UNITED STATES 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 May 18, 2001

Mr. Thomas F. Plunkett President, Nuclear Division Flor;1da Power and Light Company PostOffice Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION, ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1AND 2 (TAC NOS. MA6374 AND MA6375) Dear Mr. Plunkett: Enclosed is a copy ofthe National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Biological Opinion, which was issued May 4, 2001. This Opinion is a reinitiation of consultation subsequent to the February 7, 1997, Opinion. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally requested reinitiation on November 30, 1999, after the St. Lucie Plant exceeded NMFS' anticipated incidental take ofthree green turtles per year established inthe Incidental Take Statement ofthe 1997 Opinion. The current Opinion considered new information about turtle interactions with the plant submitted by Florida Power and Light ina March 2000 report entitled "Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle Entrainment Levels at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant: 1976-1998." The May 4, 2001, Opinion states NMFS' beliefthat the continued operation of the circulating seawater cooling system at the St. Lucie Plant is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence of the five species of sea turtles found at St. Lucie. However, itrevises the Incidental Take Statement and modifies some of the Terms and Conditions ofthe previous Opinion. These should be evaluated forthe potential need torevise the St. Lucie PlantTechnical Specifications and plant procedures. Ifyou have any questions following review ofthe document, please contact me at (301) 415-3974. Sin• ely,

Brendan T. Moroney, Project 'nager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Projectlanagement Office of Nuclear Reactor R lation Docket Nos. 50-335, 50-389 Enclosure: NMFS Biological Opinion

cc w/enclosure: R. Hoffman, NMFS See next pageMay 18, 2001 Mr. Thomas F. Plunkett President, Nuclear Division Florida Power and Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION, ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. MA6374 AND MA6375) Dear Mr. Plunkett: Enclosed is a copy ofthe National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Biological Opinion, which was issued May 4, 2001. This Opinion is a reinitiation of consultation subsequent to the February 7, 1997, Opinion. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally requested reinitiation on November 30, 1999, after the St. Lucie Plant exceeded NMFS' anticipated incidental take ofthree green turtles per year established in the Incidental Take Statement ofthe 1997 Opinion. The current Opinion considered new information about turtle interactions with the plant submitted by Florida Power and Light in a March 2000 report entitled "Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle Entrainment Levels at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant: 1976-1998." The May 4, 2001, Opinion states NMFS' belief that the continued operation of the circulating seawater cooling system at the St. Lucie Plant is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofthe five species of sea turtles found at St. Lucie. However, it revises the Incidental Take Statement and modifies some of the Terms and Conditions of the previous Opinion. These should be evaluated for the potential need to revise the St. Lucie Plant Technical Specifications and plant procedures. Ifyou have any questions following review ofthe document, please contact me at (301) 415-3974. Sincerely, /RA/ Brendan T. Moroney, Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-335, 50-389 Enclosure: NMFS Biological Opinion

cc w/enclosure: R. Hoffman, NMFS See next page DISTRIBUTION: PUBLIC PDII-2 R/F OGC ACRS PMadden BMoroney KLeigh JWilson BZalcman LWert, RII BCLayton (Hardcopy) DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PDII-2\St. Lucie\MA6374&5 -fwd BO to FPL.wpd [OFFICE PDII-2/PM PDII-2/LA 

# Jg J§@ PDIIRJk. NAME B___orone__/ BClayton .- Z ac.a.. PMkd• DATE 05/17/01 05//1/01 05/ t' 01 05/I f/01 OFFICIAL RECORD COPYMr. T. F. Plunkett Florida Power and Light Company

cc: Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 6090 Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Joe Myers, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 M. S. Ross, Attorney Florida Power &Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. Douglas Anderson CountyAdministrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Mr. William A. Passetti, Chief Department of Health Bureau of Radiation Control 2020 Capital Circle, SE, Bin #C21 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1741 Mr. Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 ST. LUCIE PLANT

Mr. R. G. West Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 E. J. Weinkam Licensing Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. Don Mothena Manager, Nuclear Plant Support Services Florida Power &Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. J. A. Stall Vice President

- Nuclear Engineering Florida Power &Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Mr. J. Kammel Radiological Emergency Planning Administrator Department of Public Safety 6000 SE. Tower Drive Stuart, Florida 34997 Mr. Robert Hoffman U.S Department of Commerce National Oceanic &Atmospheric Admin. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

of NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (727) 570-5312; FAX 570-5517 http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov F/SER3 :BH:mdh 

### MAY

- 

### 4 2001
Mr. Kahtan N. Jabbour Senior Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate Division ofLicensing Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Jabbour:
This document transmits the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion (Opinion) based on our review ofthe document prepared by the Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) titled "Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle Entrainment Levels atthe St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant: 1976-1998" and a site visit and meeting held on November 10, 1999, among the plant, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), state ofFlorida, and NMFS personnel. The FP&L document was written to satisfy the terms and conditions set in the 1997 Opinion for the continued operation ofthe circulating seawater cooling system atthe plant. The NRC's May 9, 2000, request for formal consultation was received on May 12, 2000. The NMFS consultation number for this action is F/SER/2000/01394. Ifyou have any questions aboutthis consultation, please refer to this number.
This Opinion is a reinitiation ofconsultation subsequent to the 1997 Opinion. Reinitiation isnecessitated by two factors: 1) in 1999 the plant exceeded NMFS' anticipated incidental take of3 green turtles per year established in the incidental take statement ofthe 1997 Opinion, and 2) the FP&L document referenced above represents new information about turtle interactions with the plant. This Opinion will analyze the plant's circulating seawater cooling system and its effects on loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles in accordance with section 7ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended.
The Opinion statesNMFS' beliefthat the continued operation ofthe circulating seawater cooling system at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofloggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, or hawksbill sea turtles. However, NMFS anticipates incidental take ofthese species and has issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) pursuant to section 7 ofthe ESA. This ITS contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to help minimize thistake. A complete administrative record ofthis consultation is on file atNMFS, Southeast Regional Office.We look forward to further cooperation with you onother NRC projects toensure the conservation and recovery ofourthreatened and endangered marine species. Sincerely,

Jo ph E. Powers, Ph.D. Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosure

cc: F/PR3
o:\section7\formal\stluc\stlucOO.wpd

2Endangered Species Act

- Section 7 Consultation

Agency: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Activity: Continued Operation ofthe St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's Circulating Seawater Cooling System, Jensen Beach, Hutchinson Island, Florida (F/SER/2000/01394)
Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region
Date Issued: Approved By: Z/Acting Regional Administrator

This document represents the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion (Opinion) based on our review ofthe continued operation ofthe St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's circulating seawater cooling system and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Carettacaretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelyskempii), green turtles (Cheloniamydas), leatherback turtles (Dermochelyscoriacea),and hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelysimbricata) in accordance with section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of1973 as amended. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) May 9, 2000, request for formal consultation was received on May 12, 2000.
This Opinion is a reinitiation ofconsultation which resulted in NMFS' January 1997 Opinion and isbased on information provided in the document prepared by the Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L)titled "Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle Entrainment Levels at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant: 1976-1998" and a site visit and meeting held on November 10, 1999, among the plant, NRC, state ofFlorida, and NMFS personnel. A complete administrative record ofthis consultation is on file at the NMFS Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. ConsultationHistory
Inthe original evaluation ofthe environmental impact ofSt. Lucie Unit 1, sea turtle entrapment and impingement were not evaluated (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1974). Nevertheless,
sea turtles were entrapped and impinged when St. Lucie Unit 1began commercial operation in 1977. To facilitate the capture ofentrapped turtles and to prevent turtles from moving down the canal system toward the plant, a large mesh barrier net was erected in 1978. Amesh size of8 in (20.3 cm) by 8 in was chosen to exclude 95% ofthe turtles based onthe size frequency ofturtles captured in the canal before March 1978.A biological assessment was completed in 1982 for the operation ofSt. Lucie Unit 2. This assessment was based on the entrapment history ofthe plant from 1976 through 1981, approximately 150 turtles per year. As part ofthis evaluation, the 8-in (20.3 cm) square mesh barrier net was considered adequate to exclude turtles from the plant's intake wells. Also, a research program to investigate methods to physically or behaviorally exclude turtles from the offshore intake structures was conducted as part ofthe Environmental Protection Plan ofUnit 2 and concluded that there was no practical method to accomplish this goal (Florida Power & Light 1985). In its 1982 biological opinion on the operation ofSt. Lucie Unit 2, NMFS concluded that theproject was not likely tojeopardize the continued existence oflisted species under its jurisdiction but made no provisions for sea turtle mortality.
Since 1993, FP&L has documented significant increases in the numbers ofentrapped turtles. A principal component ofthis increase wasjuvenile green turtles with carapace widths less than 12 in (30 cm). Before 1993, the maximum number ofgreen turtles captured annually at the St. Lucie Plant was 69. In 1994, arecord high of 193 green turtles was captured. In 1995, 673 green turtles were captured, mostlyjuveniles. With the increase in the number ofturtles handled and the decrease in the average size ofthe turtles, significantly more green turtles have been able to penetrate the 8-in (20.3 cm) mesh barrier net and pass down the canal to be entrained in the intake structures ofthe plant. The entrainment level peaked in 1995, when 97 turtles (14% ofthe turtles captured) were removed from the intake wells ofthe plant.
Based on the increasing number ofsea turtles captured and killed at the St. Lucie Plant, the NRC determined thatreinitiation offormal section 7 consultation withNMFS was required (also in part because the 1982 Opinion did not make provisions for sea turtles) and informed the NMFS Southeast Regional Office ofthis determination in a May 11, 1995 letter. The NRC submitted a biological assessment to NMFS on February 7, 1996. In addition, FP&L had installed anew barrier net with 5-in (12.7 cm) bar length webbing to prevent the passage ofsmall turtles through the existing 8-in net and into the intake wells ofthe plant. Installation ofthe new barrier net was identified as a mitigation measure early in the consultation process, when methods to reduce entrainment were first discussed. FP&L implemented this requirement before completion ofthe section 7 consultation.
That consultation was completed with the issuance ofa biological opinion in January 1997 which concluded that the project was not likely tojeopardize the continued existence oflisted species under NMFSjurisdiction. The 1997 Opinion anticipated an annual incidental lethal take of2 loggerhead sea turtles or 1.5% ofthe total number ofloggerheads entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was greater; 3 green sea turtles or 1.5% ofthe total number ofgreens entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was greater; 1Kemp's ridley sea turtle or 1.5% ofthe total number of Kemp's ridleys entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was greater; 1hawksbill sea turtle or 1.5% percent ofthe total number ofhawksbills entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was greater; and 1leatherback sea turtleor 1.5% ofthe total number ofleatherbacks entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was greater.

2On November 10, 1999, NMFS attended ameeting to discuss thereinitiation ofsection 7 consultation because in 1999 the plant exceeded the anticipated incidental take level ofgreen turtles set bythe 1997 Opinion. Atthe meeting, FP&L informed NMFS that the studyreport on turtle interactions with theplant (required by the terms and conditions ofthe 1997 Opinion) would be completed byMarch 2000. NMFS advised the NRC and FP&Lthat NMFS would wait until the report was completed and would partlybase the new consultation on that report. NMFS received the report on April 19, 2000, and theNRC's letter requesting reinitiation of section 7 consultation on May 12, 2000. The document and letter contained new information about turtle interactions with theplant. NMFS consided the consultation package complete as of receipt ofthe May 12, 2000, letter. This Opinion analyzes theplant's circulating seawater cooling system and its effects on loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, andhawksbill sea turtles in accordance with section 7 oftheESA. BIOLOGICAL OPINION

I. Description ofProposed Action The NRC is the licensing and regulating authority for all nuclear power plants in theUnited States. The proposed action considered in this Opinion is the NRC's continued licensing ofthe St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant and theplant's continued operation ofthe circulating seawater cooling system, including the capture-release program for sea turtles which are entrapped in the plant's intake canal, and the associated sea turtle conservation and monitoring programs conducted under that license. A description ofthese activities follows: Circulating Water System The Atlantic Ocean provides cooling and receiving waters forboth units' condensers and auxiliary cooling systems. These systems share common intake and discharge canals with ocean piping. The majorcomponents ofthese canals and ocean piping systems are: 1)three ocean intake structures and associated velocitycaps located approximately 1,200 ft (365 m) from the shore line; 2) three buried intake pipelines to transport water from the intake structure to the intake canal (one pipeline is 16 ft (4.9 m) in diameter, andtwo are 12 ft (3.65 m) in diameter); 3) a common intake canal to convey seawater to each unit's intake structure; 4) individual unit intake structures; 5)discharge structures for each unit; 6) a common discharge canal; 7) one discharge pipeline to convey water offshore to a "Y" diffuser (12 ft [3.65 m] diameter pipeline) approximately 1,200 ft (365 m) offshore and another pipeline to conveywater offshore to a multiport diffuser 16-ft (4.9m) diameter pipeline; solidpipeline from shoreline to approximately 1,200 ft (365 m) offshore and then themultiport diffuser segment from approximately 1,200 to 2,400 ft (365-730 m) offshore. The design unit flow forUnits 1and2is 1,150 cu ftper second (32.6 m3 /sec) with maximum and

3normal temperature rise across the condensers of31 F and 25'F (17- 13 C), respectively (Bellmund et al. 1982). Intake Structures and Velocity Caps In 1991-1992, all three velocity caps were rebuilt due to the failure ofseveral panels comprising the caps. The intake structures are located approximately 1,200 ft (365 m) offshore and about 2,400 ft (731 m) south ofthe discharge structures. The intake structures have a vertical section to minimize sand intake and a velocity cap to minimize fish entrapment, but no screens or grates are used to deny organisms access to the intake pipes. The tops ofthe intake structures are approximately 7 ft (2.1 m) below the surface at mean low water. The velocity cap for the 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipe is 70 ft (6.5 m) square, 5 ft (1.5) thick, and has a vertical opening of6.25 ft (1.9 m). The velocity cap forthe two 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter pipes is 52 ft (4.8 m) square, 5ft (1.5 m) thick, and has a vertical opening of6.5 ft (2.0 m).
The flow velocities at various locations ofthe velocity cap and intake structures have been calculated under various levels ofbiological fouling. The minimum and maximum horizontal intake velocities at the face ofthe ocean intake structures for the 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter pipe is calculated at 0.37-0.41 ft/sec (11.2-12.6 cm/sec) and forthe 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipe is calculated at 0.92-1.0 ft/sec (28.3-30.5 cm/sec). Asthe water passes under the velocity cap, flow becomes vertical and the velocity increases to approximately 1.3 ft/sec (40.2 cm/sec) for the 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter pipe and 6.8 ft/sec (206 cm/sec) for the 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipe (Bellmund etal. 1982). Intake Pipes From the ocean intake structures, water flows through the three buried pipelines for approximately 1,200 ft (365 m) and empties into the open intake canal behind the dune line. The flow through these pipelines varies from 4.2-6.8 ft/sec (127-206 cm/sec), depending on the pipeline and the degree offouling. Transit time for an object to travel the distance through the pipeline is approximately 180-285 sec (3 to 4.75 min).
Dueto the differences in the diameter ofthepipelines and friction ofthe pipeline walls, the calculated volume through the two 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter lines is approximately 20% each and approximately 60% forthe 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipeline (Bellmund et al. 1982).
Head Walls and Canal System Approximately 450 ft (138 m) behind the primary dune line, the intake pipes discharge their water at two head wall structures into the intake canal. The head wall structure forthe two 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter pipes is a common vertical concrete wall. The head wall for the 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipe ismore elaborate and consists ofa guillotine gate in a concrete box open at the other end. A series ofpillars parallel to the flow support a walkway above the discharge area.
The 300-ft (91 m) wide intake canal, whose maximum depth is approximately 25 ft (7.6 m), carries the cooling water 5,000 ft (1,525 m)to the intake structures. The flow rate in the canal

4varies from 0.9-1.1 ft/sec (27-32 cm/sec), depending ontidal stage. Highway Bridge and Underwater Intrusion System The intake canal is crossed bytwo permanent structures. One is a bridge owned by the Florida Department ofTransportation and is part ofU.S. Highway AlA. The roadway is supported by a series ofconcrete pilings driven into the bottom ofthe intake canal. The other barrier is the underwater intrusion detection system (UIDS), which is required for security reasons and has a net with a 9-ft (23-m) square mesh to prevent human intrusion into the secure area ofthe plant.
Intake Wells, Trash Racks, and Traveling Screens Each unit has a separate intake structure consisting offour bays. Each bay contains trash racks ("grizzlies") that are vertical bars with approximately 3-in (7.6-cm) spacings to catch large objects, such as flotsam, traveling screens with a 3/8-in (1-cm) mesh to remove smaller debris, and circulating water pumps. Approach velocities to each bay are calculated to be less than I ft/sec (30.5 cm/sec), but increase to approximately 5 ft/sec (150 cm/sec) at the trash racks.
The trash racks are periodically cleaned by a rake that is lowered to the bottom ofthe rack. The rake's teeth fit into the 3 in (7.6 cm) vertical openings ofthe structure. This rake ispulled vertically up and collects any debris thatmay have accumulated on the structures. This debris is emptied into atrough at the top ofthe intake bay for subsequent disposal. Any debris that is collected on the traveling screens is washed from the screen bya series ofspayjets and is then also emptied into a trough at the top ofthe intake bay for disposal.
Condensers After the water has passed through the trash racks, the traveling screens, and the circulating water pump, ittravels through the condenser, which contains thousands of3/8-in (1-cm) diameter tubes. Condenser water heat is transferred to this water, which is then expelled into the discharge canal.
On Unit 2, FP&L has installed a "Taprogge" cleaning system to maintain condenser cleanliness, and is in the process ofinstalling the same system onUnit 1. The Unit 2 system has been in operation since January 23, 1996. The Taprogge system works by passing hundreds ofsponge balls less than an inch in diameter through the condenser tubes to remove biological fouling and scale. This mechanical cleaning system reduces the need for chemical treatments. The sponge balls are strained andreturned to the head ofthe condenser for re-use. Four separate water boxes and sponge circulating systems are installed on the condenser. Each waterbox is normally charged with 1,800 sponge balls. The spongeball strainers periodically require backflushing to clean debris from the strainer grid. When the grids are opened, the possibility exists for sponge balls to be released into the discharge waters. FP&L has developed "best management practices" to prevent sponge ball loss. Discharge Systems Each unit discharges its condenser cooling water into the discharge canal that is approximately

5300 ft (91 m) wide and 2,200 ft (670 m) long. The canal terminates at two headwall structures approximately 450 ft (137 m) behind theprimary dune line. One structure supports a 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter pipeline thatis buried under the ocean floor and runs approximately 1,500 ft (460 m) offshore where it terminates into atwo-port "Y" nozzle. The other structure supports a 16-ft (4.9-m) diameter pipeline that is buried under the ocean floor and runs approximately 3,375 ft (1,030 m) offshore. The last 1,400 ft (425 m) ofthis pipeline contain a multiport diffuser segment with 58 discharge ports. To minimize plume interference, theports are oriented in an offshore direction onalternating sides ofthepipeline. The velocity ofthe water inside this pipeline averages about 5.7 ft/sec (174 cm/sec), and thejet velocity ofthe discharge water at each port averages approximately 13 ft/sec (400 cm/sec) to ensure quick dissipation ofthe thermal load (Bellmund etal. 1982). Thermal Plume FP&Lhad the thermal plume modeled forthetwo-unit operation. The results indicated that the maximum surface temperatures are strongly dependent onambient ocean conditions. The maximum surface horizontal temperature difference ispredicted to be less than 4.9'F (2.7°C) and the resulting +2°F (+1.1C) surface isotherm is estimated to encompass 963 acres (390 ha) (Bellmund etal. 1982). Sea Turtle Capture and Removal Program The goal ofthe sea turtle capture program atthe St. Lucie Plant is to remove entrapped turtles from the intake canal system quickly once theyhave entered the system. FP&L,in conjunction with Applied Biology, Inc., and Quantum Resources, Inc., formerand current contractors for sea turtle conservation and monitoring activities at St. Lucie Plant, has developed procedures and methods for handling marine turtles entrapped or impinged (Applied Biology 1993; Quantum 1994). FP&Lhypothesizes that the intake structures and velocitycaps serve as an artificial reef, since the structures are theonly significant physical feature in this inshore environment. Turtles may encounter these structures in theirnormal range of activities and feed on the fouling organisms growing on the structures, or seek the structures for shelter. Based on the intake velocities ofthe intake structures, once a turtle passes the vertical plane ofthe velocity cap, it canbe quickly sucked into the intake pipeline and, after a 3-5 minute ride throughthe pipeline, be discharged into the intake canal. From 1976 through 1999, all five species ofturtles present in the inshore waters ofFlorida have been entrapped. Atotal of6,576 turtles have been removed from theintake canal ofthe St. Lucie Plant since 1976. Loggerheads are the dominant turtle in numbers, greens are next, followed by Kemp's ridleys, leatherbacks, andhawksbills. Barrier Nets-Past Configuration To facilitate the capture ofentrapped turtles and toreduce the likelihood ofturtles moving down

6the intake canal toward theplant to be impinged, a large meshbarrier net (8-in [20.3 cm] square mesh) was erected at theAlA bridge in 1978. The net was suspended across the canal and was anchored at thebottom with weights and supported at thetop by cables and floats. Thenet was hung so that ithad a 1:1 slope, with thebottom anchors being positioned upstream ofthe surface floats. This configuration was designed to prevent bowing ofthe net in the center, minimizing the risk ofan injured or lethargic turtlebeing pinned against the net and drowning. Byconfining most turtles to the canal area east ofthe A1A bridge, the netcapture ofturtles in this part ofthe canal was facilitated. Additionally, any turtlewith a carapace width of11.3 in (28.7 cm) or greater was excluded frompassing through the net and moving down the canal and becoming impinged. Thenet has been rehung several times (e.g., 1985, 1988, 1990) to maintain its 1:1 slope and blockage ofthe canal. The net isinspected approximately quarterly to ensure its integrity throughout the water column, its sides, and its bottom. Repairs are made asnecessary, and sediment is removed by an airlift ifthe foot ofthe netis buried by abuild-up ofmaterial. Because ofdeterioration over time, anew net with the same 8-in (20.3 cm) mesh was installed in 1987. In 1990, the headcable ofthe net was given more support by attaching a series offlotation rafts, which would keep the top ofthe net at or above the surface ofthewater under varying water levels that result from tides or operational changes ofthe generating units (e.g., ifaunit is not operating, the water level in the canal rises about4 ft ([1.2 m]). This reconfiguration would alsokeep turtles from swimming over thetop ofthenet. Barrier Net-New Configuration Dueto observed increases in the entrapment rate in 1993 and 1994 (Quantum 1994) forgreens and loggerheads, the continuing upward trend in 1995, and the increases in impingement rates and subsequent mortality at the intake wells oftheplant, construction ofanew, smaller mesh barrier net east ofthe present barrier netwas identified early in the consultation process as a necessary mitigation measure to reduce lethal takes. Specific details ofthe net configuration were discussed during early consultation activities, which included FP&L's solicitation ofideas from their engineers, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC, formerly Department ofEnvironmental Protection) turtle specialists, and NMFS personnel. FP&L completed construction ofthe new barrier net, a 5-in (12.7 cm) square mesh with a deployed diagonal measurement of7 in (18 cm) in January 1996. FP&L selected the 5-in mesh size based on the size distribution ofturtles seen in the firsthalfof1995. None ofthe 414 green turtles entrapped in the intake canal during the first halfof1995 had a straight carapace width measurement smallerthan 7in (18 cm). FP&Lpredicts that allturtles encountering the 5-in barriernet willbeprevented frommoving down the canal toward theplant iffuture turtle size distributions match those of1995. The net is located approximately halfwaybetween the old 8 inbarrier net and the intake headwalls, thus entrapped sea turtles will be confined in a much smaller area. The 5-in net is anchored alongthe bottom ofthe canal and is heldup by an aerial wire that is strung between tensioning towers onthe sides ofthe canal. The net is designed to remain partially out ofthe water at varying water levels. Due topotential fouling situations from jellyfish or seaweed, thetop ofthe netcan be quicklyreleased from thetensioning towers so that

7it can drop to thebottom ofthe canal. The net is inspected quarterly to ensure its integrity and to provide necessary cleaning and maintenance as required. The old 8-in (20.3-cm) mesh barrier net will also bemaintained in its existing place to serve as abackup in case there is a failure of the 5-in (12.7-cm) mesh net orthe new net needs to be lowered because offouling fromjellyfish, seaweed, or flotsam. Underwater Intruder Detection System (UIDS) In 1986, the UIDS was installed to preventhuman entry into theplant via the canal system andto provide further security forthe plant. This system also provides an additional barrier forturtles that penetrate the old 8-in barriernet. The barrier is onthe north-south arm ofthe canal and consists ofarigid netwith a 9-in (22.9-cm) mesh. Thenet ishung at approximately a 0.9:1 slope with the bottom ofthe netdownstream ofthe top. This net is inspected periodically by security personnel; and several turtles, both live and dead (the exactnumbers and species were not recorded), were removed from this area in 1994 and 1995, prior to the installation ofthe 5-inch barrier net. Intake Well Inspection and Removal Since December 1994, FP&Lhasprovided inspection ofthe intake wells at least once everythree hours over a 24-hour period. This increase in surveillance was necessary due to increased turtle presence and mortality inthe intake wells. Plant or securitypersonnel who see any turtle impinged or swimmingin the intake well area are required to notify aplant turtle biologist through a beeper system. Sea turtle biologists are constantly on call and response time is within anhour. Theresponding biologist then captures the turtle with a long-handle dip net and places it in apadded box forholding and transport. Netting Program Sea turtles are removed fromthe intake canalby means oflarge-mesh entanglement nets fished between the intake head wall andthe barrier net attheAlA bridge. From 1976 through the present, this netting program has been constantly evaluated and continuously improved to minimize trauma to turtles and to maximize capture efficiency. Nets presentlyused are from 100-120 ft (30-37 m) long, 9-12 ft (2.7-3.7 m) deep, and composed of 16-in (41-cm) stretch meshmultifilament nylon. Large floats are attached to the top ofthe net toprovide buoyancy and thebottom ofthe net is unweighted. Prior to April 1990, turtlenets were deployed on Monday mornings and retrieved on Friday afternoons. During periods ofdeployment, thenets were inspected forcaptures at least twice daily (e.g., mornings and afternoons). Additionally, plant and security personnel checked thenetperiodically, andnotified biologists immediately ifa capture had occurred. Seaturtle biologists were on call 24hours/day to retrieve turtles entangled in capture nets. Beginning in April 1990, after consultation withNMFS, netdeployment was scaled backto daylight hours only. Concurrently, surveillance ofthe intake canal and thenets wasincreased to thehours the nets were being fished. This measure decreased response time forremoval of

8entangled turtles from the nets and decreased mortalities from accidental drowning. The presence ofabiologist also provided a daily assessment ofturtle numbers in the canal and an indication ofwhen a given turtlewas first sighted. Biologistswere then able to estimate the residence time ofthe turtle from the first observation to capture and release. Hand Capture and DipNetting In addition to the useofentanglement nets to capture turtles, dip nets and hand captures by snorkel and SCUBA divers are used. Long-handle dip nets used from small boats and fromthe canal banks and head walls are effective in capturing turtles with carapace lengths of 12 in (30.5 cm) or less. Hand nets have alsobeen usedto remove dead and floating small green turtles from various areas in the canal system. Under good water visibility conditions, divers have proven to be very effective in capturing turtles ofall sizes, particularly inactive turtles partially buried in the sediment near thebarrier net or sleeping individuals throughout the canal. FP&Lbelieves that hand captures have had a significant impact in reducing residence times forturtles in the canal. Tagging and Health Assessment Activities All turtles removed from the St. Lucie Plant intake canal system are identified as to species, measured, weighed, tagged, and examined for overall condition (wounds, abnormalities, parasites, missing appendages). Healthy turtles are released into the ocean on the day ofcapture. Since July 1, 1994, all turtles captured are photographed dorsally andventrally prior to release, andthe photographs are retained for future reference. Inconel tags supplied by NMFS are applied to the proximal edge ofthe foreflippers. The tag numbers, species, and morphometrics ofeach turtle are reported monthly to FFWCC. Ifa turtle has been previously tagged either at the St.Lucie facility or elsewhere, that fact is noted in a monthly data sheet andreported. These data are forwarded byFFWCC to NMFS for inclusion in their data base. From 1990 through 1999, recaptures ofgreen turtles have gone from less than 1%in 1990 to 43% in 1997 and back down to 35% in 1999. Loggerhead recaptures were 10% in 1990, staying between 5% and 11% until 1999 where theyreached 15% (Quantum 1999). Several otherturtles with tag scars have also been recovered, suggesting that the actual number ofrecaptures maybehigher. Occasionally, turtles are captured that have been tagged by other researchers. One such capture occurred in 1994: afemale leatherback with tags from French Guiana. Necropsy and Rehabilitation Activities Resuscitation techniques are used on turtles that appear to be comatose. Lethargic or slightly injured turtles are treated and occasionally held for observation prior to release. Iffurther treatment iswarranted, FFWCC is notified and a decision is made about which facility would provide additional veterinarian treatment. Beginning in 1982, necropsies were conducted on dead turtles found in fresh conditions.

9Sea Turtle Conservation and Monitoring Program FP&L has been conducting nesting studies aspart ofthe St. Lucie Unit 1and Unit 2 reporting requirements forthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In addition, FWS and FFWCC have started a long-term nesting index survey, and the data generated by FP&L since 1971 are an integral part ofthisprogram. Nesting reports are summarized on a yearly basis (Applied Biology 1976-1994; Quantum 1994). Nesting surveys run from April 15 through September 15. Biologists use small off-road motorcycles to survey the island early morning, generally completing the survey before 10 a.m. New nests, non-nesting emergences (false crawls), and nests destroyed bypredators are recorded foreach ofthe 0.62-mile (1-km) survey areas on Hutchinson Island. In addition to nesting data, data from stranded turtles found during beach nesting surveys are logged. These data areroutinely provided to FFWCC and NMFS through the SeaTurtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN). NMFS uses the STSSN database to monitor impacts to sea turtles from natural andhuman sources ofmortality, as well asto infer turtle population characteristics. Also FP&Lhas been conducting turtle walkprograms at the St. Lucie Plant since 1982 as apublic service. These walks are permitted byFFWCC and have become quitepopular. Action Area The action area consists ofSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1and 2, located on a 437 hectare site on Hutchinson Island, Florida, and the piping, canals, and equipment, described above, thatmake up the circulating seawater cooling system. The Islandis bound by the Atlantic Ocean onthe east side, the Indian River Lagoon on the west side, the Ft.Pierce Inlet on the north side and the St.Lucie Inlet on the south side. The plant is located approximately midway between thetwo inlets. II. Status ofListed Species and Critical Habitat The following listed species underthejurisdiction ofNMFS are known to occur in the action area andmaybe affected bythe proposed action: Endangered Blue whale Balaenopteramusculus Humpback whale Megapteranovaeangliae Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Northern rightwhale Eubalaena glacialis Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Sperm whale Physetermacrocephalus Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelyscoriacea Hawksbill seaturtle Eretmochelysimbricata Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelyskempii

10Cheloniamydas* *Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population which is listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between these populations away from the nesting beach, green turtles are considered endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters. Threatened Loggerhead sea turtle Carettacaretta Johnson's seagrass Halophilajohnsonii Species oflargewhales protected bythe ESA are not likely to be affected by the proposed action. Species oflargewhales will not be affected bythe intake structures and cannot be trapped in the intake canal. Therefore, species oflarge whales will not be discussed further in this Opinion.
The proposed action does not include any construction or dredging activities that will cause increased sedimentation or turbidity in Johnson's seagrass habitat. The intake and discharge structures are situated above the sea floor and do not affect the bottom sediments. Therefore, Johnson's seagrass and its critical habitat are not expected to be affected. Johnson's seagrass will not be discussed further in this Opinion. Critical Habitat Designations
Johnson's seagrass Halophilajohnsonii Loggerhead turtle (Carettacaretta) Loggerhead seaturtles occur throughout the temperate and tropical regions ofthe Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans and are the most abundant species ofseaturtle occurring in U.S. waters. Loggerhead sea turtles concentrate their nesting in the north and south temperate zones and subtropics, but generally avoid nesting in tropical areas ofCentral America, northern South America, and the Old World (Magnuson etal. 1990). The largest known nesting aggregation of loggerhead sea turtles occurs on Masirah and Kuria Muria Islands in Oman (Ross and Barwani 1982). Inthe western Atlantic, most loggerhead seaturtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulfcoast ofFlorida. The best scientific and commercial dataavailable on the genetics ofloggerhead sea turtles suggests there are four major subpopulations ofloggerhead sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic: (1) anorthern nesting subpopulation that occurs from North Carolina to northeast Florida, about 29' N; (2) a south Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring from 29°N onthe east coast to Sarasota on the west coast; (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulation, occurring at Eglin AirForce Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida; and (4) aYucatan nesting subpopulation, occurring onthe eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Mfrquez 1990). This biological opinion will focus on the northwest Atlantic subpopulations of

11 Green seaturtleloggerhead sea turtles, which occur in the action area. Although NMFS has not completed the administrative processes necessary to formally recognize populations or subpopulations ofloggerhead sea turtles, these sea turtles are generally grouped by their nesting locations. Based onthe most recent reviews ofthe best scientific and commercial data on the population genetics ofloggerhead seaturtles and analyses oftheir population trends (TEWG 1998; TEWG in prep.), NMFS treats these loggerhead turtle nesting aggregations as distinct sub-populations whose survival and recovery is critical to the survival and recovery of the species. Further, any action that appreciably reduced the likelihood that one or more ofthese nesting aggregations would survive and recover would appreciably reduce the species' likelihood of survival and recovery inthe wild. Consequently, this biological opinion will focus onthe four nesting aggregations ofloggerhead sea turtles identified in the preceding paragraph (which occur inthe action area) and treat them as subpopulations for the purposes ofthis analysis. Natal homing to the nesting beach provides the genetic barrier between these subpopulations, preventing recolonization from turtles from other nesting beaches. The importance of maintaining these subpopulations in the wild is shown bythe many examples ofextirpated nesting assemblages in the world.
The loggerhead sea turtles in the action area are likely to represent differing proportions ofthe four western Atlantic subpopulations. Although the northern nesting subpopulation produces about 9 percent ofthe loggerhead nests, they comprise more ofthe loggerhead sea turtles found in foraging areas from the northeastern United States to Georgia: between 25% and 59% ofthe loggerhead sea turtles in this area are from the northern subpopulation (Bass etal. 1998; Norrgard 1995; Rankin-Baransky 1997; Sears 1994, Sears etal. 1995). In North Carolina, the northern subpopulation is estimated to make up from 28% to 32% ofthe loggerheads (NMFS, unpublished data; Bass etal. 1998). About 10% ofthe loggerhead sea turtles in foraging areas offthe Atlantic coast ofcentral Florida are from the northern subpopulation (Witzell etal.in prep.). In the GulfofMexico, most ofthe loggerhead seaturtles in foraging areas will be from the South Florida subpopulation, although the northern subpopulation may represent about 10% ofthe loggerhead seaturtles in the gulf(Basspers. comm.). In the Mediterranean Sea, about 45%-47% ofthe pelagic loggerheads are from the South Florida subpopulation and about 2% are from the northern subpopulation, while about 51% originated from Mediterranean nesting beaches (Laurent etal. 1998). Inthe vicinity ofthe Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes, about 19% ofthe pelagic loggerheads are from the northern subpopulation, about 71% are from the South Florida subpopulation, and about 11% are from the Yucatan subpopulation (Bolten etal. 1998). Loggerhead seaturtles originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead apelagic existence inthe North Atlantic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years. Turtles in this life history stage are called "pelagic immatures" and are best known from the eastern Atlantic near the Azores and Madeira and have been reported from the Mediterranean as well as the eastern Caribbean (Bjorndal etal.in press). Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature loggerheads reach 40-60 cm SCL they recruit to coastal inshore and nearshore waters ofthe

12continental shelfthroughout the U.S. Atlantic and GulfofMexico.
Benthic immatures have been found from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to southern Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in northeastern Mexico (R. Mdrquez-M. pers. comm.). Large benthic immature loggerheads (70-91 cm) represent a larger proportion ofthe strandings and in water captures (Schroeder etal. 1998) alongthe southern and western coasts ofFlorida as compared with the rest ofthe coast, but itis not known whether the larger animals actually are more abundant in these areas orjust more abundant within the area relative to the smaller turtles. Benthic immature loggerheads foraging in northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward in the fall as water temperatures cool (Epperly etal. 1995; Keinath 1993; Morreale and Standora 1999; Shoop and Kenney 1992), and migrate northward in spring. Given an estimated age at maturity of21-35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985; Frazer and Limpus 1998), the benthic immature stage must be at least 10-25 years long.
Adult loggerhead sea turtles have been reported throughout the range ofthis species in the United States and throughout the Caribbean Sea. As discussed in the beginning ofthis section, they nest primarily from North Carolina southward to Florida with additional nesting assemblages in the Florida Panhandle and onthe Yucatan Peninsula. Non-nesting, adult female loggerheads are reported throughout the United States and Caribbean Sea; however, little is known about the distribution ofadult males who are seasonally abundant near nesting beaches during the nesting
season. Aerial surveys suggest that loggerheads (benthic immatures and adults) in U.S. waters
are distributed in the following proportions: 54% in the southeast U.S. Atlantic, 29% inthe northeast U.S. Atlantic, 12% in the eastern GulfofMexico, and 5% in the western Gulfof Mexico (TEWG 1998).
There is general agreement that the number ofnesting females provides a useful index ofthe species' population size and stability at this life stage, even though there are doubts about the ability to estimate the overall population size. Nesting data collected on index nesting beaches in the United States from 1989-1998 represent the best dataset available to index thepopulation size ofloggerhead sea turtles. Between 1989 and 1998, the total number ofnests laid along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulfcoasts ranged from 53,016-89,034 annually, representing, on average, an adult female population of44,780 [(nests/4.1) *2.5]. On average, 90.7% ofthe nests were from the South Florida subpopulation, 8.5% were from the northern subpopulation, and 0.8% were from the Florida Panhandle subpopulation. There is limited nesting throughout the Gulfof Mexico west ofFlorida, but it is not known to what subpopulation they belong. There are an estimated 3,700 nesting females in the northern loggerhead subpopulation, and the status ofthis population has been classified as stable at best (TEWG in prep.).
From a global perspective, the southeastern U.S. nesting aggregation is critical to the survival of this species: it is second in size only to the nesting aggregations in the Arabian Sea offOman and represents about 35% and 40% ofthe nests ofthis species. The status ofthe Oman nesting beaches has not been evaluated recently, but they are located in a part ofthe world that is vulnerable to extremely disruptive events (e.g., political upheavals, wars, and catastrophic oil

13spills), the resulting risk facing this nesting aggregation and these nesting beaches is cause for considerable concern (Meylan etal. 1995). Loggerhead sea turtles face a number ofthreats in the marine environment, including oil and gas exploration, development, and transportation; marine pollution; trawl, purse seine, hook and line, gill net, pound net, longline, and trap fisheries; underwater explosions; dredging, offshore artificial lighting; power plant entrapment; entanglement in debris; ingestion ofmarine debris; marina and dock construction and operation; boatcollisions; and poaching. On their nesting beaches in the United States, loggerhead sea turtles are threatened with beach erosion, armoring, and nourishment; artificial lighting; beach cleaning; increased human presence; poaching; recreational beach equipment; exotic dune andbeach vegetation; predation by exotic species such
as fire ants, raccoons (Procyonlotor),armadillos (Dasypusnovemcinctus),and opossums (Didelphusvirginiana). Large numbers ofloggerhead sea turtles from the four subpopulations thatoccur in the action
area are captured, injured, or killed in a wide variety offisheries. Virtually all ofthepelagic immature loggerheads taken in the Portuguese longline fleet in the vicinity ofthe Azores and Madeira are from western North Atlantic nesting subpopulations (Bolten etal. 1994, 1998) and abouthalfofthose taken inboth the eastern and westernbasins ofthe Mediterranean Sea are from the western North Atlantic subpopulations (Bowen et al. 1993; Laurent etal. 1998). Aguilar etal.(1995) estimated that the Spanish swordfish longline fleet, which isonly one ofthe many fleets operating intheregion, alone captures more than 20,000juvenile loggerheads annually, killing as many as 10,700. Estimated bycatch ofmarine turtles bythe U.S. Atlantic tuna and swordfish longline fisheries, based on observer data, was significantly greater than reported in logbooks through 1997 (Johnson etal. 1999; Witzell 1999), but was comparable by 1998 (Yeung 1999). Observer records indicate that an estimated 6,544 loggerheads were captured by the U.S. fleetbetween 1992-1998, ofwhich an estimated 43 were dead (Yeung etal. inprep.). For 1998 an estimated 510 loggerheads (225-1250) were captured and, based on serious injury criteria developed formarine mammals (whichmaybe inappropriate for sea turtles), all were presumed dead orwere expected to die subsequent tobeing captured. Logbooks and observer records indicated that loggerheads readily ingest hooks (Witzell 1999). Aguilar et al.(1995) reported that hooks were removed from only 171 of 1,098 loggerheads captured in the Spanish longline fishery, describing that removal was possible only when thehook was found in the mouth, thetongue or, in afew cases, externally (flippers, etc.); thepresumption is that all othershad ingested thehook. Loggerhead sea turtles also face numerous threats fromnatural causes. For example, there isa significant overlap between hurricane seasons in the Caribbean Sea and northwest Atlantic Ocean (June to November) and loggerhead sea turtle nesting season (March to November); hurricanes can have potentially disastrous effects onthe survival ofeggs in seaturtle nests. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew affected turtle nests over a 90-mile length ofcoastal Florida; all ofthe eggs were destroyed by storm surges onbeaches that were closest to the eye ofthishurricane (Milton etal. 1992). On Fisher Island near Miami, Florida, 69% ofthe eggs did nothatch after

14Hurricane Andrew, probably because they were drowned by the storm surge. Nests from the northern subpopulation were destroyed by hurricanes which made landfall in North Carolina in the mid to late 1990s. Sand accretion and rainfall that result from these storms can appreciably reduce hatchling success. These natural phenomena probably have significant, adverse effects on the size ofspecific year classes; particularly given the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Caribbean Sea and northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Statusandtrendof loggerhead seaturtles
Several published reports have presented the problems facing long-lived species that delay sexual maturity in a world replete with threats from a modem, human population (Congdon etal. 1993, Congdon and Dunham 1994, Crowder etal. 1994). In general, these reports concluded that animals that delay sexual maturity andreproduction must have high, annual survival asjuveniles through adults to ensure that enoughjuveniles survive to reproductive maturity and then reproduce enough times to maintain stable population sizes. This general rule applies to sea turtles, particularly loggerhead sea turtles, because the rule originated in studies ofsea turtles (Crouse etal. 1987, Crowder etal. 1994, Crouse 1999). Heppell etal.(in prep.) specifically showed that the growth ofthe loggerhead sea turtle population was particularly sensitive to changes in the annual survival ofbothjuvenile and adult seaturtles and thatthe adverse effects ofthe pelagic longline fishery on loggerheads from the pelagic immature phase appeared critical to the survival andrecovery ofthe species. Crouse (1999) concluded that relatively small changes in annual survival rates ofbothjuvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles will adversely affect large segments ofthe total loggerhead seaturtle population.
The four major subpopulations ofloggerhead sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic-northern, south Florida, Florida Panhandle, and Yucatan-are all subject to fluctuations in the number of young produced annually because ofnatural phenomena like hurricanes as well as human-related activities. Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expanses ofthe 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 and probably
cause fluctuations in seaturtle nesting success. Volusia County, Florida, for example, allows motor vehicles to drive on seaturtle nestingbeaches (the County has filed suit against the USFWS to retain this right) and seaturtle nesting in Indian River, Martin, West Palm, and Broward Counties ofFlorida can be affected bybeach armoring, beach renourishment, beach cleaning, artificial lighting, predation, andpoaching.
As discussed previously, the survival of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles is threatened by a completely different set ofthreats from human activity once they migrate to the ocean. Pelagic immature loggerhead seaturtles from these four subpopulations circumnavigate the North Atlantic over several years (Carr 1987, Bjomdal 1994). During that period, they are exposed to a series oflongline fisheries thatinclude an Azorean longline fleet, a Spanish longline fleet, and various fleets in the Mediterranean Sea (Aguilar etal. 1995, Bolten etal. 1994, Crouse 1999). Based on theirproportional distribution, the capture ofimmature loggerhead sea turtles in

15longline fleets in the Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes and the Mediterranean Sea will have a significant, adverse effect onthe annual survival rates of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles from the western Atlantic subpopulations, with a disproportionately large effect on the northern subpopulation that maybe significant at the population level. Inwaters offthe coastal United States, the survival ofjuvenile loggerhead sea turtles is threatened by a suite offisheries in Federal and State waters. Loggerhead turtles are captured, injured, or killed in shrimp fisheries offthe Atlantic coast; along the southeastern Atlantic coast, loggerhead turtle populations were declining where shrimp fishing is intense offthe nesting beaches, before the required use ofTEDs (Magnuson etal. 1990). Conversely, these nesting populations did not appear tobe declining where nearshore shrimping effort is low or absent. The management ofshrimpharvest in theGulfofMexico demonstrates the correlation between shrimp trawling and impacts to seaturtles. Waters out to 200nm are closed to shrimp fishing off Texas each year for approximately a 3-month period (mid-May through mid-July) to allow shrimp to migrate out ofestuarine waters; sea turtle strandings decline dramatically during this period (NMFS, STSSNunpublished data). Loggerhead sea turtles are captured in fixed pound net gear in theLong Island Sound, in poundnet gear and trawls in summer flounder and other finfish fisheries in the mid-Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay, in gill net fisheries in the mid-Atlantic and elsewhere, in fisheries formonkfish and for spinydogfish, and in northeast sink gill net fisheries (see further discussion in theEnvironmental Baselineofthis Opinion). Witzell (1999) compiled data oncapture rates ofloggerhead and leatherback turtles inU.S. longline fisheries in the Caribbean and northwest Atlantic; the cumulative takes ofthese fisheries approach those of the U.S. shrimp fishing fleet (Crouse 1999, Magnuson etal. 1990). Leatherback turtle (Dermochelyscoriacea) The Recovery Plan forLeatherback Turtles (Dermochelyscoriacea)contains a description ofthe natural history and taxonomy ofthis species (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Leatherbacks are widely distributed throughout the oceans ofthe world, and are found throughout waters ofthe Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and the GOM (Ernst and Barbour 1972). They are predominantly distributed pelagically, feeding primarily onjellyfish such as Stomolophus, Chryaora, and Aurelia (Rebel 1974). Leatherbacks are deep divers, with recorded dives to depths in excess of 1000 m (Eckert etal. 1989), butthey may come into shallow waters ifthere is an abundance of jellyfish nearshore. Leary (1957) reported a large group ofup to 100 leatherbacksjust offshore ofPort Aransas, Texas, associated with adense aggregation ofStomolophus. They also occur annually inplaces such as Cape Cod and Narragansett Bays during certain times ofthe year, particularly the fall. The leatherback is the largest living turtle and itranges farther than any other sea turtle species, exhibiting broad thermal tolerances (NMFS and USFWS 1995). Leatherback turtles feed primarily on cnidarians (medusae, siphonophores) and tunicates (salps, pyrosomas) and are often found in association withjellyfish. TDR datarecorded by Eckert etal.(1989) indicate that leatherbacks are nightfeeders. Ofthe Atlantic turtle species, leatherback turtles seemto be the

16most susceptible to entanglement in lobster gear and, along with loggerheads, to longline gear. This susceptibility may be theresult ofattraction to gelatinous organisms and algae that collect
on buoys andbuoy lines at or nearthe surface, andperhaps to the lightsticks used to attract target species in the longline fishery. Although leatherbacks are a long lived species (>30 years), they are somewhat faster to mature than loggerheads, with an estimated age at sexual maturity reported as about13-14 years for females, and an estimated minimum age at sexual maturity of5-6 years, with 9 years reported as a likely minimum (Zug 1996). Compared to the current knowledge regarding loggerhead populations, the genetic distinctness of leatherback populations is less clear. However, genetic analyses ofleatherbacks to date indicate that within the Atlantic basin significant genetic differences occur between St. Croix, U.S.V.I., and mainland Caribbean populations (Florida, CostaRica, Suriname and French Guiana) and between Trinidad andthe same mainland populations (Dutton etal. 1999), leading to the conclusion that there are at least three separate subpopulations ofleatherbacks in the Atlantic. Much ofthe genetic diversity is contained in the relatively small insular subpopulations. To date, no studies have been published on the genetic make-up ofpelagic orbenthic foraging leatherbacks in the Atlantic and thus it is not known what populations are being impacted by particular actions. Although populations or subpopulations ofleatherback sea turtles have not been formally recognized, based on the most recent reviews ofthe analysis ofpopulation trends ofleatherback
sea turtles, and due to our limited understanding ofthe genetic structure ofthe entire species, the most conservative approach wouldbe to treat leatherback nesting populations as distinct populations whose survival and recovery is critical to the survival and recovery ofthe species. Further, any action that appreciably reduced the likelihood for one or more ofthese nesting populations to survive and recover in the wild would appreciably reduce the species' likelihood ofsurvival and recovery in the wild.
Nest counts are currently the onlyreliable indicator ofpopulation status available for leatherback turtles. Recent declines have been seen in the number ofleatherbacks nesting worldwide (NMFS and USFWS 1995). The status ofthe leatherback population in the Atlantic is difficult to assess since major nesting beaches occur overbroad areas within tropical waters outside the United States. The nesting population within U.S.jurisdiction is presumed to be stable. Numbers at
some nesting beaches (e.g., St. Croix, Florida, Puerto Rico) are increasing (P. Dutton pers. comm.), although some nesting beaches in the U.S. Virgin Islands have been extirpated including nesting assemblages in other areas ofthe Caribbean such as St. John and St. Thomas. The nesting beach at SandyPoint, St. Croix, which has witnessed an increase in the population, has been subject to intensive conservation management efforts since 1981. However, it isnot known whether the observed increase is due to improved adult survival or recruitment ofnew nesters, since flipper tag loss is so high in this species. Better data collection methods implemented since the late 1980s may soon help to answer these questions. Based on an expected inter-nesting

17interval ofone to five years, Dutton etal.(inpress) estimate a 19- 49% mortality rate forre migrating females at Sandy Point. Researchers are currently unable to explain the underlying mechanisms which somehow are resulting simultaneously in such high mortality levels to nesting age females, and yet exponential growth in the nesting population.
In the western Atlantic, the primary nestingbeaches occur in French Guiana, Suriname, and Costa Rica. The nesting population ofleatherback sea turtles in the Suriname-French Guiana trans-boundary region hasbeen declining since 1992 (Chevalier and Girondot 1998). The current status ofnesting populations in French Guiana and Suriname is difficult to interpret because these beaches are so dynamic geologically. Chevalier (pers. comm.), in a talk at the recent Annual SeaTurtle Symposium onMarch 2, 2000, entitled "Driftnet Fishing in the Marconi Estuary: the Major Reason for the Leatherback Turtle's Decline in the Guianas," stated that sincethe mid 1970s leatherback nesting has declined (1987-1992 mean = 40,950 nests and 1993-1998 mean = 18,100 nests). He states that there is very little shifting in nesting from French Guiana and Suriname to other Caribbean sites (there has only been one tag recapture elsewhere). Chevalier claims that there isno human-induced mortality onthe beach in French Guiana, and natural mortality ofadults should be low. There has been very low hatchling
success onbeaches used for the last 25 years. Chevalier believes thatthreats to the population include fishing (longlines, driftnets, and trawling), pollution (plastic bags and chemicals), and boat propellers. Around 90% ofthe nests are laid within 25 km from the Maroni estuary. Strandings in 1997, 1998, and 1999 in the estuarywere 70, 60, and 100, which Chevalier considers underestimates. He questioned the fishermen and actually observed a 1km gill net with seven dead leatherbacks. This observation, coupled with the strandings, led him to conclude that there were large numbers captured incidentally in large mesh nets. There are protected areas nearshore inFrench Guiana; offshore, driftnets are set. There are no such protected areas offSuriname, and fishing occurs at the beach. Offshore nets soak overnight in Suriname; many boats fish overnight. According to Chevalier, the French Guiana government is starting up a working group to deal with accidental capture and to enforce the legislation. They will work towards the management ofthe fishery activity and collaborate with Suriname. They plan to study the accidental capture by the fishermen, satellite track turtles, and study strandings. The main problem appears to be the close proximity ofthe driftnet fishery to the nesting areas.
Swinkels (pers. comm.) also gave apresentation at the symposium on March 3, 2000, entitled "The Leatherback onthe Move? Promising News from Suriname." Swinkels stated that from 1995-1999 there was a large increase in leatherback nesting in Suriname. There is a nature
reserve in two parts: one in Suriname and one in adjacent French Guiana. There were increasing trends observed on three beaches but poaching was 80%. Samsambo is avery dynamic beach which has been newly created (bynatural events) and now is a nesting beach. In 1999, there
were >4000 nests ofwhich about 50% were poached. In 1995 very few were poached (verylittle poaching effort was concentrated there because at the time there wasn't much beach or nesting). Swinkels indicated that since thattime, however, poaching hasbeen increasing. The beach has naturally been renourished over thisperiod. Swinkels' null hypothesis was that there had been a shift in nesting activity (from other nesting areas). His alternate hypothesis was that the new

18nesting represented new recruitment to thepopulation. The status ofleatherbacks in the Pacific appears more dire than the Atlantic. The East Pacific leatherback population was estimated to be over 91,000 adults in 1980 (Spotila 1996). Declines in nest abundance have been reported from primary nesting beaches. At Mexiquillo, Michoacan, Mexico, Sarti etal.(1996) reported an average annual decline in nesting ofabout 23% between 1984 and 1996. The total number offemales nesting on the Pacific coast ofMexico during the 1995-1996 season was estimated at fewer than 1,000. Less than 700 females are estimated for Central America (Spotila etal.2000). In thewestern Pacific, the decline is equally severe. Current nestings at Terengganu, Malaysia, represent 1%ofthe levels recorded in the 1950s (Chan and Liew 1996). Globally, leatherback populations have been decimated worldwide. Thepopulation was estimated to number approximately 115,000 adult females in 1980 (Pritchard 1982) and only 34,500 by 1995 (Spotilaetal. 1996). The decline canbe attributed to many factors including fisheries as well as intense exploitation ofthe eggs (Ross 1979). On somebeaches, nearly 100% ofthe eggs laid have been harvested (Sarti et al. 1996). Sarti (1996) and Spotila et al.(1996) record that adult mortality has also increased significantly, particularly as aresult ofdriftnet and longline fisheries. The Pacific population appears tobe in a critical state ofdecline, now estimated to number less than 3,000 total adult and subadult animals (Spotila 2000). The status ofthe Atlantic population is less clear. In 1996, itwas reported to be stable, atbest (Spotila 1996), but numbers in the western Atlantic at that writing were reported to be on the order of 18,800 nesting females. According to Spotila (pers. comm.), the western Atlantic population currently numbers about 15,000 nesting females, whereas current estimates for the Caribbean (4,000) andthe eastern Atlantic (i.e., offAfrica, numbering - 4,700) have remained consistent with numbers reported by Spotila et al.in 1996. Between 1989 and 1995, marked leatherback returns to the nesting beach at St. Croix averaged only48.5%, but that the overall nesting population grew (McDonald etal. 1993). This is in contrast to aPacific nesting beach atPlaya Grande, Costa Rica, where only 11.9% ofturtles tagged in 1993-94 and 19.0% ofturtles tagged in 1994-95 returned to nest over the next fiveyears. Characterizations ofthis population suggest that it has a very low likelihood ofsurvival and recoveryin the wildunder current conditions. Spotila et al.(2000) states that a conservative estimate ofannual leatherback fishery-related mortality (from longlines, trawls, and gill nets) in the Pacific during the 1990s is 1,500 animals. He estimates thatthis represented about a 23% mortality rate (or 33% ifmost mortalitywas focused onthe East Pacific population). Spotila etal.(2000) asserts that most ofthe mortality associated with the Playa Grande nesting site was fishery related. As noted above, leatherbacks normally live at least 30 years, usuallymaturing at about 12-13 years. Such long-lived species cannot withstand such highrates ofanthropogenic mortality. Spotila etal.(1996) describe a hypothetical life table model based on estimated ages ofsexual maturity atboth ends ofthe species' natural range (5 and 15 years). The model concluded that leatherbacks maturing in 5years would exhibitmuch greater population fluctuations in response

19to external factors than would turtles thatmature in 15 years. Furthermore, the simulations indicated that leatherbacks could maintain a stable population only ifbothjuvenile and adult survivorship remained high and ifother lifehistory stages (i.e., egg, hatchling, andjuvenile) remained static, "stable leatherback populations could not withstand an increase in adult mortality above natural background levels without decreasing... Even the Atlantic populations
are being exploited at a rate that cannot be sustained." Model simulations indicated that an increase in adult mortality ofmore than 1%above background levels in a stable population was unsustainable. Spotila etal.(1996) recommended not only reducing mortalities resulting from fishery interaction, but also advocated protection ofeggs during the incubation period and of hatchlings during their first day, and indicated that suchpractices couldpotentially double the chance for survival and help counteract population effects resulting from adult mortality. They conclude "the Atlantic population is the mostrobust, but it isbeing exploited at arate that cannot be sustained and ifthis rate ofmortality continues, these populations will also decline. Leatherbacks are on theroad to extinction." Zug (1996) point outthat the combination ofthe loss oflong-lived adults infishery related mortality and the lack ofrecruitment stemming from elimination ofannual influxes ofhatchlings because ofintense eggharvesting has caused the sharp decline in leatherback populations. The authors state that "the relatively short maturation time ofleatherbacks offers some hope for their survival ifwe can greatly reduce theharvest oftheir eggs and the accidental and intentional capture andkilling oflargejuveniles and adults." Summary The conflicting information regarding the status ofAtlantic leatherbacks makes itdifficult to conclude whether ornot thepopulation is currently in decline. Numbers at some nesting sites are up, while at others they are down. At one site (St. Croix), population growth has been documented despite large apparent mortality ofnesting females; where data are available, population numbers are down in the western Atlantic, but stable inthe Caribbean and eastern Atlantic. Itdoes appear, however, thatthe western Atlantic portion ofthepopulation isbeing subjected to mortality beyond sustainable levels,resulting in a continued decline in numbers of nesting females. In the absence ofany otherpopulation models, the western Atlantic population cannot withstand
more than a 1%human-related mortality level which translates to 150 nesting females (Spotila et al. 1996; Spotila pers. comm.). As noted above, there aremany anthropogenic sources of mortality to leatherbacks; a tally ofall leatherback takes anticipated annually under current biological opinions yields apotential forup to 1,166 leatherback takes, although this sum includes many takes expected tobe nonlethal and takes ofmales,juveniles, andpossibly leatherbacks fromthe Caribbean and West African nesting assemblages. In combination with other threatening factors, such as the continued harvest ofeggs and adult turtles for meat in some Caribbean andLatin nations, the effects ofocean pollution, andnatural disturbances such as hurricanes (which may wipe out nesting beaches), itis clear that the endangered leatherback

20populations ofthe Atlantic require significant conservation efforts to ensure their long-term survival and recovery in the wild. Green turtle (Cheloniamydas) Green turtles are globally distributed, mainly in waters between the northern and southern 20'C isotherms (Hirth 1971). Green turtles were traditionally (and are still)highly prized fortheir flesh, fat, eggs, and shell, and fisheries in the United States and throughout the Caribbean are largely to blame forthe decline ofthe species.
In the western Atlantic, several major nesting assemblages have been identified and studied (Peters 1954, Carr and Ogren 1960, Parsons 1962, Pritchard 1969, Carr et al. 1978). The largest, at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, has shown a long-term increasing trend since monitoringbegan in 1971. The increase is from an annual fitted-estimated number ofemergences ofunder 20,000 in 1971 to over 40,000 in 1996. Over 100,000 emergences occurred in 1995 (Bjorndal etal. 1999b). Inthe continental United States, green turtle nesting occurs onthe Atlantic coast of Florida (Ehrhart 1979). Occasional nesting hasbeen documented along the Gulfcoast ofFlorida, at southwest Florida beaches, aswell as the beaches on theFlorida Panhandle (Meylan etal. 1995). Most documented green turtle nesting activity occurs on Florida index beaches, which were established to standardize data collection methods and effort on key nesting beaches. The pattern ofgreen turtle nesting shows biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally positive trend during the ten years ofregular monitoring since establishment ofthe index beaches in 1989, perhaps due to increased protective legislation throughout the Caribbean (Meylan et al. 1995). A long-term in-watermonitoring study in the Indian RiverLagoon ofFlorida hastracked the populations of juvenile green turtles in a foraging environment and noted significant increases in catchper unit effort (more than doubling)between the years 1983-85 and 1988-90. An extreme, short-term increase in CPUE of-300% was seen between 1995 and 1996 (Ehrhart et al. 1996).
While nesting activity is obviously important in identifying population trends and distribution, themajority portion ofa green turtle's life is spenton the foraging grounds. Green turtles are herbivores, and appear toprefer marine grasses and algae in shallowbays, lagoons, and reefs (Rebel 1974). Some oftheprincipal feeding pastures in theGulfofMexico include inshore south Texas waters, the upper west coast ofFlorida and the northwestern coast ofthe Yucatan Peninsula. Additional important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include the Indian River Lagoon System in Florida, Florida Bay,the Culebra archipelago and other Puerto Rico coastal waters, the south coast ofCuba, theMosquito coast ofNicaragua, the Caribbean coast of Panama, and scattered areas along Colombia and Brazil (Hirth 1971). The preferred food sources in these areas are Cymodocea, Thalassia,Zostera,Sagittaria, and Vallisneria(Babcock 1937, Underwood 1951, Carr 1952, 1954). Green turtles were once abundant enough in the shallow bays and lagoons ofthe Gulfto support a commercial fishery, which landed overone million pounds ofgreen turtles in 1890 (Doughty 1984). Doughty reported thedecline in the turtle fishery throughout theGulfofMexico by 1902.

21Currently, green turtles are uncommon in offshore waters ofthe northern Gulf,but abundant in someinshore embayments. Shaver (1994) live-captured anumber ofgreen turtles in channels entering into Laguna Madre, in South Texas. She noted the abundance ofgreen turtle strandings in Laguna Madre inshore waters and opined that the turtles may establish residency in the inshore foraging habitats asjuveniles. Algae alongthejetties at entrances to the inshore waters ofSouth Texas was thought to be important to greenturtles associated with aradio-telemetry project (Renaud etal. 1995). Transmitter-equipped turtles remained nearjetties for most ofthe tracking period. This project wasrestricted to late summermonths, and therefore may reflect seasonal influences. Coyne (1994) observed increased movements ofgreen turtles during warm water months. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelysimbricata) The hawksbill turtle is relatively uncommon inthe waters ofthe continental United States, preferring coral reefs, such as those found in the Caribbean and Central America. Hawksbills feed primarily on a wide variety ofsponges but also consume bryozoans, coelenterates, and mollusks. Nesting areas in the western North Atlantic include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. NMFS has designated the coastal waters surrounding Mona and Monito Islands, offthe west coast ofPuerto Rico, as critical habitat forhawksbills. MonaIsland supports the largest population ofnesting hawksbills in the U.S. Caribbean. In the northern GulfofMexico, a surprising number ofsmall hawksbills are encountered in Texas. Most ofthe Texas records are probably in the 1-2 year class range. Many ofthe individuals captured or stranded are unhealthy or injured (Hildebrand 1983). The lack ofsponge covered reefs and the cold winters in the northern GulfofMexico probablyprevent hawksbills from establishing a strong presence in that area. Ofthe 65 geopolitical units worldwide, where estimates ofrelative hawksbill nesting density exist, 38 ofthem have hawksbill populations that are suspected or known to be in decline and an additional 18 have experienced "well-substantiated declines" (NMFS and USFWS 1995). Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelyskempit) Ofthe seven extant species ofsea turtles ofthe world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the lowestpopulation level. The Recovery Plan forthe Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) (USFWS and NMFS 1992b) contains a description ofthenatural history, taxonomy, and distribution ofthe Kemp's ridleyturtle. Kemp's ridleys nest in daytime aggregations known as arribadas, primarily atRancho Nuevo, a stretch ofbeach in Mexico. Most ofthe population of adult females nest in this single locality (Pritchard 1969). When nesting aggregations atRancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to bein excess of 40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the early 1970s, the world population estimate of mature female Kemp's ridleys had beenreduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals. The population declined further through themid-1980s. Recent observations ofincreased nesting suggest that the decline in theridleypopulation has stopped and there iscautious optimism that the population is now increasing.

22The nearshore waters ofthe GulfofMexico are believed to provide important developmental habitat forjuvenile Kemp's ridley and loggerhead seaturtles. Ogren (1988) suggests that the Gulfcoast, from Port Aransas, Texas, through Cedar Key,Florida, represents theprimary habitat for subadult ridleys in the northern GulfofMexico. Stomach contents ofKemp's ridleys along the lower Texas coast consisted ofa predominance ofnearshore crabs and mollusks, aswell as fish, shrimp, and other foods considered to be shrimp fishery discards (Shaver 1991). Analyses ofstomach contents from sea turtles stranded onupper Texas beaches apparently suggest similar nearshore foraging behavior (Plotkin pers. comm.). Research being conducted by Texas A&M University hasresulted in the intentional live-capture ofhundreds ofKemp's ridleys at Sabine Pass andthe entrance to Galveston Bay. Between 1989 and 1993, 50 ofthe Kemp's ridleys captured were tracked (using satellite and radio telemetry) by biologists with the NMFS Galveston Laboratory. The tracking studywas designed to characterize seaturtle habitat and to identify small and large scale migration patterns. Preliminary analysis ofthe data collected during these studies suggests that subadult Kemp's ridleys stay in shallow, warm, nearshore waters in the northern GulfofMexico until cooling waters force them offshore or south along theFlorida coast (Renaud pers. comm.).
In recent years, unprecedented numbers ofKemp's ridley carcasses have been reported from Texas and Louisiana beaches duringperiods ofhigh levels ofshrimping effort. NMFS established a team ofpopulation biologists, seaturtle scientists, and managers, known as the Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG), to conduct a status assessment ofsea turtle populations. Analyses conducted bythe group have indicated thatthe Kemp's ridley population is in the early stages ofrecovery; however, strandings in some years have increased atrates higherthan therate ofincrease in the Kemp's population (TEWG 1998). While many ofthe stranded turtles observed in recent years in Texas and Louisiana arebelieved to havebeen incidentallytaken in the shrimp fishery, other sources ofmortality exist in these waters. These stranding events illustrate the vulnerability ofKemp's ridley and loggerhead turtles to the impacts ofhuman activities in nearshore GulfofMexico waters. TheTEWG (1998) developed apopulation model to evaluate trends in the Kemp's ridley population through the application ofempirical data and lifehistory parameter estimates chosen bythe TEWG. Model results identified three trends in benthic immature Kemp's ridleys. Benthic immatures are those turtles that are notyet reproductively mature buthave recruited to feed in the nearshore benthic environment, where they are available to nearshore mortality sources that often result in strandings. Benthic immature ridleys are estimated tobe 2-9 years of age and 20-60 cm in length. Increased production ofhatchlings from the nesting beach beginning in 1966 resulted in an increase inbenthic ridleys that leveled offin the late 1970s. A second period ofincrease followed by leveling occurred between 1978 and 1989 as hatchling production was further enhanced by the cooperative program between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mexico's Instituto Nacional dePesca to increase the nest protection and relocation program in 1978. A thirdperiod ofsteady increase, which has not leveled offto date, has occurred since 1990 and appears to be due to the greatly increased hatchling production and an

23apparent increase in survival rates ofimmature turtles beginning in 1990 due, inpart, to the introduction ofturtle excluder devices (TEDs). Adult ridley numbers have now grown from a low ofapproximately 1,050 adultsproducing 702 nests in 1985, to greater than 3,000 adults producing 1,940 nests in 1995, to greater than 9,000 adults producing about 5,700 nests in 2000.
The TEWG (1998) was unable to estimate the total population size and current mortality rates for the Kemp's ridleypopulation; however, the TEWG listed a number ofpreliminary conclusions. TheTEWG indicated that the Kemp's ridleypopulation appears to be in the early stage of exponential expansion. Overtheperiod 1987 to 1995, the rate ofincrease in the annual number ofnests accelerated in atrend that would continue with enhanced hatchling production and the use ofTEDs. Nesting data indicated that the number ofadults declined from apopulation that produced 6,000 nests in 1966 to a population thatproduced 924 nests in 1978 and a low of702 nests in 1985. Thus, thetrajectory ofadult abundance tracks trends in nest abundance from an estimate of9,600 in 1966 to 1,050 in 1985. The TEWG estimated that in 1995 therewere 3,000 adultridleys. Theincreased recruitment ofnew adults is illustrated in the proportion of neophyte, or firsttime nesters, which has increased from 6% to 28% from 1981 to 1989 and from 23% to 41% from 1990 to 1994. The population model in the TEWG projected that Kemp's ridleys could reach the intermediate recovery goal identified in the Recovery Plan, of 10,000 nesters by the year2020, ifthe assumptions ofageto sexual maturity and age specific survivorship rates plugged into their model are correct. It determined that the data reviewed suggested that adult Kemp's ridleyturtles were restricted somewhat to the GulfofMexico in shallow nearshore waters, andbenthic immature turtles of20-60 cm straight line carapace length
are found in nearshore coastal waters including estuaries ofthe GulfofMexico andthe Atlantic.
The TEWG (1998) identified an average Kemp's ridleypopulation growth rate of 13% peryear between 1991 and 1995. Total nest numbers have continued to increase. However, the 1996 and 1997 nest numbers reflected a slower rateofgrowth, while the increase in the 1998 nesting level
was much higher, then decreased in 1999, and increased again strongly in 2000. The population growth rate does not appear as steady asoriginally forecasted bythe TEWG, but annual fluctuations, due inpart to irregular internesting periods, are normal for other seaturtle populations. Also, as populations increase and expand, nesting activity would be expected to be more variable. The area surveyed forridley nests in Mexico was expanded in 1990 due to destruction ofthe primary nesting beach by Hurricane Gilbert. The TEWG (1998) assumed that the increased nesting observed particularly since 1990 was a true increase, ratherthan theresult ofexpanded beach coverage. Because systematic surveys ofthe adjacent beaches were not conducted prior to 1990, there is no wayto determine what proportion ofthe nesting increase documented since that time is due to the increased survey effort ratherthan an expanding ridleynesting range. As noted by TEWG, trends in Kemp's ridley nesting even on theRancho Nuevo beaches alone suggest that recovery ofthis population hasbegun but continued caution is necessaryto ensure recovery andto meet thegoals identified in the Kemp's Ridley Recovery Plan.

24III. Species Likely to Be Affected Ofthe above-listed species occurring in the Atlantic Ocean offshore ofthe southeastern United States, NMFS believes that the five sea turtle species are vulnerable to capture, injury, and death from some ofthe activities associated with the proposed action. However, based on stranding records andrecords fromthe plant,hawksbill and leatherback turtles are rare in this area; therefore, NMFS believes that althoughthere is a chance that ahawksbill or leatherback sea turtle could be affected by theproposed actionthe chances ofone ofthese species being affected isremote. IV. Environmental Baseline This section contains an analysis ofthe effects ofpast and ongoing human and natural factors leadingto the current status ofthe species, their habitat, and ecosystem, within the action area. The environmental baseline is a snapshot ofa species' health at a specified point in time and includes state, tribal, local, and private actions already affecting the species, orthat will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. Unrelated Federal actions affecting the same species or critical habitat that have completed formal or informal consultation are alsopart ofthe environmental baseline, as are Federal and other actions within the action area thatmay benefit listed species orcritical habitat. The environmental baseline forthis biological opinion includes the effects ofseveral activities that affect the survival and recovery ofthreatened and endangered species in the action area. The activities that shape the environmental baseline in the action area ofthis consultation are primarily fisheries and recovery activities associated with reducing fisheries impacts. Other environmental impacts include effects ofdischarges, dredging, military activities, oil and gas development activities, and industrial cooling water intake. Status ofthe Species Within theAction Area The five species ofsea turtles that occur in the action area are all highly migratory. NMFS believes that no individual members ofanyofthe species are likely to be year-round residents of the action area. Individual animals will make migrations into near shorewaters aswell as other areas oftheNorth Atlantic Ocean, GulfofMexico, andthe Caribbean Sea. Therefore, the range wide status ofthe five species ofsea turtles, given in section II above, most accurately reflects the species' status within the action area. Likewise, while the following discussion offactors affecting species reflects conditions both inside and outside ofthe immediate action area, this discussion most accurately reflects those factors acting on seaturtles which may occur within the action area seasonally ortransiently. Factors Affecting Species within the Action Area Federal Actions
25Inrecent years, NMFS hasundertaken several ESA section 7consultations to address the effects ofFederally-permitted fisheries and other Federal actions on threatened and endangered species in the action area. Each ofthose consultations sought to develop ways ofreducing the probability ofadverse effects ofthe action on sea turtles. Similarly, recovery actions NMFS has undertaken under both the MMPA and the ESA are addressing the problem oftake ofsea turtles in the fishing and shipping industries. Incidental take levels anticipated under the incidental take statements associated with these existing biological opinions are summarized in Table 1below, followed by abriefdiscussion ofeach action consulted on. The following summary of anticipated incidental take ofturtles includes only those Federal actions which have undergone formal section 7consultation.

Table 1. Summary of annual incidental take levels anticipated under the incidental take statements

•ssociatepd1 with NMFS' existina biolooical opinions in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Federal Annual Anticipated Incidental Take Level (lethal)l Action Loggerhead Leatherback Green Kemp's Hawksbill

Coast Guard Vessel Operation 1(1)2 1(1(1)2 1(1)2 1(1)2
Navy

- SE Ops Area3 91(91) 17(17)2 16(16)2 16(16)2 4(4)2
Navy-NE Ops Area 10(10) 0 1(1)2 1(1)2 0 Shipshock

- Seawolf/Winston 276(58)2 276(58)2 276(58)2 276(58)2 276(58)2 Churchill4
COE Dredging-NE Atlantic 27(27) 1(1) 6(6)2 5 (5)2 0
COE Dredging

- S Atlantic 35(35) 0 7(7) 7(7) 2(2)

COE Dredging

- N & W Gulfof 30(30) 0 8(8) 14(14) 2(2) Mexico COE Dredging

- E Gulf ofMexico 8 (8) 5 5(5)s 5(5)' 5(5)5 5(5)_

COE Rig Removal, GulfofMexico 1(1)2 1(1)2 1(1)2 1(1)2 1(1)2

MMS Destin Dome Lease Sales 1(1)2;6 t( )2:6 1()26 (1 )2:6 1(1 )2;6
MMS Rig Removal, GulfofMexico 10(10)7 5(5)2;7 5(5)2:7 5(5)2;7 5(5)2;7

NE Multispecies Sink Gillnet Fishery 10(10) 4(4) 4(4) 2(2) 0

ASMFC Lobster Plan 10(10) 4(4) 0 0 0

Bluefish 6(3) 0 0 6(6) Herring 6(3) 1(1) 1(1) 1(1) 0 Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish 6(3) 1(l) 2(2) 2(2) 0

Monkfish Fishery7 6(3) 1(l) 1(I) I(1) 0 Dogfish Fishery 6(3) 1 (1(1)(1) 1(1) 0 Sargassum 30(30)' 1(1)2 1(1)2 1(1)2 1(1)2

26Summer Flounder, Scup & Black Sea 15(5) 3(3)2 3(3)2 3(3)2 3(3)2 Bass Shrimp Fishery 3450(3450) 9 650(650)9 3450(3450)9 3450(3450)"ý 3450(3450)"
Weakfish 20(20) 0 0 2(2) 0
HMS

- Pelagic Longline Fishery "0 468(7) 358(6) 46(2) 23(l) 46(2)
HMS

- Shark gillnet Fishery " 20(20) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)
HMS

- Bottom Longline Fishery " 12(12) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)
NRC

- St. Lucie, FL 12 unlimited(2) unlimited(l) unlimited(3) unlimited(l) unlimited(l)
NRC

- Brunswick, NC 50(6)2 502 50(3)2 50(2)2 502
NRC - CEstal River, FL 55 (1)2 55 (1)2 55 (1)2 55 (l)2 55 (1) 2

Total 13 4,660(3,860) 1,440(767) 

# J 3,945(3,587) 3,933(3,592) 3,907(3,541) 'Anticipated Take level represents 'observed' unless otherwise noted. Number in parenthesis represents lethal take and is a subset ofthe total anticipated take; numbers less than whole are rounded up. 2The anticipated take level may represent any combination ofspecies and thus is tallied under each column (note: in most cases, it is expected that takes ofturtle species otherthan loggerheads will be minimal). SIncludes Navy Operations along the Atlantic coast and GulfofMexico, Mine Warfare Center, Eglin AFB, Moody AFB. ' Total estimated take includes acoustic harassment. 5Up to 8 turtles total, ofwhich, no more than 5 may be leatherbacks, greens, Kemp's or hawksbill, in combination. •Total anticipated take is 3 turtles ofany combination overa 30-year period.

Notto exceed 25 turtles, in total. Anticipated take for post-hatchlings fortotal period June 21, 1999 through January 2001. 9Represents estimated take; however, the Incidental take statement cites observed take (5loggerheads, 2 leatherbacks, or 3 Kemp's ridleys orgreens orhawksbills in any combination) as a representative oftheestimated take. The estimated take represents any combination ofspecies otherthan the leatherback. "'Represents estimated total take and observed lethal take in parentheses. "Represents estimated total and lethal take.

" 2 Take levels fornonlethal were not identified because entrainment is a function ofturtle abundance & environmental conditions; lethal take isalso expressed as 1.5% ofthe total number entrained in the plant, whichever is greater. "12

Represents a minimum number ofturtles taken annually because the majority ofthe take is observed take and is not an estimate oftrue numbers that are taken; the 'unlimited' lethal take for St.Lucie Power Plant is not incorporated in the total. '3 13The numbers for each species are not additive because thetotal anticipated take, in many cases, represents a combination of species.

Vessel Operations Potential adverse effects from Federal vessel operations in the action area ofthis consultation include operations ofthe Navy (USN) and Coast Guard (USCG), which maintain the largest Federal vessel fleets, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Army Corps ofEngineers (COE). NMFS has conducted formal consultations with the USCG, the USN (described below) and is currently in early phases ofconsultation with the otherFederal agencies on their vessel operations. Through the section 7 process, where applicable, NMFS has and will continue to establish conservation
measures for all these agency vessel operations to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species. At the present time, however, they represent potential for some level ofinteraction. Refer to the biological opinions forthe USCG (NMFS 1995, 1996a, and 1998b) and the USN 27(NMFS 1997b) fordetail onthe scope ofvessel operations for these agencies and conservation measures being implemented as standard operatingprocedures. Since the USN consultation only covered operations out ofMayport, Florida, potential still remains forUSN vessels to adversely affect sea turtles when they are operating in other areas within the range ofthese species. Similarly, operations ofvessels by other Federal agencies within the action area (NOAA, EPA, COE) may adversely affect seaturtles. However, the in-water activities ofthose agencies are limited in scope, as they operate a limited number ofvessels or are engaged in research/operational activities that are unlikely to contribute a large amount ofrisk. Additionalmilitaryactivities,including vessel operations and ordnance detonation, also affect sea turtles. U.S. Navy aerial bombing training inthe ocean offthe southeast U.S. coast, involving drops oflive ordnance (500- and 1,000-lb bombs) is estimated to have thepotential to injure orkill, annually, 84 loggerheads, 12 leatherbacks, and 12 greens or Kemp's ridley, in combination (NMFS 1997a). The USN will also conduct ship-shock testing forthe new SEAWOLF submarine and the DDG-81 WINSTON S. CHURCHILL guided missile destroyer offthe Atlantic coast ofFlorida, using 5 submerged detonations, each of 10,000-lb explosive charge. This testing is estimated to injure or kill 50 loggerheads, 6 leatherbacks, and 4 hawksbills, greens, or Kemp's ridleys, forthe SEAWOLF and 8 sea turtles in any combination of the five species found in the action area forthe Winston Churchill (NMFS 1996b; NMFS 2000). The USN Mine Warfare Center in Corpus Christi, Texas, may take, annually, up to 5loggerheads and 2 leatherbacks, hawksbills, greens, orKemp's ridleys, in combination, duringtraining activities inthe western GulfofMexico. U.S. AirForce operations in the Eglin GulfTest Range in the eastern GulfofMexico may also kill orinjure sea turtles. Air-to-surface gunnery testing is estimated to kill amaximum of3loggerheads, 2 leatherbacks, and 1green, hawksbill or Kemp's ridley. Search and rescue training operations are expected to have a low level ofimpacts, taking 2turtles over a 20-yearperiod. Operation ofthe USCG's boats and cutters in the U.S. Atlantic, meanwhile, isestimated to take no more than one individual turtle-ofany species-per year (NMFS 1995). Formal consultation onoverall USCG or USN activities in the GulfofMexico hasnot been conducted. The construction andmaintenance ofFederal navigation channels has also been identified as a source ofturtle mortality. Hopper dredges, which are frequently used in ocean bar channels and sometimes inharbor channels andoffshore borrow areas, move relatively rapidly (compared to sea turtle swimming speeds) and can entrain andkill sea turtles, presumably asthe drag arm of the moving dredge overtakes the slower movingturtle. Alongthe Atlantic coast ofthe southeastern United States, NMFS estimates that annual, observed injury or mortality ofsea turtles fromhopper dredging mayreach 35 loggerheads, 7 greens, 7 Kemp's ridleys, and 2 hawksbills (NMFS 1997c). A combination ofhopper dredging andthe use ofexplosives is expected to take 18 sea turtles (all species) during the deepening and widening ofWilmington Harbor, North Carolina. Along the north andwest coasts ofthe GulfofMexico, channel maintenance dredging using a hopper dredge may injure or kill 30 loggerhead, 8green, 14 Kemp's ridley, and 2 hawksbill sea turtles annually (NMFS 1997d). Additional incidental take statements for dredging ofCharlotte Harbor and TampaBay, Florida, anticipate these projects

28mayincidentally take,by injury or mortality, 2 loggerheads or 1Kemp's ridley or 1green or 1 hawksbill sea turtle for Charlotte Harbor and 8 seaturtles, including no more than 5documented Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, orgreen turtles, in any combination, forTampa Bay.
The COE and Minerals Management Service (MMS) (the latter is nonmilitary) rig removal activities also adversely affect seaturtles. Forthe COE activities, an incidental take (byinjury or mortality) ofone documented Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill, leatherback, or loggerhead turtle is anticipated under arig removal consultation fortheNew Orleans District (NMFS 1998c). MMS activities are anticipated to result in annual incidental take (by injury or mortality) of25
sea turtles, including no more than 5 Kemp's ridley, green,hawksbill, or leatherback turtles and
nomore than 10loggerhead turtles, due to MMS' OCS oil and gas exploration, development, production, and abandonment activities. Federal FisheryOperations Adverse effects on threatened andendangered species from several types offishing gear occur in the action area. Efforts to reduce the adverse effects ofcommercial fisheries are addressed through theESA section 7process. Gill net, longline, trawl gear, and pot fisheries have all been documented as interacting with sea turtles. For all fisheries forwhich there is aFederal fishery management plan (FMP) or forwhich any Federal action is taken to manage that fishery, impacts have been evaluated under section 7. Several formal consultations have been conducted on the following fisheries thatNMFS has determined are likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species: American Lobster, Monkfish, Dogfish, Southeastern Shrimp Trawl Fishery, Northeast Multispecies, Atlantic Pelagic Swordfish/Tuna/Shark, and Summer Flounder/Scup/ Black SeaBass fisheries. These consultations are summarized below; formore detailed information, refer to the respective biological opinions. TheNortheastMultispeciesSink GillNet Fisheryis one ofthe other major fisheries that is known to take sea turtles. This fishery has historically occurred from theperiphery ofthe Gulfof Maine to Rhode Island in water to 60 fathoms. In recent years, more ofthe effort in this fishery has occurred in offshore waters and into theMid-Atlantic. Participation in this fishery declined from 399 to 341 permit holders in 1993 and isexpected to continue to decline as further groundfish conservation measures are implemented. The fishery operates throughout the year withpeaks in the spring and from October through February. Dataindicate that gear used in this fishery has seriouslyinjured loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. It is often difficult to assess gear found on stranded animals or observed at sea and assign itto a specific fishery. Only a fraction ofthetakes are observed, and the catch raterepresented bythe majority oftakes, which
are reported opportunistically, i.e., not as part ofa random sampling program, isunknown. Consequently, the total level ofinteraction cannot be determined through extrapolation. The incidental take level established forthis fishery in the July 5, 1989, BO estimated that 10 documented Kemp's ridley, 10 green, 10hawksbill, 10 leatherback, and 100 loggerhead sea turtles would bekilled or injured by the fishery annually.

29The monkfish and dogfish fisheries are prosecuted with multispecies-type gear, and therefore have potential to interact with sea turtles. After reviewing the best available information onthe status ofendangered and threatened species under NMFSjurisdiction, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects ofthe action, and the cumulative effects, NMFS concluded in a biological opinion issued December 21, 1998, that conduct ofthe monkfish fishery, with modification to reduce impacts ofentanglement through the whale and porpoise TRPs, may adversely affect but is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofendangered and threatened species under NMFSjurisdiction.
TheMonkfish Fishery ManagementPlanwas recently completed bythe New England and Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. This fishery uses several gear types which may entangle protected species, and takes ofshortnose sturgeon and seaturtles have been recorded from monkfish trips. NMFS completed a formal consultation on the Monkfish FMP onDecember 21, 1998, which concluded thatthe fishery, with modification underthe take reduction plans, is not likelytojeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The ITS provided under this Opinion anticipates up to 6incidental takes ofloggerhead turtles (no more than 3 lethal), 1 lethal or nonlethal take ofa green sea turtle, 1lethal or nonlethal take ofa Kemp's ridley, and 1 lethal ornonlethal take ofa leatherback. However, the implication ofthis fishery in the recent pulse ofseaturtle strandings inNorth Carolina noted elsewhere in this Opinion necessitate reinitiation ofconsultation and likely the current incidental take levels will be revised in a new incidental take statement.
Aconsultation was recently concluded for theSpinyDogfishFishery. This fishery is similarto the monkfish fishery, but uses somewhat smaller mesh gear. The recent biological opinion prepared for the FMP for this fishery anticipates 6 takes (no more than 3 lethal) ofloggerheads, and 1take (lethal ornonlethal) each for Kemp's ridley, leatherbacks, and, green sea turtles.
The SummerFlounder, Scup andBlackSeaBass fisheriesare known to interact with sea turtles. Significant measures have been developed to reduce the take ofsea turtles in summer flounder trawls and trawls that meet the definition ofa summer flounder trawl (which would include fisheries for other species like scup and black sea bass) byrequiring TEDs in nets in the area of greatest bycatch offthe North Carolina and southern Virginia coast. NMFS is considering a more geographically inclusive regulation to require TEDs in trawl fisheries that overlap with sea turtle distribution to reduce the impact from this fishery. Developmental work is also ongoing for a TED that willwork in the flynets used in the weakfish fishery. The anticipated observed annual takerates for turtles inthis multispecies fishery is 15 loggerheads and 3 leatherbacks, hawksbills, greens, or Kemp's ridleys, in combination annually (NMFS 1997a).
TheAtlanticPelagic Fisheries forSwordfish, Tuna,Shark,andBillfish are known to incidentally capture large numbers ofturtles, particularly in the pelagic longline component (NMFS 2000). Take levels from hooking or entanglement in longline gear are estimated for 2000 at 468 loggerheads, 358 leatherbacks, 46 greens, 23 Kemp's ridleys, and46 hawksbills, with a resulting mortality rate ofapproximately 30%. The interactions resulting from the shark gillnet, shark

30bottom longline, and other gears used in this fishery are lower. The shark gillnet component is estimated, based on limited observer data, to injure orkill 20 loggerheads, 2 leatherbacks, 2 Kemp's ridleys, 2 greens, and 2 hawksbills annually. The shark bottom longline component is similarly estimated, based on limited observer data, to injure or kill 12 loggerheads, 2 leatherbacks, 2 Kemp's ridleys, 2 greens, and 2 hawksbills annually. The other gears are anticipated to result in documented takes ofno more than 3 turtles, in total, ofany species.
The Southeast U.S. ShrimpFisheryis known to incidentally take high numbers ofsea turtles. Shrimp trawlers in the southeastern United States arerequired to use TEDs, which reduce a trawler's capture rate by 97%. Even so, NMFS estimated that4,100 turtles maybe captured annually by shrimp trawling, including 650 leatherbacks that cannot be released through TEDs, 1,700 turtles taken in try nets, and 1,750 turtles that fail to escape through the TED (NMFS 1998d), including large loggerheads. Henwood and Stuntz (1987) reported that the mortality rate fortrawl-caught turtles ranged between 21% and 38%, although Magnuson et al.(1990) suggested Henwood and Stuntz's estimates were very conservative and likely an underestimate ofthe true mortality rate. OtherFederal Actions Sea turtles entering coastal or inshore areas havebeen affected by entrainment in the cooling water systems ofelectrical generating plants. At the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant at Hutchinson Island, Florida, large numbers ofgreen and loggerhead turtles have been captured in the seawater intake canal in the past several years. Annual capture levels from 1994-1997 have ranged from almost 200 to almost 700 green turtles and from about 150 to over 350 loggerheads. Almost all ofthe turtles are caught and released alive; NMFS estimates the survival rate at 98.5%
or greater (see NMFS 1997f). A biological opinion completed in January 2000 estimates that the operations at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant inBrunswick, North Carolina, may take 50 sea turtles in anycombination annually, that arereleased alive. NMFS also estimated the total lethal take ofturtles at this plant may reach 6 loggerhead, 2 Kemp's ridley or 3 green turtles annually. A biological opinion completed in June 1999 on the operations at the Crystal River Energy Complex in Crystal River, Florida, estimated the level oftake ofsea turtles in the plant's intake canal may reach 55 sea turtles with an estimated 50 being released alive biennially.
EnvironmentalContaminants An extensive review ofenvironmental contaminants in turtles hasbeen conducted by Meyers Schrne and Walton (1994); however, most available information relates to freshwater species. High concentrations ofchlorobiphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in the eggs ofthe freshwater snapping turtle, Chelydraserpentina,have been correlated with population effects such as decreased hatching success, increased hatchling deformities and disorientation (Bishop et al. 1991, 1994). Very little isknown about baseline levels andphysiological effects of environmental contaminants on marine turtle populations (Witkowski and Frazier 1982; Bishop et al.1991). There are a few isolated studies on organic contaminants and trace metal accumulation in green and leatherback sea turtles (Davenport and Wrench 1990; Aguirre etal. 1994). Mckenzie etal.(1999) measured concentrations ofchlorobiphenyls and organochlorine

31pesticides in marine turtles tissues collected from the Mediterranean (Cyprus, Greece) and European Atlantic waters (Scotland) between 1994 and 1996. Omnivorous loggerhead turtles had thehighest organochlorine contaminant concentrations in all the tissues sampled, including those from green and leatherback turtles. It isthought that dietarypreferences were likelyto be the main differentiating factor among species. Decreasing lipid contaminant burdens with turtle size were observed in green turtles, most likely attributable to a change in dietwith age. Sakai et al.(1995) found thepresence ofmetal residues occurring in loggerhead turtle organs and eggs. More recently, Storelli etal.(1998) analyzed tissues fromtwelve loggerhead sea turtles stranded along the Adriatic Sea(Italy) and found that characteristically, mercury accumulates in sea turtle livers while cadmium accumulates in their kidneys, as has been reported for othermarine organisms like dolphins, seals andporpoises byLaw etal.(1991). Research is needed on the short- and long-term health and fecundity effects ofchlorobiphenyl, organochlorine, and heavy metal accumulation in seaturtles. State or Private Actions Privateandcommercialvessels Commercial traffic andrecreational pursuits can have an adverse effect on sea turtles through prop and boat strike damage. Private vessels participate in high speed marine events concentrated in the southeastern United States and are a particular threat to sea turtles, and occasionally to marine mammals aswell. The magnitude ofthese marine events is not currently known. NMFS and the USCG are in earlyconsultation on these events, but athorough analysis has not been completed. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) also reports many records ofvessel interaction (propeller injury) with seaturtles offcoastal states such as New Jersey and Florida, where there arehigh levels ofvessel traffic.
State fisheryoperations. Abiological opinion onthe NMFS/ASMFC interjurisdictional FMP forweakfish was conducted in June 1997. Weakfish are caught in the summer flounder fishery and are also fished with fly nets. Analyses ofthe NMFS' observer data showed 36 incidental captures ofsea turtles fortrawl and gill net vessels operating south ofCapeMay, New Jersey, from April 1994 through December 1996. Ofthose turtles taken, 28 loggerheads weretaken in trawls that also caught weakfish, and resulted in two deaths. Most ofthe sea turtle takes occurred in late fall. In all cases, weakfish landings were second inpoundage behind Atlantic croaker and summer flounder (NEFSC unpub. data). The North Carolina observer program documented 33 flynet trips fromNovember through April of1991-1994 andrecorded noturtles caught in 218 hours oftrawl effort. However, a NMFS observed vessel fished for summer flounder for 27 tows with an otter trawl equipped with a TED and then fished forweakfish and Atlantic croaker with aflynet thatwas not equipped with a TED. They caught one loggerhead in 27 TED equipped tows and seven loggerheads in nine fly nettows without TEDs. Inaddition, the samevessel usingthe fly net in aprevious trip took 12 loggerheads in 11 out of 13 observed tows targeting Atlantic croaker. Weakfish landings from

32these flynet tows were second in poundage (NEFSC unpub.data). Georgia and South Carolina prohibit gill nets for all but the shad fishery. This fishery was observed in South Carolina for one season bythe NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (McFee etal. 1996). No takes ofprotected species were observed. Florida has banned all but very small nets in state waters, as has the state ofTexas. Louisiana, Mississippi, andAlabama have also placed restrictions on gill net fisheries within state waters such that very little commercial gillnetting takes place in southeast waters, with the exception ofNorth Carolina. Most pot fisheries in the southeast are prosecuted in areas frequented by sea turtles.
Pulses ofgreatly elevated sea turtle strandings occur with regularity in the mid-Atlantic area, particularly along North Carolina through southern Virginia in the late fall/early spring, coincident with their migrations. For example, in the last weeks ofApril through early May 2000, approximately 300 turtles, mostly loggerheads, stranded north ofOregon Inlet, North Carolina. Gill nets were found with four ofthe carcasses. These strandings are likely caused by state fisheries as well as Federal fisheries, although not any one fishery has been identified as the major cause. Fishing effort data indicate that fisheries targeting monkfish, dogfish, and bluefish
were operating in the area ofthe strandings. Strandings in this area represent at best, 7%-13% of the actual nearshore mortality (Epperly etal. 1996). Studies by Bass etal.(1998), Norrgard (1995), and Rankin-Baransky (1997) indicate that the percentage ofnorthern loggerheads in this
area is highly over-represented in the strandings when compared to the approximately 9% representation from this subpopulation in the overall U.S. sea turtle nesting populations. Specifically, the genetic composition ofseaturtles in this area is 25%-54% from the northern subpopulation, 46%-64% from the South Florida subpopulation, and 3%-16% from the Yucatan subpopulation. The cumulative removal ofthese turtles on an annual basis would severely impact the recovery ofthis species.
Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline
NMFS implemented a series ofregulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of
sea turtles in commercial fisheries. In particular, NMFS has required the use ofTEDs in southeast U.S. shrimp trawls since 1989 and in summer flounder trawls in the mid-Atlantic area (south ofCape Charles, Virginia) since 1992. It has been estimated that TEDs exclude 97% of the turtles caught in such trawls. These regulations have been refined over the years to ensure thatTED effectiveness is maximized through proper placement and installation, configuration (e.g., width ofbar spacing), floatation, and morewidespread use. Recent analyses by Epperly and Teas (1999) indicate that the minimum requirements for the escape opening dimensions are too small, and that asmuch as 47% ofthe loggerheads stranding annually along the Atlantic seaboard and GulfofMexico were too large to fit through existing openings. On April 5, 2000, NMFS published an Announcement ofProposed Rulemaking to require larger escape openings (65 FR 17852).
In 1993 (with a final rule implemented 1995), NMFS established a Leatherback Conservation

33Zone to restrict shrimp trawl activities from offthe coast ofCape Canaveral, Florida, to the North Carolina/Virginia border. This provides for short-term closures when high concentrations ofnormally pelagically distributed leatherbacks are recorded in more coastal waters where the shrimp fleet operates. This measure is necessary because, due to their size, adult leatherbacks are larger than the escape openings ofmost NMFS-approved TEDs. This rule was originally established because ofcoastal concentrations ofleatherbacks which sometimes appear during their spring northward migration, but the rule was also recently implemented in the fall of 1999 offthe coast ofnorthern Florida due to unseasonable concentrations there, and leatherback TEDs were also required offthe coast ofTexas in the spring of2000 due to unusual numbers of leatherback strandings there.
NMFS is also working to develop a TED which can be effectively used in atype oftrawl known
as a flynet, which is sometimes used in the mid-Atlantic and northeast fisheries to target sciaenids and bluefish. Limited observer data indicate that takes can be quite high in this fishery. A prototype design has been developed, but testing under commercial conditions is still necessary. In addition, NMFS has been active inpublic outreach efforts to educate fishermen regarding sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques. As well as making this information widely available to all fishermen, NMFS recently conducted a number ofworkshops with longline fishermen to discuss bycatch issues including protected species, and to educate them regarding handling and release guidelines. NMFS intends to continue these outreach efforts and hopes to reach all fishermen participating in the pelagic longline fishery over the next 1to 2 years.
Sea TurtleStrandingandSalvageNetworkActivities There is an extensive network ofsea turtle stranding and salvage network (STSSN) participants along the Atlantic and GulfofMexico which not only collects data ondead sea turtles, but also rescues and rehabilitates anylive stranded turtles. In most states, the STSSN is coordinated by state wildlife agency staff, although some state stranding coordinators are associated with academic institutions. Data collected by the STSSN are used to monitor stranding levels and compare them with fishing activity in order to determine whether additional restrictions on fishing activities are needed. These data are also used to monitor incidence ofdisease, study toxicology and contaminants, and conduct genetic studies to determine population structure. All ofthe states that participate in the STSSN are collecting tissue for and/or conducting genetic and ageing studies to better understand the population dynamics ofthe small subpopulation of northern nesting loggerheads. These states also tag turtles as live ones are encountered (either via the stranding network through incidental takes or in-water studies). Tagging studies help provide an understanding ofsea turtlemovements, longevity, reproductive patterns, etc.
Other Potential Sources ofImpacts in the Environmental Baseline
A number ofactivities that may indirectly affect listed species include discharges from wastewater systems, dredging, ocean dumping and disposal, and aquaculture. The impacts from

34these activities are difficult to measure. Where possible, however, conservation actions are being implemented to monitor or study impacts from these elusive sources. For example, extensive monitoring isbeing required for amajor discharge in Massachusetts Bay (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority) in order to detect any changes in habitat parameters associated with this discharge. Close coordination isoccurring through the section 7process on both dredging and disposal sites to develop monitoring programs and ensure thatvessel operators do not contribute to vessel-related impacts. NMFS and the U.S. Navy have been working cooperatively to establish apolicy for monitoring and managing acoustic impacts from anthropogenic sound sources in the marine environment. Acoustic impacts can include temporary or permanent injury,habitat exclusion, habituation, and disruption ofother normal behavior patterns. It is expected that thepolicy on managing anthropogenic sound in the oceans will provide guidance forprograms such as the use ofacoustic deterrent devices inreducing marine mammal-fishery interactions and review ofFederal activities and permits forresearch involving acoustic activities. The Office ofNaval Research hosted a meeting in March 1997 to develop scientific and technical background foruse in policy preparation. NMFS hosted a workshop in September 1998 to gather technical information which will support development ofnew acoustic criteria. Summary and Synthesis ofthe Status ofSpecies and Environmental Baseline
In summary, thepotential fordredging, military activities, fisheries, etc., to adversely affect sea turtles exists forthe seaturtles considered in this consultation. However, recovery actions have been undertaken as described and continue to evolve. Those actions have started toproduce positive changes in the nesting numbers ofKemp's ridley and loggerhead turtles (south Florida subpopulation) that are expected to continue. The other listed species are not likely to have benefitted to the same degree from therecovery actions taken: e.g., green, leatherback, and hawksbill turtle nesting is mostly outside the United States and Mexico and likelyhas received less beachside protection efforts, and loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys are themajor shrimp bycatch species that have benefitted the most from TED use. Still, those actions are expected to benefit the listed species in the foreseeable future. These actions should not only improve the conditions ofseaturtles, but are expected toreduce sources ofhuman-induced mortality as well. However, factors in the existingbaseline forloggerhead sea turtles and leatherback sea turtles leave cause forconsiderable concern regarding the status ofthese populations and the current impacts upon these populations:

a. The leatherback sea turtle is declining worldwide. Overall sources ofmortality, including the NMFS HMS fisheries, incurred by thispopulation exceed the 1%sustainable levelproposed by Spotila etal.(1996). b. The nesting numbers forthe northern subpopulation ofloggerhead seaturtles are stable or declining, and the nesting females currently number only about 3,700. Thepercent of

35northern loggerheads represented in sea turtle strandings innorthern U.S. Atlantic states is over representative oftheir total numbers in the overall loggerhead population. Current take levels from other sources, particularly fisheries (especially longline, trawl, and gill net fisheries), are high. IV. Effects ofthe Action Summaryof FP&L'sReporton thePhysicalandEcological Factors InfluencingSea Turtle Entrainment attheSt.LucieNuclearPowerPlant The terms and conditions ofthe incidental take statement ofNMFS' January 1997 Opinion required FP&L to conduct a study ofthephysical and ecological factors influencing sea turtle interactions with theplant. This report was completed in March 2000 and theresults are summarized below. Forfurther information please refer to the report titled "Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle Entrainment Levels at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant: 1976-1998" (FloridaPower and Light, 2000). Inmature loggerhead and green turtles apparently use the near shore ocean environment in the vicinity ofthe St. Lucie Plant as developmental/foraging habitat. This appears to be related to the water depth in the area, thepresence ofhardbottom substrates andworm reefs, andthe occurrence ofpreferred food items. Based onrecapture data, it appears that some turtles reside in the area throughout the year, while otherstransmigrate seasonally. The area is apparently also used as internesting habitat by largenumbers offemale loggerhead turtles that nest on Hutchinson Island everyyear. Turtles migrating along the coast and/or utilizing hard bottom substrates and worm reefs in the vicinityoftheplant would bebrought into close proximity with theplant's intake structures. Turtles may enterthe intake structures to rest or avoid attack frompredators and/or competition from other turtles. Green and loggerhead turtles may alsobe attracted to the intakes forthe purpose offoraging, since the structures resemble reefs, important foraging habitat for both species. The majority ofthe loggerhead and green turtles entrained intothe St. Lucie Plant intake canal between 1977 and 1998 werejuveniles. However, loggerhead captures included a higher proportion ofsubadults and adultsthan green turtlecaptures. This probably reflects the fact that the loggerhead nesting population isconsiderably larger thanthe green turtle nesting population in the Hutchinson Island area. There were significant increases in the numbers of juvenile and adult loggerhead captures and juvenile green turtle captures atthe St. Lucie Plant from 1977 through 1998. The increase in adult loggerhead captures was more or less continuous and was significantly correlated with increases in nesting onHutchinson Island. The upward trends injuvenile loggerhead and green turtle captures wereprimarily due to increases that occurred in the 1990s.

36On average, more turtles were captured each year after Unit 2 was placed on line than before, suggesting that the addition ofa second unit affected capture rates to some extent. However, this change could not account for the dramatic increases in capture rates of juvenile loggerhead and green turtles that only occurred after Unit 2 had been operating forten years. Changes in the physical appearance ofthe intake structure velocity caps following their repair coincided with substantial increases injuvenile green turtle captures at the plant. However, the extent to which the two are causally related isunclear.
Power plant outages over the life ofthe plant, at times, appeared to affect short term trends in juvenile loggerhead and green turtle captures. However, plant outages could not explain the substantial increases in captures ofeither species that occurred during the 1990s. Flow rates from 1988 through 1998 appeared to have a weak but significant effect on short-termjuvenile loggerhead entrainment rates. Again, however, flow rates were not responsible forthe long-term increases injuvenile loggerhead captures occurring during this period. Flow rates had no effect
on either short- or long-term captures of juvenile green turtles. Changes in the nearshore environment near the St. Lucie Plant might be expected to affect long term trends in the turtle entrainment. Unfortunately, data relating to the relative size and reliefof nearby worm reefs and hard bottom orto changes in the abundance offood items in the area were lacking. One environmental factor thatwas shown to be significantly correlated with monthly captures of juvenile green and loggerhead turtles was water temperature. However, no relationship between local water temperatures and long-term trends in capture rates could be demonstrated. The frequency ofhigh, wave producing winds also did not appear to affect entrainment ofturtles. Seasonal increases in the number of juvenile loggerhead and green turtles in the vicinity ofthe plant may be more closely related to the migration patterns ofturtles from
more northern areas than to local conditions.
There is evidence (mainly from nesting beach surveys) thatthe adult populations ofboth green and loggerhead turtles that providejuveniles to the Hutchinson Island area increased during the study period. Itwould logically follow that thejuvenile component ofthose populations also increased. The number of juvenile green turtles captured at the St. Lucie Plant increased dramatically in the 1990s. A similar increase was documented in the central Indian River Lagoonin an area well beyond the influence ofthe St. Lucie Plant. Unfortunately, there are relatively few other study sites for which long-term quantitative data are available forjuvenile loggerheads. However, the strong correlation between adult loggerhead captures at the St. Lucie Plant andnesting on Hutchinson Island elucidates the relationship between canal rates andthe relative numbers ofindividuals in the nearshore environment.
Even though changes in physical plant design and operating characteristics have occurred over the life ofthe plant, these changes do not appear to be responsible forthe long-term increases in the numbers of juvenile and adult loggerhead andjuvenile green turtles captured at the St. Lucie Plant. The most logical explanation for these increases is that there are more individuals ofthese

37life history stagespresent in the vicinity ofthe plant. DirectEffects At least 6,576 sea turtles have become entrapped at the St.Lucie intake canal between 1976 through 1999. One hundred ninety-seven ofthose have died, for a total mortality rate of3.0%. Loggerheads have been the species most frequently taken overthis period, although green turtles have been the dominant species encountered since 1993. Entrapment at the St. Lucie intake canal can result in directnegative impacts on turtles in a number ofways: drowning in the intakepipes, injury sustained in thepipes and thecanal, injury sustained during canal dredging, debilitation ofcondition due to long entrapment, exposure to predators in the intake canal, injury and stress sustained during capture, entanglement and drowning in fish gillnets and turtle capture nets, and impingement and drowning on barrier nets and in the intake wells. The Taprogge condenser cleaning system may also have an effect on sea turtles ifdischarged sponge balls are ingested. Drowning and injury in the intakepipes are unlikely to be amajor direct impact. Withboth generating units operating, the transit time through the intake pipes (5minutes through the 12-ft pipes and 3minutes through the 16-ft pipes) is likelytoo short to drown a seaturtle, and there are no known instances ofturtle mortalities from forced submergence in the intake pipes. Some captured turtles have shown recent superficial scrapes, usuallyto the anterior carapace or plastron, which mayhave resulted from contact with encrusting organisms in the pipeline.
NMFS has conducted several formal consultations with the COE on the effects ofchannel maintenance dredging on sea turtles, generally concluding that the operation ofhopper dredges may adversely affect sea turtles, but nothydraulic or clam shell dredges. This latter conclusion does not apply,however, to dredging conducted in the narrow confines ofthe St. Lucie intake canal where turtles have limited ability to evade a dredge. All types ofdredging may affect sea turtles there. In fact, from 1976 to 1990, 7loggerheads werekilled during maintenance dredging in the St. Lucie intake canal. In 1994, however,hydraulic dredging was accomplished without any sea turtle mortality byisolating the dredging area with a temporary 4-in squarebarrier net. FP&L engineers expect that future maintenance dredging in the intake canal will generally only be necessary west ofthe 5-inbarrier net. Impacts to sea turtles from dredging west ofthebarrier net are considered unlikely. Intherare instances where dredging mayberequired to the east of the 5-in barrier net, FP&L will contact NMFS andinitiate consultation on theparticular project, inconjunction withNRC or COE. Dredging associated with theconstruction ofthe 5-inbarrier net wasthe subject ofa separate informal consultation with NMFS (concluded October 26, 1995); and the workwas accomplished without anyimpacts to turtles.
The extent ofimpacts resulting from loss ofcondition and exposure to predation is largely dependent onthe species and thetotal residence time ofindividual animals in the intake canal. Green turtles, inparticular, wouldnothave access to theirnormal food sources ofsea grasses or

38algae in the canal. Loggerheads may be able to find some oftheir prey species that have also become entrapped in the canal. In 1994, FP&L reported residence timesbased on visual observations for turtles entrapped east ofthe Highway AlA barrier net. Average residence times
were 1.5 days forloggerheads and 2 days for green turtles, and 100% percent ofthe loggerheads and 97% percent ofthe greens were captured within one week offirst sighting. Loss ofcondition from lack ofadequate food sources should not have serious negative impacts on turtles over these relatively short periods oftime. Predatory fish, including barracuda, sharks, andjewfish, occur in the intake canal and may pose a threat to the smaller turtles in the canal. The level ofpredation
onturtles entrapped in the intake canal has not been quantified, but can be mitigated by minimizing the residence time for individuals entrapped at the St. Lucie Plant. The contribution ofpredation to the overall turtle mortality rate at the St. Lucie Plant isprobably small. Drowning in capture nets has occurred occasionally throughout the history ofthe St. Lucie Plant's capture program during the period from 1976 through 1999. Since the capture-release program began, 7 loggerheads and 13 green turtles have drowned in capture nets (0.3% ofthe total number ofturtles captured). Turtles can drown whenthey become tightly entangled, when the net becomes fouled on the bottom, orwhen a small turtle becomes tangled with a large turtle and is held underwater. Since April 1990, the netshave been set only during daylight hours and constantly tended, resulting in 4 greens drowned in capture nets but no loggerheads. The last green turtle to drown in a capture net was on February 7, 1999. Injuries sustained during capture are all reported to be superficial. Typically they involve small cuts from net strands and abrasions sustained during handling. Efforts can be made to reduce effects from stress by minimizing handling time (reported to be generally under one-halfhour to obtain biological information and to tag the animal) andby keeping turtles cool and shaded prior to release. Impingement ofturtles on thebarrier nets hasbeen implicated in only onemortality since improvements to the 8-inbarrier net were completed in 1990. Since then, one loggerhead has become entangled in the 8-in barrier net and drowned. Six other loggerheads and 5 green turtles have been recovered dead at the barrier net, but their cause ofdeath is unknown and the carcasses would naturally accumulate at the barrier net. The UIDS barrier isbelieved by FP&L to pose a greater threat to turtles than the other barrier netsbecause ofits downward slope relative to the current flow. One UIDS-associated mortality hasbeen reported since 1990. Generally, however, small turtles capable ofpenetrating the 8-inbarrier net canpresumably penetrate the UIDS barrier without impingement and end up in the intake wells. The large number ofsmall turtles removed from the intake wells between 1990 and 1995 bears this out. However, with the installation ofthe 5-inbarrier net in 1996, fewer turtles have been getting through to the intake wells.
Since 1992, the number ofsmall greenturtles entrapped in the St. Lucie intake canal hasbeen rising. Correspondingly, until the installation ofthe 5-inbarrier net, more small turtles were penetrating thebarrier nets and eventually reaching the intake wells. In 1995, 673 green turtles

39were entrapped in the St.Lucie intake canal, and 97 ofthose had to beremoved from the intake wells, where 7 died. Since 1990, a total of 16 green turtles have been recovered dead from the intake wells. FP&Lhas reported that 3 ofthe 16 died as the result ofinjury inflicted by the mechanical debris-removing rakes. The other 13 are reported by FP&L as dying ofunknown causes. However, as statedpreviously, turtles reaching the intake wells have decreased due to the installation ofthe 5-inbarrier net in 1996, with only 55 turtles making it through to the intake wells from 1996 through 2000 and only 3 ofthese being found dead. This has helped to decrease total turtle mortalities at the plant. Possible impacts ofthe Taprogge condenser cleaning system have been examined. Release of the system's sponge balls in theplant's discharge waters would introduce persistent marine debris offshore oftheplant. The cleaning balls, made ofvulcanized natural rubber, could be mistaken forprey items byturtles and consumed, with unknownhealth effects. To address this and other concerns relating to the Taprogge system's operation, FP&L instituted operational procedures forthe system to prevent sponge ball release into the environment. FP&Lhas been making operational reports to FFWCC since March 1996 on the Taprogge system. Based on these reports, sponge ball loss isquite low, with the maximum estimated at three balls/day. These sponge balls wouldmost likelyhave been lostas a result ofdeterioration to a small enough size topass through the strainer grid. FP&L has increased controls on sponge ball inventories and has added key lock controls on the ball strainers. The sponge ball loss rate is quite low, and probably consists ofverysmall sponge parts. No impacts to sea turtles are expected from this normal operational loss rate. Single, large losses ofsponge balls should bepreventable through proper management controls, which FP&Lhas implemented. No impacts fromthe Taprogge system are anticipated as long as effective operational andmanagement measures are maintained. FP&L should continue to generate the yearly reports onthe operation ofthe Taprogge system, which have been required bythe FFWCC Bureau ofProtected Species Management, and acopy should also be provided to theNMFS Southeast Regional Office to allow NMFS to evaluate whether impacts from spongeball loss are greater than presently anticipated. In addition to the impacts to seaturtles already discussed, entrapment at the St.Lucie intake canal can have several other negative effects on sea turtles, through interruption ofmigration, loss ofmating opportunities, and loss ofnesting opportunities. Leatherbacks are probably more sensitive to interruption ofmigration than the other species ofsea turtle because their spring migrations seem to be closely synchronized with the presence ofprey species. Theproblem of loss ofmating opportunities is impossible to quantify but would affect adults prior to and during the nesting season. Loss ofnesting opportunities is a documented problem, with several instances offemales nesting onthe canal bank reported byFP&L. The severity ofany ofthese impacts can bereduced by minimizing residence time ofindividual turtles in the canal. Since reporting ofsea turtle entrapment and mortality at St.Lucie Plant began in 1976, two general trends inthe impacts on seaturtles are clear. The total number ofturtles entrapped has increased, particularly inthe last five years, and the mortality rate ofthe entrapped turtles has decreased. With the exception ofthe activation ofUnit 2 in 1982, the operating characteristics of

40the circulating water system have not changed over time. From 1976 through 1994, there was an average of 181 turtles entrapped per year. From 1995 through 1999, the average has gone up to 676 turtles entrapped per year. From 1976 to 1990, an average of 11 turtles per year were found dead in some part ofthe circulating seawater cooling system. This number has decreased from 1991 through 1999 to 4.8 turtles per year. The TEWG (1998) found that loggerhead nesting onHutchinson Island was a good predictor of nesting trends on other Florida index beaches and may well reflect nesting trends forthe total South Florida loggerhead nesting population. FP&L (2000) found that loggerhead nesting on Hutchinson Island has increased significantly from 1981 through 1998. Iftrends on Hutchinson Island do accurately reflect nesting trends for the whole South Florida loggerhead nesting population, then nesting forthis population also has increased from 1981 through 1998. Based
on results ofgenetic testing by Bass (1999) the majority ofloggerheads captured at the plant are from the South Florida nesting population. Provancha (1997, 1998) found green turtle catch per unit effort (CPUE) in nearby Mosquito Lagoon to be greater than the CPUE's recorded for the
same area forthe years 1977 through 1979. Therefore, the increased number ofentrapments of turtles could be a result ofincreased local abundances. The decreasing mortality rates are dueto incremental improvements in the turtle program executed at FP&L, including the construction of barrier nets, improved monitoring, and fine-tuning capture methods. Since 1990, turtle mortalities have resulted from drowning in the capture or barrier nets, entrapment in the intake wells, and unknown, presumably natural, causes. Small green turtles from the intake wells constitute halfofthese mortalities.
From 1976 to 1990, an average of 11 turtles per year were found dead out ofan average of 183 total turtles captured in some part ofthe circulating seawater cooling system. Due to improvements in the turtle detection and capture methods, discussed above, the number ofdead turtles has decreased from 1991 through 1999 to 4.8 turtles per year even though the total number ofturtles captured has increased to a average of487 turtlesper year during thattime period. Future levels ofimpacts to marine turtles at the St. Lucie Plant are difficult to assess in absolute terms due to fluctuating capture rates. Ifthe years 1995 through 1999 are broken out from the averages above, those years give an average of722 turtles captured per year with a high of933 in 1995 and a low of382 in 1997. Therefore, NMFS believes that there is a possibility that 1,000 turtles, in any combination ofthe five species found in the action area, could be captured during any given year at the plant. The majority ofthese turtles will be green turtles, followed by loggerhead turtles, and to a much lesser extent Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles. Based on this and past mortality information NMFS, believes that 10 or 1%ofthe total number ofgreen and loggerhead turtles (combined) captured (which ever is less) in any combination ofgreen and loggerhead turtles maybe incidentally taken by injuryor mortality, per year, as a result ofthe proposed action. NMFS believes that one Kemp's ridley turtle, per year, and onehawksbill or leatherback turtle, every two years, may be incidentally takenby injury or mortality, per year, as a result ofthe proposed action.
V. Cumulative Effects

41Cumulative effects are the effects offuture state, local, orprivate activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area considered in this biological opinion. Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because theyrequire separate consultation pursuant to section 7 ofthe ESA. Within the action area, major future changes are not anticipated in the ongoing human activities described in the environmental baseline. The present, majorhuman uses ofthe action area - commercial and recreational fishing and recreational beach use and boating -- are expected to continue at the present levels ofintensityin the near future. As discussed in Section III, however, listed species ofturtles andwhales migrate throughout the Atlantic Ocean and Gulfof Mexico andmay be affected during their life cycles bynon-Federal activities outside the action area. Beachfront development, lighting, andbeach erosion control all are ongoing activities alongthe Atlantic and Gulfcoasts. These activities potentially reduce ordegrade sea turtle nesting habitats or interfere with hatchling movement to sea. Nocturnal human activities along nesting beaches may also discourage sea turtles from nesting sites. The extent to which these activities reduce sea turtle nesting and hatchling production is unknown. However, more and more coastal counties are adopting more stringent protective measures to protect hatchling sea turtles from the disorienting effects ofbeach lighting. Some ofthese measures are being drafted in response to ongoing law suitsbrought against the counties by concerned citizens who charged the counties with failing to uphold the ESAby allowing unregulated beach lighting which resulted in takes of hatchlings. State-regulated commercial and recreational fishing activities in the GulfofMexico waters currently result in the incidental take ofthreatened and endangered species. Otherrecreational activities, such aswhale watch cruises, have alsoresulted in the incidental take ofendangered whales. It is expected that states will continue to license/permit large vessel and thrill-craft operations which do not fall under thepurview ofa Federal agency and regulations that will affect fishery activities. Any increase in recreational vessel activity in inshore and offshore waters ofthe GulfofMexico and Atlantic Ocean will likely increase the numberofturtles and whales taken byinjury or mortality in vessel collisions. Recreational hook-and-line fisheries have been known to lethally take seaturtles. Future cooperation between NMFS and the states on these issues should help decrease take ofseaturtles and whales caused byrecreational activities. NMFS will continue to work with coastal states to develop and refine ESA section 6 agreements and section 10permits to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate these takes. VI. Conclusion After reviewing the current status ofthe endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles and thethreatened loggerhead seaturtle in the action area, the environmental baseline, the effects ofthe proposed action, and the cumulative effects, itis NMFS' biological opinion that the continued use ofSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's circulating seawater cooling

42system is not likelytojeopardize the continued existence ofthe endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley seaturtles, or thethreatened loggerhead sea turtle. No critical habitat has been designated forthese species in the action area; therefore, none will be affected.
VII. Incidental Take Statement Section 9 ofthe Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) ofthe Act prohibit the take ofendangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take thatis incidental to, and notthe purpose of,the carrying out ofan otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms ofsection 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part ofthe agency action isnot considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions ofthis incidental take statement. The measures described below are nondiscretionary and must be undertaken by the NRC so that theybecome binding conditions ofany grantor permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered bythis incidental take statement. IfNRC fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions, theprotective coverage ofsection 7(o)(2) may lapse. In orderto monitor the impact ofincidental take, NRC must report the progress ofthe action and its impact on the species to NMFS as specified in the incidental take statement. Amount or Extent ofAnticipated Take The lethal take levels below are based on the historical observed lethal takes, but provide for increased total numbers oflethal takings as entrapment levels increase. Based on stranding records and historical data, five species ofsea turtles are known to occur in the action area. Currently available information on the relationship between sea turtle capture andmortality andthe St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's circulating seawater cooling system indicates that injury and/or death ofseaturtles is likelyto occur from entrapment in the system's intake canal associated with theproposed action. In recent years turtle entrapment has increased, especially green turtles, and will likelycontinue to increase, asthe green turtle population, and other species' populations, continue to increase and recover. Therefore, pursuant to section 7(b)(4) oftheESA, NMFS anticipates an annual incidental capture ofup to 1,000 turtles, in any combination ofthe five species found in the action area. NMFS anticipates 1% ofthe total number ofgreen and loggerhead turtles (combined) captured (i.e., ifthere are 900 total green and loggerhead turtles captured inone year, then 9 turtles in any combination ofgreens and loggerheads are expected tobe injured orkilled as a result. In cases where 1%ofthe total is not a whole number, then the total allowable incidental take due to injury or deathwill berounded to thenext higher whole number) will be injured or killed each year over the next 10 years as a result ofthis incidental capture. NMFS also anticipates two Kemp's ridley turtles willbe

43killed each year and one hawksbill or leatherback turtle will be injured or killed every 2 years for the next 10 years also as a result ofthis incidental capture. NMFS anticipates that the turtles most likely to be entrapped andtaken willbe greenturtles, followed by loggerhead turtles, and to amuch lesser extent, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles. Ifthe actual incidental captures, injuries or mortalities meets orexceeds this level, NRC must immediately request reinitiation offormal consultation. NMFS Southeast Region will cooperate with NRC in the review ofthe incident. Effect ofthe Take NMFS believes that the aforementioned level ofanticipated take (lethal, injury ornon-lethal)
over the next 10 years is not likelyto appreciably reduce eitherthe survival orrecovery of Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles in the wild byreducing theirreproduction, numbers, ordistribution. Inparticular, NMFS determined that itdoes not expect activities associated with the St.Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's circulating seawater cooling system, when added to ongoing activities affecting these species in the action area and cumulative effects, to affect sea turtles in a waythatreduces the number ofanimals born in a particular year (i.e., a specific age-class), the reproductive success ofadult sea turtles, or the number ofyoung sea turtles that annually recruit into the adult breeding population.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudentmeasures are necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts ofincidental take ofthe Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, leatherback, and hawksbill seaturtles. 1. FP&L shall have aprogram in place to monitor, protect, and capture turtles entrapped in the intake canal. 2. FP&L shall report all turtle captures and subsequent mortalities perpermit conditions.
Terms and Conditions In ordertobe exempt fromthe prohibitions ofsection 9 ofthe ESA, NRC must comply with the following terms andconditions, which implement thereasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting andmonitoring requirements. These terms and conditions arenondiscretionary. 1) FP&L shall maintain a 5-inbarmesh barrier net across the intake canal, east ofthe existing 8-inmesh barrier net. The 5-in net must receive regular inspection, maintenance, andrepair on atleast a quarterly basis. The regular maintenance schedule notwithstanding, anyholes or damage to the net that are discovered mustbepromptly repaired toprevent the passage ofturtles through thebarrier net.

442) The existing 8-in mesh barrier net mustbe retained to serve as a backup to the 5-in mesh barrier net, which maybe lowered occasionally because offouling and water flow problems. The 8-in mesh net must receive regular inspection, maintenance, and repair on at least a quarterly basis. The regular maintenance schedule notwithstanding, any holes ordamage to the netthat are discovered must be promptly repaired to prevent the passage ofturtles through the barrier net. 3) FP&L shall continue its current program to capture and release turtles from the intake canals. a) Turtles that have been flipper tagged bythe plant have experienced a 19% loss rate ofthe tags and some turtles have experienced severe flipper scaring (Gorhan etal. 1998). Therefore all turtles released shall be PIT tagged. However, in order to continue to gain dataon flipper tag loss rates turtles not exhibiting flipper scaring and damage shall also be flipper tagged. Thehandling and tagging of captured turtles, treatment, and rehabilitation ofsick and injured turtles, and disposition ofdead turtle carcasses shall be in accordance with permits granted through the state ofFlorida. FP&Lbiologists shall immediately (within 30 minutes) notify theFlorida STSSN staffofany sick orinjured turtle so the turtle can receive proper attention at the earliestpossible time. TheFlorida STSSN beeper number is: 1-800-241-4653, the ID number is: 274-4867. 4) Capture netting in the intake canal shall be conducted with a surface floating tangle net with an unweighted lead line. The net must be closely and thoroughly inspected via boat at least once per hour. Netting shall be conducted whenever sea turtles are present in the intake canal according to the following schedule: a) 8hours per day, 5days per week, undernormal circumstances; b) 12 hours per day or during daylight hours, whichever is less, 7 days per week, under any ofthe following circumstances: i) an'adult turtle occurs in the canal during mating or nesting season (March 1 through September 30), ii) an individual turtlehas remained in the canal for 7days or more, iii) a leatherback turtle occurs in the canal, iv) an apparently sick or injured turtle occurs in the canal. Reasonable deviations from this schedule due to human safetyconsiderations (i.e., severe weather) are expected. 5) Ifaturtle is observed inthe intake canal west ofthe 8-in barriernet, directed capture efforts shall beundertaken to capture the turtle and to prevent itfrom entering the intake wells.

456) The gratings at each ofthe intake wells shall be visually checked for turtles at least eight times each 24-hourperiod. Ifaturtle is sighted in an intake well, dip nets, or other non-injurious methods should be used to remove theturtle. 7) FP&L shall continue to participate in the STSSN, under proper permits and authority, in order to assess anypossible delayed lethal impacts ofcapture as well asto provide background data on the mortality sources andhealth oflocal sea turtles. As apoint of clarification, stranded seaturtles will generally not be counted against the authorized level oflethal incidental take in this incidental take statement, but information from strandings maybe the basis forthe determination that unanticipated impacts or levels ofimpacts are occurring. 8) FP&L should continue to conduct, under proper permits and authority, the ongoing sea turtle nesting programs and public service turtle walks. 9) Monthlyreports covering sea turtle entrapment, capture efforts, turtle mortalities, available information on barrier net inspections and maintenance shall be furnished to NMFS. In addition, an annual report discussing these same topics and the Taprogge cleaning system operation, and anysponge ball loss at St. Lucie Plant shall be furnished to NMFS. All reports shall be sent to theNational Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 9721 Executive CenterDrive North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702. NMFS anticipates that no more than 1%ofthetotal number ofgreen and loggerhead turtles and two Kemp's ridleys entrapped in the canal will be taken by injury ormortality annually foreach ofthe next 10 years ofthe proposed action. NMFS also anticipates that no more than one hawksbill or leatherback turtle entrapped in the canal will be takenby injury or mortality every twoyears for the next 10 years. These reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed tominimize the impact ofincidental take thatmight otherwise result from theproposed action. If,during the course ofthe action, this level ofincidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation ofconsultation and review ofthereasonable andprudent measures provided. NRC must immediately request initiation offormal consultation, provide an explanation ofthe causes ofthe taking, andreview withNMFS the need forpossible modification ofthe reasonable and prudent measures. IX. Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) oftheESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorityto further the purposes oftheESAby carrying out conservation programs for thebenefit ofendangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects ofa proposed action on listed species orcritical habitat to help implement recovery plans orto develop information.

46(1)The NRC should promote FP&L's continued research to determine the subsequent dispersal ofcaptured andreleased turtles through its tagging program and through cooperation with properlypermitted scientists. (2) Currentprocedures fordetermining turtle residence times in the intake canal tendto underestimate actual residence times. The NRC should direct FP&Lto continue efforts to improve residence time estimates. These efforts may include directed studies ofresidence time, so longas research permits are obtained from the proper authority. (3) NRC should encourage FP&L to gain the proper permits to conduct tissue sampling to determine the genetic identity ofturtles interacting with the plant's cooling waterintake system. Inorder forNMFS to be kept informed ofactions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or theirhabitats, NMFS requests notification ofthe implementation of any conservation recommendations. X. Reinitiation ofConsultation This concludes formal consultation onthe actions outlined in NRC's letter dated May 9, 2000. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation offormal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or isauthorized by law) and if(1)the amount or extent oftaking specified in the incidental take statement ismet or exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects ofthe action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when designated) in amanner orto an extent not previously considered, (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in amannerthat causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4) anew species is listed or critical habitat designated that maybe affected by the identified action. In instances where the amount or extent ofincidental take is exceeded, NRC must immediatelyrequest reinitiation of formal consultation.

47References Aguirre, A.A., Balazs, G., Zimmerman, B. and F.D. Galey. 1994. Organic contaminants and trace metals in the tissues ofgreenturtles (Cheloniamydas) affected with fibropapillomas in the Hawaiian Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28:109-114. Applied Biology, Inc. 1993. Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie Unit 2 annual environmental operating report. AB-63 1. Prepared by Applied Biology, Inc. for Florida Power & Light Co. Juno Beach, Florida,pp. 71. Babcock, H.L. 1937. The sea turtles ofthe Bermuda Islands, with a survey ofthe present state ofthe turtle fishing industry. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 107: 595-601. Bass, A.L. 1999. Genetic analysis ofjuvenile loggerheads captured at the St. Lucie Power Plant. A report to National Marine Fisheries Service and Quantum Resources, Inc. Bellmund, S., M.T. Masnik, and G. Laroche. 1982. Assessment ofthe impacts ofthe St. Lucie Nuclear Plant on threatened orendangered species. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation. Docket No. 50-398, pp 68. Bishop, C.A., Brooks, R.J., Carey, J.H., Ng, P., Norstrom, R.J. and D.R.S. Lean. 1991. The case for a cause-effect between environmental contamination and development in eggs ofthe
common snapping turtle (Chelydraserpentina)from Ontario, Canada. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 33:521-547. Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B., and C.J. Lagueux. 1994. Ingestion ofmarine debris byjuvenile
sea turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 3, 154-158. Bolten, A.B. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Effects ofmarine debris onjuvenile, pelagic sea turtles. Interim Project Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Entanglement Research Program. 41 pp. Bowen, B.W. 1995. Tracking marine turtles with genetic markers. BioSci. 45:528-53. Burchfield, P. 1996a. Personal Communication. Gladys Porter Zoo, Brownsville, Texas. Burchfield, P. 1996b. Report onthe Mexico/United States ofAmerica Kemp's ridley sea turtle population restoration project at the Rancho Nuevo, Barra Del Tordo, Barra Ostionales, Tepehuajes, La Pesca and Altamira Camps, Tamaulipas, Mexico. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. Byles, R.A. 1988. Behavior and ecology ofsea turtles from Chesapeake Bay,Virginia. A dissertation presented to the faculty ofthe School ofMarine Science, The College of

48William and Mary in Virginia, in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy. Carr, A.F., M.H. Carr and A.B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations ofsea turtles. 7. The western Caribbean green turtle colony. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162(l):1-46. Carr, A.F. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations ofsea turtles. 4. The green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 131(l):1-48. Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook ofTurtles. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Carr, A.F. 1954. The passing ofthe fleet. A. I .B. S. Bull. 4(5):17-19.
CeTAP. 1982. A characterization ofmarine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north-Atlantic
areas ofthe U.S. outer continental shelf,Final Report. U.S. Dept. ofInterior, Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA55 I-CT8-48, Washington, D.C. 538 pp. Chevalier, J. and Girondot, M. 1998. Nesting dynamics ofmarine turtles in French Guiana during the 1997 nesting season. Bull. Soc. Herp. Fr., 85-86: 5-19. Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B., Alexander, D.E., Laist, D.W. 1996. Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, and Solutions. National Marine Fisheries Service, ISBN 0-387-94759-0. Cox, B.A. and Mauermann, R. G. Incidental Catch and Disposition ofSea Turtles bythe Brownsville-Port Isabel GulfShrimp Fleet. 5 pp. Davenport, J. and J. Wrench. 1990. Metal levels in a leatherback turtle. Marine Pollution Bulletin 21:40-41. Doughty, R.W. Sea turtles in Texas: A forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical Quarterly:43-70. Eckert, K.L. 1993. Draft Status Review ofSea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act of1973. Leatherback Sea TurtleDermochelyscoriacea. Prepared for NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles ofthe Indian River lagoon system. Florida Sci. 46(3/4):337-346. Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. A survey ofmarine turtle nesting at Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, North Brevard County, Florida, 1-122. Unpublished report to Division ofMarine Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, Fla. Dept. Nat. Res.

49Ernst,L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles ofthe United States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington Kentucky. Epperly, S.A. 1996. Personal Communication. NMFS Beaufort Laboratory, North Carolina. Epperly, S.A., Braun, J., Chester, A.J., Cross,F.A., Merriner, J.V., and P.A. Tester. 1994. Beach strandings as an indicator ofat-sea mortality ofsea turtles. Submitted to Fishery Bulletin. January 10, 1994. Expert Working Group (Byles, R, C. Caillouet, D. Crouse, L. Crowder, S. Epperly, W. Gabriel, B. Gallaway, M. Harris, T. Henwood, S. Heppell, R. Marquez-M, S. Murphy, W. Teas, N.Thompson, and B. Witherington) 1996. Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)status report. Submitted toNMFS June 28, 1996. Expert Working Group (Byles, R, C. Caillouet, D. Crouse, L. Crowder, S. Epperly, W. Gabriel, B. Gallaway, M. Harris, T. Henwood, S. Heppell, R. Marquez-M, S. Murphy, W. Teas, N.Thompson, and B. Witherington) 1996. Status ofthe loggerhead turtle population (Carettacaretta)in the Western North Atlantic. Submitted to NMFS July 1, 1996. Florida Power &Light Co. 1985. Sea turtle intake entrapment studies. Special Document 4/9/85. Florida Power &Light Co. 2000. Physical and ecological factors influencing seaturtle entrainment at the St.Lucie Nuclear Plant: 1976-1998. Frazer, N.B. 1992. Sea turtle conservation and halfwaytechnology. Cons. Biol. 6:179-184. Fuller, D.A. and Tappan, A.M. The Occurrence ofSeaTurtles in Louisiana Coastal Waters. Coastal Fisheries Institute, Center forWetland Resources, Louisiana State University. 1986 Sep. 46 pages. Fulton, J. 1998. Personal Communication. U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, AL. Gitschlag, G., and B.A. Herczeg. 1994. SeaTurtle Observations atExplosive Removals of Energy Structures. Marine Fisheries Review 56(2) pp 1-8. Gorham, J.C., M.J. Bresette and B.D. Peery. 1998. Comparative Tag Retention Rates forTwo Styles ofFlipper Tags. Proceedings ofthe Seventeenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. U.S. Dep.Commer. NOAA TechMemo. NMFS-SEFSC-415. 294pp.; p. 179-182 Henwood, T.A. and W. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis ofsea turtle captures and mortalities during

50commercial shrimp trawling. Fishery Bulletin 85(4): 813-817. Henwood, T.A., W. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluation ofU.S. Turtle Protective Measures under existing TED regulations, including estimates ofshrimp trawlerrelated mortality in the Wider Caribbean. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFSC-303. Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review ofthe status ofsea turtle populations in the western GulfofMexico, pp. 447-453 in Bjorndal, K., (ed.), Biology and Conservation ofSea Turtles. Proc. World Conf.ofSeaTurtle Conserv. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington, D.C. Hildebrand, H.H. Random Notes on SeaTurtles inthe Western GulfofMexico. Western Gulfof Mexico Sea Turtle Workshop Proceedings, January 13-14, 1983. 1983 Oct:34-41. Note: A copy ofthe entire Workshop Proceedings is at SP000480. Hilborn, R. 1998. The economic performance ofmarine stock enhancement projects. Bulletin ofMarine Science, 62(2):661-674. Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis ofbiological data on the green turtle Cheloniamydas (Linnaeus) 1758. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. 85:1-77. Iverson, S., D.M. Allen, and J.B. Higman. 1993. Shrimp capture and culture fisheries ofthe United States. Imprint ofJohn Wiley &Sons, Inc. New York. Klima, E.F. 1986. Summary report on biological impacts ofoffshore petroleum platform severance using explosives. NMFS Galveston Laboratory. Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts ofthe explosive removal of offshore petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Marine Fisheries Review, 50(3) pp 33-42. Law, R.J., Fileman, C.F., Hopkins, A.D., Baker,J.R., Harwood, J., Jackson, D.B., Kennedy, S., Martin, A.R. and R.J. Morris. 1991. Concentrations oftrace metals in the livers of marine mammals (seals, porpoises and dolphins) from waters around the British Isles. Marine PollutionBulletin 22:183-191. Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980 (2):290 295. Leary, T. R. 1957. A schooling ofleatherback turtles, Dermochelyscoriacea,on the Texas coast. Copeia 1957(3):232. Lutcavage, M.E., P.Plotkin, B.Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on seaturtle survival. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology ofSea Turtles. Boca Raton,
51FL: CRC Press. pp. 387-409. Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, andD.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic effects ofcrude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 28:417-422. Lutz, P.L., 1987. Effects ofingestion ofnon-biodegradable debris in sea turtles. Final Report forthe U.S. Department ofCommerce; RFP No. FSN-5-0178. Marquez, R., R. Byles, P. Burchfield, N. Thompson, M. Sanchez, J. Diaz, M.A. Carrasco, A.S. Leo, and C. Jimenez. 1995. The Recovery ofthe Kemp's ridley sea turtle population in the Mexican Beach ofRancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas. Draft submitted to the Marine Turtle Newsletter. McKenzie, C., Godley, B.J., Furness, R.W., and D.E. Wells. 1999. Concentrations and patterns oforganochlorine contaminants in marine turtles from Mediterranean and Atlantic waters. Marine Environmental Research 47:117-135. Mendonca, M.T. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity,population size and structure ofimmature Cheloniamydasand Carettacarettain Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia. (1):161-167.
Mexico. 1966. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Biologico-Pesqueras. Programa nacional de marcado de tortugas marinas. Mexico, INIBP: 1-39. Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, andA. Mosier. 1995. SeaTurtle NestingActivity in the State of Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 52. Meylan, A.B. The Ecology and Conservation ofthe Caribbean Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). Final Report: WWF Project No. 1499. 1984. Morreale, S.J. 1993. Personal Communication. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
NMFS and USFWS. 1992. Recovery Plan for leatherback turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and GulfofMexico. NMFS, Washington, D.C. National Research Council. 1990. Decline ofthe seaturtles: Causes and prevention.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 259 p. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Turtle Expert Working Group, AnAssessment ofthe Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelyskempii) andLoggerhead (Carettacaretta)SeaTurtle Populations in theWestern North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp.

52National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Act section 7consultation on shrimp trawling in the southeastern United States under the sea turtle conservation regulations. Biological Opinion, March 24. 32 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on Navy Activities offthe Southeastern United States along the Atlantic Coast, May 15. 73 PP. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997b. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the Atlantic Pelagic Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna, and Shark, in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Biological Opinion, May 29. 95 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997c. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the continued hopper dredging ofchannels andborrow areas in the southeastern United States. Biological Opinion, September 25. 15 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997d. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on channel maintenance dredging using ahopper dredge in the Galveston and New Orleans Districts oftheArmy Corps ofEngineers. Biological Opinion, September 22. 15 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997e. Endangered Species Act section 7consultation onthe continued operation ofthe circulating water system ofthe St. Lucie nuclear generating plant. Biological Opinion, February 7. 39 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation onthe Fishery Management Plan (FMP) forSummer Flounder to include the management and fishing activities under the Draft FMPs for Scup andBlack Sea Bass. Biological Opinion. January 20. 52pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996b. Endangered Species Act section 7consultation onthe proposed shock testing ofthe SEAWOLF submarine offthe Atlantic Coast ofFlorida during the summer of 1997. Biological Opinion, December 12. 50 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Endangered Species Act section 7consultation on United States Coast Guard vessel and aircraft activities along the Atlantic coast. Biological Opinion, September 15. 56pp. Norrgard, J. 1995. Determination ofstock composition andnatal origin ofajuvenile loggerhead turtlepopulation (Carettacaretta)in Chesapeake Bayusing mitochondrial DNA analysis. M.S. Thesis, College ofWilliam and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 47 pp. Ogren, L.H. Biology and Ecology ofSeaTurtles. 1988. Prepared forNational Marine Fisheries, Panama CityLaboratory. September 7.

53Paladino, F.V., M.P. O'Connor, and J.R. Spotila. 1990. Metabolism ofleatherback turtles, gigantothermy and thermoregulation ofdinosaurs. Nature 344:858-860. Parsons, J.J. 1962. The green turtle andman. Gainesville, University ofFlorida Press. Peters, J.A. 1954. The amphibians and reptiles ofthe coast and coastal sierra ofMichoacan, Mexico. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. 554:1-37. Plotkin, P.T. 1995. Personal Communication. Drexel University,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1990. Effects ofanthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the northwestern GulfofMexico. in R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (eds.). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS SWFSC-154: 736-743. Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion ofmarine debris by sea turtles by sea turtles stranded along the south Texas coast. The Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology,Fort Fisher,North Carolina. Plotkin, P.T., M.K. Wicksten, and A.F. Amos. 1993. Feeding ecology ofthe loggerhead sea turtle Carettacarettain theNorthwestern GulfofMexico. Marine Biology 115: 1-15. Prescott, R.L. 1988. Leatherbacks in Cape Cod Bay,Massachusetts, 1977-1987. In: Schroeder, B.A. (compiler). Proceedings ofthe EighthAnnual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214:83-84. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Sea turtles ofthe Guianas. Bull. Fla. State Mus. 13(2):1-139. Provancha, J. 1997. Annual report for sea turtle nesting in Mosquito Lagoon. Kennedy Space Center Florida. Provancha, J. 1998. Annual report for sea turtle nesting in Mosquito Lagoon. Kennedy Space Center Florida. Quantum Resources, Inc. 1994. Florida Power &Light Com., St. Lucie Unit 2 annual environmental operating report. Prepared by Quantum Resources, Inc. forFlorida Power &Light Co. Juno Beach, Florida. Vol. 1,49 pp. Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea turtles andthe turtle industry oftheWest Indies, Florida and the Gulfof Mexico. Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. Sakai, H., Ichihashi, H., Suganuma, H., and R.Tatsukawa. 1995. Heavymetal monitoring in
sea turtles using eggs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:347-353.

54Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Orientation by Swimming Sea Turtles: Role ofPhotic Intensity Differences While Near-shore. Proceedings ofthe Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo SEFSC-278. pp: 107-108
Sarti M., L., S.A. Eckert, N. Garcia T., A.R. Barragan. 1996. Decline ofthe world's largest nesting assemblage ofleatherback turtles. Marine TurtleNewsletter 74: 2-5.
Schroeder. B.A. 1995. Personal Communication. Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Tequesta, Florida. Sears, C.J. 1995. Preliminary genetic analysis ofthepopulation structure ofGeorgia loggerhead sea turtles. Presented at the Fifteenth Annual Symposium ofSea Turtle Biology and Conservation, February 1995, Hilton Head, SC. Sears, C.J., B.W. Bowen, R.W. Chapman, S.B. Galloway, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and C.M. Woodley. 1995. Demographic composition ofthejuvenile loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)feeding population offCharleston, South Carolina: evidence from mitochondrial DNA markers. Mar. Biol. 123:869-874. Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology ofwild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles in south Texas waters. Journal ofHerpetology. Vol. 23. 1991. Shaver, D.J. 1994. Sea turtle abundance, seasonality and growth data at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. In B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers), Proceedings ofthe thirteenth annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation, NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFC-341: 166-169. Shaver, D.J. 2000. Personal communication regarding Head Startturtles nesting on Padre Island, Texas. Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance ofloggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters ofthe northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs. 6:43-67. South, C. and S. Tucker. 1991. Personal communication regarding sea turtle nesting in the state ofAlabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne Field Office, Alabama. Stanley. K.M., E.K. Stabenau, and A.M. Landry. 1988. Debris ingestion by seaturtles along the Texas Coast. Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology, Fort Fisher, North Carolina.

55Storelli, M.M., E.Ceci, and G.O. Marcotrigiano. 1998. Distribution ofheavy metal residues in
some tissues ofCarettacaretta(Linnaeus) specimens beached along the Adriatic Sea (Italy). Bulletin ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 60:546-552. Teas, W.G. and A. Martinez. 1992. Annual report ofthe seaturtle stranding and salvage network Atlantic and Gulfcoasts ofthe United States, January-December 1989. Teas, W. 1992. Personal Communication. NMFS Miami Lab. Thompson, N.B., and H. Huang. 1993. Leatherback turtles in southeast U.S. waters. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-318. 11 pp. Underwood, G. 1951. Introduction to the study ofJamaican reptiles. Part 5. Nat. Hist. Notes Nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica. 46:209-213.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1974. Final environmental statement related to construction ofSt. Lucie Plant Unit 2, Docket No. 50-389. USAEC, Directorate ofLicensing. Washington, D.C. Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleep and G. Bossart. 1986. Final report: Study ofeffects ofoil onmarine turtles. Tech. Rep. O.C.S. study MMS 86-0070. Vol. 2, 181pp. Vicente, V.P. 1993. Spongivory in Caribbean hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelysimbricata: data from stranded specimens. Extended abstract forProceedings: Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Marine Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA NMFS, Suite 1108, Banco de Ponce Building, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918. Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2, Florida Dept. ofEnvironmental Protection. 73 pp. Witkowski, S.A. and J.G. Frazier. 1982. Heavy metals in seaturtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13:254-255.

56