16

development of a formal proposal. (5) The principal investigator and Program
Manager are responsible for negotiating the research. When ESA Section 7 consult-
ation information requirements are addressed, the SER retains lead responsibility in
determining whether the proposed research satisfies ESA needs. The Program
Manager must negotiate the proposal with the funding agency, and SER must be
involved in this process to ensure that the final proposal satisfies ESA requirements.

Through the use of electronic transfer, this exchange can be done quickly anda proposal
can be developed within a few days, Thus, the Program Manager is the focal point for
all research program needs and remains the lead in determining what research can be
done to address specific questions. The Regional Office continues to identify and
communicate information needs relative to Section 7 and the management of marine
turtles. The current Habitat Working Group is the logical vehicle to provide the
Manager with review of existing and proposed research.

Both short term and long term research requirements are addressed in this plan. In
general, many short term questions deal with Section 7 issues and the immediate
removal of an impact to individual turtles. ESA consultations underscore the necessity
to known what species, how many, where, and when turtles may occur relative to a real
time risk. However, because turtles are migratory and commonly shift distributions
depending on the availability of resources, research that monitors population move-
ments and abundance must be extended over the long term.

One mechanism to ensure long term research commitments is through the estab-
lishment of Section 6 cooperative agreements with states. At this time, only one such
agreement, with South Carolina, is in place and two (Georgia and Florida) are pending.
We support the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS headquarters, in realizing
Section 6 Cooperative Agreements with as many states as possible and coordinating
funding with the FWS.

Utilizing existing sampling programs to obtain information on marine turtles can also
provide data over the long term. For example, adding a question about the presence
and species of turtles to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey has been
done successfully in North Carolina, and can easily be expanded throughout the range
of the program. This information provides supportive evidence on the distribution of
turtles where recreational fishing occurs. Other NOAA agencies including NOS,
NESDIS, and OAR incorporate sampling programs on oceanographic features which
may be important dispersal mechanisms for turtles or their resources. The SEFC/Bay
St. Louis laboratory, which has remote sensing and oceanographic expertise, should
coordinate with other NOAA offices on obtaining, summarizing and interpreting these
data. The NOAA Marine Sanctuary Program and Estuarine Programs Office may
provide opportunities to obtain information on marine turtles in specific locations.
Observer programs designed to obtain fisheries statistics should, if possible, allow for
the observation of marine turtles and mammals.


10

Offshore

Impacts

This area includes a wide diversity of habitat types. All species of sea turtles occur in
the offshore waters of the U.S. during specific phases of their life histories. Many of
the same risks to turtles in inshore waters apply to turtles in offshore waters. Again
impacts can be direct or indirect.

Activities in the offshore environment that can directly impact turtles are:

a, incidental take in fisheries including longlines, shrimp trawling, finfish trawling, gill
nets, hook and line

b. oil related activities (MMS) include all phases of exploration, development, produc-
tion, and abandonment and removal; and associated vessel traffic and oil transport

c, pollution including entanglement in ghost fishing gear, chronic effects of ingestion,
and mechanical impacts

Activities that can indirectly impact turtles are:

a. oil exploration and platform placement and removal
b. pollution

c. accumulation of debris and toxins

Priority Areas

The Kemp’s ridley is found within nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic.
Human activities and the risks placed on turtles in inshore waters include oil and gas
development (both COE and MMS); point source pollution (EPA) and the effects of
the accumulation of debris; channel dredging and disposal of dredged materials; vessel
traffic; and fishing activities particularly shrimp trawling. The potential impacts to the
Kemp’s ridley within nearshore waters are great and addressing these impacts is the
highest priority within offshore waters.

The extent and intent of human use of deeper offshore waters places all life history
stages of leatherback turtle at risk. The two immediate concerns include the exploration
and possible development for minerals and increased fishing effort, especially longlin-
ing both in deeper Gulf of Mexico waters. As MMS allows for the exploration and
production of oil and other minerals in deeper waters, the impact of the creation or


20

Acknowledgements

This plan is the result of the perserverance of the authors and Dr. Walter Nelson,
Director of the Mississippi Laboratories. An earlier draft was distributed and construc-
tive suggestions made by Drs. Walter R. Nelson; Bradford Brown, Acting Science
Director Southeast Fisheries Center; Edward Klima, Director of the Galveston
Laboratory; Ford Cross, Director of the Beaufort Laboratory; John Merriner, Chief,
Fisheries Division, Beaufort Laboratory; and Warren Stuntz, Pascagoula Laboratory.
We gratefully appreciate their time and effort spent in reviewing this document.


Introduction

The goal of the Endangered Species Program is to conserve endangered and threatened
species and their critical habitats by taking appropriate actions to recover listed species
to the point that measures provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (1973 and
amendments, herein noted as ESA) are no longer necessary. Within the southeast,
marine turtles remain the focus of endangered species research. Of the five marine
turtle species that occur in southeast U.S. waters, the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys
kempi), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and
Florida breeding populations of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) are listed as endangered
under the provisions of the ESA. The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and green
turtle, outside Florida, are listed as threatened under the ESA. All five species are fully
protected under the ESA. Under a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), NMFS is the lead agency for the protection of turtles in
the water, and FWS has jurisdiction over turtles on land. Although we recognize that
many critical nesting habitat issues must be addressed to effectively recover listed
species, our program plan deals only with turtles in the water. Our research efforts,
however, will be closely coordinated with FWS to ensure that both of our agencies are
taking necessary actions to conserve the species.

To meet our program goals, prudent management measures must be developed and
implemented. The success of these measures will rely on accurate information on the
status of turtle stocks and the identification of factors preventing recovery. We have
determined that the most appropriate approach to obtain this information is through
characterization of turtle habitat. This approach is considered ideal for defining
research needs for highly migratory species that utilize different habitats during
different life history stages. This approach is consistent with that agreed on at the
Workshop on Marine Mammals and Turtles in the Gulf of Mexico (Minerals Manage-
ment Workshop, New Orleans, La. Aug. 1989, Draft Proceedings). Most importantly,
this approach allows for the identification of potential interactions between turtles and
human activities that result in both direct and indirect impacts on turtles, their habitats
and dispersal mechanisms.

The primary research objective of our plan is to determine the temporal and spatial
distributions of species and to identify factors that control these distributions over both
the short and long term. We must first characterize habitat, then determine distribu-
tions within turtle habitat. Thus, we must be able to evaluate trends in distributions
and abundance stratified by time, space, species and size/age/sex class. It is our intent
that this document be used by the Program Manager for guidance to guarantee and to
evaluate progress toward the program goal. Much of the proposed research must be
done through the cooperative efforts of industry and other agencies, to the benefit of
marine turtles. Without this information, we cannot effectively take management
actions to recover listed species, nor can we adequately identify and quantify the sources
and consequences of man-induced mortalities.


7

Finally, we must continue to inform turtle researchers outside the SEFC of our research
plans and ongoing research. They, likewise, should periodically advise NMFS of their
activities to help eliminate unnecessary redundancy inresearch efforts. Such coordina-
tion with nongovernment entities is of particular importance in attaining our mutual
objectives of species recovery.

Summary of Recommendations

Priority 1. Kemp’s ridley in inshore waters

Areas in Priority Order

1. Texas to Mississippi Sound

2. Pamlico-Albemarle-Core Sound Complex

3. Inshore Atlantic waters outside North Carolina

4. Eastern Gulf of Mexico particularly Cedar Key and Florida Bay
Research Approach

1. Assemble all available data on distributions

2. Utilize opportunistic platforms to develop supportive data base
3. Characterize known habitat

4. Implement or continue sampling turtle habitat to define distributions and
abundance .

5. Implement radio/sonic tagging to determine short range/term movements
6. Implement satellite tagging to determine long range/term movements
Priority 2. Kemp’s ridleys in offshore waters
Areas in Priority Order
1, Nearshore waters in Gulf of Mexico

2. Nearshore waters in Atlantic


19

4. Radio/sonic and satellite tagging to determine movements and relative importance
of habitats

Priority 5. Loggerhead turtles in inshore waters

Data on this species will be collected during sampling for Kemp’s rid leys and green
turtles

Priority 6. Hawksbill turtles in offshore waters
Areas in Priority Order
1. Live bottom and coral reef sites within U.S. waters
Research Approach
1. Utilize sampling within coral reef areas including marine parks and sanctuaries
Priority 7. Offshore waters for pelagic stage
Areas in Priority Order
1. Gulf of Mexico
2. Atlantic waters

Research Approach

1. Utilize existing real time satellite imagery analysis capabilities to target where are
zones of water convergence where turtles may occur

2. Develop and evaluate effects of sonic/radio/satellite tags for small turtles


14

What is the relative importance of inshore habitat to turtles over the short and long
term?

a. Monitoring surveys must be conducted to answer this question, recognizing that
turtles are migratory and habitats are dynamics systems. Vessel and aerial surveys in
addition to radio and sonic tracking will be appropriate to examine short range and
short term movements. Habitat type will dictate the methodology applied.

b. A second means of obtaining information on habitat utilization by turtles is the
placement of observers on platforms of opportunity or through the cooperative efforts
of industry to document turtle distributions, abundance, and relative movements.

c. Long range and long term movements can only be discerned from synoptic surveys
and the application of satellite tags. Remote sensing requires signigicant sample sizes
initially stratified seasonally, by species, size class, and gender.

Offshore

Research on the offshore waters is identified as second in priority. We know that
offshore waters are important to the leatherback turtle and are less certain of the
distributions of Kemp’s, green, loggerhead, and hawksbill turtles. We do know that
every species goes through a pelagic stage for one or several years, but the distributions
of large juvenile, sub-adult, and adult turtles are not known. This lack of information
demonstrates a need to initiate research to define distributions in these waters and
measure abundance on a regional basis.

What are the offshore habitat requirements of Kemp’s ridleys?

a. The Kemp’s ridley is given the highest priority and the greatest effort initially must
be allocated to nearshore waters . Current survey techniques are not useful in
providing regional information on this species in nearshore waters.. The application
of vessel and aerial surveys with radio or satellite tagging must be investigated to
develop an appropriate census method. This area is large and this species is rare,
therefore filling this gap will be expensive and well beyond the current level of funding.

What are the offshore habitat requirements of the leatherback turtle?

a. Current and potential development of the Gulf of Mexico offshore waters by oil
companies provides a basis for establishing the Gulf of Mexico as the highest priority
area. Existing data bases must first be collated and summarized to identify areas of
known importance to turtles in offshore waters. It is imperative that offshore marine
mammal surveys include sighting effort dedicated to turtles. It is unlikely that vessel
surveys alone will provide sufficient information on distributions. However, tagging,
both radio and satellite will be useful if done on a large scale basis to monitor
movements throughout this relatively large area.


Because this species is found primarily outside U.S. waters, obtaining information on
the distribution, abundance, and habitat requirements is identified as the lowest
priority. However, as available habitat is altered and lost, habitat within U.S. waters
may increase in importance. Priorities within this plan may be altered at any time to
accomodate changes in habitat quality and quantity and available information on
habitat requirements.

Habitat Research Priorities

Research recommended to fill information gaps are identified in the priority order
previously identified. For both the inshore and offshore waters of the southeast, the
known and potential impacts to turtles are identified first but not in the order of
releative importance. The priority areas are identified next and finally the recom-
mended research approach is defined.

Inshore Waters
Impacts

Inshore waters are utilized more extensively than offshore waters by man resulting in
intense competition for common resources with marine species or alteration of habitat.
The impacts of human activities are numerous and direct and or indirect. We define
direct impacts as those that directly impact turtles, at the individual and population
level; indirect impacts are those that effect available and potential turtle habitat
through alteration or loss.

Activities that can directly impact turtles are:

a. oil related activities regulated by the COE including both platform placement and
removal; and channelization for access to platforms.

b. maintenance of navigable waterways (COE)

c. incidental catch in fisheries including shrimp trawling, finfish trawling, gill nets,
pound nets, dredges, seines, hook and line, clam kicking, traps and pots, channel nets,
butterfly nets, scallop trawls, and trot-lines

d. entrainment in power plants

e. bombing by the military

Activities in the inshore habitat that can indirectly impact turtles are:


IPF. Section 7 obligations directly relate to variables 2 and 3, and indirectly to variable
1. Risks to turtles may be instantaneous and lethal, as in the case of explosive platform
removals, or sublethal and chronic, as in the case of oil spills, long term pollution, or
habitat destruction/alteration.

Recent MMS post-lease consultations have focused on the potential impact of using
high-velocity explosives to shear platform support structures. This risk to turtles can
change depending on the occurrence of turtles relative to platforms. The question of
creating habitat (i.e. platforms as resource rich areas for turtles) and then removing
this habitat needs to be addressed relative to influencing present and future turtle
distributions. Ideally, turtle distributions could be compared to distributions in the
absence of existing platforms. Because this is not possible, one surrogate for this
control is comparing turtle distributions in areas of high platform density with similar
areas of no or low platform density.

The COE is responsible for maintaining the nation’s navigable waters. In the southeast
there are 7 district offices with responsibilities from Texas to North Carolina. The COE
programs include those considered Civil Works (beach nourishment, wetland restora-
tion, flood control and maintaining and developing shipping channels and water
supplies). Channel dredging that impacts transportation of military vessels is coor-
dinated with the U.S. Navy. Another program incorporates regulatory activities and
includes issuing permits to complete civil works projects. Those activities that pose
risks to marine turtles include maintenance dredging of the intracoastal waterway and
about 45 ship channels in both the Gulf and Atlantic; disposal of dredged materials;
beach nourishment; and marina construction. The COE is the counterpart of MMS for
mineral activities in state territorial waters. Thus, those risks identified for MMS EEZ
mineral development activities apply to the COE in inshore and offshore state waters.

In the past, MMS, COE and the U.S. Navy have funded channel surveys and surveys of
offshore platforms to provide information needed to meet their ESA obligations. Such
surveys have direct application to our programmatic needs and provide an opportunity
to incorporate these efforts in an overall regional marine turtle plan. Additionally,
cooperative research ventures are extremely useful in obtaining information which
meets ESA obligations of federal agencies while allowing NMFS to obtain other
information which may be of importance in meeting our specific programmatic objec-
tives. MMS, in particular, has expressed an interest in continued funding of protected
species research in the Gulf of Mexico to satisfy their ESA responsibilities.


Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies

Animportant part of our research plan involves cooperative research with other federal
agencies. Section 7 of the ESA specifically addresses Interagency Cooperation, and
outlines in detail the obligations of federal agencies with respect to endangered and
threatened species. Excerpts from this Section follow:

"All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed
pursuant to section 4 of this Act." Section 7(a)(2) further states that "Each Federal
agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined
by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical."

In the southeast, several federal activities have been identified as potential sources of
mortality to marine turtles. Most noteworthy are channel dredging operations by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Navy, Minerals Management
Service (MMS) and COE oil and gas activities, and incidental take by fisheries under
jurisdiction of NMFS. In each instance, the responsible federal agency has an obliga-
tion under the ESA to provide information necessary to determine whether their
activities may jeopardize the recovery of listed species. To provide the required
information, federal agencies must first determine what species occur, when they occur,
where they occur, how many individuals may be present, and what impacts might be
expected as a result of their activities. To facilitate communication with these agencies,
Section 7 issues as related to them are embodied and highlighted in this plan.

The Minerals Management Service is responsible in the marine environment for the
timely development of minerals within the EEZ. To fulfill their Section 7 obligations,
MMS completes 1) a lease sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 2) conducts
pre- and post-lease consultations. Lease sale EIS issues include all phases of preparing
and submitting the EIS including the consideration of potential impacts from the sale
and subsequent exploratory drilling. Statements are prepared by the Leasing and
Environmental Studies Branches of the MMS Regional Offices. Environmental im-
pact with respect to sea turtles is considered by Impact Producing Factors (IPFs). IPF’s
are: 1) offshore-related oil spills 2) collision with support vessels 3) explosive demoli-
tion of platforms 4) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil/gas pipeline construction on
beaches and 5) entanglement/ingestion of offshore oil/gas related debris and trash.
Based on available information, MMS assigns a risk factor to each IPF. These risk
factors can be organized into 3 variables: 1), the risk of the IPF occurrence; 2) the risk
of the IPF encountering a sea turtle, and 3) the risk to the turtle after encountering an


15

b. It appears that leatherback non-breeding distributions can be seasonally predicted
and are temperature and resource (jellyfish) dependent. Satellite tagging appears to
be the most cost effective method of learning more about the distribution and long
range movements of this highly migratory species. An examination of the distributions
and dispersal mechanisms of jellyfish could also be important to identify potential areas
of leatherback aggregation.

What are the offshore habitat requirements of the loggerhead turtle?

a. The loggerhead turtle is found throughout offshore waters. It is the most con-
sipicuous and abundant species in the U.S. It’s relative abundance translates into being
placed at risk from human activities in offshore waters. It is given third priority.
However, it is likely that information on this species will be obtained from research
that focuses on the Kemp’s ridley and leatherback turtles.

What are the offshore habitat requirements of the hawksbill turtle?

a. The offshore distributions of the hawksbill can be identified using the distributions
of live bottom, particularly coral reef sites. Ongoing research which focuses on reef
sites must include censusing hawksbill turtles.

What are the habitat requirements for the juvenile, pelagic life history stage of every
species?

a. All species pass through a pelagic life history stage. Development and increasing
human utilization of deeper offshore waters places all species at risk. The extent of
area and expense of sampling all offshore waters greater than 200m in depth results in
obtaining inforamtion on the distribution and abundance of turtles in these waters as
the lowest priority at this time. The best available approach to sample these waters is
to examine real time satellite imagery for areas of convergence where small turtles
might be found and sample these areas by vessel. Once animals are located, radio or
satellite tags must be developed to allow for tracking over short and long range.

Program Management Recommendations

There will be information and research needs that are not anticipated by this plan. To
address unexpected developments or immediate information needs, the following
protocol is recommended: (1) A need is identified by the SER through the Section 7
process or by the Program Manager through legislative or headquarters requirements.
(2) A pre-proposal is developed and distributed to this working group and the Program
Manager for review (3) The pre-proposal reviews are consolidated by program
management. (4) The Program Manager determines who should conduct the research
(two or more laboratories may be tasked to participate in the project), and requests


the distributions for this far ranging species. This information gap is identified as the
next priority.

The impacts of human activities on the juvenile, sub-adult and the adult life history
stages of the green turtle is greater in inshore waters than offshore waters. Green
turtles aggregate on sea grass beds which are found inshore. Thus, research in inshore
waters that focus on this species is the next priority. It is likely that because the highest
priority focuses efforts on the Kemp’s ridley in inshore waters, information on green
turtles can easily be collected at no or low additional cost. Specifically the Cedar Key
area and Florida Bay support both species and should be index areas for this species in
addition to providing information on the Kemp’s ridley. The Indian-Banana River
complex is the site of several years of research by Dr. Lew Ehrhart, University of Central
Florida. This continuous research resulted in this area being the only index area for
this species in Florida waters. This research must continue to provide an index for this
species in inshore Florida waters. We strongly recommend continuation of this
research.

The most abundant species in U.S. waters is the loggerhead turtles. This turtle is
present in inshore and offshore waters. However, we have baseline information on the
distributions and abundance of this species within southeast U.S. offshore waters to the
200 misobath. It is most important that sampling for this species focus on index areas
to develop a time series that is adequate for the determination of status. We know
more about this species in offshore waters and have developed indices of abundance.
The current information need is for comparative data. When these data are collected,
it will represent the first data base adequate for the determination of trends in
distribution and abundance, which is critical in evaluating the status of any species. For
these reasons, this information on the distribution and abundance of loggerhead turtles
in offshore waters is identified as next in priority. Comparative data can only be
provided via consistency in sampling. Thus, all long term research programs must be
planned with consistency in sampling as the basis.

All marine turtles demonstrate a pelagic stage which begins with the hatchling stage
and may extend up to four or five years, depending on the species. There is increasing
evidence that this life history stage is associated with weedlines in the pelagic zone.
This zone also concentrates debris and pollutants which pose risks to this life history
stage. The magnitude of this risk is not known and we recommend continued research
through the NWAFC Entanglement and Debris Program to determine the extent of
tisk to small pelagic turtles. Because small turtles may aggregate in this zone, impacts
to the population could be significant under catastrophic conditions, such as a large oil
spill which might eliminate one or several cohorts in this zone. While there is a
significant need to obtain information on this life history stage, research is extremely
expensive. Because of our limited ability to conduct comprehensive research on small
turtles in this zone, this research is given a relatively low priority.

The hawksbill turtle forages on live bottom and coral reefs. The extent of it’s distribu-
tion within U.S. waters tends to be restricted within U.S. Caribbean Sea offshore waters.


NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMEFS-SEFC-255

March 1990

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Fisheries Center
75 Virginia Beach Drive
Miani, Florida 33149


Our third priority is the continued characterization of the Eastern Gulf. This area is
known to be important to the Kemp’s ridley but the extent of human use in this area is
limited. Priorities will shift in response to changes in turtle nabitat preferences and
needs. In addition, areas which are important to turtles now may be less important in
the future, and those areas not currently utilized may increase in importance with time.
For example, the Kemp’s ridley has been observed within Florida Bay. Given the
protective status of this eastern Gulf of Mexico bay, this area is a candidate safe refuge
for this and other species.

The last area includes all the sea grass beds that likely have green turtles associated
with them. Sea grass beds are important foraging and developmental areas for the
green turtles and possibly Kemp’s ridleys. However, the relative importance of other
discrete sea grass areas to turtles is not known, Because information on the impor-
tance of grass beds to turtles will likely be obtained while sampling inshore waters for
Kemp’s ridleys, this specific information requirement is given lowest priority.

Research Approach

As a first step each area must be characterized. It is unlikely that all the physical,
chemical and biological factors that cumulatively result in turtle habitat can be
described, measured, or compared over time and space. It is recommended that five
or so key parameters be identified that can be measured with sufficient precision to
index changes over time and space. These factors should include water temperature,
current patterns, prey or forage item availability and predictability, and bottom type,
which correlate with other factors that structure the ecosystem. This task will be labor
intensive because of the considerable data currently available that must be first ex-
amined. Filling in the gaps will require empirical sampling. Given the extent of use of
the Western Gulf by MMS and ship channels within the North Atlantic, these areas
may already be sampled and a cooperative approach is recommended for obtaining
habitat data.

Once habitat is characterized throughout the Gulf and Atlantic, available information
on turtle distributions must be overlaid. This task necessitates a review of existing
information collected from prior surveys (aerial and vessel), dredge and vessel observer
data, mark-recapture and stranding data, nesting records, historical sighting and cap-
ture records, etc.

Once areas of turtle abundance are characterized from existing data, information gaps
are filled via empirical sampling for turtle presence or absence, size and sex class,
species composition, and seasonal movements should be implemented. This can be
accomplished through a variety of capture methods, most of which are labor intensive
and area specific. To examine distributions and or movements of turtles over large
areas, satellite tags and aerial surveys may be the most cost effective methods. Satellite
tags provide information on specific individuals, and given large sample sizes, can be
used to educe population or stock movements. Aerial surveys have provided synoptic


a. dredging, filling, and spoil disposal

b. stream diversion and channelization

e

. upland drainage

d, impoundments

e. point source pollution
f. accumulation of debris

Priority Areas

Extensive bay and estuarine systems in the southeast include: the Laguna Madre system
in southern Texas; the entire salt marsh system in Louisiana; Mississippi Sound; Cedar
Key and Homassassa Springs of the Florida west coast; the Ten Thousand Islands and
Florida Bay complex in southwestern Florida; the Indian and Banana Rivers complex
in east Florida; the extensive sounds and bays of Georgia and South Carolina; and the
Pamlico-Albemarle-Core Sound complex of North Carolina.

Our mark-recapture and stranding data indicate that these systems and all inshore
waters of the Gulf and Atlantic are likely crucial developmental and foraging habitat
for juvenile, sub-adult, and adult Kemp’s ridleys. Our data suggest that the Western
and Central Gulf of Mexico, from eastern Texas to the Mississippi Sound is currently
crucial habitat for all size classes of Kemp’s ridleys except the relatively brief pelagic
year or years. This area is also heavily utilized by man and the potential for interaction
between man and Kemp’s in this area is high. Because of the magnitude of risk
presented to Kemp’s within this area, we consider the characterization of this habitat
as crucial to the Kemp’s ridley to be the highest priority.

Second in priority is the characterization of the Atlantic as developmental habitat for
the Kemp’s ridley. The primary risks to turtles within this area includes fishing
(particularly shrimp trawling), channel dredging and military operations. Charac-
terization of the Pamlico-Albemarle-Core Sound Complex of North Carolina, the
largest inshore water complex within the southeast must continue. It is imperative that
similar work be conducted within the inshore waters of both South Carolina and
Georgia. A mass stranding of approximately 100 juvenile and sub-adult Kemp’s ridley
turtles in October 1988 to January 1989 demonstrated the importance of the inshore
Georgia waters to this species during the late fall and winter. Evidence is also
accumulating that Kemp’s ridleys that inhabit the Atlantic are not "waifs" and lost to
the reproductive portion of the population. Thus, the characterization of the North
Atlantic as Kemp’s ridley habitat and discerning their distribution within inshore waters
is essential.


Information Needs

We have ranked the relative importance of this research based on the known status of
a species and potential risks within a given habitat, and the quality and extent of
available information on habitat characterization and turtle distributions. In addition,
the proposed plan first provides for research that characterizes habitat and defines
turtle distributions stratified by species, size/age/sex class within this habitat; second,
identifies the risks to species recovery; and lastly defines the research needed to address
these risks.

We divide habitat into inshore and offshore. Inshore habitat is defined as inside the 72
COLREGS demarcation line (the collision regulation line as defined by the U.S. Coast
Guard and overlaid on NOAA nautical charts of scale 1: 80,000). Offshore waters are
defined as beyond the 72 COLREGS line. Within the offshore habitat the nearshore
habitat is defined as within 30m water depth from the bottom. The distinction between
inshore and offshore is consistent with existing and future management for marine
turtles in southeast U.S. waters. The waters inside this line include all the bays, sounds,
lagoons, and estuaries of the southeast U.S. The definition of offshore waters includes
all waters beyond the barrier and coastal islands. The additional distinction in the
offshore waters to include the term nearshore is to remain consistent with our
knowledge of sea turtle habitat utilization. Therefore, offshore waters are divided into
those equal to and less than 30m depth (referred to as nearshore) and those greater
than 30m depth referred to as deeper offshore waters.

The Kemp’s ridley is the most critically depleted marine turtle species in the world.
Except for the pelagic juvenile stage, it is increasingly apparent that inshore waters
within both the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic are critical developmental and foraging
habitat for this species. The continued increase in human activities in inshore waters
places all life history stages of the Kemp’s ridley at risk. Therefore, obtaining informa-
tion on spatial, temporal and size class composition of Kemp’s ridleys in inshore waters
is identified as the highest priority information need.

Within the area we define as offshore, coastal waters are important foraging habitat for
the Kemp’s ridley turtle. The extent of human activities in these coastal waters place
this species at risk within offshore waters. Research within these waters to define
spatial/temporal distributions and abundance of the Kemp’s ridley is considered the
second most important information requirement.

The leatherback turtle is the only largely pelagic species. Increased human utilization
of deeper offshore waters places all life history stages of this species at increasing risk.
However, while we have some data which show this species is present in offshore waters,
we do not know their spatial/temporal distributions and what mechanisms determine


18

Research Approach
1, Assemble all available data on distributions of turtles
2. Utilize opportunistic platforms for presence of turtles
3. Implement radio/sonic and satellite tracking to determine turtle movements
4. Characterize habitat from information on presence of turtles to determine poten-
tial areas of aggregation for directed sampling either with vessels or aircraft and satellite
tags
Priority 3. Leatherback turtles in offshore waters
Areas in Priority Order
1. Deeper offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico
2. Deeper offshore waters of the Atlantic *

Research Approach

1. Utilize marine mammal and opportunistic sampling programs to identify areas of
aggregation

2. Identify areas of known or real time concentration of jellyfish and sample for
leatherback turtles via opportunistic and directed sampling

3. Determine movements with satellite tags
Priority 4. Green turtles in inshore waters
Areas in Priority Order

1. Areas of known aggregation, such as the Indian-Banana Rivers, Cedar Key and
Florida Bay

2. Areas of sea grass beds within U.S. waters.

Research Approach

1. Identify all known and potential areas where turtles occur
2, Characterize habitat

3, Implement and continue sampling in site specific habitats of known aggregation


Table of Contents

Introduction

Responsibilities of Other Agencies
Information Needs

Habitat Research Priorities

Step Down Research Plan

Program Management Recommendations
Summary of Research Recommendations

Acknowledgements

iti

12

15

17

20


11

degradation of habitat relative to these activities needs to be addressed. The Japanese
longline fishery for bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico reported significant catches of
leatherback turtles. The increase of domestic longlining in the Gulf of Mexico for
yellowfin tuna is probably resulting in the incidental capture of leatherback turtles.
Thus, this area is considered next in priority.

Habitat utilization by hawksbill and juvenile green turtles is considered to be a lower
priority item within the context of the southeast U.S. sea turtle program. This does not
imply that such research is not vital to our understanding of the biology of these species,
just that our funding levels are insufficient to do everything that is needed. Presently,
it appears that the most immediate threats to hawksbills are the continued poaching of
eggs at nesting beaches and legal and illegal trade in hawksbill shell. As areas of
importance to hawksbill turtles shift to include U.S. waters, then our plan must evolve
to accommodate these changes. For now, we hope that information on marine turtles
can be obtained opportunistically through existing programs on reef resources. The
NOAA Marine Sanctuary Program is an appropriate vehicle to obtain information on
marine turtles associated with reefs in the U.S. Caribbean.

Evidence is accumulating that individuals of all species of marine turtles pass through
a pelagic developmental stage, and are associated with weedlines or areas of conver-
gence. These are also areas where debris accumulate placing these turtles at risk from
entanglement or ingestion of debris. The effects of ingestion may be acute or chronic
and the effect of accumulating toxins from debris have not been determined. Currently,
the Northwest Fisheries Center (NWFC) supports research on these issues in the
southeast through the Debris and Entanglement Program. Support from this project
is certainly not adequate to address these issues. To properly address these issues will
require increased funding.

Additional research that needs to be folded into these on-going projects is the examina-
tion of satellite imagery to determine the possibility of identifying convergence areas
via thermal fronts, and transmitting real time imagery to vessels for ground truthing for
the presence of turtles. This research is vital to understanding this pelagic stage and
the impacts of debris on all species. While some of these issues are being addressed
by the NWFC, they cannot address all of these particularly as related to Section 7
questions. Thus, many of these issues can only be addressed through interagency
cooperation.

Research Approach

The research approach needed to obtain information on turtle distributions and
abundance in offshore waters is similar to that within the inshore waters. Existing
information needs to be examined, and preferred turtle habitat characterized. Aerial
surveys are not useful in censusing Kemp’s ridleys on aregional basis. In fact, its relative


13

the allocation of limited funding to to take advantage of opportunities that are consis-
tent with this plan as they arise.

Inshore Habitat

Our highest priority is identifying and characterizing the inshore habitats of primarily
the Kemp’s ridley and secondarily the green turtle. With the possible exception of the
leatherback turtle, inshore estuarine areas of the southeast coasts appear to be impor-
tant to juvenile, subadult and adult turtles.

What is the inshore habitat of the Kemp’s ridley?

a. Research will first focus on the western and northern Gulf of Mexico from Texas
along the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts, including the Mississippi Sound. The
approach will include collating and summarizing existing data. Opportunisitic sources
of information will be included such as public sighting programs, fishermen interviews,
and ongoing coastal research programs.

b. The next area will include the Atlantic coast and the approach will be the same.

c. The last area of focus will include the eastern Gulf of Mexico including the coasts
of Alabama and Florida. The research approach is the same.

What are the inshore habitat requirements of the green turtle?

a. Research will focus in Florida inshore waters that support sea grass beds. Because
there are areas where the distributions of the Kemp’s ridley and green turtle overlap,
including Florida Bay and Cedar Key within the Eastern Gulf, these areas should
represent the initial focus. Data on green turtles can be collected with information on
the Kemp’s ridley.

b. Additional research must focus on areas of extensive sea grass bed development,
which once supported green turtles.

c. Continued research within the Indian-Banana River complex is important to
maintain this as an area to index green turtles within Florida inshore waters.

What are the inshore habitats of the loggerhead turtle?

a. The determination of the broad spatio-temporal distributions of this species in
inshore waters will probably be a result of the research on the Kemp’s ridley. Once
areas of aggregation or importance are identified, research can be site specific. One
area where research can now be directed is the Florida Bay system of the western Gulf
of Mexico. Areas where research is currently ongoing including the Cedar Key complex
and the Indian Lagoon system must be continued as representative or key index areas.


Notice

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary
product or material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMES, or to this publication
furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NMFS approves,
recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein or which has as
its purpose any intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because
of NMES publication.

This report should be cited as follows:

Thompson, ni T. Henwood”, Ss. Epperly, R. Lohoefener’, G. Gitschlag”, L. Ogren®, J. Mysing*, and M.
Renaud”. 1990. Marine Turtle Habitat Plan. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-255, 20 p.

Copies may be obtained by writing:

Dr. N.B. Thompson NTIS

Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory or 5258 Port Royal Rd.
75 Virginia Beach Dr. Springfield, VA 22161
Miami, FL 33149

1 Miami Laboratory, Miami, FL 33149

2 Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL 33702
3 Beaufort Laboratory, Beaufort, NC 28516

4 Mississippi Laboratories,Pascagoula, MS 39567

> Galveston Laboratory, Galveston, TX 77550

6 Panama City Laboratory, Panama City, FL 32407


NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-SEFC-255

Marine Turtle Habitat Plan
by
Nancy Thompson, Chair

Tyrrell Henwood

Sheryan Epperly

Ren Lohoefener

Gregg Gitschlag
Larry Ogren
John Mysing

Maurice Renaud
March 1990

The Technical Memorandum series is used for documentation and timely communication of prelimi-

nary results, interm reports, or special-purpose information. Although the memoranda are not subject

to complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing, they are expected to reflect sound
professional work,

U.S. Department of Commerce
Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John A. Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
National Marine Fisheries Service

William W. Fox, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries


information for loggerhead and leatherback turtles. Leatherbacks are large and log-
gerhead coloration provides a contrast to water color, facilitating their observation at
the surface of the water from an aerial platform. However, in certain areas, such as
Florida Bay, water clarity may allow for the detection and identification of green turtles.
In addition, it may be possible to develop estimates of Kemp’s ridley and green turtles
from aerial surveys based on applying species composition data from other sources to
aerial survey data.

Local movements and short range habitat fidelity can be measured with sonic and radio
tagging. Local areas or "hot spots" for Kemp’s ridleys already identified should be the
first areas investigated. These areas include the Sabine Pass to Pear] River area within
the Western Gulf, and the Cedar Key area in the Eastern Gulf.

At some time in conjunction with field work, the impact of satellite, radio, and sonic
tags on turtle behavior needs to be evaluated for two reasons. First, the tags themselves
may alter behavior and resulting data cannot be generally applied. Second, the tags
may increase mortality either directly or indirectly. Evaluations of the effect of tags
can be accomplished through laboratory and field studies. It is generally accepted that
tags that weigh less than 10% of any animal’s body weight will not negatively affect
turtle behavior (R. Byles, pers. comm.). However, this has yet to be demonstrated and
needs to be addressed. Therefore, it appears that tagging in local areas using sonic and
tadio tags under a strict experimental regime, is the best approach to answering
important questions on turtle habitat utilization. If tags are found to alter behavior, it
is imperative that NMFS develop tags or alternative methods that do not impact turtle
behavior and mortality.

In addition to directed sampling, several existing sampling programs targeting other
resources can provide opportunistic data on the presence of turtles. Among these
programs is the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (MRFSS) and
the port agent program. These programs can incorporate questions on the presence of
turtles but inclusion in the MRFSS requires Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval. The opportunistic cooperation of fishermen has been locally successful. For
example, in North Carolina utilizing pound net fishermen for turtle mark recapture has
provided very useful information on turtles in inshore N.C. waters. In addition, the
placement of posters requesting information on turtle sightings at fish houses and docks
have also proven successful in N.C.. These opportunistic programs provide information
on where turtles may occur and are useful in identifying "hot spots." They will not tell
us which habitats are avoided or not utilized by turtles or give us data on habitats not
utilized by man.


12

rareness prohibits synoptic sampling within this zone. Thus, areas where Kemp’s are
most likely found need to the focus of sampling. When Kemp’s are encountered,
satellite tagging is the preferred means of obtaining the necessary information on a
large scale.

Observer programs, vessel surveys and a variety of other capture methods might also
be appropriate to obtain the needed information within specific areas. While the
placement of observers on vessels is the best way to collect data on incidental turtle
take and mortality in the target fishery, these programs are expensive (cost, of course
is dependent on the extent of the fishery), and require the cooperation of industry,
which cannot be guaranteed to provide information over all fishing seasons, regions
and target species or gear. Turtle distributions can be elucidated through sonic and
radio tagging in coordination with small vessel netting surveys. It seems likely that some
combination of methods of surveying turtle distributions may be the "best" approach to
meeting our information needs.

Aerial surveys to census marine mammals in waters greater than 30m can provide
information on loggerhead and leatherback turtles. However, aerial surveys over
waters beyond 200m depth are not cost effective and are dangerous. The alternative,
vessel surveys, are not an appropriate platform to census leatherback turtles. However,
if turtles are captured via longlines, then the application of satellite tags will provide
information on the movements of this highly migratory species. Because there is no
efficient method currently used to census turtle in deep offshore waters, it is the
responsibility of NMFS to develop such a methodology. As a first step, opportunistic
sighting and tagging can be accomplished by piggy-backing on marine mammal and
other oceanographic vessel surveys. However, because these do not target marine
turtles, these data will be limited in interpretation. It is recommended that research
and development towards a sampling methodology for deep offshore waters be in-
itiated. One methodology must address the distributions and abundance of leatherback
turtles. A separate methodology must address the distribution and abundance of the
small pelagic life history stage of all species. Research and development of these
methodologies will require funding beyond the scope of the present base, if it is done
correctly. However, NMFS will have progressed far in answering questions about the
spatial/temporal distributions and size/age/sex/species composition of marine turtles
in deep offshore water

Step Down Research Plan

We recommend that the following questions be addressed in order to optimize research
on marine turtles within the context of habitat. The diversity of habitats utilized by
turtles demands that a step down plan be followed. While each question when
answered will provide the information needed to optimally manage these resources,
this plan does not preclude conducting relevant projects simultaneously to maximize