recorded at Tinicum, 16 (26.7%) at Bellevue and 18 (30%) at New Castle. The number of tagged sturgeon recorded at each location varied with date of tagging. Of the 30 sturgeon tagged in fall 2002, 26 were recorded at Torresdale, 17 at Tinicum, 11 at Bellevue and 13 at New Castle. Only two of the 13 tagged in fall 2003 were recorded, both at Torresdale only. Brundage concludes that seasonal movement patterns and time available for dispersion likely account for this variation, particularly for the fish tagged in fall 2003. Eleven of the 30 shortnose sturgeon tagged in fall 2002 and 5 of the 17 fish tagged in summer 2003 were recorded at all four locations.

Some of the fish evidenced rapid movements from one location sequentially to the next in upstream and/or downstream direction. These periods of rapid sequential movement tended to occur in the spring and fall, and were probably associated with movement to summer foraging and overwintering grounds, respectively. As a group, the shortnose sturgeon tagged in summer 2003 occurred a high percentage of time within the range of the Torresdale receiver. The report concludes that the metrics indicate that the Torresdale Range of the Delaware River is utilized by adult shortnose sturgeon more frequently and for greater durations than the other three locations.

Of the other locations, the New Castle Range appears to be the most utilized region. At all ranges, shortnose were detected throughout the study period, with most shortnose sturgeon detected in the project area between April and October. The report indicates that most adult shortnose sturgeon used the Torresdale to New Castle area as a short-term migratory route rather than a long-term concentration or foraging area. Adult sturgeon in this region of the river are highly mobile, and as noted above, likely using the area as a migration route.

Information on the use of the river by juveniles is lacking and the information available is extremely limited (i.e., 5 captures). As evidenced by the Crown Landing study, juvenile shortnose sturgeon have been documented between RM 81-74 from June - November. Due to the limited geographic scope of this study, it is difficult to use these results to predict the occurrence of juvenile shortnose sturgeon throughout the action area. However, the April -

August time frame is when flows in the Delaware River are highest and the time when the action area is likely to experience the low salinity levels preferred by juveniles (FERC 2005).

Beginning in August, flows decrease and the salt wedge begins to move upstream, which may preclude juveniles from occurring in the action area. Based on this information, it is likely that juvenile shortnose sturgeon are present in the action area at least during the April - August time frame. The capture of juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the RM 81-74 range in November of 2005 suggests that if water conditions are appropriate, juveniles may also be present in this area 49

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 through the fall. While it is possible, based on habitat characteristics, that this area of the river is used as an overwintering site for juveniles, there is currently no evidence to support this presumption.

In 2005, the ACOE conducted investigations to determine the use of the Marcus Hook region by sturgeon. Surveys for the presence of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were conducted between March 4 and March 25, 2005 primarily using a Video Ray Explorer submersible remotely operated vehicle (ROV). The Video Ray was attached to a 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.5 meter aluminum sled which was towed over channel bottom habitats behind a 25-foot research boat. All images captured by the underwater camera were transmitted through the units electronic tether and recorded on video cassettes. A total of 43 hours4.976852e-4 days <br />0.0119 hours <br />7.109788e-5 weeks <br />1.63615e-5 months <br /> of bottom video were collected on 14 separate survey days. Twelve days of survey work were conducted at the Marcus Hook, Eddystone, Chester, and Tinicum ranges, while two separate days of survey work were conducted up river near Trenton, New Jersey, at an area known to have an over wintering population of shortnose sturgeon.

The sled was generally towed on the bottom parallel to the centerline of the channel and into the current at 0.8 knots. Tow track logs were maintained throughout the survey and any fish seen on the ROV monitor was noted. Boat position during each video tow was recorded every five minutes with the vessels Furuno GPS. The Sony digital recorder recorded a time stamp that could be matched with the geographic coordinates taken from the on-board GPS. Digital tapes were reviewed in a darkened laboratory at normal or slow speed using a high quality 28-inch television screen as a monitor. When a fish image was observed the tape was slowed and advanced frame by frame (30 images per second were recorded by the system). The time stamp where an individual fish was observed was recorded by the technician. Each fish was identified to the lowest practical taxon (usually species) and counted. A staff fishery biologist reviewed questionable images and species identifications. Distances traveled by the sled between time stamps were calculated based on the GPS coordinates recorded in the field during each tow.

Total fish counts between the recorded coordinates within a particular tow were converted to observed numbers per 100 meters of tow track.

Limited 25-foot otter trawling and gillnet sets were conducted initially to provide density data, and later to provide ground truth information on the fish species seen in the video recording.

Large boulders and other snags that tore the net and hung up the vessel early on in the study prompted abandoning this effort for safety reasons given the high degree of tanker traffic in the lower Delaware River. The trawl net was a 7.6-m (25-foot) experimental semi-balloon otter trawl with 44.5-mm stretch mesh body fitted with a 3.2-mm stretch mesh liner in the cod end.

Otter trawls were generally conducted for five minutes unless a snag or tanker traffic caused a reduction in tow time. Experimental gillnets were periodically deployed throughout the survey period in the Marcus Hook area. One experimental gillnet was 91.4-m in length and 3-m deep and was composed of six 15.2-m panels of varying mesh size. Of the six panels in each net, two panels were 50.8-mm stretch mesh, 2 panels were 101.6-mm stretch mesh and two panels were 152.4-mm stretch mesh. Another gillnet was 100 m in length and consisted of four 25 x 2-m panels of 2.5-10.2-cm stretched monofilament mesh in 2.5 cm increments. Gill nets were generally set an hour before slack high or low water and allowed to fish for two hours as the nets had to be retrieved before maximum currents were reached.

50

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Turbidity in the Marcus Hook region of the Delaware River limited visibility to about 18 inches in front of the camera. However, despite the reduced visibility, several different fish species were recorded by the system including sturgeon. In general, fish that encountered the sled between the leading edge of the sled runners were relatively easy to distinguish. The major fish species seen in the video images were confirmed by the trawl and gillnet samples. In the Marcus Hook project area, a total of 39 survey miles of bottom habitat were recorded in twelve separate survey days. Eight different species were observed on the tapes from a total of 411 fish encountered by the camera. White perch, unidentified catfish, and unidentified shiner were the most common taxa observed. Three unidentified sturgeon were seen on the tapes, two in the Marcus Hook Range, and one in the Tinicum Range. Although it could not be determined if these sturgeon were Atlantic or shortnose, gillnetting in the Marcus Hook anchorage produced one juvenile Atlantic sturgeon that was 396 mm in total length, 342 mm in fork length, and weighed 250 g.

Water clarity in the Trenton survey area was much greater (about 6 feet ahead of the camera) and large numbers of shortnose sturgeon were seen in the video recordings. In a total of 7.9 survey miles completed in two separate days of bottom imaging, 61 shortnose sturgeons were observed.

To provide a comparative measure of project area density (where visibility was limited) to up river densities (where visibility was greater), each of the 61 sturgeon images were classified as to whether the individual fish was observed between the sled runners or whether they were seen ahead of the sled. Real time play backs of video recordings in the upriver sites indicated that the sturgeon did not react to the approaching sled until the cross bar directly in front of the camera was nearly upon it. Thirty of the 61 upstream sturgeon images were captured when the individual fish was between the runners. Using this criterion, approximately 10 times more sturgeon were encountered in the upriver area relative to the project site near Marcus Hook where three sturgeons were observed. Using the number of sturgeon observed per 100 meters of bottom surveyed, the relative sturgeon density in the project area was several orders of magnitude less than those observed in the Trenton area. As calculated in the report, the relative density of unidentified sturgeon in the Marcus Hook area was 0.005 fish per 100 meters while the densities of shortnose sturgeon between the sled runners in the upriver area was 0.235 fish per 100 meters.

The results of the video sled survey in the Marcus Hook project area confirmed that sturgeons are using the area in the winter months. However, sturgeon relative densities in the project area were much lower than those observed near Trenton, New Jersey, even when the upriver counts were adjusted for the higher visibility (i.e., between runner sturgeon counts). The sturgeons seen near Trenton were very much concentrated in several large aggregations, which were surveyed in multiple passes on the two sampling dates devoted to this area. The lack of avoidance of the approaching sled seen in the upriver video recordings where water clarity was good suggests that little to no avoidance of the sled occurred in the low visibility downriver project area. Video surveys in the downriver project area did not encounter large aggregations of sturgeon as was observed in the upstream survey area despite having five times more sampling effort than the upstream area. This suggests that sturgeons that do occur in the Marcus Hook area during the winter are more dispersed and that the overall number of shortnose sturgeon occurring in this area in the winter months is low.

51

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Shortnose sturgeon in the Action Area Based on the best available information, eggs, larvae and young of the year are not likely to be in the action area. Due to the benthic, adhesive nature of the eggs, they only occur in the immediate vicinity of the spawning area, located at least 80 miles upstream of the action area. Larvae are also limited to an area close to the spawning grounds, and therefore, not likely to occur in the action area. While limited information is available on the distribution of young of the year, this life stage is relatively intolerant to salinity and is also expected to occur upstream of the action area where salinity levels are lower. Distribution of adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the action area is influenced by seasonal water temperature, the distribution of forage items, and salinity.

Although they have been documented in waters with salinities as high as 31 parts per thousand (ppt), shortnose sturgeon are typically concentrated in areas with salinity levels of less than 3 ppt (Dadswell et al. 1984). Jenkins et al. (1993) demonstrated in lab studies that 76 day old shortnose sturgeon experienced 100% mortality in salinity greater than 14 ppt. One year old shortnose sturgeon were able to tolerate salinity levels as high as 20 ppt for up to 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> but experienced 100% mortality at salinity levels of 30 ppt. A salinity of 9 ppt appeared to be a threshold at which significant mortalities began to occur, especially among the youngest fish (Jenkins et al. 1993). The distribution of salinity in the Delaware estuary exhibits significant variability on both spatial and temporal scales, and at any given time reflects the opposing influences of freshwater inflow from tributaries versus saltwater inflow from the Atlantic Ocean.

The estuary can be divided into four longitudinal salinity zones. Starting at the downstream end, the mouth of the Bay to RM 34 is considered polyhaline (18-30ppt), RM 34-44 is mesohaline (5-18ppt), RM 44-79 is oligohaline (0.5-5ppt), and Marcus Hook (RM 79) to Trenton is considered Fresh (0.0-0.5ppt). Based on this information and the known tolerances and preferences of shortnose sturgeon to salinity, shortnose sturgeon are most likely to occur upstream of RM 44 where salinity is typically less than 5ppt. As tolerance to salinity increases with age and size, large juveniles and adults are likely to be present through the mesohaline area extending to RM 34; the action area is near RM 50. Due to the typical high salinities experienced in the polyhaline zone (below RM 34), shortnose sturgeon are likely to be rare in this reach of the river.

Based on the best available information, shortnose sturgeon are likely to be present in the Artificial Island reach of the river when water temperatures are greater than 10°C (mid April -

mid November). The majority of shortnose sturgeon documented at the Salem intakes have occurred between April and November. One dead shortnose sturgeon was observed at the intake in January 1978 and one in late November 2007. However, due to the level of decomposition observed with these fish, it is unlikely that they died at the intakes or that they died during the winter months. Shortnose sturgeon are likely to at least occasionally occur in the action area; however, the low number of documented occurrences in this reach combined with the higher salinity levels, make this reach less likely to be used than other upstream reaches.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Environmental baselines for biological opinions include the past and present impacts of all state, federal or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with 52

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The environmental baseline for this Opinion includes the effects of several activities that may affect the survival and recovery of the listed species in the action area.

NMFS has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects of vessel operations and gear associated with federally-permitted fisheries on threatened and endangered species in the action area. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability of adverse impacts of the action on listed species. Additionally, NMFS has consulted on dredging and construction projects authorized by the ACOE. Consultations are detailed below.

Delaware River - Philadelphia to Trenton Federal Navigation Project - Dredging The Delaware River Philadelphia to Trenton Federal Navigation Channel is maintained by the ACOE. As explained in the Consultation History section above, a batched consultation was completed in 1996 between NMFS and the ACOE on the effects of the ACOEs authorization and completion of several Federal navigation projects, including the Philadelphia to Trenton project, as well as their regulatory dredging program. The Opinion was reinitiated in 1998 with an amendment issued in 1999. The amended Opinion included an Incidental Take Statement exempting the annual take (entrainment and mortality) of four shortnose sturgeon, 4 loggerhead, 1 Kemps ridley, and 1 green sea turtle. This take applies to the Philadelphia to Trenton project, the existing Philadelphia to the Sea project, and the ACOE regulatory program where private dredging activities are authorized.

Dredging in the Philadelphia to Trenton project has caused shortnose sturgeon mortality and may have affected shortnose sturgeon distribution and foraging habitat. In mid-March 1996, three subadult shortnose sturgeon were found in a dredge discharge pool on Money Island, near Newbold Island. The dead sturgeon were found on the side of the spill area into which the hydraulic pipeline dredge was pumping, and the presence of large amounts of roe in two specimens and minimal decomposition indicates that the fish were alive and in good condition prior to entrainment. In January 1998, three shortnose sturgeon were discovered in the hydraulic maintenance dredge spoil in the Florence to Trenton section of the upper Delaware River. These fish also appeared to have been alive and in good condition prior to entrainment.

Dredging was being conducted in the Kinkora and Florence ranges when takes occurred; this area is overlaps with where shortnose sturgeon are known to overwinter in large aggregations. Since dredging involves removing the bottom material down to a specified depth, the benthic environment could be severely impacted by dredging operations. As shortnose sturgeon are benthic species, the alteration of the benthic habitat could have affected sturgeon prey distribution and/or foraging ability. Since 1998 the ACOE has been avoiding dredging in the overwintering area during the time of year when shortnose sturgeon are present. Habitats affected by the Philadelphia to Trenton project include foraging, overwintering and nursery habitats. It is important to note that outside of the use of inspectors at upland dredge disposal area, no observers have been used to detect interactions with listed species during this project.

53

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Delaware River - Philadelphia to the Sea Federal Navigation Project As noted in the Consultation History section, the existing 40 foot Philadelphia to the Sea navigation project is maintained with hopper and cutterhead dredges annually. As noted above, an Opinion was issued in 1996 and amended in 1999 that considered the effects of the maintenance of this project on shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles. The Philadelphia District Endangered Species Monitoring Program began in August 1992. Since that time, all hopper dredge operations conducted downstream of the Delaware Memorial Bridge between May and November have used endangered species observers to monitor for interactions with sea turtles.

No shortnose sturgeon have been observed during any hopper dredging event. Several sea turtles have been entrained during hopper dredging operations including two loggerheads in August 1993 and 1 loggerhead on June 22, 1994. Relocation trawling was conducted in 1994, and eight loggerheads were captured and relocated away from the channel. On November 13, 1995 one loggerhead was entrained by a hopper dredge working in the channel. On July 27, 2005, fresh loggerhead parts were observed in the hopper basket during two different loads. Outside of the disposal site inspectors working at upland disposal areas, no endangered species observers have been used during any cutterhead dredging operations for this project or at any hopper dredge operation upstream of the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Delaware River - Deepening of the Main Channel The ACOE is currently deepening certain portions of the Delaware River Main Channel, Philadelphia to the Sea project. The project would involve deepening the main channel of the Delaware River from 40 to 45 feet from Philadelphia Harbor, Pennsylvania and Beckett Street Terminal, Camden, New Jersey to the mouth of the Delaware Bay as well as the widening of 12 of the 16 bends in the channel and deepening the Marcus Hook Anchorage. It is anticipated that the project would result in the removal of approximately 26 million cubic yards (CY) of material.

The proposed action is scheduled to occur over six years and began in March 2010. Consultation was concluded with the issuance of a Biological Opinion (Opinion) by NMFS dated July 17, 2009. In this Opinion NMFS concluded that the proposed deepening project is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the loggerhead or Kemps ridley sea turtle or shortnose sturgeon and that the action was not likely to adversely affect leatherback or green sea turtles. Because no critical habitat is designated in the action area, none will be affected by the action. Similarly, as no listed marine mammals occur in the action area, none will be affected by the action. we estimated based on this entrainment rate and the volume of material that will be removed during the months of June - November from reaches where sea turtles are likely to be present (i.e., Reaches D and E), the proposed action has the potential to result in the death of no more than 20 sea turtles (9 during the initial deepening and 11 during the 10 years of maintenance dredging). In the Opinion we estimated that no more than 2 of these turtles are likely to be Kemps ridleys, with the remainder being loggerheads. In the Opinion NMFS estimated that based on this entrainment rate and the volume of material that will be removed during the time of year when shortnose sturgeon are likely to be present in the action area, the proposed dredging has the potential to result in the death of 49 shortnose sturgeon (9 during the initial deepening and 40 over 10 years of maintenance dredging). To date, one contract has been completed (Reach C, with a cutterhead dredge) and no interactions with sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon were observed.

Scientific Studies 54

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River have been the focus of a long history of scientific research, beginning in approximately 1962. As a result of techniques associated with these sampling studies, shortnose sturgeon have been subjected to capturing, handling, and tagging. It is possible that research in the action area may have influenced and/or altered the migration patterns, reproductive success, foraging behavior, and survival of shortnose sturgeon. Through 2001, Environmental Research and Consulting Inc. (principal investigators John OHerron and Hal Brundage) reported the captures, handling and tagging of over 3000 shortnose sturgeon.

Eleven accidental shortnose sturgeon mortalities were reported during that time.

Currently, only one valid research permit for shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River is in place (Permit No. 1486, issued December 22, 2004 to Mr. Hal Brundage). This permit authorizes the capture, handling and tagging of 1,750 adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon annually. Internal ultrasonic tagging, Floy T-bar tagging, PIT tagging and tissue and genetic sampling is authorized for a subset of the captured fish. The permit also authorizes the accidental mortality of up to 25 adult and 25 juvenile shortnose sturgeon over the five year life of the permit. A Biological Opinion was completed on December 21, 2004 which concluded that this action may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of shortnose sturgeon. This permit is valid for five years.

Vessel Operations Potential adverse effects from federal vessel operations in the action area of this consultation include operations of the US Navy (USN) and the US Coast Guard (USCG), which maintain the largest federal vessel fleets, the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the ACOE. NMFS has conducted formal consultations with the USCG, the USN, EPA and NOAA on their vessel operations. In addition to operation of ACOE vessels, NMFS has consulted with the ACOE to provide recommended permit restrictions for operations of contract or private vessels around whales. Through the section 7 process, where applicable, NMFS has and will continue to establish conservation measures for all these agency vessel operations to avoid adverse effects to listed species. Refer to the biological opinions for the USCG (September 15, 1995; July 22, 1996; and June 8, 1998) and the USN (May 15, 1997) for detail on the scope of vessel operations for these agencies and conservation measures being implemented as standard operating procedures.

Non-Federally Regulated Actions Contaminants and Water Quality Historically, shortnose sturgeon were rare in the area below Philadelphia, likely as a result of poor water quality precluding migration further downstream. However, in the past 20 to 30 years, the water quality has improved and sturgeon have been found farther downstream. It is likely that contaminants remain in the water and in the action area, albeit to reduced levels.

Point source discharges (i.e., municipal wastewater, industrial or power plant cooling water or waste water) and compounds associated with discharges (i.e., metals, dioxins, dissolved solids, phenols, and hydrocarbons) contribute to poor water quality and may also impact the health of sturgeon populations. The compounds associated with discharges can alter the pH or receiving waters, which may lead to mortality, changes in fish behavior, deformations, and reduced egg 55

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 production and survival.

Sources of contamination in the action area include atmospheric loading of pollutants, stormwater runoff from coastal development, groundwater discharges, and industrial development. Chemical contaminants may also have an effect on sea turtle reproduction and survival. While the effects of contaminants on turtles is relatively unclear, pollution may be linked to the fibropapilloma virus that kills many turtles each year (NMFS 1997). If pollution is not the causal agent, it may make sea turtles more susceptible to disease by weakening their immune systems.

Contaminants have been detected in Delaware River fish. PCBs have been detected in elevated levels in several species of fish. Large portions of the Delaware River is bordered by highly industrialized waterfront development. Sewage treatment facilities, refineries, manufacturing plants and power generating facilities all intake and discharge water directly from the Delaware River. This results in large temperature variations, heavy metals, dioxin, dissolved solids, phenols and hydrocarbons which may alter the pH of the water eventually leading to fish mortality. Industrialized development, especially the presence of refineries, has also resulted in storage and leakage of hazardous material into the Delaware River. Presently 13 Superfund sites have been identified in Marcus Hook and one dumpsite has yet to be labeled as a Superfund site, but does contain hazardous waste. It is possible that the presence of contaminants in the action area may have adversely affected shortnose sturgeon abundance, reproductive success and survival.

Several characteristics of shortnose sturgeon life history including long life span, extended residence in estuarine habitats, and being a benthic omnivore, predispose this species to long term, repeated exposure to environmental contaminants and bioaccumulation of toxicants (Dadswell 1979). Toxins introduced to the water column become associated with the benthos and can be particularly harmful to benthic organisms (Varanasi 1992) like sturgeon. Heavy metals and organochlorine compounds are known to accumulate in fat tissues of sturgeon, but their long term effects are not yet known (Ruelle and Henry 1992; Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993).

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). Although there have not been any studies to assess the impact of contaminants on shortnose sturgeon, elevated levels of environmental contaminants, including chlorinated hydrocarbons, in several other fish species are associated with reproductive impairment (Cameron et al. 1992; Longwell et al. 1992), reduced egg viability (Von Westernhagen et al. 1981; Hansen 1985; Mac and Edsall 1991), and reduced survival of larval fish (Berlin et al. 1981; Giesy et al. 1986). Some researchers have speculated that PCBs may reduce the shortnose sturgeons resistance to fin rot (Dovel et al. 1992).

Although there is scant information available on levels of contaminants in shortnose sturgeon tissues, some research on other, related species indicates that concern about effects of contaminants on the health of sturgeon populations is warranted. Detectable levels of chlordane, DDE, DDT, and dieldrin, and elevated levels of PCBs, cadmium, mercury, and selenium were found in pallid sturgeon tissue from the Missouri River (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).

These compounds may affect physiological processes and impede a fishs ability to withstand stress. PCBs are believed to adversely affect reproduction in pallid sturgeon (Ruelle and 56

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Keenlyne 1993). Ruelle and Henry (1992) found a strong correlation between fish weight r =

0.91, p < 0.01), fish fork length r = 0.91, p < 0.01), and DDE concentration in pallid sturgeon livers, indicating that DDE concentration increases proportionally with fish size.

Contaminant analysis was conducted on two shortnose sturgeon from the Delaware River in the fall of 2002. Muscle, liver, and gonad tissue were analyzed for contaminants (ERC 2002).

Sixteen metals, two semivolatile compounds, three organochlorine pesticides, one PCB Aroclor, as well as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) were detected in one or more of the tissue samples. Levels of aluminum, cadmium, PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs and DDE (an organochlorine pesticide) were detected in the adverse affect range. It is of particular concern that of the above chemicals, PCDDs, DDE, PCBs and cadmium, were detected as these have been identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals. While no directed studies of chemical contamination in shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River have been undertaken, it is evident that the heavy industrialization of the Delaware River is likely adversely affecting this population.

Excessive turbidity due to coastal development and/or construction sites could influence sea turtle foraging ability. Turtles are not very easily affected by changes in water quality or increased suspended sediments, but if these alterations make habitat less suitable for turtles and hinder their capability to forage, eventually they would tend to leave or avoid these less desirable areas (Ruben and Morreale 1999).

Marine debris (e.g., discarded fishing line or lines from boats) can entangle turtles in the water and drown them. Turtles commonly ingest plastic or mistake debris for food. Chemical contaminants may also have an effect on sea turtle reproduction and survival. Excessive turbidity due to coastal development and/or construction sites could influence sea turtle foraging ability. As mentioned previously, turtles are not very easily affected by changes in water quality or increased suspended sediments, but if these alterations make habitat less suitable for turtles and hinder their capability to forage, eventually they would tend to leave or avoid these less desirable areas (Ruben and Morreale 1999). Noise pollution has been raised, primarily, as a concern for marine mammals but may be a concern for other marine organisms, including sea turtles.

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for discharges in the State of Delaware. NMFS receives copies of draft permits during the Public Notice period and provides comments to the State with the goal of assuring that any permits issued do not have more than a minor detrimental effect on listed species in the receiving waters.

Private and Commercial Vessel Operations Private and commercial vessels, including fishing vessels, operating in the action area of this consultation also have the potential to interact with sea turtles. The effects of fishing vessels, recreational vessels, or other types of commercial vessels on listed species may involve disturbance or injury/mortality due to collisions or entanglement in anchor lines. It is important to note that minor vessel collisions may not kill an animal directly, but may weaken or otherwise affect it so it is more likely to become vulnerable to effects such as entanglements. Listed 57

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 species may also be affected by fuel oil spills resulting from vessel accidents. Fuel oil spills could affect animals directly or indirectly through the food chain. Fuel spills involving fishing vessels are common events. However, these spills typically involve small amounts of material that are unlikely to adversely affect listed species. Larger oil spills may result from accidents, although these events would be rare and involve small areas. No direct adverse effects on listed sea turtles resulting from fishing vessel fuel spills have been documented.

Non-Federally Regulated Fishery Operations Directed fishing for shortnose sturgeon, as well as incidental capture in the operation of other fisheries is prohibited by the ESA. However, shortnose sturgeon are taken incidentally to the operation of fisheries targeting other anadromous species along the East Coast and are probably targeted by poachers (NMFS 1998). The incidental take of shortnose sturgeon in the river has not been well documented due to confusion over distinguishing between Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon. The incidental take of shortnose sturgeon on the Hudson River has been documented in both commercial shad fisheries as well as recreational hook and line fisheries.

Although, commercial fisheries are prohibited in Pennsylvania state waters, New Jersey and Delaware do permit commercial fisheries to operate in designated portions of the Delaware River (Miller 2000, pers. Comm.; Boriek 2000, pers. comm.). American shad, eel, and blue crab are the species targeted by commercial fisherman, however, in the action area the level of commercial fishing is very minimal (Miller 2000, pers. Comm.; Boriek 2000, pers. comm.).

Recreational hook and line fisheries, that target largemouth bass, striped bass, white catfish and channel catfish, are permitted throughout the River (Coughman 2000, pers. comm.; Boriek 2000, pers. comm.). There are no reported mortalities of shortnose sturgeon from the gillnet fishery for American shad (R. Allen, 2008, NJ Bureau of Marine Fisheries, pers. comm.). While there have been few documented incidental takes of shortnose sturgeon in fisheries in the Delaware River, it is possible that unreported incidental takes have occurred in recreational hook and line fisheries and commercial fisheries operating in the action area (Coughman 2000, pers. comm.). Almost every year between late March and early April during the American shad fishing season, the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife receives reports from hook and line anglers of foul hooked and released shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of Scudders Falls (M. Boriek, 2008, NJ Bureau of Freshwater Fisheries, pers. comm.).

In Spring 2006, a NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Officer discovered a shortnose sturgeon in an anglers car trunk. The angler had caught the sturgeon while bottom fishing in Trenton City. A Conservation Officer observed the angler (who was urged by his friend to keep the fish) as he carried the fish in a plastic bag, then placed the bag in the trunk of his car. The officer apprehended the bag, took pictures of the fish, then released it live (B. Herrighty, 2007, NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Officer, pers. comm.). Images of the fish were distributed to staff of the Divisions Bureaus of Freshwater and Marine Fisheries, and the Endangered and Nongame Species Program, who confirmed it to be a shortnose sturgeon. It is likely that other incidents similar to this have occurred and gone undetected.

Very little is known about the level of listed species take in fisheries that operate strictly in state waters. However, depending on the fishery in question, many state permit holders also hold federal licenses; therefore, section 7 consultations on federal actions in those fisheries address some state-water activity. Impacts on sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon from state fisheries may 58

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 be greater than those from federal activities in certain areas due to the distribution of these species. Nearshore entanglements of turtles have been documented; however, information is not currently available on whether the vessels involved were permitted by the state or by NMFS.

Global climate change The global mean temperature has risen 0.76ºC over the last 150 years, and the linear trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a) and precipitation has increased nationally by 5%-10%, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (NAST 2000).

There is a high confidence, based on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in marine systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels, and circulation. Ocean acidification resulting from massive amounts of carbon dioxide and pollutants released into the air can have major adverse impacts on the calcium balance in the oceans. Changes to the marine ecosystem due to climate change include shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (IPCC 2007b).

These trends are most apparent over the past few decades.

Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperature and precipitation over the next century. Both of the principal climate models used by the National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) project warming in the southeast by the 2090s, but at different rates (NAST 2000): the Canadian model scenario shows the southeast U.S.

experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher temperatures increase evaporation; the Hadley model scenario projects less warming and a significant increase in precipitation (about 20%). The scenarios examined, which assume no major interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse gases (GHG), indicate that temperatures in the U.S. will rise by about 3o-5oC (5o-9oF) on average in the next 100 years which is more than the projected global increase (NAST 2000). A warming of about 0.2oC per decade is projected for the next two decades over a range of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007).

This temperature increase will very likely be associated with more extreme precipitation and faster evaporation of water, leading to greater frequency of both very wet and very dry conditions. Climate warming has resulted in increased precipitation, river discharge, and glacial and sea-ice melting (Greene et al. 2008).

The past 3 decades have witnessed major changes in ocean circulation patterns in the Arctic, and these were accompanied by climate associated changes as well (Greene et al. 2008). Shifts in atmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns and the export of freshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). With respect specifically to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), changes in salinity and temperature are thought to be the result of changes in the earths atmosphere caused by anthropogenic forces (IPCC 2006). The NAO impacts climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (IPCC 2006). Data from the 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increased from minimum values in the 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC 2006). This warming extends over 1000m deep and is deeper than anywhere in the world oceans and is particularly evident under the Gulf Stream/ North Atlantic Current system (IPCC 2006).

On a global scale, large discharges of freshwater into the North Atlantic subarctic seas can lead to intense stratification of the upper water column and a disruption of North Atlantic Deepwater (NADW) formation (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). There is evidence that the NADW has 59

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 already freshened significantly (IPCC 2006). This is turn can lead to a slowing down of the global ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms low-density upper ocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those waters back to the upper ocean), which can have climatic ramifications for the whole earth system (Greene et al.

2008).

While predictions are available regarding potential effects of climate change globally, it is more difficult to assess the potential effects of climate change over the next few decades on coastal and marine resources on smaller geographic scales, such as Barnegat Bay generally and the action area specifically, especially as climate variability is a dominant factor in shaping coastal and marine systems. The effects of future change will vary greatly in diverse coastal regions for the United States. Additional information on potential effects of climate change specific to the action area is discussed below. Warming is very likely to continue in the U.S. during the next 25 to 50 years regardless of reduction in GHGs, due to emissions that have already occurred (NAST 2000). It is very likely that the magnitude and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue to increase in the next 25 to 50 years, and it is possible that they will accelerate. Climate change can cause or exacerbate direct stress on ecosystems through high temperatures, a reduction in water availability, and altered frequency of extreme events and severe storms. Water temperatures in streams and rivers are likely to increase as the climate warms and are very likely to have both direct and indirect effects on aquatic ecosystems. Changes in temperature will be most evident during low flow periods when they are of greatest concern (NAST 2000). In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in geographic ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance are associated with high confidence with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation (IPCC 2007).

A warmer and drier climate is expected to result in reductions in stream flows and increases in water temperatures. Expected consequences could be a decrease in the amount of dissolved oxygen in surface waters and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Because many rivers are already under a great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development, and this stress may be exacerbated by changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be critical (Hulme 2005). A warmer-wetter climate could ameliorate poor water quality conditions in places where human-caused concentrations of nutrients and pollutants currently degrade water quality (Murdoch et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature and changes in seasonal patterns of runoff will very likely disturb fish habitat and affect recreational uses of lakes, streams, and wetlands. Surface water resources in the southeast are intensively managed with dams and channels and almost all are affected by human activities; in some systems water quality is either below recommended levels or nearly so. A global analysis of the potential effects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and water stress, the area of large river basins in need of reactive or proactive management interventions in response to climate change will be much higher for basins impacted by dams than for basins with free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). Human-induced disturbances also influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of the systems to adapt so that systems that might ordinarily be capable of responding to variability and change are less able to do so. Because stresses on water quality are associated with many activities, the impacts of the existing stresses are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Within 50 years, river basins that are impacted by 60

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 dams or by extensive development will experience greater changes in discharge and water stress than unimpacted, free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008).

While debated, researchers anticipate: 1) the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods will change across the nation; 2) a warming of about 0.2oC per decade; and 3) a rise in sea level (NAST 2000). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and increase water temperature resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea level is expected to continue rising: during the 20th century global sea level has increased 15 to 20 cm, and between 1985 and 1995 more than 32,000 acres of coastal salt marsh was lost in the southeastern U.S. due to a combination of human development activities, sea level rise, natural subsidence and erosion.

Effects on sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon globally Sea turtle species and shortnose sturgeon have persisted for millions of years and throughout this time have experienced wide variations in global climate conditions and have successfully adapted to these changes. As such, climate change at normal rates (thousands of years) is not thought to have historically a problem for sea turtle or sturgeon species. As explained in the Status of the Species sections above, sea turtles are most likely to be affected by climate change due to increasing sand temperatures at nesting beaches which in turn would result in increased female:male sex ratio among hatchlings, sea level rise which could result in a reduction in available nesting beach habitat, increased risk of nest inundation, and changes in the abundance and distribution of forage species which could result in changes in the foraging behavior and distribution of sea turtle species. Shortnose sturgeon could be affected by changes in river ecology resulting from increases in precipitation and changes in water temperature which may affect recruitment and distribution in these rivers. However, as noted in the Status of the Species section above, with the exception of green sea turtles, information on current effects of global climate change on sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon is not available and while it is speculated that future climate change may affect these species, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects may occur. However, effects of climate change in the action area during the temporal scope of this section 7 analysis on sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon in the action area are discussed below.

Effect of Climate Change in the Action Area The global mean temperature has risen 0.76ºC over the last 150 years, and the linear trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a) and precipitation has increased nationally by 5%-10%, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (NAST 2000).

There is a high confidence, based on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in marine systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels, and circulation. Ocean acidification resulting from massive amounts of carbon dioxide and pollutants released into the air can have major adverse impacts on the calcium balance in the oceans. Changes to the marine ecosystem due to climate change include shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (IPCC 2007b). These trends are most apparent over the past few decades.

Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperature and precipitation over the next century. Both of the principal climate models used by the National 61

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) project warming in the southeast by the 2090s, but at different rates (NAST 2000): the Canadian model scenario shows the southeast U.S.

experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher temperatures increase evaporation; the Hadley model scenario projects less warming and a significant increase in precipitation (about 20%). The scenarios examined, which assume no major interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse gases (GHG), indicate that temperatures in the U.S. will rise by about 3o-5oC (5o-9oF) on average in the next 100 years which is more than the projected global increase (NAST 2000). A warming of about 0.2oC per decade is projected for the next two decades over a range of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007).

This temperature increase will very likely be associated with more extreme precipitation and faster evaporation of water, leading to greater frequency of both very wet and very dry conditions. Climate warming has resulted in increased precipitation, river discharge, and glacial and sea-ice melting (Greene et al. 2008).

The past 3 decades have witnessed major changes in ocean circulation patterns in the Arctic, and these were accompanied by climate associated changes as well (Greene et al. 2008). Shifts in atmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns and the export of freshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). With respect specifically to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), changes in salinity and temperature are thought to be the result of changes in the earths atmosphere caused by anthropogenic forces (IPCC 2006). The NAO impacts climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (IPCC 2006). Data from the 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increased from minimum values in the 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC 2006). This warming extends over 1000m deep and is deeper than anywhere in the world oceans and is particularly evident under the Gulf Stream/ North Atlantic Current system (IPCC 2006).

On a global scale, large discharges of freshwater into the North Atlantic subarctic seas can lead to intense stratification of the upper water column and a disruption of North Atlantic Deepwater (NADW) formation (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). There is evidence that the NADW has already freshened significantly (IPCC 2006). This is turn can lead to a slowing down of the global ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms low-density upper ocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those waters back to the upper ocean), which can have climatic ramifications for the whole earth system (Greene et al.

2008).

While predictions are available regarding potential effects of climate change globally, it is more difficult to assess the potential effects of climate change over the next few decades on coastal and marine resources on smaller geographic scales, such as the Chesapeake Bay, especially as climate variability is a dominant factor in shaping coastal and marine systems. The effects of future change will vary greatly in diverse coastal regions for the United States. Additional information on potential effects of climate change specific to the action area is discussed below. Warming is very likely to continue in the U.S. during the next 25 to 50 years regardless of reduction in GHGs, due to emissions that have already occurred (NAST 2000). It is very likely that the magnitude and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue to increase in the next 25 to 50 years, and it is possible that they will accelerate. Climate change can cause or exacerbate direct stress on ecosystems through high temperatures, a reduction in water availability, and altered frequency of extreme events and severe storms. Water temperatures in streams and rivers are 62

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 likely to increase as the climate warms and are very likely to have both direct and indirect effects on aquatic ecosystems. Changes in temperature will be most evident during low flow periods when they are of greatest concern (NAST 2000). In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in geographic ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance are associated with high confidence with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation (IPCC 2007).

A warmer and drier climate is expected to result in reductions in stream flows and increases in water temperatures. Expected consequences could be a decrease in the amount of dissolved oxygen in surface waters and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Because many rivers are already under a great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development, and this stress may be exacerbated by changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be critical (Hulme 2005). A warmer-wetter climate could ameliorate poor water quality conditions in places where human-caused concentrations of nutrients and pollutants currently degrade water quality (Murdoch et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature and changes in seasonal patterns of runoff will very likely disturb fish habitat and affect recreational uses of lakes, streams, and wetlands. Surface water resources in the southeast are intensively managed with dams and channels and almost all are affected by human activities; in some systems water quality is either below recommended levels or nearly so. A global analysis of the potential effects of climate change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and water stress, the area of large river basins in need of reactive or proactive management interventions in response to climate change will be much higher for basins impacted by dams than for basins with free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). Human-induced disturbances also influence coastal and marine systems, often reducing the ability of the systems to adapt so that systems that might ordinarily be capable of responding to variability and change are less able to do so. Because stresses on water quality are associated with many activities, the impacts of the existing stresses are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Within 50 years, river basins that are impacted by dams or by extensive development will experience greater changes in discharge and water stress than unimpacted, free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008).

While debated, researchers anticipate: 1) the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods will change across the nation; 2) a warming of about 0.2oC per decade; and 3) a rise in sea level (NAST 2000). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and increase water temperature resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea level is expected to continue rising: during the 20th century global sea level has increased 15 to 20 cm, and between 1985 and 1995 more than 32,000 acres of coastal salt marsh was lost in the southeastern U.S. due to a combination of human development activities, sea level rise, natural subsidence and erosion.

Effects on shortnose sturgeon throughout their range Shortnose sturgeon have persisted for millions of years and throughout this time have experienced wide variations in global climate conditions and have successfully adapted to these changes. As such, climate change at normal rates (thousands of years) is not thought to have historically a problem shortnose sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon could be affected by changes in river ecology resulting from increases in precipitation and changes in water temperature which 63

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 may affect recruitment and distribution in these rivers. However, as noted in the Status of the Species section above, information on current effects of global climate change on shortnose sturgeon is not available and while it is speculated that future climate change may affect this species, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which effects may occur. However, effects of climate change in the action area during the temporal scope of this section 7 analysis on shortnose sturgeon in the action area are discussed below.

Information on how climate change will impact the action area is extremely limited. Available information on climate change related effects for the Delaware River largely focuses on effects that rising water levels may have on the human environment (Barnett et al. 2009) and the availability of water for human use (e.g., Ayers et al. 1994).

Sea level rise combined with more frequent droughts and increased human demand for water are predicted to result in a northward movement of the salt wedge in the Delaware River (Collier 2011). Potential negative effects include restricting the habitat available for juvenile shortnose sturgeon which are intolerant to salinity and are present exclusively upstream of the salt wedge.

Currently, the normal average location of the salt wedge is at approximately river mile 77.

Collier predicts that without mitigation (e.g., increased release of flows into downstream areas of the river), the salt line could be as far upstream as river mile 117 in 2100. The farthest north the salt line has historically been documented was approximately river mile 103 during a period of severe drought in the 1960s.

A hydrologic model for the Delaware River, incorporating predicted changes in temperature and precipitation was compiled by Hassell and Miller (1999). The model results indicate that when only the temperature increase is input to the hydrologic model, the mean annual streamflow decreased, the winter flows increased due to increased snowmelt, and the mean position of the salt front moved upstream. When only the precipitation increase was input to the hydrologic model, the mean annual streamflow increased, and the mean position of the salt front moved further downstream. However, when both the temperature and precipitation increase were input to the hydrologic model the mean annual streamflow changed very little, with a small increase during the first four months of the year.

Water temperature in the Delaware River varies seasonally. A 2007 examination of long-term trends in Delaware River water temperature shows no indication of any long-term trends in these seasonal changes (BBL Sciences 2007). Monthly mean temperature in 2001 compares almost identically to long-term monthly mean temperatures for the period from 1964 to 2000, with lowest temperatures recorded in April (10-11°C) and peak temperatures observed in August (approximately 26-27°C). While water temperature rises have been observed in other mid-Atlantic rivers (e.g., the Hudson River, see Pisces 2008), a similar trend does not currently appear in the Delaware River.

Air temperatures in the Hudson Valley have risen approximately 0.5°C since 1970. In the 2000s, the mean Hudson river water temperature, as measured at the Poughkeepsie Water Treatment Facility, was approximately 2°C higher than averages recorded in the 1960s (Pisces 2008).

However, while it is possible to examine past water temperature data and observe a warming trend, there are not currently any predictions on potential future increases in water temperature in 64

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 the action area specifically or the Hudson River generally. The Pisces report (2008) also states that temperatures within the Hudson River may be becoming more extreme. For example, in 2005, water temperature on certain dates was close to the maximum ever recorded and also on other dates reached the lowest temperatures recorded over a 53-year period. Other conditions that may be related to climate change that have been reported in the Hudson Valley are warmer winter temperatures, earlier melt-out and more severe flooding. An average increase in precipitation of about 5% is expected; however, information on the effects of an increase in precipitation on conditions in the action area is not available.

As there is significant uncertainty in the rate and timing of change as well as the effect of any changes that may be experienced in the action area due to climate change, it is difficult to predict the impact of these changes on shortnose sturgeon. The most likely effect to shortnose sturgeon would be if sea level rise was great enough to consistently shift the salt wedge far enough north which would restrict the range of juvenile shortnose sturgeon and may affect the development of these life stages. In the action area, it is possible that future changing seasonal temperature regimes could result in changes in the timing of spawning, which would result in a change in the seasonal distribution of sturgeon in the action area. A northward shift in the salt wedge could also drive spawning shortnose sturgeon further upstream which may result in a restriction in the spawning range and an increase in the number of spawning shortnose sturgeon in the action area, as this area is the furthest accessible upstream spawning area.

As described above, over the long term, global climate change may affect shortnose sturgeon by affecting the distribution of prey, water temperature and water quality; however, there is significant uncertaintity, due to a lack of scientific data, on the degree to which these effects may be experienced and the degree to which shortnose sturgeon will be able to successfully adapt to any such changes. Any activities occurring within and outside the action area that contribute to global climate change are also expected to affect shortnose sturgeon in the action area. Scientific data on changes in shortnose sturgeon distribution and behavior in the action area is not available. Therefore, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether and how their distribution or behavior in the action area have been or are currently affected by climate change related impacts. Implications of potential changes in the action area related to climate change are not clear in terms of population level impacts, data specific to these species in the action area are lacking. Therefore, any recent impacts from climate change in the action area are not quantifiable or describable to a degree that could be meaningfully analyzed in this consultation.

However, given the likely rate of climate change, it is unlikely that there will be significant effects to shortnose sturgeon in the action area, such as changes in distribution or abundance, over the time period considered in this consultation (i.e., through 2041) and it is unlikely that shortnose sturgeon in the action area will experience new climate change related effects not already captured in the Status of the Species section above concurrent with the proposed action.

Effects of climate change on sea turtles As there is significant uncertainty in the changes that may be experienced in the action area due to climate change, it is difficult to predict the impact of these changes on sea turtles. However, as sea turtles do not nest within the action area any changes in Delaware Bay due to climate change, such as rising sea levels which could increase beach erosion, would not affect nesting 65

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 success. Similarly, any change in sand temperature at beaches in the action area would not affect the sex ratio of sea turtle hatchlings as sea turtles do not nest on these beaches. The most likely effect to sea turtles in the action area from climate change would be if warming temperatures led to changes in the seasonal distribution of sea turtles or sea turtle prey distribution and abundance.

This would likely result in changes in foraging behavior by sea turtles in the action area and could lead to either an increase or decrease in the number of sea turtles in the action area, depending on whether there was an increase or decrease in the forage base and/or a seasonal shift in water temperature. For example, if there was a decrease in sea grasses in the action area resulting from increased water temperatures or other climate change related factors, it is reasonable to expect that there may be a decrease in the number of foraging green sea turtles in the action area. Likewise, if the prey base for loggerhead or Kemps ridley turtles was affected, there may be changes in the abundance and distribution of these species in the action area.

Similarly, if water temperatures become warmer earlier in the year and stay warmer through the fall there may be a shift in the seasonal distribution of sea turtles in the action area, such that sea turtles may begin northward migrations from their southern overwintering grounds earlier in the spring and thus would be present in the action area earlier in the year. Similarly, if water temperatures were warmer in the fall, sea turtles could remain in the action area later in the year.

As described above, over the long term, global climate change may affect sea turtles by affecting the distribution of prey, water temperature and water quality; however, there is significant uncertaintity, due to a lack of scientific data, on the degree to which these effects may be experienced and the degree to which sea turtles will be able to successfully adapt to any such changes. Any activities occurring within and outside the action area that contribute to global climate change are also expected to affect sea turtles in the action area. Scientific data on changes in sea turtle distribution and foraging behavior in the action area is not available.

Therefore, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether and how their distribution or foraging behavior in the action area have been or are currently affected by climate change related impacts. Implications of potential changes in the Bay related to climate change are not clear in terms of population level impacts, data specific to these species in the action area are lacking. Therefore, any recent impacts from climate change in the action area are not quantifiable or describable to a degree that could be meaningfully analyzed in this consultation.

However, given the likely rate of climate change, it is unlikely that there will be significant effects to sea turtles in the action area, such as changes in distribution or abundance, over the time period considered in this consultation (i.e., through 2041) and it is unlikely that sea turtles in the action area will experience new climate change related effects not already captured in the Status of the Species section above concurrent with the proposed action.

As with sea turtles it is difficult to estimate past effects and predict the likely effects of climate change on shortnose sturgeon in the action area. As explained in the Status of the Species section above, shortnose sturgeon are known to occur throughout the Delaware River and bay but spawning is currently only thought to occur in the upper river near Trenton. Shortnose sturgeon depend on a combination of cues to trigger spawning migrations, including river flow and temperature. If there were changes in the timing of the spring freshet or changes in spring water temperature patterns spawning behavior could be disrupted. However, without knowing the degree to which these changes may occur it is difficult to determine if any change in spawning behavior would result in a decrease in spawning success or recruitment. The distribution of 66

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 juvenile shortnose sturgeon in the river and bay is limited by salinity. Increased variability in salinity would affect the distribution of juvenile shortnose sturgeon throughout the action area.

Shortnose sturgeon feed on benthic organisms. As shortnose sturgeon are not discriminate feeders it is unlikely that minor shifts in the makeup of the benthic community would affect the ability of shortnose sturgeon to forage successfully. However, it is unknown how major shifts in prey species that could result from trophic level changes would affect shortnose sturgeon.

Scientific data on changes in shortnose sturgeon distribution and behavior in the action area is not available. Therefore, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether and how their distribution or behavior in the action area have been or are currently affected by climate change related impacts. Implications of potential changes in the action area related to climate change are not clear in terms of population level impacts and data specific to these species in the action area are lacking. However, given the likely rate of climate change, it is unlikely that there will be significant effects to shortnose sturgeon in the action area, such as changes in distribution, abundance or behavior, over the time period considered in this consultation (i.e., through 2046) and it is unlikely that shortnose sturgeon in the action area will experience new climate change related effects not already captured in the Status of the Species section above concurrent with the proposed action.

Reducing Threats to ESA-listed Sea Turtles NMFS has implemented multiple measures to reduce the capture and mortality of sea turtles in fishing gear, and other measures to contribute to the recovery of these species. While some of these actions occur outside of the action area for this consultation, the measures affect sea turtles that do occur within the action area.

Sea Turtle Handling and Resuscitation Techniques NMFS has developed and published as a final rule in the Federal Register (66 FR 67495, December 31, 2001) sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques for sea turtles that are incidentally caught during scientific research or fishing activities. Persons participating in fishing activities or scientific research are required to handle and resuscitate (as necessary) sea turtles as prescribed in the final rule. These measures help to prevent mortality of hard-shelled turtles caught in fishing or scientific research gear.

Sea Turtle Entanglements and Rehabilitation A final rule (70 FR 42508) published on July 25, 2005, allows any agent or employee of NMFS, the USFWS, the U.S. Coast Guard, or any other Federal land or water management agency, or any agent or employee of a state agency responsible for fish and wildlife, when acting in the course of his or her official duties, to take endangered sea turtles encountered in the marine environment if such taking is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or entangled endangered sea turtle, or dispose of a dead endangered sea turtle, or salvage a dead endangered sea turtle that may be useful for scientific or educational purposes. NMFS already affords the same protection to sea turtles listed as threatened under the ESA (50 CFR 223.206(b)).

Education and Outreach Activities Education and outreach activities do not directly reduce the threats to ESA-listed sea turtles.

However, education and outreach are a means of better informing the public of steps that can be taken to reduce impacts to sea turtles (i.e., reducing light pollution in the vicinity of nesting 67

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 beaches) and increasing communication between affected user groups (e.g., the fishing community). NMFS intends to continue these outreach efforts in an attempt to increase the survival of protected species through education on proper release techniques.

Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN)

As is the case with education and outreach, the STSSN does not directly reduce the threats to sea turtles. However, STSSN participants in New Jersey not only collect data on dead sea turtles, but also rescues and rehabilitates live stranded turtles. Data collected by the STSSN are used to monitor stranding levels and identify areas where unusual or elevated mortality is occurring.

These data are also used to monitor incidence of disease, study toxicology and contaminants, and conduct genetic studies to determine population structure. The states that participate in the STSSN tag live turtles when encountered (either via the stranding network through incidental takes or in-water studies). Tagging studies help provide an understanding of sea turtle movements, longevity, and reproductive patterns, all of which contribute to our ability to reach recovery goals for the species.

Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network NMFS Northeast Region established the Northeast Atlantic Coast Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network (STDN) in 2002. This program was established in response to the high number of leatherback sea turtles found entangled in pot gear along the U.S. Northeast Atlantic coast. The STDN is considered a component of the larger STSSN program and it operates in New Jersey.

The NMFS Northeast Regional Office oversees the STDN program.

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION This section of a Opinion assesses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on threatened and endangered species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR 402.02). This Opinion examines the likely effects (direct and indirect) of the proposed action on shortnose sturgeon in the action area and their habitat within the context of the species current status, the environmental baseline and cumulative effects. As described above, the proposed action is the extended operation of the Salem and Hope Creek facilities authorized by NRC pursuant to licenses issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act.

The proposed action has the potential to affect shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles in several ways:

impingement or entrainment at the intakes; altering the abundance or availability of potential prey items; and, altering water quality through the discharge of heated effluent.

Effects of Water Withdrawal Entrainment Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling system during water withdrawals. Entrainment primarily affects organisms with limited swimming ability that can pass through the screen mesh, used on the intake systems. Once entrained, 68

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 organisms pass through the circulating pumps and are carried with the water flow through the intake conduits toward the condenser units. They are then drawn through one of the many condenser tubes used to cool the turbine exhaust steam (where cooling water absorbs heat) and then enter the discharge canal for return to the Delaware River. As entrained organisms pass through the intake they may be injured from abrasion or compression. Within the cooling system, they encounter physical impacts in the pumps and condenser tubing; pressure changes and shear stress throughout the system; thermal shock within the condenser; and exposure to chemicals, including chlorine and residual industrial chemicals discharged at the diffuser ports (Mayhew et al. 2000 in NRC 2011). Death can occur immediately or at a later time from the physiological effects of heat, or it can occur after organisms are discharged if stresses or injuries result in an inability to escape predators, a reduced ability to forage, or other impairments.

Entrainment of Shortnose sturgeon - Salem and Hope Creek The southern extent of the shortnose sturgeon spawning area in the Delaware River is approximately RM 133 (RKM 214), approximately 80 RM upstream of the Salem or Hope Creek intakes. The eggs of shortnose sturgeon are demersal, sinking and adhering to the bottom of the river, and, upon hatching the larvae in both yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac stages remain on the bottom of the river. Shortnose sturgeon larvae grow rapidly and after a few weeks are too large to be entrained by the cooling water intake; additionally, larvae are intolerant to saline conditions and are unlikely to occur in the lower Delaware River where the intakes are located. Because the egg and larval life stages of the shortnose sturgeon (the life stages susceptible to entrainment) are not found near the intake for Salem and Hope Creek, the probability of their entrainment at these intakes is extremely low.

Studies to evaluate entrainment at Salem and HCGS have been conducted since 1978. NRC reports that based on examination by NRC staff of entrainment data provided by PSEG, there is no evidence that the eggs or larvae of shortnose sturgeon are entrained at Salem or HCGS. No shortnose sturgeon have been identified in annual entrainment monitoring during the 1978 -

2008 period. The lack of observed entrainment of shortnose sturgeon during sampling at these facilities is not unexpected given the known information on the location of shortnose sturgeon spawning and the distribution of eggs and larvae in the river.

Based on the life history of the shortnose sturgeon, the location of spawning grounds within the Delaware River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and larvae, it is extremely unlikely that any shortnose sturgeon early life stages would be entrained at the Salem or Hope Creek intakes.

This conclusion is supported by the lack of any sturgeon eggs or larvae documented during entrainment monitoring at Salem and Hope Creek. NMFS does not anticipate any entrainment of shortnose sturgeon eggs or larvae over the period of the extended operating license. All other life stages of shortnose sturgeon are too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained at the facility.

Entrainment of Sea Turtles Entrainment of sea turtles would only be possible if individuals were smaller than the mesh size of the screens. As even hatchling sea turtles, which do not occur in the action area, are too big to be entrained at the intakes, it is not possible for juvenile or adult sea turtles which may occur in 69

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 the action area, to be entrained at these intakes. Therefore, there is no risk of entrainment of sea turtles in the intakes for either facility.

Impingement Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling water intake screens or racks by the force of moving water. Impingent can kill organisms immediately or contribute to death resulting from exhaustion, suffocation, injury, or exposure to air when screens are rotated for cleaning. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the amount of time an organism is impinged, its susceptibility to injury, and the physical characteristics of the screenwashing and fish return system that the plant operator uses. Below, NMFS considers the available data on the impingement of shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles at the Salem and Hope Creek facilities and then considers the likely rates of mortality associated with this impingement to predict the number of individuals likely to be entrained at the intakes over the extended operating period and the amount of mortality associated with these impingements.

Impingement of Shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles - Hope Creek Hope Creek operates with a closed cycle cooling system, withdrawing much less water than Salem. No shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles have ever been documented to be impinged at Hope Creek. As there are no operational changes proposed over the extended operating period that would change the likelihood of impingement, it is reasonable to expect that the risk of impingement will be the same in the extended operating period as it has been in the past. As such, no shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles are likely to be impinged at Hope Creek through the remainder of the term of the existing license or over the extended operating period.

Impingement of Shortnose sturgeon - Salem From 1978 through November 2011, 20 shortnose sturgeon were been impinged at the Salem intakes, of which 17 died. Limited information on the condition of these fish is available. In most years (21 of 33), no shortnose sturgeon were documented; outside of those years, the number of fish impinged was 1 (7 years), 2 (3 years), or 3 (2 years). Only 3 impinged shortnose sturgeon are documented as being released alive. Five of these impinged fish were observed since 2000. Of these, all five exhibited serious injuries that may have been inflicted prior to impingement at the intakes and even the fish recovered from the intakes alive subsequently died from their injuries.

Approach velocities at Salem are approximately 0.9fps; yearling and older shortnose sturgeon are able to avoid intake velocities of this speed (Kynard, personal communication 2004). Shortnose sturgeon that become impinged at Salem are likely vulnerable to impingement due to previous injury as individuals in normal, healthy condition should be able to readily avoid the intakes.

The trash bars at the Salem intakes have clear spacing of three inches. Shortnose sturgeon adults and large juveniles that are likely to occur in the action area are too wide to pass through the bars.

Yearling and younger shortnose sturgeon which would be small enough to pass through the bars and contact the ristroph screens are unlikely to occur in the action area. Any sturgeon impinged at the facility are likely to occur at the trash bars and not pass through to the ristroph screens.

This determination is consistent with the location of all shortnose sturgeon observed at Salem (i.e., at the trash bars, not at the screens).

70

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 The population of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River is thought to be stable at approximately 12,000 adults and an unknown number of juveniles. There are no operational changes proposed at Salem that would affect the likely rate of impingement of shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the past rate of impingement would continue into the extended operating period. Since 1978, less than one shortnose sturgeon per year has been impinged at the facility (average of 0.625/year). Under the terms of the extended operating license, Salem Unit 1 will continue to operate from now through August 2036, a period of 25 years. The impingement rate calculated above (0.625 fish/year) is based on the operation of both Salem 1 and Salem 2. Records have not been maintained to determine which intakes the impinged sturgeon have been removed from. However, assuming that it is equally probable that a fish would be impinged at the intakes for Unit 1 as it is for Unit 2, it is reasonable to determine that the impingement rate for one unit would be half that as for two units. Using this impingement rate. (0.313 fish/year) it is likely that no more than 8 shortnose sturgeon would be impinged at the Salem Unit 1 intakes between now and the expiration of the extended operating license (i.e., April 2036). The extended operating license for Salem Unit 2 will expire in April 2040. Using this same impingement rate and considering an operational period of 29 years, it is likely that no more than 9 shortnose sturgeon would be impinged at the Salem Unit 2 intakes between now and the expiration of the extended operating license. While the available information suggests that nearly all shortnose sturgeon impinged at the facility have some previously inflicted injury, it is impossible to determine if any of the injuries were made worse by impingement or if impingement increased the likelihood of mortality. Based on the information available on prior impingements, it is likely that all of these fish will be dead or die after impingement.

Sea Turtles Since 1978, a total of 91 sea turtles have been impinged at Salem, with 36 dead upon removal or dying shortly after. Of these 91 sea turtles, there have been 68 loggerheads, 2 green and 24 Kemps ridleys (see Table 1). Prior to 1993, when the ice barriers were left on the trash bars year round, the number of loggerheads impinged per year ranged from 0-23. After 1993, a total of only 6 loggerheads have been impinged with no more than 2 impinged in any year. No loggerheads have been impinged since 2001. Only two green sea turtles have been impinged at the intakes since 1978 (1 each in 1991 (alive) and 1992 (dead)). Prior to 1993, 23 Kemps ridleys were impinged at Salem (11 dead). One loggerhead was impinged in 1993 (alive). No Kemps ridleys have been impinged since 1993.

Kemps ridley Loggerhead Green TOTAL 1978 0 0 0 0 1979 0 0 0 0 1980 1 (0) 2(2) 0 3 (2) 1981 1 (1) 3(2) 0 4 (3) 1982 0 1(1) 0 1 (1) 1983 1 (1) 2(2) 0 3 (3) 1984 1 (0) 2(2) 0 3 (2) 1985 2 (1) 6(5) 0 8 (6) 1986 1(1) 0 0 1(1) 1987 3 (2) 3(0) 0 6 (2) 71

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 1988 2 (1) 8(6) 0 10 (7) 1989 6 (2) 2(0) 0 8 (2) 1990 0 0 0 0 1991 1 (0) 23* (1) 1 (0) 25 (1) 1992 4 (2) 10 (0) 1 (1) 15 (3) 1993 1(0) 0 0 1 (0) 1994 0 1(0) 0 1 (0) 1995 0 1(1) 0 1 (1) 1996 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 1998 0 1 (1) 0 1 (1) 1999 0 0 0 0 2000 0 2 (1) 0 2(1) 2001 0 1(1) 0 1 (1) 2002 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 2011** 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 24 (11) 65 (24) 2 (1) 91 (36)

Table 1. Total number of sea turtles captured or impinged at Salem from 1978 - 2011. The number impinged is shown as the total number impinged, followed by the number of individuals out of the total that were either dead when found at the intake or died afterward shown in parentheses. *two of the live turtles in 1991 were recaptures; **2011 reports are through November 15.

The removal of the ice barriers during turtle season (May - October) has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of sea turtles impinged at Salem. It is thought that the presence of the ice barriers was affecting sea turtles in some way that made them more vulnerable to impingement, either by attracting them to the area or reducing sea turtles ability to easily exist the immediate intake area. In 1993 PSEG began removing the ice barriers between May 1 and October 24 of each year. This seasonal schedule would be maintained during the extended operating period. After PSEG modified its use of the ice barriers in 1993, turtle impingement numbers were dramatically reduced. From 1993 through 2011, Salem impinged seven sea turtles (all loggerheads). No sea turtles have been impinged at Salem after 2001. Besides the modification to the ice barrier, no other changes are known to have taken place that would change the rate of sea turtle impingement at Salem. There have been no long term studies of sea turtles in Delaware Bay so there is no information to determine whether the change in numbers of 72

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 impingement at the Salem intakes is related to a change in numbers of sea turtles in the Bay generally.

In water abundance studies in nearby areas, including Long Island Sound (Morreale et al. 2005) and Chesapeake Bay (Mansfield 2006) indicate that there have been reductions in the numbers of sea turtles in these waters in the early 2000s. Morreale et al. (2005) observed a decline in the percentage and relative numbers of loggerhead sea turtles incidentally captured in pound net gear fished around Long Island, New York during the period 2002-2004 in comparison to the period 1987-1992, with only two (2) loggerheads (of a total 54 turtles) observed captured in pound net gear during the period 2002-2004. This is in contrast to the previous decades study where numbers of individual loggerheads ranged from 11 to 28 per year (Morreale et al. 2005).

Potential explanations for this decline include major shifts in loggerhead foraging areas and/or increased mortality in pelagic or early benthic stage/age classes (Morreale et al. 2005). Using aerial surveys, Mansfield (2006) also found a decline in the densities of loggerhead sea turtles in Chesapeake Bay over the period 2001-2004 compared to aerial survey data collected in the 1980s. Significantly fewer loggerheads (p<0.05) were observed in both the spring (May-June) and the summer (July-August) of 2001-2004 compared to those observed during aerial surveys in the 1980s (Mansfield 2006). A comparison of median densities from the 1980s to the 2000s suggested that there had been a 63.2% reduction in densities during the spring residency period and a 74.9% reduction in densities during the summer residency period (Mansfield 2006). The decline in observed loggerhead populations in Chesapeake Bay may be related to a significant decline in prey, namely horseshoe crabs and blue crabs, with loggerheads redistributing outside of Bay waters (NMFS and USFWS 2008). It is possible that there have been similar shifts in the distribution of sea turtles in Delaware Bay; however, as noted above, there are no current studies of sea turtles in Delaware Bay on which to base any determinations.

NMFS has considered the potential that the reduction in sea turtle impingements at Salem is related to a reduction in sea turtles associated with a reduction in blue crabs in the Bay (as speculated in the Chesapeake Bay). A review of available stock assessment data for blue crabs in Delaware Bay (NMFS 2010) indicates that from 1978-2009, model estimates of annual blue crab abundance have ranged from 31 to 660 million, with a mean and median of 165 and 140 million crabs. The assessments indicate a recent period of generally low abundance, with numbers beginning to rise after 2002. It is possible that the number of sea turtles in the Bay, and therefore the number of sea turtles impinged at Salem, is influenced by the stock size of blue crabs in a particular year. However, there does not appear to be a correlation between blue crab stock size and the number of sea turtles impinged; in fact, the highest year of sea turtle impingement (1991, with 25 impingements) was one of the years with the lowest number of blue crabs in the Bay (67.8 million). No sea turtles have been impinged at Salem since 2001. Numbers of blue crabs in the Bay were low in 2002 (88.5 million) and 2008 (66.3 million) and below the mean in all years since 2001. However, high levels of crabs were available in the mid to late 1990s and there were very few impingements during this time period as well; the stock size was the largest in 1997, a year when no sea turtles were impinged at Salem. Based on this information, it is not possible to determine if sea turtle abundance at Salem is related to larger patterns of abundance and distribution in Delaware Bay and/or related to the abundance of potential prey such as blue crabs.

73

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 The approach velocity at the Salem intakes (0.9fps) is significantly less than the velocity of local currents within the estuary that may reach speeds of 3.3 to 4.3 feet per second and is within the range of water velocities where sea turtles are likely to forage (less than 2 knots or 3.37 fps).

Although sea turtles have been observed swimming against currents stronger than those encountered at the SNGS CWS intake structure, sea turtles tracked in the Long Island sound area seem to take advantage of currents when traveling (Morreale, pers. comm. l990 in NMFS 1999).

Passive drifting and the resultant susceptibility to impingement may occur at night, when sea turtles are less active. However, documented discovery times of sea turtles at the Salem intakes did not show a clear temporal pattern of takes, and while many of the noted times coincided with shift changes, early morning recoveries were no more common than recoveries at other times of the day. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if nighttime drifting turtles are more likely to be impinged at the intakes.

Many of the sea turtles impinged at the facility have been determined to be previously dead or suffering from previously inflicted injuries. For example, three turtles have been recovered from the intakes since 2000. Of these, two were severely decomposed, suggesting that death occurred prior to impingement (the trash racks are inspected every 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and cleaned three times a week). The remaining turtle was retrieved alive during trash rack cleaning and had been apparently foraging along the bottom of the racks, and may not have actually been impinged on the rack, but rather captured by the cleaning equipment. This turtle was released apparently unharmed.

It is possible that the SNGS attracts sea turtles to the area of the CWS intake trash bars.

Information on stomach contents of incidentally captured sea turtles recovered at this site indicate that many are actively feeding on blue crabs and other common prey species prior to their death. No quantitative diet study has been conducted and species listed under stomach contents on necropsy reports include only those most easily identified. The warm water discharge upstream of the intake may increase the distribution of prey species to the area, and dead fish and other material dumped from the trash racks may provide food for the turtles or scavenging prey species. The water depth in this area is 7.6 to 9 meters; which is the typical feeding depth for Kemps ridleys in Long Island sound waters (Morreale, pers comm 1990). As evidenced by the live capture during rack cleaning, sea turtles may use the racks for opportunistic foraging. Blue crabs, a preferred prey of loggerhead and Kemps ridley sea turtles, are commonly impinged on the intakes.

Sea turtles impinged at the intakes may suffocate or drown if they are unable to remove themselves from the trash bars and remain underwater for an extended period of time. At times when there is a heavy debris load at the intakes it may be more difficult for a sea turtle to remove itself from the trash bars. If sea turtles impinged on the trash bars are removed in time they may survive the impingement.

Under conditions of involuntary or forced submergence, sea turtles maintain a high level of energy consumption, which rapidly depletes their oxygen store and can result in large, potentially harmful internal changes (Magnuson et al. 1990). Those changes include a substantial increase in blood carbon dioxide, increases in epinephrine and other hormones associated with stress, and severe metabolic acidosis caused by high lactic acid concentrations. In forced submergence, a 74

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 turtle becomes exhausted and then comatose; it will die if submergence continues. For example, trawl times for shrimpers in the southeast are limited by regulation to 55 minutes in the summer months and 75 minutes in the winter months, due to the fact that there is a strong positive correlation between tow time (i.e., forced submergence) and incidence of sea turtle death (Henwood and Stuntz 1987, Stebenau and Vietti 2000). Physical and biological factors that increase energy consumption, such as high water temperature and increased metabolic rates characteristic of small turtles, would be expected to exacerbate the harmful effects of forced submergence. Other factors, such as the level of dissolved oxygen in the water, the activity of the turtle and whether or not it has food in its stomach, may also affect the length of time it may stay submerged. It is likely that sea turtles impinged on the intake trash bars are already stressed; these conditions may increase the turtles susceptibility to suffocation or drowning.

Nearly all of the sea turtles removed from Salem, including those recovered alive, have had evidence of injury sustained from contact with the trash bars. Typically this injury has been abrasions or bruising. Sea turtles may also be subject to injury from the operation of the trash rake which removes debris from the intake trash bars. The rake, a horizontal array of large curved tines, is lowered down into the bay to remove debris from the intake gratings. When the rake reaches the desired depth, the tines are deployed, curving downward to penetrate through the grate before the rake is raised. This process could cause serious injury to a turtle. Scrapes on a turtles carapace could also result from interactions with the intake trash bars, or during rescue and retrieval by plant personnel. Scrapes have been observed the carapace of several sea turtles removed from the intakes.

All of the sea turtles at Salem have been collected between May and October. This is consistent with the presumption that because of seasonal fluctuations of water temperatures, loggerhead, Kemps ridley, and green sea turtles only occur in the action area during this time period. As sea turtles are only likely to occur in the action area from May through October, it is reasonable to anticipate that impacts of the Salem facilty on sea turtles will only be observed during this time period. There does not seem to be any discernible pattern in month by month species distribution. While the exact dates of capture have varied from year to year, the overall seasonal distribution of sea turtles at Salem does not appear to have changed over time.

As noted above, not all of the dead sea turtles collected at Salem died as a result of the operation of the facility. However, as only some of the dead sea turtles have been necropsied, it is difficult to definitively determine the cause of death for many of these turtles. In addition to injury and mortality, impingement at the Salem intake could result in the interruption of migration and the eventual loss of nesting opportunities. Sea turtles migrate to northeastern waters when the waters warm in the late spring and early summer, returning south in the late fall. While turtles may be in the action area for foraging purposes, it is possible that turtles are migrating through the area in the spring on their way to more suitable foraging habitats in the Northeast, or in the fall on their way to overwintering areas. If interactions at Salem impedes normal behaviors, this would affect typical sea turtle migration and/or foraging patterns. Most of the sea turtles found at Salem are juveniles and are not yet partaking in nesting. However, if impingement results in mortality, these animals would not nest in the future and would not subsequently contribute to the population.

75

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 The continued operation of Salem pursuant to the renewed operating license will not cause any operational changes at the intakes that are likely to cause a different rate of impingement or capture of sea turtles than has been observed in the past. As noted above, the number of sea turtles in the action area is variable each year depending on environmental factors such as water temperature, weather patterns and prey availability and this variability is likely to continue.

Over time, there has been a general decrease in the number of sea turtles impinged at the facility; this change is thought to be largely facilitated by the seasonal removal of ice barriers which may allow sea turtles to more readily escape from the intake area. From 1978-2011, an average of 2 loggerheads, less than 1 green (average 0.06/year) and less than 1 Kemps ridley have been impinged at the facility. Since the beginning of 1993, no Kemps ridley and no green sea turtles have been impinged; a total of 7 loggerheads have been impinged since 1993. Outside of the effects of removing the ice barriers during the warmer months, it is impossible to determine what has caused this reduction in sea turtles at Salem; there have been no operational changes at the facility that would account for this shift. It may be linked to factors affecting these species globally (i.e., outside of the action area) or may be related to a change in distribution of prey species or climate related factors. However, as the reduction in the number of sea turtles impinged at this facility has been sustained over the last 18 years, it is reasonable to anticipate that it is likely to continue through the extended operating period.

When predicting the number of sea turtles likely to be impinged at the Salem intakes in the future, NMFS has excluded data prior to 1993. This is because the change in the deployment of the ice barriers resulted in a dramatic change in the impingement rate. As the seasonal use of the ice barriers will continue in the extended operating period, NMFS considers the impingement rate from 1993-2011 to be the best predictor of the likely impingement rate in the extended operating period. Using the mean number of sea turtles of each species captured or impinged at Salem since January 1993, (1993-July 2011, inclusive; 0 Kemps ridley/year, 0.37 loggerheads/year, 0 greens/year), NMFS has calculated the number of sea turtles of each species likely to be impinged at Salem over the duration of the facilities existing licenses and the extended operating licenses. The impingement rate calculated above (0.37 loggerheads/year) is based on the operation of both Salem 1 and Salem 2. Records have not been maintained to determine which intakes the impinged turtles have been removed from. However, assuming that it is equally probable that a turtle would be impinged at the intakes for Unit 1 as it is for Unit 2, it is reasonable to determine that the impingement rate for one unit would be half that as for two units. Using this impingement rate. (0.185 loggerheads/year) it is likely that no more than 5 loggerheads would be impinged at the Salem Unit 1 intakes between now and the expiration of the extended operating license (i.e., August 2036). The extended operating license for Salem Unit 2 will expire in April 2040. Using this same impingement rate, it is likely that no more than 6 loggerheads would be impinged at the Salem Unit 2 intakes between now and the expiration of the extended operating license. No Kemps ridley or green sea turtles are likely to be impinged at either intake. Based on the observation of sea turtles captured at the facility in the past, it is likely that nearly all of the sea turtles impinged will suffer from some degree of injury, likely abrasions and bruising, due to interactions with the trash bars. However, if rescued alive and without previously inflicted injuries or illness, these injuries are not expected to be life threatening and sea turtles are expected to make a complete recovery.

76

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 NMFS anticipates that sea turtles will continue to die due to suffocation and drowning caused by impingement on the trash bars. Using information on the number of dead sea turtles of each species captured or impinged at the facility NMFS has calculated a mortality rate for loggerheads (using 1993-2010 impingements of which 5 of the 7 loggerheads were dead or dying: 0.67).

While NMFS recognizes that some number of previously dead sea turtles may become impinged on the intake trash bars each year, the difficulty in definitively determining a cause of death and the inconsistency in the applicants ability to obtain necropsy results for dead sea turtles makes it difficult to accurately predict the number of previously dead sea turtles that will become impinged on the intakes each year; therefore, NMFS has assumed for purposes of this analysis, that any dead sea turtle collected at Salem was killed as a result of operations of the facility.

Using this method, NMFS anticipates that of the 5 loggerheads likely to be impinged at Salem, 4 will be dead or subsequently die, of the 6 loggerheads likely to be impinged at Salem, 4 are likely to be dead or subsequently die.

Effects on Prey - Impingement and Entrainment Salem The Salem facility began operation in 1977, and monitoring has been performed on an annual basis since then to evaluate the impacts on the aquatic environment of the Delaware Estuary from entrainment of organisms through the cooling water system. Methods and results of these studies are summarized in several reports, including the 1984 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1984), the 1999 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999a), and the 2006 316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 2006c).

In addition, biological monitoring reports were submitted to NJDEP on an annual basis from 1995 through the present (PSEG, 1996; PSEG,1997; PSEG, 1998; PSEG,1999b; PSEG, 2000; PSEG, 2001; PSEG, 2002; PSEG, 2003; PSEG, 2004; PSEG, 2005; PSEG, 2006a; PSEG, 2007a; PSEG, 2008a; PSEG, 2009c). PSEG has performed annual impingement monitoring at the Salem plant since 1977 in order to determine the impacts that impingement at Salem might have on the aquatic environment of the Delaware Estuary. Results of these monitoring studies are summarized in the FSEIS.

Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose sturgeon prey Shrotnose sturgeon feed primarily on benthic invertebrates. As these prey species are found on the bottom and are generally immobile or have limited mobility and are not within the water column, they are less vulnerable to potential impingement or entrainment. Impingement and entrainment studies have included at least two macroinvertebrates, scud and opossum shrimp, as focus species. Assessments completed on these species concluded that Salem does not and will not have an adverse environmental impact on these macroinvertebrates (PSEG, 1999a). Based on the determination that the past and continued operation of Salem is likely to have only insignificant impacts on species chosen to represent the macroinvertebrate community, and given the life history characteristics (sessile, benthic, occurring outside of the water column) of shortnose sturgeon forage items which make impingement and entrainment unlikely, any potential loss of potential shortnose sturgeon prey due to impingement or entrainment is insignificant.

Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on sea turtle prey Green turtles are herbivorous, feeding primarily on seagrasses while in the Delaware estuary. As 77

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 sea grasses are immobile and rooted in the substrate they are not generally vulnerable to impingement or entrainment. While sea grasses can be impinged on intake screens, these grasses have been uprooted by other means and the operation of the cooling water system does not cause the loss of these grasses. The intake of cooling water does not cause any loss or reduction in the amount of grasses in the action area. As the continued operation of Salem will not affect green sea turtle prey, effects of water withdrawal on green sea turtle forage will be discountable.

Loggerhead turtles feed on benthic invertebrates such as gastropods, mollusks and crustaceans.

Kemps ridleys are largely cancrivirous (crab eating), with a preference for portunid crabs including blue crabs. Both species may also forage on fish, particularly if crabs are unavailable.

The EIS provides information on the likely mortality of aquatic life associated with the cooling water intakes. Studies conducted over the life of the facility have indicated that there has been no change in the species composition or population trends in the action area that can be attributable to the operation of the intakes. Given that (1) the numbers of fish killed as a result of impingement is extremely small compared to the population numbers for these species, and, (2) there has been no change in species compostion or abundance in the action area in the more than 30 years that the facilities have been operating, it is likely that any mortality of fish that may serve as prey for Kemps ridley or loggerhead sea turtles resulting from impingement or entrainment is undetectable at a population level and has an insignificant effect on foraging sea turtles.

Blue crabs are a significant prey species for loggerhead and Kemps ridley sea turtles.

Impingement studies completed from 2002-2004, as well as between 1978-1998, indicate that there is a large amount of variability in the number of blue crabs impinged at the facility each year. From 2002-2004, the number of blue crabs killed at the facility ranged from 27,483 to 172,725. In 2005, the size of the blue crab stock in Delaware Bay was approximately 115 million crabs; the amount of blue crabs lost at the facility is a small fraction of the blue crabs available in the action area or the Delaware estuary as a whole. Using data available from 1978-2009, the average annual stock size of blue crabs in Delaware Bay is approximately 164.8 million (NMFS 2010). In 2004, the loss of 172,725 blue crabs at Salem (NRC 2010) represented approximately 0.09% of the Delaware Bay stock of blue crabs.

While the continued operation of Salem is likely to result in the loss of some potential forage items for sea turtles (fish, jellyfish and crabs), this loss is likely to be undetectable compared to the availability of prey in the action area and in the Delaware Bay as a whole. Based on the best available information outlined above, while the operation of Salem may result in a reduction of forage items available for loggerhead and Kemps ridley sea turtles in the action area, this loss is likely to insignificant and discountable.

Impact of Impingement and Entrainment on Shortnose sturgeon and sea turtle prey - Hope Creek Hope Creek has a closed cycle cooling system; thus, it withdraws far less heated water than Salem. As the effects to shortnose sturgeon and sea turtle prey from the Hope Creek intakes would be less than from the Salem intakes, all effects are anticipated to be insignificant and discountable as explained for Salem above.

78

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Summary of Effects of Water Withdrawal - Salem and Hope Creek Water withdrawal is regulated by the NJDEP through the NPDES permitting program as delegated to the State of New Jersey by EPA. The operation of the Salem and Hope Creek facilities is regulated by the NRC through the issuance of operating licenses; however, the facilities cannot operate without cooling water. In the analysis outlined above, NMFS determined that the continued operation of Hope Creek, through 2040 when the extended operating license would expire, is not likely to result in the impingement or entrainment of any shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles and any effects to sea turtle or shortnose sturgeon prey would be insignificant and discountable. NMFS has determined the impingement of shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles is likely to continue at low levels at Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2.

The continued operation of Salem Unit 1 through August 2036 is likely to result in the impingement of 5 loggerheads (with 4 mortalities) and 8 shortnose sturgeon (with up to 8 mortalities). The continued operation of Salem Unit 2 through April 2040 is likely to result in the impingement of 6 loggerheads (with 4 mortalities) and 9 shortnose sturgeon (with up to 9 mortalities). Due to the size of shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles that occur in the action area, no entrainment at Salem 1 or 2 is anticipated. Any effects to sea turtle or shortnose sturgeon prey from the continued operation of Salem 1 and 2 would be insignificant and discountable.

Discharge of Heated Effluent - Salem Extensive studies were conducted at Salem between 1968 and 1999 to determine the effects of the thermal plume on the biological community of the Delaware Estuary. The results of these studies are summarized in the FSEIS.

Regulatory Background The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is a federal interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin without regard to political boundaries. It regulates water quality in the Delaware River and Delaware Estuary through DRBC Water Quality Regulations, including temperature standards. The temperature standards for Water Quality Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary, where the Salem discharge is located, state that the temperature in the river outside of designated heat dissipation areas (HDAs) may not be raised above ambient by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F; 2.2 degrees Celsius [°C]) during non-summer months (September through May) or 1.5°F (0.8°C) during the summer (June through August), and a maximum temperature of 86°F (30.0°C) in the river cannot be exceeded year-round (18 CFR 410; DRBC, 2001). HDAs are zones outside of which the DRBC temperature-increase standards shall not be exceeded. HDAs are established on a case-by case basis. The thermal mixing zone requirements and HDAs that had been in effect for Salem since it initiated operations in 1977 were modified by the DRBC in 1995 and again in 2001 (DRBC 2001), and the 2001 requirements were included in the 2001 NJPDES permit. The HDAs at Salem are seasonal. In the summer period (June through August), the Salem HAD extends 25,300 ft (7,710 m) upstream and 21,100 ft (6,430 m) downstream of the discharge and does not extend closer than 1,320 ft (402 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel. In the non-summer period (September through May), the HDA extends 3,300 ft (1,000 m) upstream and 6,000 ft (1,800 m) downstream of the discharge and does not extend closer than 3,200 ft (970 m) from the eastern edge of the shipping channel (DRBC, 2001).

Section 316(a) of the CWA regulates thermal discharges from power plants. This regulation 79

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 includes a process by which a discharger can obtain a variance from thermal discharge limits when it can be demonstrated that the limits are more stringent than necessary to protect aquatic life (33 USC 1326). PSEG submitted a comprehensive Section 316(a) study for Salem in 1974, filed three supplements through 1979, and provided further review and analysis in 1991 and 1993. In 1994, NJDEP granted PSEGs request for a thermal variance and concluded that the continued operation of Salem in accordance with the terms of the NJPDES permit would ensure the continued protection and propagation of the balanced indigenous population of aquatic life in the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 1994). The 1994 permit continued the same thermal limitations that had been imposed by the prior NJPDES permits for Salem. This variance has been continued through the current NJPDES permit. PSEG subsequently provided comprehensive Section 316(a)

Demonstrations in the 1999 and 2006 NJPDES permit renewal applications for Salem. NJDEP reissued the Section 316(a) variance in the 2001 NJPDES Permit (NJDEP, 2001).

The Section 316(a) variance for Salem limits the temperature of the discharge, the difference in temperature (T) between the thermal plume and the ambient water, and the rate of water withdrawal from the Delaware Estuary (NJDEP, 2001). During the summer period the maximum permissible discharge temperature is 115°F (46.1°C). In non-summer months, the maximum permissible discharge temperature is 110°F (43.3°C). The maximum permissible temperature differential year round is 27.5°F (15.3°C). The permit also limits the amount of water that Salem withdraws to a monthly average of 3,024 MGD (11 million m3/day) (NJDEP, 2001).

In 2006, PSEG submitted an NJPDES permit renewal application (PSEG, 2006c in NRC 2010) with a request for renewal of the Section 316(a) variance. The variance renewal request summarizes studies that have been conducted at the Salem plant, including the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration, and evaluates the changes in the thermal discharge characteristics, facility operations, and aquatic environment since the time of the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration.

PSEG concluded that Salems thermal discharge had not changed significantly since the 1999 application and that the thermal variance should be continued. In 2006, NJDEP administratively continued Salems NJPDES permit (NJ0005622), including the Section 316(a) variance. No timeframe for issuance of the new NJPDES permit has been determined.

Characteristics of the Thermal Plume Cooling water from Salem is discharged through six adjacent 10 ft (3 m) diameter pipes spaced 15 ft (4.6 m) apart on center that extend approximately 500 ft (150 m) from the shore (PSEG, 1999c in NRC 2010). The discharge pipes are buried for most of their length until they discharge horizontally into the water of the estuary at a depth at mean tidal level of about 31 ft (9.5 m). The discharge is approximately perpendicular to the prevailing currents. At full power, Salem is designed to discharge approximately 3,200 MGD (12 million m3/day) at a velocity of about 10 fps (3 m/s).

The location of the discharge and its general design characteristics have remained essentially the same over the period of operation of the Salem facility (PSEG, 1999c in NRC 2010). The thermal plume at Salem can be defined by the regulatory thresholds contained in the DRBC water quality regulations, consisting of the 1.5°F (0.83°C) isopleth of T during the summer period and the 4°F (2.2°C) isopleth of T during non-summer months. Thermal modeling, to characterize the thermal plume, has been conducted numerous times over the period of operation of Salem.

80

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Since Unit 2 began operation in 1981, operations at Salem have been essentially the same and studies have indicated that the characteristics of the thermal plume have remained relatively constant (PSEG, 1999c in NRC 2010).

The most recent thermal modeling was conducted during the 1999 Section 316(a)

Demonstration. Three linked models were used to characterize the size and shape of the thermal plume: an ambient temperature model, a far-field model (RMA-10), and a near-field model (CORMIX). The plume is narrow and approximately follows the contour of the shoreline at the discharge. The width of the plume varies from about 4,000 ft (1,200 m) on the flood tide to about 10,000 ft (3,000 m) on the ebb tide. The maximum plume length extends to approximately 43,000 ft (13,000 m) upstream and 36,000 ft (11,000 m) downstream (PSEG, 1999c). Figures 4-3 through 4-6 depict the expansion and contraction of the surface and bottom plumes through the tidal cycle. Table 4-18 includes the surface area occupied by the plume within each T isopleth through the tidal cycle.

The thermal plume consists of a near-field region, a transition region, and a far-field region. The near-field region, also referred to as the zone of initial mixing, is the region closest to the outlet of the discharge pipes where the mixing of the discharge with the waters of the Delaware Estuary is induced by the velocity of the discharge itself. The length of the near-field region is approximately 300 ft (90 m) during ebb and flood tides and 1,000 ft (300 m) during slack tide.

The transition region is the area where the plume spreads horizontally and stratifies vertically due to the buoyancy of the warmer waters. The length of the transition region is approximately 700 ft (200 m). In the far-field region, mixing is controlled by the ambient currents induced mainly by the tidal nature of the receiving water. The ebb tide draws the discharge downstream, and the flood tide draws it upstream. The boundary of the far-field region is delineated by a line of constant T (PSEG, 1999c).

Thermal Tolerances - Shortnose sturgeon Most organisms can acclimate (i.e. metabolically adjust) to temperatures above or below those to which they are normally subjected. Bull (1936) demonstrated, from a range of marine species, that fish could detect and respond to a temperature front of 0.03 to 0.07°C (0.05 - 0.13°F). Fish will therefore attempt to avoid stressful temperatures by actively seeking water at the preferred temperature.

The temperature preference for shortnose sturgeon is not known (Dadswell et al. 1984) but shortnose sturgeon have been found in waters with temperatures as low as 2 to 3ºC (35.6-37.4°F)(Dadswell et al. 1984) and as high as 34ºC (93.2°F) (Heidt and Gilbert 1978). Foraging is known to occur at temperatures greater than 7°C (44.6°F) (Dadswell 1979). In the Altamaha River, temperatures of 28-30ºC (82.4-86°F) during summer months are correlated with movements to deep cool water refuges. Ziegeweid et al. (2008a) conducted studies to determine critical and lethal thermal maxima for young-of-the-year (YOY) shortnose sturgeon acclimated to temperatures of 19.5 and 24.1°C (67.1 - 75.4°F). Lethal thermal maxima were 34.8°C (+/-0.1) and 36.1°C (+/-0.1) (94.6°F and 97°F) for fish acclimated to 19.5 and 24.1°C (67.1°F and 75.4°F),

respectively. The study also used thermal maximum data to estimate upper limits of safe temperature, final thermal preferences, and optimum growth temperatures for YOY shortnose sturgeon. Visual observations suggest that fish exhibited similar behaviors with increasing 81

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 temperature regardless of acclimation temperature. As temperatures increased, fish activity appeared to increase; approximately 5-6°C (9-11°F) prior to the lethal endpoint, fish began frantically swimming around the tank, presumably looking for an escape route. As fish began to lose equilibrium, their activity level decreased dramatically, and at about 0.3°C (0.54°F)before the lethal endpoint, most fish were completely incapacitated. Estimated upper limits of safe temperature (ULST) ranged from 28.7 to 31.1°C (83.7-88°F)and varied with acclimation temperature and measured endpoint. Upper limits of safe temperature (ULST) were determined by subtracting a safety factor of 5°C (9°F) from the lethal and critical thermal maxima data.

Final thermal preference and thermal growth optima were nearly identical for fish at each acclimation temperature and ranged from 26.2 to 28.3°C (79.16-82.9°F). Critical thermal maxima (the point at which fish lost equilibrium) ranged from 33.7 (+/-0.3) to 36.1°C (+/-0.2)

(92.7-97°F) and varied with acclimation temperature. Ziegeweid et al. (2008b) used data from laboratory experiments to examine the individual and interactive effects of salinity, temperature, and fish weight on the survival of young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. Survival in freshwater declined as temperature increased, but temperature tolerance increased with body size. The authors conclude that temperatures above 29°C (84.2°F) substantially reduce the probability of survival for young-of-year shortnose sturgeon. However, previous studies indicate that juvenile sturgeons achieve optimum growth at temperatures close to their upper thermal survival limits (Mayfield and Cech 2004; Allen et al. 2006; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a), suggesting that shortnose sturgeon may seek out a narrow temperature window to maximize somatic growth without substantially increasing maintenance metabolism. Ziegeweid (2006) examined thermal tolerances of young of the year shortnose sturgeon in the lab. The lowest temperatures at which mortality occurred ranged from 30.1 - 31.5°C (86.2-88.7°F) depending on fish size and test conditions. For shortnose sturgeon, dissolved oxygen (DO) also seems to play a role in temperature tolerance, with increased stress levels at higher temperatures with low DO versus the ability to withstand higher temperatures with elevated DO (Niklitchek 2001).

Effect of Thermal Discharge on Shortnose Sturgeon Lab studies indicate that thermal preferences and thermal growth optima for shortnose sturgeon range from 26.2 to 28.3°C (79.2-83°F). This is consistent with field observations which correlate movements of shortnose sturgeon to thermal refuges when river temperatures are greater than 28°C (82.4°F) in the Altamaha River. Lab studies (see above; Ziegeweid et al. 2008a and 2008b) indicate that thermal maxima for shortnose sturgeon are 33.7(+/-0.3) - 36.1(+/-0.1) (92.7-97°F),

depending on endpoint (loss of equilibrium or death) and acclimation temperature. Upper limits of safe temperature were calculated to be 28.7 - 31.1°C (83.7-88°F). At temperatures 5-6°C (9-11°F) less than the lethal maximum, shortnose sturgeon are expected to begin demonstrating avoidance behavior and attempt to escape from heated waters; this behavior would be expected when the upper limits of safe temperature are exceeded.

Mean monthly ambient temperatures in the Delaware estuary range from 11-27°C from April -

November, with temperatures lower than 11°C from December-March. As noted above, mortality of shortnose sturgeon could occur after exposure to temperatures greater than 33.7°C.

Using information on Delaware estuary temperatures (Krejmas et al. 2005) and information on the thermal plume presented in NRC 2010, the potential to exceed 33.7°C only exists from June-September. During this time period, depending on ambient river temperature, in worst case conditions (low flow, maximum T, worst-case ebb tide), an area of 2.15-5.10 acres could have 82

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 temperatures of 33.7°C or higher. However, given that fish are known to avoid areas with unsuitable conditions and that shortnose sturgeon are likely to actively avoid heated areas, as evidenced by shortnose sturgeon known to move to deep cool water areas during the summer months in southern rivers and what is known about fish behavior generally, it is likely that shortnose sturgeon will avoid the area where temperatures are greater than tolerable. As such, it is extremely unlikely that any shortnose sturgeon would remain within the area where surface temperatures are elevated to 33.7°C and be exposed to potentially lethal temperatures. This risk is further reduced by the limited amount of time shortnose sturgeon spend near the surface, the small area where such high temperatures will be experienced and the gradient of warm temperatures extending from the outfall; shortnose sturgeon are likely to begin avoiding areas with temperatures greater than 28°C and are unlikely to remain within the heated surface waters to swim towards the outfall and be exposed to temperatures which could result in mortality.

Near the bottom where shortnose sturgeon most often occur, water temperatures will not be elevated more than 4°C, creating no risk of exposure to temperatures likely to be lethal near the bottom of the river.

In the summer months (June - September), temperature increases as small as 1-4°C may cause water temperatures within the plume to be high enough to be avoided by shortnose sturgeon (greater than 28°C). Depending on ambient temperatures, the surface area with temperatures greater than 28°C may range from 56.58 acres to as large as 3,725 acres. Shortnose sturgeon exposure to this area is limited by their normal behavior as benthic oriented fish which results in limited occurrence near the water surface. Any surfacing shortnose sturgeon are likely to avoid near surface waters with temperatures greater than 28°C and reactions to this elevated temperature is expected to be limited to swimming away from the plume by traveling deeper in the water column or swimming around the plume. Given the extremely small percentage of the estuary that may have temperatures elevated above 28°C (no more than 0.77%), it is extremely unlikely that these minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completing any essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be affected. Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect on growth, reproduction, or general health.

Bottom water temperatures near the outfall will also be elevated. The discharge occurs below the surface; however, as heated water is more buoyant than cool water, heated effluent rapidly rises at increasing distances from the outfall; as described in the 2001 NJPDES permit, the plume surfaces within 100 feet of the outfall. The result is a very small area of the river bottom adjacent to the outfall where elevated temperatures may occur. Average year-round bottom temperatures in the Delaware estuary are approximately 14°C. At the depths where the outfall is located, temperatures at the bottom are expected to be at least 3°C lower than at the surface. As explained above, bottom temperatures are not likely to be sufficiently elevated to expose shortnose sturgeon to any temperatures high enough to result in mortality. During the warm summer months (June-September) ambient water temperatures at the bottom could be as high as 23°C; thus, temperatures would have to be at least 5°C above ambient for there to be any potential to cause any effects to shortnose sturgeon. Information provided by NRC on the bottom area where temperatures greater than 4°C above ambient will be experienced indicates that in the worst case this area is limited to approximately 80 acres (0.125 square miles). Given that 83

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 shortnose sturgeon are known to actively seek out cooler waters when temperatures rise to 28°C, any shortnose sturgeon encountering this area are likely to avoid it. Reactions to this elevated temperature is expected to be limited to swimming away from the plume by swimming around it.

Given the extremely small percentage of the estuary that may have temperatures elevated above 28°C (no more than 0.17%), it is extremely unlikely that these minor changes in behavior will preclude shortnose sturgeon from completing any essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be affected. Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect on growth, reproduction, or general health.

Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels are related, with warmer water generally holding less dissolved oxygen. As such, NMFS has considered the potential for the discharge of heated effluent to affect dissolved oxygen in the action area. However, as reported by NRC (2010),

studies completed by PSEG in association with their NJPDES permitting, indicate that the discharge of heated effluent has no discernible effect on dissolved oxygen levels in the area. As the thermal plume is not affecting dissolved oxygen, it will not cause changes in dissolved oxygen levels that could affect any shortnose sturgeon.

Effect of Thermal Discharge on Sea Turtles Excessive heat exposure (hyperthermia) is a stress to sea turtles but is a rare phenomenon when sea turtles are in the ocean (Milton and Lutz 2003). As such, limited information is available on the impacts of hyperthermia on sea turtles. Environmental temperatures above 40°C can result in stress for green sea turtles (Spotila et al. 1997); given that all sea turtles spend time in tropical waters with high ambient temperatures, it is reasonable to expect that other sea turtle species would have similar thermal tolerances as green sea turtles. Given the known ambient temperatures in the Delaware estuary at the time of year when sea turtles are likely to be present (April - November; maximum 27°C), even in the warmest months (July and August), surface temperatures would have to be warmed by at least 13°C to reach the temperatures that may be stressful to sea turtles (i.e., 40°C). Even in the worst case conditions, the area where temperatures are raised more than 13°C is limited to 0.08 acres (approximately 0.00002% of the surface area of the estuary). Given the very small area where temperatures would be potentially stressful and the ability of sea turtles to avoid this area by normal swimming or diving, it is extremely unlikely that any sea turtle would experience stress due to exposure to elevated temperatures. Given the extremely small area that would be avoided by sea turtles, any effects of this avoidance are likely to be insignificant and discountable.

In the past, the concern has been raised that if turtles are attracted into the action area by the thermal plume, they could remain there late enough in the fall to become cold-stunned when they finally leave the action area at the start of their southern migration. Cold stunning occurs when water temperatures drop quickly and turtles become incapacitated. The turtles lose their ability to swim and dive, lose control of buoyancy, and float to the surface (Spotila et al. 1997). If sea turtles are concentrated around the heated discharge or in surrounding waters heated by the discharge and move outside of this plume into cooler waters (approximately less than 8-10oC),

they could become cold stunned.

84

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 However, existing data from Salem and other power plants in the NMFS Northeast Region do not support the concern that warm water discharge may keep sea turtles in the area until surrounding waters are too cold for their safe departure. Data reported by the STSSN indicate that cold-stunning has occurred around mid-November in mid-Atlantic waters. No incidental captures of sea turtles have been reported at Salem later than October, when water temperatures were well above the 8-10°C range for cold stun concerns, suggesting that sea turtles leave the action area before cold-stunning could potentially occur and that the thermal discharge is not used as a refuge from cool waters in the area; this may be due to the small geographic area warmed by the discharge, the shifting nature of the plume based on river currents and tides, and the rapid dilution of heated effluent. Based on this information, there is no evidence that the discharge of heated effluent increases the vulnerability of sea turtles in the action area to cold stunning.

Effect on Shortnose sturgeon and Sea turtle Prey For the 1999 Section 316(a) Demonstration PSEG conducted an assessment of the potential for the thermal plume to adversely affect survival, growth, and reproduction of the selected RIS, including species that may be shortnose sturgeon and sea turtle prey (e.g., blue crab, opossum shrimp and gammarus spp.). For each of the selected species, temperature requirements and preferences as well as thermal limits were identified and compared to temperatures in the thermal plume to which these species may be exposed (PSEG 1999c in NRC 2010).

In this assessment, PSEG concluded that Salems thermal plume would not have substantial effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of the selected species from heat-induced mortality. Scud, blue crab, and juvenile and adult American shad, alewife, blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, Atlantic croaker, and spot have higher thermal tolerances than the temperature of the plume in areas where their swimming ability would allow them to be exposed.

PSEG also concluded that juvenile and adult weakfish and bay anchovy could come into contact with plume waters that exceed their thermal tolerances during the warmer months, but the mobility of these organisms should allow them to avoid contact with these temperatures The biothermal assessment also concluded that less-mobile organisms, such as scud, juvenile blue crab, and fish eggs, would not be likely to experience mortality from being transported through the plume. American shad, alewife, blueback herring, white perch, striped bass, Atlantic croaker, spot, and weakfish are not likely to spawn in the vicinity of the discharge.

Scud, juvenile blue crab, and eggs and larvae that do occur in the vicinity of the discharge have higher temperature tolerances than the maximum temperature of the centerline of the plume in average years. PSEG concluded that opossum shrimp, weakfish, and bay anchovy may experience a small amount of mortality during peak summer water temperatures in warm years (approximately 1 to 3 percent of the time).

As described in the FSEIS, PSEG has completed an analysis of the biological community in the Delaware Estuary to determine whether there has been evidence of changes within the community that could be attributable to the thermal discharge at Salem. PSEG concluded that there was no indication that the thermal plume was affecting the distribution or abundance of any species. Additionally, there was no indication of increases in populations of nuisance species or stress-tolerant species. Thus, it appears that the prey of shortnose sturgeon, as well as 85

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 loggerhead, Kemps ridley, and green sea turtles are impacted insignificantly, if at all, by the thermal discharge from Salem.

Discharge of Heated Effluent - Hope Creek Hope Creek has a closed cycle cooling system; thus, it discharges far less heated water than Salem. The temperature standards that the Hope Creek discharge must meet state that the temperature in the river outside of designated heat dissipation areas (HDAs) may not be raised above ambient by more than 4°F ( 2.2°C) during non-summer months (September through May) or 1.5°F (0.8°C) during the summer (June through August), and a maximum temperature of 86°F (30.0°C) in the river cannot be exceeded year-round (18 CFR 410; DRBC, 2001). There are no HDAs associated with the Hope Creek discharge; thus, the effluent from Hope Creek must not cause any increases in temperature that cause the river temperature to be greater than 30°C; thus, there is no potential for stress to sea turtles or mortality of shortnose sturgeon. During the summer months, mean ambient river temperatures may be as high as 26.5°C. During this time, the effluent must not raise temperatures more than 1.5°C. Given these circumstances, it is unlikely that the discharge from Hope Creek would result in any areas where water tempearatures are greater than 28°C; thus, no effects to shortnose sturgeon are likely to result from the discharge of heated effluent from Hope Creek.

As the effects to shortnose sturgeon and sea turtle prey from the Hope Creek discharge would be less than from the Salem outfall, all effects are anticipated to be insignificant and discountable as explained for Salem above.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects as defined in 50 CFR 402.02 to include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area considered in the 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. Ongoing Federal actions are considered in the Environmental Baseline section above.

Sources of human-induced mortality, injury, and/or harassment of shortnose sturgeon in the action area that are reasonably certain to occur in the future include incidental takes in state-regulated fishing activities, pollution, global climate change, research activities and, coastal development. While the combination of these activities may affect shortnose sturgeon, preventing or slowing a species recovery, the magnitude of these effects is currently unknown.

State Water Fisheries - Future recreational and commercial fishing activities in state waters may take shortnose sturgeon and may interact with sea turtles. Information on interactions with shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles from state authorized fisheries operating in the action area is not available and it is not clear to what extent these future activities would affect listed species differently than the current state fishery activities described in the Environmental Baseline section. .

Pollution and Contaminants - Human activities in the action area causing pollution are reasonably certain to continue in the future, as are impacts from them on shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles. However, the level of impacts cannot be projected. Sources of contamination in the 86

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 action area include atmospheric loading of pollutants, stormwater runoff from coastal development, groundwater discharges, and industrial development. Chemical contamination may have an effect on listed species reproduction and survival.

In the future, global climate change is expected to continue and may impact sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon and their habitat in the action area. However, as noted in the Status of the Species and Environmental Baseline sections above, given the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts (i.e., the century scale), it is unlikely that climate related impacts will have a significant effect on the status of shortnose sturgeon over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through 2046) or that in this time period, the abundance, distribution, or behavior of these species in the action area will change as a result of climate change related impacts.

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS NMFS has determined that all effects of the continued operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station through the extended license period (through 2046) will be insignificant and discountable. NMFS has estimated that the proposed continued operation of Salem Unit 1 through the extended license period (through August 2036) will result in the impingement of up to 5 loggerhead sea turtles and 8 shortnose sturgeon; the continued operation of Salem Unit 2 through the extended license period (through August 2040) will result in the impingement of 6 loggerheads and 9 shortnose sturgeon. NMFS does not anticipate that any green or Kemps ridley sea turtles will be impinged at Salem; all effects to green and Kemps ridley sea turtles are likely to be insignificant and discountable. As explained in the Effects of the Action section, all other effects to loggerhead sea turtle and shortnose sturgeon, including to their prey and from the discharge of heat, will be insignificant or discountable.

In the discussion below, NMFS considers whether the effects of the proposed action reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of loggerhead sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon. As all effects to Kemps ridley and green sea turtles will be insignificant and discountable, these species will not be discussed further in this section, as if all effects will be insignificant and discountable, they must, by definition, not be reasonably expected to reduce the reproduction, numbers or distribution of these species in the wild. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon. In the NMFS/USFWS Section 7 Handbook, for the purposes of determining jeopardy, survival is defined as, the species persistence as listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading to its endangerment, with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment.

Said in another way, survival is the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future while retaining the potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an environment providing all requirements for completion of the species entire life cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. Recovery is defined as, Improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Below, for each of the listed species that may be affected by the proposed action, NMFS summarizes the status of the species and considers whether the proposed 87

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 action will result in reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution of that species and then considers whether any reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution resulting from the proposed action would reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of that species.

The Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead sea turtles is listed as threatened under the ESA.

It takes decades for loggerhead sea turtles to reach maturity. Once they have reached maturity, females typically lay multiple clutches of eggs within a season, but do not typically lay eggs every season (NMFS and USFWS 2008). There are many natural and anthropogenic factors affecting the survival of loggerheads prior to their reaching maturity as well as for those adults who have reached maturity. As described in the Status of the Species/Environmental Baseline and Cumulative Effects sections above, loggerhead sea turtles in the action area continue to be affected by multiple anthropogenic impacts including bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries, habitat alteration, dredging, power plant intakes and other factors that result in mortality of individuals at all life stages. Negative impacts causing death of various age classes occur both on land and in the water. Many actions have been taken to address known negative impacts to loggerhead sea turtles. However, many remain unaddressed, have not been sufficiently addressed, or have been addressed in some manner but whose success cannot be quantified. While NMFS is not able to predict with precision how climate change will continue to impact loggerhead sea turtles in the action area or how the species will adapt to climate-change related environmental impacts, no additional effects related to climate change to loggerhead sea turtles in the action area are anticipated over the life of the proposed action (i.e., through 2046).

The SEFSC (2009) estimated the number of adult females in the NWA DPS at 30,000, and if a 1:1 adult sex ratio is assumed, the result is 60,000 adults in this DPS. Based on the reviews of nesting data, as well as information on population abundance and trends, NMFS and USFWS determined in the September 2011 listing rule that the NWA DPS should be listed as threatened.

They found that an endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted given the large size of the nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread, the trend for the nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts are underway to address threats.

In this Opinion, NMFS has considered the potential impacts of the proposed action on the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles. Based on the average number of loggerhead sea turtles captured or impinged at Salem since operational changes were put in place (1993-2011), no more than 5 loggerheads are likely to be captured or impinged at Salem Unit 1 and no more than 6 loggerheads are likely to be captured or impinged at Salem Unit 2 over the remaining term of the facilities operating license. Based on the mortality rate for loggerheads captured or impinged at the facility (0.67), 4 of the 5 loggerheads impinged at Unit 1 and 4 of the 6 loggerheads impinged at Unit 2 are likely to die as a result of interactions with the facility. Due to the difficulty in determining cause of death, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis, that any dead loggerhead sea turtle captured or impinged at Salem was killed as a result of interactions with the facility. Live turtles captured at the facility may have minor injuries; however, they are expected to make a complete recovery without any impairment to future fitness. Capture at Salem will temporarily prevent these sea turtles from carrying out essential behaviors such as foraging and migrating. However, these behaviors are expected to resume as soon as the turtles are returned to 88

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 the wild. The capture of live loggerhead sea turtles from the Salem intakes is not likely to reduce the numbers of loggerhead sea turtles in the action area, the numbers of loggerheads in any subpopulation or the species as a whole. Similarly, as the capture of live loggerhead sea turtles from the Salem intakes will not affect the fitness of any individual, no effects to reproduction are anticipated. The capture of live loggerhead sea turtles from the Salem intakes is also not likely to affect the distribution of loggerhead sea turtles in the action area or affect the distribution of sea turtles throughout their range. As any effects to individual live loggerhead sea turtles removed from the intakes will be minor and temporary there are not anticipated to be any population level impacts.

The lethal removal of up to 8 loggerhead sea turtle from the action area over the remainder of the term of the operating license (i.e., through April 2046), would reduce the number of loggerhead sea turtles from the recovery unit of which they originated as compared to the number of loggerheads that would have been present in the absence of the proposed actions (assuming all other variables remained the same). However, this does not necessarily mean that these recovery units will experience reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution in response to these effects to the extent that survival and recovery would be appreciably reduced. The final revised recovery plan for loggerheads compiled the most recent information on mean number of loggerhead nests and the approximated counts of nesting females per year for four of the five identified recovery units (i.e., nesting groups). They are: (1) for the NRU, a mean of 5,215 loggerhead nests per year with approximately 1,272 females nesting per year; (2) for the PFRU, a mean of 64,513 nests per year with approximately 15,735 females nesting per year; (3) for the DTRU, a mean of 246 nests per year with approximately 60 females nesting per year; and (4) for the NGMRU, a mean of 906 nests per year with approximately 221 females nesting per year. For the GCRU, the only estimate available for the number of loggerhead nests per year is from Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where a range of 903-2,331 nests per year was estimated from 1987-2001 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). There are no annual nest estimates available for the Yucatán since 2001 or for any other regions in the GCRU, nor are there any estimates of the number of nesting females per year for any nesting assemblage in this recovery unit.

It is likely that the loggerhead sea turtles captured at Salem originate from several of the recovery units. Limited information is available on the genetic makeup of sea turtles in the mid-Atlantic, including Barnegat Bay. Cohorts from each of the five western Atlantic subpopulations are expected to occur in the action area. Genetic analysis of samples collected from immature loggerhead sea turtles captured in pound nets in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex in North Carolina from September-December of 1995-1997 indicated that cohorts from all five western Atlantic subpopulations were present (Bass et al. 2004). In a separate study, genetic analysis of samples collected from loggerhead sea turtles from Massachusetts to Florida found that all five western Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations were represented (Bowen et al. 2004).

Bass et al. (2004) found that 80 percent of the juveniles and sub-adults utilizing the foraging habitat originated from the south Florida nesting population, 12 percent from the northern subpopulation, 6 percent from the Yucatan subpopulation, and 2 percent from other rookeries.

The previously defined loggerhead subpopulations do not share the exact delineations of the recovery units identified in the 2008 recovery plan. However, the PFRU encompasses both the south Florida and Florida panhandle subpopulations, the NRU is roughly equivalent to the northern nesting group, the Dry Tortugas subpopulation is equivalent to the DTRU, and the 89

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Yucatan subpopulation is included in the GCRU.

Based on the genetic analysis presented in Bass et al. (2004) and the small number of loggerheads from the DTRU or the NGMRU likely to occur in the action area it is extremely unlikely that the loggerhead likely to be killed due to interactions with Salem will originate from either of these recovery units. The majority, at least 80% of the loggerheads captured or impinged, are likely to have originated from the PFRU, with the remainder from the NRU and GCRU. As such, of the 8 loggerheads likely to be killed at the facility, 7 are expected to be from the PFRU, with the remaining turtle from the NRU or the GCRU. NMFS considers below the effects of the mortality of these loggerheads from these three recovery units.

As noted above, the most recent population estimates indicate that there are approximately 15,735 females nesting annually in the PFRU and approximately 1,272 females nesting per year in the NRU. For the GCRU, the only estimate available for the number of loggerhead nests per year is from Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where a range of 903-2,331 nests per year was estimated from 1987-2001 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). There are no annual nest estimates available for the Yucatán since 2001 or for any other regions in the GCRU, nor are there any estimates of the number of nesting females per year for any nesting assemblage in this recovery unit; however, the 2008 recovery plan indicates that the Yucatan nesting aggregation has at least 1,000 nesting females annually. As the numbers outlined here are only for nesting females, the total number of loggerhead sea turtles in each recovery unit is likely significantly higher.

The loss of up to 7 loggerheads over a 29 year period represents an extremely small percentage of the number of sea turtles in the PFRU. Even if the total population was limited to 15,735 loggerheads, the loss of 7 individuals would represent approximately 0.044% of the population.

Similarly, the loss of 1 loggerhead from the NRU represents an extremely small percentage of the recovery unit. Even if the total population was limited to 1,272 sea turtles, the loss of 1 individual would represent approximately 0.08% of the population. The loss of 1 loggerhead from the GCRU, which is expected to support at least 1,000 nesting females, represents less than 0.1% of the population. The loss of such a small percentage of the individuals from any of these recovery units represents an even smaller percentage of the species as a whole. While the death of up to 8 loggerheads over a 29-year period will reduce the number of loggerheads in the NWA DPS compared to the number that would have been present absent the proposed action, it is not likely that this reduction in numbers will change the status or trend of the NWA DPS as this loss represents a very small percentage of the affected recovery units and the DPS as a whole.

Reproductive potential of the NWA DPS is not expected to be affected in any way other than through a reduction in number of individuals. A reduction in the number of loggerheads in the NWA DPS would have the effect of reducing the amount of potential reproduction in the DPS as the turtles killed would have no potential for future reproduction. However, as there are at least 1,000 nesting females in each of the three recovery units from which these turtles are likely to originate, it is unlikely that the loss of 8 loggerheads over a 29-year period would affect the success of nesting in any year. Additionally, the small reduction in potential nesters is expected to result in an extremely small reduction in the number of eggs laid or hatchlings produced in future years and similarly, a very small effect on the strength of subsequent year classes Even considering the potential future nesters that would be produced by the individuals that would be 90

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 killed as a result of the proposed action, any effect to future year classes is anticipated to be very small and would not change the trend of any recovery unit or the DPS as a whole. Additionally, the action will not affect nesting beaches in any way and will not create any barrier to turtles accessing nesting beaches.

The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution of loggerheads because the action will not impede loggerheads from accessing any seasonal concentration areas, including foraging, nesting or overwintering grounds. Further, given the small number of individuals likely to be killed, there is not likely to be a loss of any unique genetic haplotypes and therefore, it is unlikely to result in the loss of genetic diversity.

In general, while the loss of a small number of individuals from a subpopulation or species may have an appreciable reduction on the numbers, reproduction and distribution of the species, this is likely to occur only when there are very few individuals in a population, the individuals occur in a very limited geographic range or the species has extremely low levels of genetic diversity.

This situation is not likely in the case of loggerhead sea turtles because: the species is widely geographically distributed, it is not known to have low levels of genetic diversity, and there are several thousand individuals in the population.

Based on the information provided above, the death of no more than 8 loggerhead sea turtle as a result of the ongoing operations of the Salem facility will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival (i.e., it will not decrease the likelihood that the species will continue to persist into the future with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment). The action will not affect loggerheads in a way that prevents the species from having a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring and it will not result in effects to the environment which would prevent loggerheads from completing their entire life cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. This is the case because: (1) the death of 1 loggerheads represents an extremely small percentage of the species as a whole; (2) the loss of these loggerheads will not change the status or trends of any nesting aggregation, recovery unit or the species as a whole; (3) the loss of 8 loggerheads is not likely to have an effect on the levels of genetic heterogeneity in the population; (3) the loss of these loggerheads is likely to have an undetectable effect on reproductive output of any nesting aggregation or the species as a whole; and, (4) the action will have no effect on the distribution of loggerheads in the action area or throughout its range; and, (6) the action will have no effect on the ability of loggerheads to shelter and only an insignificant effect on individual foraging loggerheads.

In certain instances an action may not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species survival (persistence) but may affect its likelihood of recovery or the rate at which recovery is expected to occur. As explained above, NMFS has determined that the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that loggerheads will survive in the wild. Here, NMFS considers the potential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recovery. As noted above, recovery is defined as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate.

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires listing of a species if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., endangered), or likely to become in danger of 91

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future (i.e.,

threatened) because of any of the following five listing factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles. Also, it is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since it will result in an extremely small reduction in the number of loggerheads in any geographic area and since it will not affect the overall distribution of loggerheads other than to cause minor temporary adjustments in movements in the action area. The proposed action will not utilize loggerheads for recreational, scientific or commercial purposes, affect the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect any of these species of sea turtles, or affect their continued existence. The proposed action is likely to result in the mortality of up to 8 loggerheads over the remainder of the facilitys operating license (i.e., through April 2040);

however, as explained above, the loss of these individuals over this time period is not expected to affect the persistence of the NWA DPS of loggerheads. The loss of these individuals will not change the status or trend of the NWA DPS of loggerheads. As the reduction in numbers and future reproduction is very small, this loss would not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of improvement in the status of the NWA DPS. The effects of the proposed action will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger of extinction since the action will cause the mortality of only a small percentage of the loggerheads in the NWA DPS and these mortalities are not expected to result in the reduction of overall reproductive fitness for the species as a whole. The effects of the proposed action will also not reduce the likelihood that the status of the species can improve to the point where it is recovered and could be delisted.

Therefore, the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that the NWA DPS can be brought to the point at which they are no longer listed as threatened. Based on the analysis presented herein, the proposed action, resulting in the mortality of no more than 8 loggerheads over the 29-year period of the proposed renewed licenses is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of this species.

Based on the analysis presented herein, the proposed action, resulting in the mortality of no more than 8 loggerheads, is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles.

Summary of status of shortnose sturgeon Historically, shortnose sturgeon are believed to have inhabited nearly all major rivers and estuaries along nearly the entire east coast of North America. Today, only 19 populations remain. The present range of shortnose sturgeon is disjunct, with northern populations separated from southern populations by a distance of about 400 km. Population sizes range from under 100 adults in the Cape Fear and Merrimack Rivers to tens of thousands in the St. John and Hudson Rivers. As indicated in Kynard 1996, adult abundance is less than the minimum estimated viable population abundance of 1000 adults for 5 of 11 surveyed northern populations and all natural southern populations. The only river systems likely supporting populations close to expected abundance are the St John, Hudson and possibly the Delaware and the Kennebec 92

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 (Kynard 1996), making the continued success of shortnose sturgeon in these rivers critical to the species as a whole.

The Delaware River population of shortnose sturgeon is the second largest in the U.S. The most recent population estimate for the Delaware River is 12,047 (95% CI= 10,757-13,580) and is based on mark recapture data collected from January 1999 through March 2003 (ERC Inc. 2006).

Comparisons between the population estimate by ERC Inc. and the earlier estimate by Hastings et al. (1987) of 12,796 (95% CI=10,228-16,367) suggests that the population is stable. NMFS anticipates that this stable trend will continue through the life of the proposed action.

As described in the Status of the Species, Environmental Baseline, and Cumulative Effects sections above, shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River are affected by dredging, habitat alteration, bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries, water quality and in-water construction activities. It is difficult to quantify the number of shortnose sturgeon that may be killed in the Delaware River each year due to anthropogenic sources. Through reporting requirements implemented under Section 7 and Section 10 of the ESA, for specific actions NMFS obtains some information on the number of incidental and directed takes of shortnose sturgeon each year. Typically, scientific research results in the capture and collection of less than 100 shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River each year, with little if any mortality. NMFS has no recent reports of interactions or mortalities of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River resulting from dredging or other in-water construction activities. NMFS also has no quantifiable information on the effects of habitat alteration or water quality; in general, water quality has improved in the Delaware River, particularly below Philadelphia, since the 1970s when the CWA was implemented. Despite these ongoing threats, evidence suggests that the Delaware River population is stable at approximately 12,000 adults. Shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River will continue to experience anthropogenic and natural sources of mortality. However, NMFS is not aware of any future actions that are reasonably certain to occur that are likely to change this trend or reduce the stability of the Delaware River population. Also, as discussed above, NMFS does not expect shortnose sturgeon to experience any new effects associated with climate change during the duration of the proposed action. As such, NMFS expects that numbers of shortnose sturgeon in the action area will continue to be stable over the duration of the proposed action.

NMFS has estimated that the continued operation of Salem Unit 1 through 2036 is likely to result in the impingement of no more than 8 shortnose sturgeon; the continued operation of Salem Unit 2 through 2040 is likely to result in the impingement of no more than 9 shortnose sturgeon, all of which may die as a result of their impingement. This number represents a very small percentage of the shortnose sturgeon population in the Delaware River, which is believed to be stable, and an even smaller percentage of the total population of shortnose sturgeon rangewide. The best available population estimates indicate that there are approximately 12,047 (95% CI= 10,757-13,580) adult shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River and an unknown number of juveniles (ERC 2006). While the death of up to 17 shortnose sturgeon over a 29-year period will reduce the number of shortnose sturgeon in the population compared to the number that would have been present absent the proposed action, it is not likely that this reduction in numbers will change the status of this population or its stable trend as this loss represents a very small percentage of the population (less than 0.14%).

93

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Reproductive potential of the Delaware population is not expected to be affected in any other way other than through a reduction in numbers of individuals. A reduction in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River would have the effect of reducing the amount of potential reproduction in this system as the fish killed would have no potential for future reproduction. However, it is estimated that on average, approximately 1/3 of adult females spawn in a particular year and approximately 1/2 of males spawn in a particular year. Given that the best available estimates indicate that there are more than 12,000 adult shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River, it is reasonable to expect that there are at least 4,000 adults spawning in a particular year. It is unlikely that the loss of 17 shortnose sturgeon over a 29-year period would affect the success of spawning in any year. Additionally, this small reduction in potential spawners is expected to result in a small reduction in the number of eggs laid or larvae produced in future years and similarly, a very small effect on the strength of subsequent year classes. Even considering the potential future spawners that would be produced by the individuals that would be killed as a result of the proposed action, any effect to future year classes is anticipated to be very small and would not change the stable trend of this population. Additionally, the proposed action will not affect spawning habitat in any way and will not create any barrier to pre-spawning sturgeon accessing the overwintering sites or the spawning grounds.

The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impede shortnose sturgeon from accessing any seasonal concentration areas, including foraging, spawning or overwintering grounds in the Delaware River. Further, the action is not expected to reduce the river by river distribution of shortnose sturgeon. Additionally, as the number of shortnose sturgeon likely to be killed as a result of the proposed action is less than 0.14% of the Delaware River population, there is not likely to be a loss of any unique genetic haplotypes and therefore, it is unlikely to result in the loss of genetic diversity.

While generally speaking, the loss of a small number of individuals from a subpopulation or species can have an appreciable effect on the numbers, reproduction and distribution of the species, this is likely to occur only when there are very few individuals in a population, the individuals occur in a very limited geographic range or the species has extremely low levels of genetic diversity. This situation is not likely in the case of shortnose sturgeon because: the species is widely geographically distributed, it is not known to have low levels of genetic diversity (see status of the species/environmental baseline section above), and there are thousands of shortnose sturgeon spawning each year.

Based on the information provided above, the death of up to 17 shortnose sturgeon over a 29-year period resulting from the continued operation of Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2 will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of this species (i.e., it will not increase the risk of extinction faced by this species) given that: (1) the population trend of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River is stable; (2) the death of up to 17 shortnose sturgeon represents an extremely small percentage of the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River and an even smaller percentage of the species as a whole; (3) the loss of these shortnose sturgeon is likely to have such a small effect on reproductive output of the Delaware River population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole that the loss of these shortnose sturgeon will not change the status or trends of the Hudson River population or the species as a whole; (4) and, the action will have only a minor and temporary effect on the distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the action 94

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 area (related to movements around the thermal plume) and no effect on the distribution of the species throughout its range.

In certain instances, an action that does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species survival might affect its likelihood of recovery or the rate at which recovery is expected to occur.

As explained above, NMFS has determined that the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon will survive in the wild. Here, NMFS considers the potential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recovery. As noted above, recovery is defined as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires listing of a species if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., endangered), or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) because of any of the following five listing factors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The proposed action is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since it will result in a small reduction in the number of shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River and since it will not affect the overall distribution of shortnose sturgeon other than to cause minor temporary adjustments in movements in the action area. The proposed action will not utilize shortnose sturgeon for recreational, scientific or commercial purposes or affect the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species. The proposed action is likely to result in the mortality of up to 17 shortnose sturgeon; however, over the 29-year period, the loss of these individuals and what would have been their progeny is not expected to affect the persistence of the Delaware River population of shortnose sturgeon or the species as a whole. The loss of these individuals will not change the status or trend of the Delaware River population, which is stable at high numbers. As it will not affect the status or trend of this population, it will not affect the status or trend of the species as a whole. As the reduction in numbers and future reproduction is very small, this loss would not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of improvement in the status of shortnose sturgeon throughout their range. The effects of the proposed action will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger of extinction since the action will cause the mortality of only a small percentage of the shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River and an even smaller percentage of the species as a whole and these mortalities are not expected to result in the reduction of overall reproductive fitness for the species as a whole. The effects of the proposed action will also not reduce the likelihood that the status of the species can improve to the point where it is recovered and could be delisted.

Therefore, the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that shortnose sturgeon can be brought to the point at which they are no longer listed as endangered or threatened. Based on the analysis presented herein, the proposed action, resulting in the mortality of no more than 17 shortnose sturgeon over the 29-year period of the proposed renewed licenses is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of this species.

CONCLUSION After reviewing the best available information on the status of endangered and threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the 95

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 proposed action, interdependent and interrelated actions and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS biological opinion that the continued operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station through the duration of extended operating licenses for Unit 1 and Unit 2 may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon.

Additionally, NMFS has concluded that as all effects to Kemps ridley and green sea turtles from the continued operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station are likely to be insignificant and discountable, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect these species. As all effects of the continued operation of the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station on shortnose sturgeon, loggerhead, Kemps ridley and green sea turtles will be insignificant and discountable, the continued operation of this facility is not likely to adversely affect any of these species. No critical habitat is designated in the action area; therefore, none will be affected by either proposed action.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species of fish and wildlife. Fish and wildlife is defined in the ESA as any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. 16 U.S.C. 1532(8). Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by NMFS to include any act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Otherwise lawful activities are those actions that meet all State and Federal legal requirements except for the prohibition against taking in ESA Section 9 (51 FR 19936, June 3, 1986), which would include any state endangered species laws or regulations. Section 9(g) makes it unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined [in the ESA.] 16 U.S.C. 1538(g). See also 16 U.S.C.

1532(13)(definition of person). 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 under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by NRC so that they become binding conditions for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If NRC (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the applicant, PSEG, to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms that are added to the renewed license, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, NRC or the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the NMFS as specified in the Incidental Take Statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)] (See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 96

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 National Marine Fisheries Services Joint Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook (1998) at 4-49).

Amount or Extent of Take Pursuant to the terms of the proposed extended operating license, Salem Unit 1 will continue to operate until 2036 and Salem Unit 2 will continue to operate until 2040. The operation of Salem 1 and Salem 2 during the extended operating period will directly affect shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles due to impingement at intakes. These interactions constitute capture or collect in the definition of take and will cause injury and/or mortality to the affected individuals. Based on the distribution of shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles in the action area and information available on historic interactions between shortnose sturgeon and the Salem facility, NMFS has estimated that the proposed action will result in the impingement of up to 17 shortnose sturgeon and up to 11 loggerhead sea turtles over the extended operating period.

All of these 17 sturgeon may die, immediately or later, as a result of interactions with the facility.

No more than 8 of the 11 impinged loggerhead sea turtles are likely to die as a result of interactions with the facility or be dead upon removal from the water. As explained in the Effects of the Action section, effects of the facility on listed species also include effects on distribution due to the thermal plume as well as effects to prey items; however, NMFS does not anticipate or exempt any take of shortnose sturgeon or any species of sea turtles due to effects to prey items or due to exposure to the thermal plume. NMFS anticipates incidental take of shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles to occur as follows:

o 2012-April 2036: Both Unit 1 and Unit 2 operational - a total of 15 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) and a total of 10 loggerheads (no more than 7 dead) o May 2036-August 2040: only Unit 2 operational - a total of 2 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) and a total of 1 loggerhead (dead or alive).

The Section 9 prohibitions against take apply to live individuals as well as to dead specimens and their parts. The Section 9 prohibitions include capture and collect in the definition of take, as well as injury and mortality. NMFS recognizes that shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles that have been killed prior to impingement at the Salem facility may become impinged on the intakes at Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2 and that some number of dead shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles taken at the facility may not necessarily have been killed by the operation of the facility itself. However, the capture or collection of previously dead animals is prohibited under Section 9 and will be exempted through this ITS. Due to the difficulty in determining the cause of death of shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles found dead at the intakes and the inconsistency in the ability of NRC and the applicant to secure prompt necropsy results, the aforementioned anticipated level of take includes shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles that may have been dead prior to impingement on the Salem intakes. As explained in the Opinion, NMFS does not have sufficient information to predict what percentage of impinged shortnose sturgeon or sea turtles were previously dead and merely captured or collected at the facility and sturgeon or sea turtles that died as a result of their impingement at the Salem intakes.

Therefore, NMFS is not able to further refine this estimate of take into a number of previously dead sturgeon or loggerhead sea turtles captured or collected at the facility and a number of sturgeon or loggerhead sea turtles whose death was caused by impingement at the facility. In the accompanying Opinion, NMFS determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to shortnose sturgeon or loggerhead sea turtles. No take of any species is anticipated 97

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 or exempted at Hope Creek Generating Station and no take of Kemps ridley or green sea turtles is anticipated or exempted at Salem.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures In order to effectively monitor the effects of this action, it is necessary to monitor the intakes to document the amount of incidental take (i.e., the number of shortnose sturgeon and loggerheads captured, collected, injured or killed) and to examine the shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles that are impinged at the facility. Monitoring provides information on the characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon and loggerhead sea turtles encountered and may provide data which will help develop more effective measures to avoid future interactions with listed species. NMFS does not anticipate any additional injury or mortality to be caused by removing the fish or turtles from the water and examining them as required in the RPMs. The transfer of live sea turtles to an appropriate STSSN facility is likely to improve the individuals chance of survival following impingement; particularly as many of the sea turtles impinged may be suffering from previously inflicted injury or illness. No such facilities are available for shortnose sturgeon; as such, any live sturgeon are to be released back into the river, away from the intakes. Any STSSN facility that live sea turtles may be transferred to is required to be authorized to care for, rehabilitate and release sea turtles pursuant to a Stranding Network Agreement and a permit issued by the USFWS pursuant to Section 10 of the ESA. As outlined below, NMFS is requiring NRC to ensure that PSEG prepare arrangements with an appropriate STSSN approved and permitted facility. Reasonable and prudent measures and implementing terms and conditions requiring this monitoring and transport are outlined below.

NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate for NRC and the licensee, PSEG, to minimize and monitor impacts of incidental take of endangered shortnose sturgeon and threatened loggerhead sea turtles:

1. PSEG must continue to implement a NMFS approved program to prevent, monitor, minimize, and mitigate the incidental take of sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon at the Salem intakes.

2. All sea turtle and shortnose sturgeon impingements associated with the SNGS and sea turtle and shortnose sturgeon sightings in the action area must be reported to NMFS.

3. All live sea turtles must be transported to an appropriate facility for necessary rehabilitation and release into the wild.

4. A necropsy of any dead sea turtles must be undertaken promptly to attempt to identify the cause of death, particularly whether the sea turtle died as a result of interactions with the intakes.

5. All live shortnose sturgeon must be released back into the Delaware River at an appropriate location away from the intakes.

98

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11

6. Any dead shortnose sturgeon should be transferred to NMFS or an appropriately permitted research so that a necropsy can be undertaken to attempt to identity the cause of death, particularly whether the fish died as a result of interactions with the intakes.

Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, NRC must comply with and ensure PSEG complies with, the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

1. To implement RPM #1, the intake trash bars must be cleaned no less than three times per week from April 1 to October 31. NRC must ensure that cleanings follow a set schedule so that they are regularly spaced rather than clumped.

a. Cleaning must include the full length of the trash rack, i.e., down to the bottom of each intake bay. To lessen the possibility of injury to a turtle or sturgeon, the raking process must be closely monitored so that it can be stopped immediately if a turtle or sturgeon is sighted.

b. Personnel must be instructed to look beneath surface debris before the rake is used to lessen the possibility of injury to a turtle or sturgeon.

c. Personnel cleaning the racks must inspect all trash that is dumped to ensure that no sea turtles or sturgeon are present within the debris.

d. An alternative method of cleaning of the full length of the trash racks must be developed for use between April 1 through October 31 when the trash rake is unavailable due to necessary repair or maintenance or is otherwise inoperable. If the trash rake will be inoperable for more than 3 days, PSEG or NRC must contact NMFS and explain what alternate arrangements have been made to ensure that the full length of the trash racks is cleaned at least three times per week.

2. To implement RPM #1, inspection of cooling water intake trash bars (and immediate area upstream) must continue to be conducted at least once every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> (three times per 12-hour shift) from April 1 through October 31. NRC must ensure that inspections follow a set schedule so that they are regularly spaced rather than clumped. Inspections must occur at least three times during each 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift. A proposed schedule would be to schedule inspections 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the start of each shift and then every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> during the shift. Times of inspections, including those when no turtles or sturgeon were sighted, must be recorded.

3. To implement RPM #1, lighting must be maintained at the intake bays to enable inspection personnel to see the surface of each intake bay and to facilitate safe handling of turtles or sturgeon which are discovered at night. Portable spotlights must be available at the intakes for times when extra lighting is needed.

99

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11

4. To implement RPM #1, dip nets, baskets, and other equipment must be available at the intakes and must be used to remove sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon from the intake structures is possible, to reduce trauma caused by the existing cleaning mechanism.

Equipment suitable for rescuing large turtles (e.g., rescue sling or other provision) must be available at Salem and readily accessible from the intakes.

5. To implement RPM #1, an attempt to resuscitate comatose sea turtles must be made according to the procedures described in Appendix II. These procedures must be posted in appropriate areas such as the intake bay areas, any other area where turtles would be moved for resuscitation, and the operator's office(s).

6. To implement RPM #2, Salem personnel must observe the area upstream of the intakes for sea turtles and sturgeon when possible (i.e., during the daylight hours). Any sea turtles or sturgeon sighted in the vicinity of Salem (not necessarily only near the intake structures) must be reported to NMFS within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the observation (NMFS Section 7 Coordinator at (978) 281-9328 or FAX (978) 281-9394).

7. To implement RPM #2, if any live or dead sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon are taken at Salem, plant personnel must notify NMFS within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the take (NMFS Endangered Species Coordinator at 978-281-9208). An incident report for sea turtle or shortnose sturgeon take (Appendix III) must also be completed by plant personnel and sent to the NMFS Section 7 Coordinator via FAX (978-281-9394) within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the take. Every sea turtle must be photographed. Information in Appendix IV will assist in identification of species impinged. All sea turtles that are sighted within the vicinity of Salem (including the intake and discharge structures) must also be recorded, and this information must be submitted in the annual report.

8. To implement RPM #2, an annual report of incidental takes must be submitted to NMFS by January 1 of each year. This report will be used to identify trends and further conservation measures necessary to minimize incidental takes of sea turtles. The report must include, as detailed above, all necropsy reports, incidental take reports, photographs (if not previously submitted), a record of all sightings in the vicinity of Salem, and a record of when inspections of the intake trash bars were conducted for the 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to the take. The annual report must also include any potential measures to reduce sea turtle impingement or mortality at the intake structures. This annual report must also include information on arrangements made with a STSSN facility to handle sea turtles taken in the coming year. The report must also include all necropsy reports. At the time the report is submitted, NMFS will supply NRC and PSEG with any information on changes to reporting requirements (i.e., staff changes, phone or fax numbers, e-mail addresses) for the coming year.

9. To implement RPM #2, PSEG or NRC must notify NMFS when the facility reaches 50%

of the incidental take level for any species (i.e., 3 loggerheads or 7 shortnose sturgeon).

At that time, NRC and NMFS will determine if additional measures are needed to minimize impingement at the intake structures or if additional monitoring is necessary.

100

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11

10. To implement RPM #3, a stranding/rehabilitation facility with the appropriate ESA authority must be contacted immediately following any live sea turtle take. Appropriate transport methods must be employed following the stranding facilities protocols, to transport the animal to the care of the stranding/rehabilitation personnel for evaluation, necessary veterinary care, tagging, and release in an appropriate location and habitat.

11. To implement RPM #4, all dead sea turtles must be necropsied by qualified personnel.

PSEG must coordinate with a qualified facility or individual to perform the necropsies on sea turtles impinged at Salem, prior to the incidental turtle take, so that there is no delay in performing the necropsy or obtaining the results. The necropsy results must identify, when possible, the sex of the turtle, stomach contents, and the estimated cause of death.

Necropsy reports must be submitted to the NMFS Northeast Region with the annual review of incident reports or, if not yet available, within 60 days of the incidental take.

12. To implement RPM #5, any live shortnose sturgeon must be returned to the river away from the intakes, following complete documentation of the event.

13. To implement RPM #6, in the event of any lethal takes of shortnose sturgeon, any dead specimens or body parts must be photographed, measured, and preserved (refrigerate or freeze) until disposal procedures are discussed with NMFS. NMFS may request that the specimen be transferred to NMFS or to an appropriately permitted researcher so that a necropsy may be conducted. The form included as Appendix II must be completed and submitted to NMFS as noted above.

14. To implement RPM #6, the NRC must require that if any lethal take of shortnose sturgeon occurs, fin clips be taken (according to the procedure outlined in Appendix V) to be returned to NMFS for ongoing analysis of the genetic composition of the Delaware River shortnose sturgeon population.

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize and monitor the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. Specifically, these RPMs and Terms and Conditions will ensure that PSEG continues to implement measures to reduce the potential of mortality for any sea turtles or sturgeon impinged at Salem, to report all interactions to NMFS and to provide information on the likely cause of death of any sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon impinged at the facility. The discussion below explains why each of these RPMs and Terms and Conditions are necessary and appropriate to minimize or monitor the level of incidental take associated with the proposed action and how they represent only a minor change to the proposed action.

RPM #1 and Term and Conditions #1-6 are necessary and appropriate because they are specifically designed to ensure that all appropriate measures are carried out to prevent, monitor and minimize the incidental take of sea turtles at Salem. These conditions ensure that the potential for detection of sea turtles at the intakes is maximized and that any sea turtles removed from the water are done so in a manner that minimizes the potential for further injury. The procedures and requirements outlined in RPM #1 and Term and Conditions #1-6 are only a minor change because they are not expected to result in any modifications to plant operations and any increase in cost is small. Additionally, these conditions are consistent with conditions in 101

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 previous ITSs for Salem and are part of the normal procedures at the facility.

RPM#2 and Term and Condition #6-10 are necessary and appropriate as ensure the proper handling and documentation of any interactions with listed species as well as the prompt reporting of these interactions to NMFS. This represents only a minor change as the implementation of these conditions is not anticipated to result in any increased cost, delay of the project or change in the operation of the facility. Additionally, these conditions are consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for Salem and are part of the normal procedures at the facility.

RPM#3 and Term and Condition #11 are necessary and appropriate as the continued transfer of turtles removed from the water alive to an approved stranding/rehabilitation center maximizes the likelihood that these turtles when returned to the wild will be healthy. Additionally, this ensures that any injured turtles can be cared for, reducing the potential impact of any injuries and reducing the potential for delayed mortality. This represents only a minor change as PSEG has maintained a relationship with MMSC to carry out these activities in the past and this condition is consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for Salem and is part of the normal procedures at the facility.

RPM#4 and Term and Condition #12 is necessary and appropriate to determine and document the likely cause of death for any sea turtle removed from the Salem intakes and whether the cause of death is attributable to the action under consideration in this Opinion. This represents only a minor change as PSEG has maintained a relationship with MMSC to carry out these activities in the past and this condition is consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for Salem and is part of the normal procedures at the facility.

RPM #5 and Term and Condition #12 are necessary and appropriate to ensure that any shortnose sturgeon that survive impingement is given the maximum probability of remaining alive and not suffering additional injury or subsequent mortality through inappropriate handling or release near the intakes. This represents only a minor change as following these procedures will not result in an increase in cost and is consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for Salem and is part of the normal procedures at the facility or any delays to the proposed project.

RPM #6 and Terms and Conditions #10-12 are necessary and appropriate to ensure the proper handling and documentation of any shortnose sturgeon removed from the intakes that are dead or die while in PSEG custody. This is essential for monitoring the level of incidental take associated with the proposed action and in determining whether the death was related to the operation of the facility. These RPMs and Terms and Conditions represent only a minor change as compliance will not result in an increase in cost and is consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for Salem and is part of the normal procedures at the facility or any delays to the proposed project.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to Section 7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure that all projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA places a responsibility on all federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species. Conservation 102

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. As such, NMFS recommends that the NRC consider the following Conservation Recommendations:

1. The NRC should use its authorities to increase lighting and visibility at all trash racks, and implement these methods. Improvements in may allow personnel to detect sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon at the intakes sooner and minimize the chance of mortality.

2. The NRC should use its authorities to support tissue analysis of dead sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon removed from the Salem intakes to determine contaminant loads.

3. In conjunction with NMFS, the NRC should use its authorities to support a research program to determine whether the plant provides features attractive to sea turtles (e.g.,

concentration of prey around intake structures, heated discharge). This program should investigate habitat use, diet, and local and long-term movements of sea turtles. Use of existing mark/recapture and telemetry methods should be considered in Delaware Bay.

4. The NRC should use its authorities to support in-water assessments, abundance, and distribution surveys for sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware estuary.

Information obtained from these surveys should include the number of turtles sighted, species, location, habitat use, time of year, and portions of the water column sampled.

REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION This concludes formal consultation on the continued operation of the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations for an additional 20 years pursuant to a license proposed for issuance by NRC. As provided in 50 CFR §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 not have been previously considered; (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species; 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, Section 7 consultation must be reinitiated immediately.

103

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 LITERATURE CITED Agnisola, C., McKenzie, D., Pellegrino, D., Bronzi, P., Tota, B. and Taylor, E. (1999),

Cardiovascular responses to hypoxia in the Adriatic sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 15: 67-72.

Andrews, H.V., and K. Shanker. 2002. A significant population of leatherback turtles in the Indian Ocean. Kachhapa 6:19.

Andrews, H.V., S. Krishnan, and P. Biswas. 2002. Leatherback nesting in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Kachhapa 6:15-18.

Attrill, M.J., J. Wright, and M. Edwards. 2007. Climate-related increases in jellyfish frequency suggest a more gelatinous future for the North Sea. Limnology and Oceanography 52:480-485.

Avens, L., J.C. Taylor, L.R. Goshe, T.T. Jones, and M. Hastings. 2009. Use of skeletochronological analysis to estimate the age of leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea in the western North Atlantic. Endangered Species Research 8:165-177.

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species Research 2:21-30.

Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Pages 117-125 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. U.S.

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-54:387-429.

Barnegat Bay Estuary Program. 2001. Web site <http://www.bbep.org>

Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, J. Braun, D.W. Owens, and R.M. Patterson. 1998. Natal origin and sex ratios of foraging sea turtles in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex. U.S. Dep.

Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, and J. Braun-McNeill. 2004. Multi-year analysis of stock composition of a loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) foraging habitat using maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. Conservation Genetics 5:783-796.

Bellmund, D.E., J.A. Musick, R.C. Klinger, R.A. Byles, J.A. Keinath, and D.E. Barnard. 1987.

Ecology of sea turtles in Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Special Science Report No. 119, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

104

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. In press. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles: duration of the pelagic stage.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. Pages 199-233 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. New York: CRC Press.

Blumenthal, J.M., J.L. Solomon, C.D. Bell, T.J. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, M.S. Coyne, A.C.

Broderick, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Satellite tracking highlights the need for international cooperation in marine turtle management. Endangered Species Research 2:51-61.

Bolten, A.B. 2003. Variation in sea turtle life history patterns: neritic vs. oceanic developmental stages. Pages 243-257 in P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. 2. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, and H.R. Martins. 1994. Life history model for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) populations in the Atlantic: Potential impacts of a longline fishery.

U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-201:48-55.

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, H.R. Martins, T. Dellinger, M.J. Biscoito, S.E. Encalada, and B.W.

Bowen. 1998. Transatlantic developmental migrations of loggerhead sea turtles demonstrated by mtDNA sequence analysis. Ecological Applications 8(1):1-7.

Bowen, B.W. 2003. What is a loggerhead turtle? The genetic perspective. Pages 7-27 in A.B.

Bolten and B.E. Witherington, eds. Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Press.

Bowen, B.W., and S.A. Karl. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles.

Molecular Ecology 16:4886-4907.

Bowen, B.W., A.L. Bass, S. Chow, M. Bostrom, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, T. Okuyama, B.M.

Bolker, S. Epperly, E. LaCasella, D. Shaver, M. Dodd, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, J.A. Musick, M. Swingle, K. Rankin-Baransky, W. Teas, W.N. Witzell, and P.H. Dutton. 2004. Natal homing in juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Molecular Ecology 13:3797-3808.

Bowen, B.W., A.L. Bass, L. Soares, and R.J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).

Molecular Ecology 14:2389-2402.

Braun, J., and S.P. Epperly. 1996. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in southern Georgia waters, June 1991. Gulf of Mexico Science 1996(1):39-44.

Braun-McNeill, J., and S.P. Epperly. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of sea turtles in the western North Atlantic and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico from Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Marine Fisheries Review 64(4):50-56.

105

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Braun-McNeill, J. , C.R. Sasso, S.P.Epperly, C. Rivero. 2008. Feasibility of using sea surface temperature imagery to mitigate cheloniid sea turtle-fishery interactions off the coast of northeastern USA. Endangered Species Research: Vol. 5: 257-266, 2008.

Brodeur, R.D., C.E. Mills, J.E. Overland, G.E. Walters, and J.D. Schumacher. 1999. Evidence for a substantial increase in gelatinous zooplankton in the Bering Sea, with possible links to climate change. Fisheries Oceanography 8(4):296-306.

Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, P. Logan, and E.A. Standora. 1991. Diet of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the waters of Long Island, NY. M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (Compilers).

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, pp. 140-142.

Caillouet, C., C.T. Fontaine, S.A. Manzella-Tirpak, and T.D. Williams. 1995. Growth of head-started Kemps ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) following release. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1(3):231-234.

Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. The Turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja California. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Carr, A.R. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempi. Ergebnisse der Biologie 26:298-303.

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conserv. Biol. 1:

103-121.

Carreras, C., S. Pont, F. Maffucci, M. Pascual, A. Barceló, F. Bentivegna, L. Cardona, F. Alegre, M. SanFélix, G. Fernández, and A. Aguilar. 2006. Genetic structuring of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea reflects water circulation patterns. Marine Biology 149:1269-1279.

Casale, P., P. Nicolosi, D. Freggi, M. Turchetto, and R. Argano. 2003. Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in Italy and in the Mediterranean basin. Herpetological Journal 13:135-139.

Castroviejo, J., J.B. Juste, J.P. Del Val, R. Castelo, and R. Gil. 1994. Diversity and status of sea turtle species in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:828-836.

Chevalier, J., X. Desbois, and M. Girondot. 1999. The reason for the decline of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in French Guiana: a hypothesis p.79-88. In Miaud, C. and R.

Guyétant (eds.), Current Studies in Herpetology, Proceedings of the ninth ordinary general meeting of the Societas Europea Herpetologica, 25-29 August 1998 Le Bourget du Lac, France.

Cliffton, K., D.O. Cornejo, and R.S. Felger. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico.

106

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Pages 199-209 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E.

Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2009. 222 pp.

Coyne, M.S. 2000. Population Sex Ratio of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii): Problems in Population Modeling. PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University. 136pp.

Coyne, M. and A.M. Landry, Jr. 2007. Population sex ratios and its impact on population models. In: Plotkin, P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. p. 191-211.

Crouse, D.T. 1999. The consequences of delayed maturity in a human-dominated world.

American Fisheries Society Symposium. 23:195-202.

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecol. 68:1412-1423.

Crowder, L.B., D.T. Crouse, S.S. Heppell. and T.H. Martin. 1994. Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ecol. Applic. 4:437-445.

Daniels, R.C., T.W. White, and K.K. Chapman. 1993. Sea-level rise: destruction of threatened and endangered species habitat in South Carolina. Environmental Management 17(3):373-385.

Davenport, J. 1997. Temperature and the life-history strategies of sea turtles. Journal of Thermal Biology 22(6):479-488.

Davenport, J., and G.H. Balazs. 1991. Fiery bodies - Are pyrosomas an important component of the diet of leatherback turtles? British Herpetological Society Bulletin 37:33-38.

Dodd, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(14):1-110.

Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: a forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 88:43-70.

Duarte, C.M. 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29:192-206.

107

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Dutton, P.H., C. Hitipeuw, M. Zein, S.R. Benson, G. Petro, J. Pita, V. Rei, L. Ambio, and J.

Bakarbessy. 2007. Status and genetic structure of nesting populations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Western Pacific. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1):47-53.

Dwyer, K.L., C.E. Ryder, and R. Prescott. 2002. Anthropogenic mortality of leatherback sea turtles in Massachusetts waters. Poster presentation for the 2002 Northeast Stranding Network Symposium.

Eckert, S.A. 1999. Global distribution of juvenile leatherback turtles. Hubbs Sea World Research Institute Technical Report 99-294.

Eckert, S.A. and J. Lien. 1999. Recommendations for eliminating incidental capture and mortality of leatherback sea turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, by commercial fisheries in Trinidad and Tobago. A report to the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST). Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Technical Report No. 2000-310, 7 pp.

Eckert, S.A., D. Bagley, S. Kubis, L. Ehrhart, C. Johnson, K. Stewart, and D. DeFreese. 2006.

Internesting and postnesting movements of foraging habitats of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in Florida. Chel. Cons. Biol. 5(2): 239-248.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. Reproductive characteristics and management potential of the sea turtle rookery at Canaveral National Seashore, Florida. Pp. 397-399 in Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 9-12, 1976. R.M. Linn, ed. Transactions and Proceedings Series-National Park Service, No.

5. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean:

geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 157-174 in A.B. Bolten and B.E. Witherington, eds. Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ehrhart. L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 2007. Marine turtles of the central region of the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Florida Scientist 70(4):415-434.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2010. Neritic Zone. Accessed 12 January 2010.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055318.

Epperly, S.P. 2003. Fisheries-related mortality and turtle excluder devices. In: P.L. Lutz, J.A.

Musick, and J. Wyneken (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol. II, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. p. 339-353.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93:254-261.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, F.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995b. Winter 108

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the summer flounder trawl fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 56(2):547-568.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995c. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters.

Conservation Biology 9(2):384-394.

Epperly, S., L. Avens, L. Garrison, T. Henwood, W. Hoggard, J. Mitchell, J. Nance, J.

Poffenberger, C. Sasso, E. Scott-Denton, and C. Yeung. 2002. Analysis of sea turtle bycatch in the commercial shrimp fisheries of southeast U.S. waters and the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-490:1-88.

Epperly, S.P., and W.G. Teas. 2002. Turtle Excluder Devices - Are the escape openings large enough? Fishery Bulletin 100:466-474.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun-McNeill, and P.M. Richards. 2007. Trends in catch rates of sea turtles in North Carolina, USA. Endangered Species Research 3:283-293.

Ernst, C.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 347 pp.

Ferreira, M.B., M. Garcia, and A. Al-Kiyumi. 2003. Human and natural threats to the green turtles, Chelonia mydas, at Ras al Hadd turtle reserve, Arabian Sea, Sultanate of Oman.

Page 142 in J.A. Seminoff, compiler. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503.

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea-level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology 19:482-491.

FPL (Florida Power and Light Company) and Quantum Resources. 2005. Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Plant Annual Environmental Operating Report, 2002. 57 pp.

Frazer, N.B., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985(1):73-79.

Fritts, T.H. 1982. Plastic bags in the intestinal tracts of leatherback marine turtles. Herpetological Review 13(3): 72-73.

Garrison, L.P., and L. Stokes. 2010. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and sea turtles in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2009. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-607:1-57.

Garrison, L.P. and Stokes, L. 2011a. Preliminary estimates of protected species bycatch rates in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery from 1 January to 30 June, 2010. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution 109

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11

1. PRD-2010-10, Revised April 2011, 20p.

Garrison, L.P. and Stokes, L. 2011b. Preliminary estimates of protected species bycatch rates in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery from 1 July to 31 December, 2010. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution #

PRD-2011-03, May 2011, 22p.

George, R.H. 1997. Health Problems and Diseases of Sea Turtles. Pages 363-386 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of climate change on sand and nest temperatures at a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting beach. Global Change Biology 10:2036-2045.

GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2007. Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish FMP and Amendment 14 to the Shrimp FMP to end overfishing and rebuild the red snapper stock. Tampa, Florida: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 490 pp. with appendices.

Goff, G.P. and J.Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water off Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Field Nat. 102(1):1-5.

Graff, D.

Report July 1995, ECOFAC Componente de Sao Tomé e Príncipe, 33 pp.

Greene, C.H. et al. 2008. Artctic Climate Change and its Impacts on the Ecology of the North Atlantic. Ecology 89 (11): S24-S38.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, L.-F. Lopez-Jurado, P. Lopez-Suarez, S.E. Merino, N. Varo-Cruz, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Phenotypically linked dichotomy in sea turtle foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. Current Biology 16: 990-995.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13:923-932.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2009. Climate change and marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154.

Henwood, T.A. and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during commercial shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817.

Heppell, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, S.P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez, and N.B. Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size, 110

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 and management impacts on Kemps ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):767-773.

Hildebrand, H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga lora Lepidochelys kempii (Garman), en la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico (Rept. Chel.). Ciencia Mex.,

22(4):105-112.

Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of Mexico, P. 447-453. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hilterman, M.L. and E. Goverse. 2004. Annual report of the 2003 leatherback turtle research and monitoring project in Suriname. World Wildlife Fund - Guianas Forests and Environmental Conservation Project (WWF-GFECP) Technical Report of the Netherlands Committee for IUCN (NC-IUCN), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 21p.

Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. FAO Fisheries Synopsis 85:1-77.

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). USFWS Biological Report 97(1):1-120.

Hulin, V., and J.M. Guillon. 2007. Female philopatry in a heterogenous environment: ordinary conditions leading to extraordinary ESS sex ratios. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:13 Hulme, P.E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face of global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 617-627.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Valencia, Spain.

Innis, C., C. Merigo, K. Dodge, M. Tlusty, M. Dodge, B. Sharp, A. Myers, A. McIntosh, D.

Wunn, C. Perkins, T.H. Herdt, T. Norton, and M. Lutcavage. 2010. Health Evaluation of Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Northwestern Atlantic During Direct Capture and Fisheries Gear Disentanglement. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 9(2):205-222.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.

James, M.C., R.A. Myers, and C.A. Ottenmeyer. 2005a. Behaviour of leatherback sea turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proc. R. Soc. B, 272: 1547-1555.

James, M.C., C.A. Ottensmeyer, and R.A. Myers. 2005b. Identification of high-use habitat and threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecol.

111

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Lett. 8:195-201.

Kasparek, M., B.J. Godley, and A.C. Broderick. 2001. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Mediterranean: a review of status and conservation needs. Zoology in the Middle East 24:45-74.

Keinath, J.A. 1993. Movements and behavior of wild and head-started sea turtles. Ph.D. Diss.

College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA., 206 pp.

Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and D.E. Barnard. 1994a. Movements of head-started and nesting loggerhead sea turtles. Final Report to Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, US Fish and Wildlife Service. 79 pp.

Keinath, J.A., D.E. Barnard, and J.A. Musick. 1994b. Post nesting movements of a loggerhead sea turtle. Report to USF&WS and Norfolk COE.

Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginias sea turtles: 1979-1986. Virginia J. Sci. 38(4): 329-336.

Kuller, Z. 1999. Current status and conservation of marine turtles on the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Marine Turtle Newsletter 86:3-5.

LaCasella, E.L., P.H. Dutton, and S.P. Epperly. 2005. Genetic stock composition of loggerheads (Caretta caretta) encountered in the Atlantic northeast distant (NED) longline fishery using additional mtDNA analysis. Pages 302-303 in Frick M., A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K.

Williams (compilers). Book of Abstracts of the Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece.

Lageux, C.J., C. Campbell, L.H. Herbst, A.R. Knowlton and B. Weigle. 1998. Demography of marine turtles harvested by Miskitu Indians of Atlantic Nicaragua. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412:90.

Lalli, C.M., and T.R. Parsons. 1997. Biological oceanography: An introduction. 2nd Edition.

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Publications.

Laurent, L., J. Lescure, L. Excoffier, B. Bowen, M. Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L.

Kornaraki, and G. Trabuchet. 1993. Genetic studies of relationships between Mediterranean and Atlantic populations of loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta with a mitochondrial marker.

Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences (Paris), Sciences de la Vie/Life Sciences 316:1233-1239.

Laurent, L., P. Casale, M.N. Bradai, B.J. Godley, G. Gerosa, A.C. Broderick, W. Schroth, B.

Schierwater, A.M. Levy, D. Freggi, E.M. Abd El-Mawla, D.A. Hadoud, H.E. Gomati, M.

Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L. Kornaraki, F. Demirayak, and C. Gautier. 1998.

Molecular resolution of the marine turtle stock composition in fishery bycatch: A case study in the Mediterranean. Molecular Ecology 7:1529-1542.

112

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Lewison, R.L., L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver. 2003. The impact of turtle excluder devices and fisheries closures on loggerhead and Kemps ridley strandings in the western Gulf of Mexico.

Conservation Biology 17(4):1089-1097.

Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.

Ecology Letters 7:221-231.

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 1985(2): 449-456.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. Pages 387-409 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles.

Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Magnuson, J.J., J.A. Bjorndal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W. Owens, C.H. Peterson, P.C.H.

Prichard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation , Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Board on Biology, Commission of Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp.

Maier, P.P., A.L. Segars, M.D. Arendt, J.D. Whitaker, B.W. Stender, L. Parker, R. Vendetti, D.W. Owens, J. Quattro, and S.R. Murphy. 2004. Development of an index of sea turtle abundance based on in-water sampling with trawl gear. Final report to the National Marine Fisheries Service. 86 pp.

Mansfield, K. L. 2006. Sources of mortality, movements, and behavior of sea turtles in Virginia.

Ph.D. dissertation, College of William and Mary. 343 pp.

Mansfield, K.L., V.S. Saba, J.A. Keinath, and J.A. Musick. 2009. Satellite tracking reveals a dichotomy in migration strategies among juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Biology 156:2555-2570.

Marcano, L.A. and J.J. Alio-M. 2000. Incidental capture of sea turtles by the industrial shrimping fleet off northwestern Venezuela. U.S. department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436:107.

Márquez, M.R., A. Villanueva O., and M. Sánchez P. 1982. The population of the Kemps ridley sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico - Lepidochelys kempii. In: K.A. Bjorndal (editor),

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institute Press. p.

159-164.

McClellan, C.M., and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life history. Biology Letters 3:592-594.

113

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 McMahon, C.R., and G.C. Hays. 2006. Thermal niche, large-scale movements and implications of climate change for a critically endangered marine vertebrate. Global Change Biology 12:1330-1338.

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the state of Florida. Florida Marine Research Publication 52:1-51.

Mitchell, G.H., R.D. Kenney, A.M. Farak, and R.J. Campbell. 2003. Evaluation of occurrence of endangered and threatened marine species in naval ship trial areas and transit lanes in the Gulf of Maine and offshore of Georges Bank. NUWC-NPT Technical Memo 02-121A.

March 2003. 113 pp.

Monzón-Argüello, C., A. Marco., C. Rico, C. Carreras, P. Calabuig, and L.F. López-Jurado.

2006. Transatlantic migration of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): magnetic latitudinal influence. Page 106 in Frick M., A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (compilers). Book of Abstracts of the Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece.

Morreale, S.J. 1999. Oceanic migrations of sea turtles. Ph.D. diss. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 144 pp.

Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1992. Habitat use and feeding activity of juvenile Kemps ridleys in inshore waters of the northeastern U.S. M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (Compilers).

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, pp. 75-77.

Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1993. Occurrence, movement, and behavior of the Kemps ridley and other sea turtles in New York waters. Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation Final Report April 1988-March 1993. 70 pp.

Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1994. Occurrence, movement, and behavior of the Kemps ridley and other sea turtles in New York waters. Final report for the NYSDEC in fulfillment of Contract #C001984. 70 pp.

Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology of sea turtles in northeastern U.S. waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-413:1-49.

Morreale, S.J., C.F. Smith, K. Durham, R.A. DiGiovanni, Jr., and A.A. Aguirre. 2005.

Assessing health, status, and trends in northeastern sea turtle populations. Interim report -

Sept. 2002 - Nov. 2004. Gloucester, Massachusetts: National Marine Fisheries Service.

Mrosovsky, N. 1981. Plastic jellyfish. Marine Turtle Newsletter 17:5-6.

Mrosovsky, N., G.D. Ryan, M.C. James. 2009. Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 287-289.

114

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Murdoch, P. S., Baron, J. S. and Miller, T. L. (2000), POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SURFACE-WATER QUALITY IN NORTH AMERICA. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36: 347-366.

Murphy, T.M., and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the southeast region. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service. 73pp.

Murphy, T.M., S.R. Murphy, D.B. Griffin, and C. P. Hope. 2006. Recent occurrence, spatial distribution and temporal variability of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in nearshore waters of South Carolina, USA. Chel. Cons. Biol. 5(2): 216-224.

Murray, K.T. 2004. Bycatch of sea turtles in the Mid-Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) dredge fishery during 2003. NEFSC Reference Document 04-11; 25 pp.

Murray, K.T. 2006. Estimated average annual bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996-2004. NEFSC Reference Document 06-19; 26 pp.

Murray, K.T. 2007. Estimated bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic scallop trawl gear, 2004-2005, and in sea scallop dredge gear, 2005. NEFSC Reference Document 07-04; 30 pp.

Murray, K.T. 2008. Estimated average annual bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996-2004 (2nd edition). NEFSC Reference Document 08-20; 32 pp.

Murray, K.T. 2009a. Characteristics and magnitude of sea turtle bycatch in US mid-Atlantic gillnet gear. Endangered Species Research 8:211-224.

Murray, K.T. 2009b. Proration of estimated bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles in U.S. Mid-Atlantic sink gillnet gear to vessel trip report landed catch, 2002-2006. NEFSC Reference Document 09-19; 7 pp.

Murray, K.T. 2011. Sea turtle bycatch in the U.S. sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) dredge fishery, 2001-2008. Fish Res. 107:137-146.

Musick, J.A., and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles.

Pages 137-164 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

NMFS. 1997. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation on the Atlantic Pelagic Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna, and Shark in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). NMFS Northeast Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on Shrimp Trawling in the Southeastern United States, under the Sea Turtle 115

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Conservation Regulations and as Managed by the Fishery Management Plans for Shrimp in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion. December 2, 2002.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Proposed Regulatory Amendments to the Fisheries Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific. Biological Opinion. February 23, 2004.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Reinitiated Consultation on the Continued Authorization of the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). Biological Opinion. June 1, 2004.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the Proposed Renewal of an Operating License for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Biological Opinion. November 22, 2006.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Summary Report of the Workshop on Interactions Between Sea Turtles and Vertical Lines in Fixed-Gear Fisheries. M.L. Schwartz (ed.), Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, Rhode Island. 54 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2010. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 194 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2011.

Preliminary summer 2010 regional abundance estimate of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in northwestern Atlantic Ocean continental shelf waters. US Dept Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-03; 33 pp.

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerheads and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution PRD-00/01-08; Parts I-III and Appendices I-IV. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFSC-455, 343 pp.

NMFS SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center). 2009. An assessment of loggerhead sea turtles to estimate impacts of mortality reductions on population dynamics. NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-08/09-14. 45 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991.

Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 58 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992.

Recovery plan for leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 pp.

116

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995.

Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 139 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas).

Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 84 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

2007a. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 5 year review: summary and evaluation.

Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

2007b. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 79 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

2007c. Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 50 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

2007d. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 102 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008.

Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Second revision. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 325 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemps Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland 156 pp. + appendices.

NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 259 pp.

Ogren, L.H. Biology and Ecology of Sea Turtles. 1988. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries, Panama City Laboratory. Sept. 7.

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. 2000. Assessment of the Impacts of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station on Kemps ridley (Lepidocheyls kempii), loggerhead (Caretta 117

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 caretta), and Atlantic green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Biological Assessment submitted to NMFS, Gloucester, MA.

Palka, D. 2000. Abundance and distribution of sea turtles estimated from data collected during cetacean surveys. Pages 71-72 in K.A. Bjorndal and A.B. Bolten, eds. Proceedings of a workshop on assessing abundance and trends for in-water sea turtle populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445.

Palmer, M.A. C. Liermann, C.Nilsson, et al. 2008. Climate change and the world's river basins:

anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 81-89.

Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37-42.

Pearce, A.F. 2001. Contrasting population structure of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers. Masters thesis, University of Florida. 71 pp.

Pearce, A.F. and B.W. Bowen. 2001. Final report: Identification of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) stock structure in the southeastern United States and adjacent regions using nuclear DNA markers. Project number T-99-SEC-04. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service, May 7, 2001. 79 pp.

Polovina, J.J., D.R. Kobayashi, D.M. Ellis, M.P. Seki, and G.H. Balazs. 2000. Turtles on the edge: Movement of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) along oceanic fronts in the central North Pacific, 1997-1998. Fish. Oceanogr., 9:71-82.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Endangered species: Kemps ridley turtle. Florida Naturalist, 49:15-19.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in Pacific, Mexico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982:741-747.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny and current status. Pp. 1-28 In: The Biology of Sea Turtles. Lutz, P., and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, New York. 432 pp.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 2002. Global status of sea turtles: An overview. Document INF-001 prepared for the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, First Conference of the Parties (COP1IAC), First part August 6-8, 2002.

Purcell, J.E., Graham, W.M., Dumont, H.J., 2001. Jellyfish Blooms: Ecological and Societal Importance. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol. 155 Rankin-Baransky, K.C. 1997. Origin of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the western North Atlantic as determined by mtDNA analysis. M.S. Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Penn.

118

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Rankin-Baransky, K., C.J. Williams, A.L. Bass, B.W. Bowen, and J.R. Spotila. 2001. Origin of loggerhead turtles stranded in the northeastern United States as determined by mitochondrial DNA analysis. Journal of Herpetology 35(4):638-646.

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.

Rees, A.F., A. Saad, and M. Jony. 2005. Marine turtle nesting survey, Syria 2004: discovery of a major green turtle nesting area. Page 38 in Book of Abstracts of the Second Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles. Antalya, Turkey, 4-7 May 2005.

Revelles, M., C. Carreras, L. Cardona, A. Marco, F. Bentivegna, J.J. Castillo, G. de Martino, J.L.

Mons, M.B. Smith, C. Rico, M. Pascual, and A. Aguilar. 2007. Evidence for an asymmetrical size exchange of loggerhead sea turtles between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 349:261-271.

Richardson A.J., A. Bakun, G.C. Hays, and M.J. Gibbons. 2009. The jellyfish joyride: causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:312-322.

Richardson, T.H. and J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration patterns of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta nesting on Little Cumberland and Cumberland Islands, Georgia. Mar. Res. Publ, 33:39-44.

Robinson, M.M., H.J. Dowsett, and M.A. Chandler. 2008. Pliocene role in assessing future climate impacts. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89(49):501-502.

Ross, J.P. 1979. Green turtle, Chelonia mydas, Background paper, summary of the status of sea turtles. Report to WWF/IUCN. 4pp.

Ross, J.P., and M.A. Barwani. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst.

Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Ruben, H.J, and S.J. Morreale. 1999. Draft Biological Assessment for Sea Turtles in New York and New Jersey Harbor Complex. Unpublished Biological Assessment submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service.

Sarti, L., S.A. Eckert, N. Garcia, and A.R. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the worlds largest nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 74:2-5.

Sarti, L., S. Eckert, P. Dutton, A. Barragán, and N. García. 2000. The current situation of the leatherback population on the Pacific coast of Mexico and central America, abundance and distribution of the nestings: an update. Pages 85-87 in H. Kalb and T. Wibbels, compilers.

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.

119

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.

Sarti Martinez, L., A.R. Barragan, D.G. Munoz, N. Garcia, P. Huerta, and F. Vargas. 2007.

Conservation and biology of the leatherback turtle in the Mexican Pacific. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1):70-78.

Schmid, J.R., and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemps ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(4):532-537.

Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, B.E. Witherington, and A.E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology of marine turtles in Florida Bay: Population structure, distribution, and occurrence of fibropapilloma U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415:265-267.

Schultz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelingen (Leiden),

Number 143: 172 pp.

Sella, I. 1982. Sea turtles in the Eastern Mediterranean and Northern Red Sea. Pages 417-423 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Seminoff, J.A. 2004. Chelonia mydas. In 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Accessed 31 July 2009. http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/4615/summ.

Shamblin, B.M. 2007. Population structure of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting in the southeastern United States inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences and microsatellite loci. Masters thesis, University of Georgia. 59 pp.

Shoop, C.R. 1987. The Sea Turtles. Pages 357-358 in R.H. Backus and D.W. Bourne, eds.

Georges Bank. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

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.

Short, F.T. and H.A. Neckles. 1999. The effects of global climate change on seagrasses. Aquat Bot 63: 169-196.

Snover, M.L., A.A. Hohn, L.B. Crowder, and S.S. Heppell. 2007. Age and growth in Kemps ridley sea turtles: evidence from mark-recapture and skeletochronology. Pages89-106 in P.T. Plotkin, ed. Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore, Maryland:

Johns Hopkins University Press.

Spotila, J.R., M.P. OConnor, and F.V. Paladino. 1997. Thermal Biology. Pp. 297-314 In: The Biology of Sea Turtles. Lutz, P., and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, New York. 432 pp.

120

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 1996.

Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2: 209-222.

Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405(6786):529-530.

Stebenau, E.K. and K.R. Vietti. 2000. Laboratory investigation of the physiological effects of multiple forced submergence in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Final report to the NMFS Galveston Laboratory.

Stewart, K., C. Johnson, and M.H. Godfrey. 2007. The minimum size of leatherbacks at reproductive maturity, with a review of sizes for nesting females from the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Ocean basins. Herp. Journal 17:123-128.

Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011.

Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications, 21(1): 263-273.

Suárez, A. 1999. Preliminary data on sea turtle harvest in the Kai Archipelago, Indonesia.

Abstract, 2nd ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, July 15-17, 1999, Sabah, Malaysia.

Suárez, A., P.H. Dutton, and J. Bakarbessy. 2000. Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting on the North Vogelkop Coast of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Page 260 in H.J. Kalb and T. Wibbels, compilers. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.

Stetzar, E. J. 2002. Population Characterization of Sea Turtles that Seasonally Inhabit the Delaware Estuary. Master of Science thesis, Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware.

136pp.

Terwilliger, K. and J.A. Musick. 1995. Virginia Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Conservation Team. Management plan for sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia. Final Report to NOAA, 56 pp.

Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the Western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409: 1-96.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2000. Assessment update for the Kemps ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444:1-115.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555, 116 pp.

121

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575:1-131.

USFWS. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 120 pp.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1992.

Recovery plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempü). Original. St.

Petersburg, Florida: National Marine Fisheries Service. 40 pp.

Van Houtan, K.S. and J.M. Halley. 2011. Long-Term Climate Forcing in Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019043.

Wallace, B.P., S.S. Heppell, R.L. Lewison, S. Kelez, and L.B. Crowder. 2008. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on loggerhead turtles worldwide inferred from reproductive value analyses.

J Appl Ecol 45:1076-1085.

Warden, M. and K. Bisack 2010. Analysis of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Bycatch in Mid-Atlantic Bottom Trawl Fisheries to Support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Bottom Trawl Fisheries. NOAA NMFS NEFSC Ref. Doc.010. 13 pp.

Warden, M.L. 2011a. Modeling loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions with US Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear for fish and scallops, 2005-2008. Biological Conservation 144:2202-2212.

Warden, M.L. 2011b. Proration of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in U.S.

Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawls for fish and scallops, 2005-2008, by managed species landed. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Centter Reference Document 11-04. 8 p.

Wibbels, T. 2003. Critical approaches to sex determination in sea turtle biology and conservation. In: P. Lutz et al. (editors), Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol 2. CRC Press Boca Raton. p. 103-134.

Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L. and J. Waldman. 2005. Range-wide population structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28:406-21.

Witherington, B., P. Kubilis, B. Brost, and A. Meylan. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19:30-54.

Witt, M.J., A.C. Broderick, D.J. Johns, C. Martin, R. Penrose, M.S. Hoogmoed, and B.J. Godley.

2007. Prey landscapes help identify potential foraging habitats for leatherback turtles in the 122

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 NE Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 337:231-243.

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fisheries Bulletin. 97:200-211.

Witzell, W.N. In preparation. Pelagic loggerhead turtles revisited: Additions to the life history model? 6 pp.

Witzell, W.N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): suggested changes to the life history model. Herpetological Review 33(4):266-269.

Witzell, W.N., A.L. Bass, M.J. Bresette, D.A. Singewald, and J.C. Gorham. 2002. Origin of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) at Hutchinson Island, Florida: evidence from mtDNA markers. Fish. Bull. 100:624-631.

Wynne, K., and M. Schwartz. 1999. Guide to marine mammals and turtles of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Narragansett: Rhode Island Sea Grant.

Yeung, C., S. Epperly, and C. A. Brown. 2000. Preliminary revised estimates of marine mammal and marine turtle bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet, 1992-1999 National Marine Fisheries Service Miami Laboratory PRD Contribution Number 99/00-13, SEFSC Miami, Fla.

Zug, G.R., and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea: a skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 2(2):244-249.

123

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 FIGURE 1 Location of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 124

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Figure II Aerial Photo of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 125

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 APPENDIX II Handling and Resuscitation Procedures Sea Turtles Found at Salem Handling:

Do not assume that an inactive turtle is dead. The onset of rigor mortis and/or rotting flesh are often the only definite indications that a turtle is dead. Releasing a comatose turtle into any amount of water will drown it, and a turtle may recover once its lungs have had a chance to drain. There are three methods that may elicit a reflex response from an inactive animal:

Nose reflex. Press the soft tissue around the nose which may cause a retraction of the head or neck region or an eye reflex response.

Cloaca or tail reflex. Stimulate the tail with a light touch. This may cause a retraction or side movement of the tail.

Eye reflex. Lightly touch the upper eyelid. This may cause an inward pulling of the eyes, flinching or blinking response.

General handling guidelines:

Keep clear of the head.

Adult male sea turtles of all species other than leatherbacks have claws on their foreflippers.

Keep clear of slashing foreflippers.

Pick up sea turtles by the front and back of the top shell (carapace). Do not pick up sea turtles by flippers, the head or the tail.

If the sea turtle is actively moving, it should be retained at Salem until transported by stranding/rehabilitation personnel to the nearest designated stranding/rehabilitation facility. The rehabilitation facility should eventually release the animal in the appropriate location and habitat for the species and size class of the turtle. Turtles should not be released where there is a risk of re-impingement at Salem.

Sea Turtle Resuscitation Regulations: (50 CFR 223.206(d)(1))

If a turtle appears to be comatose (unconscious), contact the designated stranding/rehabilitation personnel immediately. Once the rehabilitation personnel has been informed of the incident, attempts should be made to revive the turtle at once. Sea turtles have been known to revive up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after resuscitation procedures have been followed.

Place the animal on its bottom shell (plastron) so that the turtle is right side up and elevate the hindquarters at least 6 inches for a period of 4 up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The degree of elevation depends on the size of the turtle; greater elevations are required for larger turtles.

Periodically, rock the turtle gently left to right and right to left by holding the outer edge of the shell (carapace) and lifting one side about 3 inches then alternate to the other side.

Periodically, gently conduct one of the above reflex tests to see if there is a response.

Keep the turtle in a safe, contained place, shaded, and moist (e.g., with a water-soaked towel over the eyes, carapace, and flippers) and observe it for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

If the turtle begins actively moving, retain the turtle until the appropriate rehabilitation personnel can evaluate the animal. The rehabilitation facility should eventually release the animal in a manner that minimizes the chances of re-impingement and potential harm to the animal (i.e.,

from cold stunning).

Turtles that fail to move within several hours (up to 24) should be transported to a suitable facility for necropsy (if the condition of the sea turtle allows).

126

APPENDIX II, continued (Handling and Resuscitation Procedures)

Stranding/rehabilitation contact in New Jersey:

Bob Schoelkopf, Marine Mammal Stranding Center P.O. Box 773 Brigantine, NJ (609-266-0538)

Special Instructions for Cold-Stunned Turtles:

Comatose turtles found in the fall or winter (in waters less than 10°C) may be "cold-stunned". If a turtle appears to be cold-stunned, the following procedures should be conducted:

Contact the designated stranding/rehabilitation personnel immediately and arrange for them to pick up the animal.

Until the rehabilitation facility can respond, keep the turtle in a sheltered place, where the ambient temperature is cool and will not cause a rapid increase in core body temperature.

127

APPENDIX III - Part 1 (Sea Turtle)

Incident Report Sea Turtle Take - Salem Photographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all turtles and sturgeon (alive and dead) found in association with Salem. Please submit all turtle necropsy results (including sex and stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt.

Observer's full name:_______________________________________________________

Reporters full name:_______________________________________________________

Species Identification (Key attached):__________________________________________

Site of Impingement (Unit 1 or 2, CWS or DWS, Bay #, etc.):_________________________________

Date animal observed:________________ Time animal observed: ________________________

Date animal collected:________________ Time animal collected:_________________________

Date rehab facility contacted: ________________ Time rehab facility contacted: _____________

Date animal picked up: _____________________ Time animal picked up: __________________

Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather):

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date and time of last inspection of screen:_____________________________________

Water temperature (°C) at site and time of observation:_________________________

Number of pumps operating at time of observation:____________________________________

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation:________

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> previous to observation:___________________________________________________________________

Sea Turtle Information: (please designate cm/m or inches)

Fate of animal (circle one): dead alive Condition of animal (include comments on injuries, whether the turtle is healthy or emaciated, general behavior while at Salem):_______________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________(please complete attached diagram)

Carapace length - Curved:_______________Straight:________________

Carapace width - Curved:________________Straight:________________

Existing tags?: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers. Tag # _____________________

Photograph attached: YES / NO (please label species, date, location of impingement on back of photograph) 128

APPENDIX III, continued (Incident Report of Sea Turtle Take)

Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and briefly describe below.

Description of animal:

All information should be sent to the following address:

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region Protected Resources Division Attention: Section 7 Coordinator 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Phone: (978) 281-9328 FAX: (978) 281-9394 129

Appendix III, Part 2 (Sturgeon)

Photographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all turtles and sturgeon (alive and dead) found in association with Salem. Please submit all turtle necropsy results (including sex and stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt.

Observer's full name:_______________________________________________________

Reporters full name:_______________________________________________________

Species Identification (Key attached):__________________________________________

Site of Impingement (Unit 1 or 2, CWS or DWS, Bay #, etc.):_________________________________

Date animal observed:________________ Time animal observed: ________________________

Date animal collected:________________ Time animal collected:_________________________

Date rehab facility contacted: ________________ Time rehab facility contacted: _____________

Date animal picked up: _____________________ Time animal picked up: __________________

Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather):

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Date and time of last inspection of screen:_____________________________________

Water temperature (°C) at site and time of observation:_________________________

Number of pumps operating at time of observation:____________________________________

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation:________

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> previous to observation:___________________________________________________________________

Sturgeon Information:

Species _________________________________

Fork length (or total length) _____________________ Weight ______________________

Condition of specimen/description of animal

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Fish Decomposed: NO SLIGHTLY MODERATELY SEVERELY Fish tagged: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers. Tag # ________________

Photograph attached: YES / NO (please label species, date, geographic site and vessel name on back of photograph) 130

Appendix III, Part 2 (Sturgeon) continued Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and briefly describe below Description of fish condition:

131

132 APPENDIX IV Identification Key for Sea Turtles and Sturgeon Found in Northeast U.S. Waters SEA TURTLES Dc Leatherback (Dermocheyls coriacea)

Found in open water throughout the Northeast from spring through fall. Leathery shell with 5-7 ridges along the back. Largest sea turtle (4-6 feet). Dark green to black; may have white spots on flippers and underside.

Cc Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

Bony shell, reddish-brown in color. Mid-sized sea turtle (2-4 feet).

Commonly seen from Cape Cod to Hatteras from spring through fall, especially in southern portion of range. Head large in relation to body.

Lk Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi)

Most often found in Bays and coastal waters from Cape Cod to Hatteras from summer through fall. Offshore occurrence undetermined. Bony shell, olive green to grey in color. Smallest sea turtle in Northeast (9-24 inches). Width equal to or greater than length.

133

APPENDIX IV, continued (Identification Key)

Cm Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)

Uncommon in the Northeast. Occur in Bays and coastal waters from Cape Cod to Hatteras in summer. Bony shell, variably colored; usually dark brown with lighter stripes and spots. Small to mid-sized sea turtle (1-3 feet). Head small in comparison to body size.

Ei Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata)

Rarely seen in Northeast. Elongate bony shell with overlapping scales.

Color variable, usually dark brown with yellow streaks and spots (tortoise-shell). Small to mid-sized sea turtle (1-3 feet). Head relatively small, neck long.

134

Appendix IV continued Sturgeon Identification Distinguishing Characteristics of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Characteristic Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum Maximum length > 9 feet/ 274 cm 4 feet/ 122 cm Mouth Football shaped and small. Width inside lips < 55% of Wide and oval in shape. Width inside lips > 62% of bony interorbital width bony interorbital width

• Pre-anal plates Paired plates posterior to the rectum & anterior to the 1-3 pre-anal plates almost always occurring as median anal fin. structures (occurring singly)

Plates along the Rhombic, bony plates found along the lateral base of No plates along the base of anal fin anal fin the anal fin (see diagram below)

Habitat/Range Anadromous; spawn in freshwater but primarily lead a Freshwater amphidromous; found primarily in fresh marine existence water but does make some coastal migrations

• From Vecsei and Peterson, 2004 135

APPENDIX V Procedure for obtaining fin clips from sturgeon for genetic analysis Obtaining Sample

1. Wash hands and use disposable gloves. Ensure that any knife, scalpel or scissors used for sampling has been thoroughly cleaned and wiped with alcohol to minimize the risk of contamination.

2. For any sturgeon, after the specimen has been measured and photographed, take a one-cm square clip from the pelvic fin.

3. Each fin clip should be placed into a vial of 95% non-denatured ethanol and the vial should be labeled with the species name, date, name of project and the fork length and total length of the fish along with a note identifying the fish to the appropriate observer report. All vials should be sealed with a lid and further secured with tape Please use permanent marker and cover any markings with tape to minimize the chance of smearing or erasure.

Storage of Sample

1. If possible, place the vial on ice for the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. If ice is not available, please refrigerate the vial. Send as soon as possible as instructed below.

Sending of Sample

1. Vials should be placed into Ziploc or similar resealable plastic bags. Vials should be then wrapped in bubble wrap or newspaper (to prevent breakage) and sent to:

Julie Carter NOAA/NOS - Marine Forensics 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, SC 29412-9110 Phone: 843-762-8547

a. Prior to sending the sample, contact Russ Bohl at NMFS Northeast Regional Office (978-282-8493) to report that a sample is being sent and to discuss proper shipping procedures.

136

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Andrew Imboden, Chief Environmental Review Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Program United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Dear Mr. Imboden,

Enclosed is NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Biological Opinion (Opinion) prepared pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, on the impacts on endangered and threatened species of the continued operation of the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) through the duration of the extended Operating Licenses. Licenses for these facilities are issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This Opinion is based upon our independent review of information submitted by the NRC, available information on past takes of sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon at the Salem facility and available scientific information. In this Opinion, we conclude that the continued operation of the Hope Creek facility is not likely to adversely affect shortnose sturgeon or Kemps ridley, green or loggerhead sea turtles. We also conclude that the continued operation of the Salem facility may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles or shortnose sturgeon and is not likely to adversely affect green or Kemps ridley sea turtles. With the issuance of this Opinion, NMFS withdraws the Opinion issued to NRC on May 14, 1993 and amended by letter dated January 21, 1999.

The Incidental Take Statement (ITS), pursuant to Section 7 (b)(4) of the ESA, exempts the take of loggerhead sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon as follows:

o 2012-April 2036: Both Unit 1 and Unit 2 operational - a total of 15 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) and a total of 10 loggerheads (no more than 7 dead) o May 2036-August 2040: only Unit 2 operational - a total of 2 shortnose sturgeon (dead or alive) and a total of 1 loggerhead (dead or alive).

Consistent with previous Opinions on the operations of Salem, the ITS specifies reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize and monitor take of listed species, including requiring the transfer of all live sea turtles to a NMFS approved rehabilitation facility. The measures of 1

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 the ITS are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by NRC for the incidental take exemption to apply.

This Opinion concludes formal consultation for the continued operation of the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations. Reinitiation of this consultation is required if: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the ITS is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of these actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) project activities are subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not considered in this Biological Opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.

Technical Assistance for Proposed Species Once a species is proposed for listing, the conference provisions of the ESA may apply. As stated at 50 CFR 402.10, Federal agencies are required to confer with NMFS on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. The conference is designed to assist the Federal agency and any applicant in identifying and resolving potential conflicts at an early stage in the planning process.

On October 6, 2010, we published two rules proposing to list four distinct population segments (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as endangered (i.e., New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic) and one DPS as threatened (Gulf of Maine DPS) under the ESA (75 FR 61872; 75 FR 61904). Atlantic sturgeon are well distributed in marine and estuarine waters along the US Atlantic coast and are known to occur in the Delaware River. Under the provisions of 50 CFR §402.10, federal agencies shall confer with NMFS on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Below, we consider the effects of water withdrawal and the discharge of heated effluent associated with the continued operation of the Salem and Hope Creek facilities on Atlantic sturgeon and their prey.

Entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon is extremely unlikely. Adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon are too large to be vulnerable to entrainment. Because the egg and larval life stages of Atlantic sturgeon (the life stages susceptible to entrainment) are not found near the intake for Salem and Hope Creek, the probability of their entrainment at these intakes is extremely low.

Studies to evaluate entrainment at Salem and HCGS have been conducted since 1978. NRC reports that based on examination by NRC staff of entrainment data provided by PSEG, there is no evidence that the eggs or larvae of Atlantic sturgeon are entrained at Salem or HCGS. No Atlantic sturgeon have been identified in annual entrainment monitoring during the 1978 - 2008 period. The lack of observed entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon during sampling at these facilities is expected given the known information on the location of Atlantic sturgeon spawning and the distribution of eggs and larvae in the river.

Based on the life history of the Atlantic sturgeon, the location of spawning grounds within the Delaware River, and the patterns of movement for eggs and larvae, it is extremely unlikely that any Atlantic sturgeon early life stages would be entrained at the Salem or Hope Creek intakes.

2

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 This conclusion is supported by the lack of any sturgeon eggs or larvae documented during entrainment monitoring at Salem and Hope Creek. NMFS does not anticipate any entrainment of Atlantic sturgeon eggs or larvae over the period of the extended operating license. All other life stages of Atlantic sturgeon are too big to pass through the screen mesh and could not be entrained at the facility.

We have reviewed the available information on impingement of Atlantic sturgeon at Salem and Hope Creek. Hope Creek has a closed cycle cooling system and withdraws substantially less water than Salem. No sturgeon of any species have ever been observed to be impinged at this facility. As no changes to Hope Creek are proposed that would increase the potential for impingement it is likely that no Atlantic sturgeon would be impinged at Hope Creek over the duration of its operation (i.e., through 2046).

Based on information provided by NRC and PSEG, only one Atlantic sturgeon has been recorded as impinged at Salem. The Salem facility has a rigorous inspection and cleaning system at the Unit 1 and Unit 2 intakes and it is reasonable to assume that any Atlantic sturgeon impinged at this facility would be observed and collected. The one impinged Atlantic sturgeon was observed at the intakes in March 2011 and was dead when removed from the water. The fish was subsequently transported to our Northeast Regional Office. The fish had no obvious signs of trauma but was bleeding from the vent when removed from the water. The intake velocity at the Salem intakes is approximately 0.9 feet per second, well below the velocity at which a healthy sturgeon of this size (25 inch length) would be readily able to escape. As such, we have determined that the fish likely died elsewhere and was dead when it became impinged.

Given that this is the first and only Atlantic sturgeon removed from the intakes since 1978, it is unlikely that more than 1 additional Atlantic sturgeon would be impinged at the facility over the remaining 29 years that Salem will operate. It is likely that this fish would be dead prior to impingement. Based on the best available information, including a review of past impingement records, we have determined that the continued operation of Salem and Hope Creek is not likely to result in the injury or mortality of any Atlantic sturgeon.

Similar to the analysis for shortnose sturgeon presented in the Opinion, any loss of potential Atlantic sturgeon forage items (largely benthic invertebrates) due to impingement, entrainment or exposure to heated effluent, would be insignificant and discountable. Further, as Atlantic sturgeon have similar thermal tolerances to shortnose sturgeon, and NMFS has determined that the effect of the discharge of heated effluent on shortnose sturgeon will be insignificant and discountable, effects to Atlantic sturgeon are also expected to be insignificant and discountable.

As the continued operation of Salem and Hope Creek is not likely to result in the injury or mortality of any Atlantic sturgeon due to impingement or entrainment and all other effects of the continued operation of these facilities are likely to be insignificant and discountable, the continued operations are not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. Therefore, it is not reasonable to anticipate that this action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. As noted above, conference is only required when an action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species. Thus, conference is not required for this proposed action.

3

NMFS DRAFT 12-08-11 Should you have any questions regarding this Biological Opinion or any consultation or conference requirements, please contact Julie Crocker of my staff at (978)282-8480. NMFS appreciates your assistance with the protection of threatened and endangered sea turtles and sturgeon. I look forward to continued cooperation with NRC during future Section 7 consultations.

Sincerely, DRAFT Patricia A. Kurkul Regional Administrator cc: D. Logan, NRC J. Pantazes, PSEG Williams, GCNE File code: Section 7 NRC - Salem and Hope Creek 2011 PCTS: F/NER/2010/06581 4