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 

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 of the 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 of three green 

turtles per year established in the Incidental Take Statement of the 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 to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the 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. 

If you have any questions following review of the 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 page
May 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 of the 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 of three green 

turtles per year established in the Incidental Take Statement of the 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 to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the 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. 

If you have any questions following review of the 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 COPY
Mr. 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 

County Administrator 

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 33702
UNITED 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 of Licensing 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 of 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, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), state of Florida, and NMFS personnel. The FP&L document 

was written to satisfy the terms and conditions set in the 1997 Opinion for the continued operation of the 

circulating seawater cooling system at the 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. If you have any questions about this consultation, please refer to this number. 

This Opinion is a reinitiation of consultation subsequent to the 1997 Opinion. Reinitiation is necessitated 

by two factors: 1) in 1999 the plant exceeded NMFS' anticipated incidental take of 3 green turtles per 

year established in the incidental take statement of the 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 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 as amended. 

The Opinion states NMFS' belief that the continued operation of the circulating seawater cooling system 

at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, 

Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, or hawksbill sea turtles. However, NMFS anticipates incidental take 

of these species and has issued an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. 

This ITS contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to help 

minimize this take. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at NMFS, Southeast 

Regional Office.
We look forward to further cooperation with you on other NRC projects to ensure the conservation and 

recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species. 

Sincerely, 

Jo ph E. Powers, Ph.D. 

Acting Regional Administrator 

Enclosure 

cc: F/PR3 

o:\section7\formal\stluc\stlucOO.wpd

2
Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation

Agency: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Activity: Continued Operation of the 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 of the continued operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's 

circulating seawater cooling system and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), 

Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), green turtles (Chelonia mydas), leatherback turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in accordance with 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 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 of consultation which resulted in NMFS' January 1997 Opinion 

and is based 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 of Florida, and NMFS personnel. A complete 

administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NMFS Southeast Regional Office in St. 

Petersburg, Florida. 

Consultation History 

In the original evaluation of the environmental impact of St. 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 1 began commercial operation in 

1977. To facilitate the capture of entrapped turtles and to prevent turtles from moving down the 

canal system toward the plant, a large mesh barrier net was erected in 1978. A mesh size of 8 in 

(20.3 cm) by 8 in was chosen to exclude 95% of the turtles based on the size frequency of turtles 

captured in the canal before March 1978.
A biological assessment was completed in 1982 for the operation of St. Lucie Unit 2. This 

assessment was based on the entrapment history of the plant from 1976 through 1981, 

approximately 150 turtles per year. As part of this 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 of the Environmental Protection Plan of Unit 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 of St. Lucie Unit 2, NMFS concluded that 

the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species under its 

jurisdiction but made no provisions for sea turtle mortality. 

Since 1993, FP&L has documented significant increases in the numbers of entrapped turtles. A 

principal component of this increase was juvenile green turtles with carapace widths less than 12 

in (30 cm). Before 1993, the maximum number of green turtles captured annually at the St. 

Lucie Plant was 69. In 1994, a record high of 193 green turtles was captured. In 1995, 673 green 

turtles were captured, mostly juveniles. With the increase in the number of turtles handled and 

the decrease in the average size of the 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 of the plant. The entrainment level peaked in 1995, when 97 turtles (14% of the 

turtles captured) were removed from the intake wells of the plant. 

Based on the increasing number of sea turtles captured and killed at the St. Lucie Plant, the NRC 

determined that reinitiation of formal section 7 consultation with NMFS was required (also in 

part because the 1982 Opinion did not make provisions for sea turtles) and informed the NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office of this 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 a new 

barrier net with 5-in (12.7 cm) bar length webbing to prevent the passage of small turtles through 

the existing 8-in net and into the intake wells of the plant. Installation of the 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 of the 

section 7 consultation. 

That consultation was completed with the issuance of a biological opinion in January 1997 which 

concluded that the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species 

under NMFS jurisdiction. The 1997 Opinion anticipated an annual incidental lethal take of 2 

loggerhead sea turtles or 1.5% of the total number of loggerheads entrapped at the intake canal, 

whichever was greater; 3 green sea turtles or 1.5% of the total number of greens entrapped at the 

intake canal, whichever was greater; 1 Kemp's ridley sea turtle or 1.5% of the total number of 

Kemp's ridleys entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was greater; 1 hawksbill sea turtle or 

1.5% percent of the total number of hawksbills entrapped at the intake canal, whichever was 

greater; and 1 leatherback sea turtle or 1.5% of the total number of leatherbacks entrapped at the 

intake canal, whichever was greater.

2
On November 10, 1999, NMFS attended a meeting to discuss the reinitiation of section 7 

consultation because in 1999 the plant exceeded the anticipated incidental take level of green 

turtles set by the 1997 Opinion. At the meeting, FP&L informed NMFS that the study report on 

turtle interactions with the plant (required by the terms and conditions of the 1997 Opinion) 

would be completed by March 2000. NMFS advised the NRC and FP&L that NMFS would 

wait until the report was completed and would partly base the new consultation on that report. 

NMFS received the report on April 19, 2000, and the NRC's letter requesting reinitiation of 

section 7 consultation on May 12, 2000. The document and letter contained new information 

about turtle interactions with the plant. NMFS consided the consultation package complete as of 

receipt of the May 12, 2000, letter. 

This Opinion analyzes 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 7 of the ESA. 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

I. Description of Proposed Action 

The NRC is the licensing and regulating authority for all nuclear power plants in the United 

States. The proposed action considered in this Opinion is the NRC's continued licensing of the 

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant and the plant's continued operation of the 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 of these activities follows: 

Circulating Water System 

The Atlantic Ocean provides cooling and receiving waters for both units' condensers and 

auxiliary cooling systems. These systems share common intake and discharge canals with ocean 

piping. The major components of these canals and ocean piping systems are: 1) three ocean 

intake structures and associated velocity caps 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, and two are 12 ft (3.65 m) in diameter); 3) 

a common intake canal to convey sea water 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 convey water offshore to a 

multiport diffuser 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipeline; solid pipeline from shoreline to approximately 

1,200 ft (365 m) offshore and then the multiport diffuser segment from approximately 1,200 to 

2,400 ft (365-730 m) offshore. 

The design unit flow for Units 1 and 2 is 1,150 cu ft per second (32.6 m3

/sec) with maximum and

3
normal temperature rise across the condensers of 31 F and 25'F (17- 13C), respectively 

(Bellmund et al. 1982). 

Intake Structures and Velocity Caps 

In 1991-1992, all three velocity caps were rebuilt due to the failure of several panels comprising 

the caps. The intake structures are located approximately 1,200 ft (365 m) offshore and about 

2,400 ft (731 m) south of the 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 of the 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 of 6.25 ft 

(1.9 m). The velocity cap for the two 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter pipes is 52 ft (4.8 m) square, 5 ft 

(1.5 m) thick, and has a vertical opening of 6.5 ft (2.0 m). 

The flow velocities at various locations of the velocity cap and intake structures have been 

calculated under various levels of biological fouling. The minimum and maximum horizontal 

intake velocities at the face of the 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 for the 16-ft (4.9 m) diameter pipe is 

calculated at 0.92-1.0 ft/sec (28.3-30.5 cm/sec). As the 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 

et al. 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 of fouling. Transit time for an object to travel the distance through the 

pipeline is approximately 180-285 sec (3 to 4.75 min). 

Due to the differences in the diameter of the pipelines and friction of the pipeline walls, the 

calculated volume through the two 12-ft (3.65 m) diameter lines is approximately 20% each and 

approximately 60% for the 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 for the 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 is more elaborate and consists of a guillotine gate in a concrete box open at the 

other end. A series of pillars 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

4
varies from 0.9-1.1 ft/sec (27-32 cm/sec), depending on tidal stage.

Highway Bridge and Underwater Intrusion System 

The intake canal is crossed by two permanent structures. One is a bridge owned by the Florida 

Department of Transportation and is part of U.S. Highway AlA. The roadway is supported by a 

series of concrete pilings driven into the bottom of the 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 of the plant. 

Intake Wells, Trash Racks, and Traveling Screens 

Each unit has a separate intake structure consisting of four 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 of the rack. The 

rake's teeth fit into the 3 in (7.6 cm) vertical openings of the structure. This rake is pulled 

vertically up and collects any debris that may have accumulated on the structures. This debris is 

emptied into a trough at the top of the intake bay for subsequent disposal. Any debris that is 

collected on the traveling screens is washed from the screen by a series of spay jets and is then 

also emptied into a trough at the top of the intake bay for disposal. 

Condensers 

After the water has passed through the trash racks, the traveling screens, and the circulating water 

pump, it travels through the condenser, which contains thousands of 3/8-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 of installing the same system on Unit 1. The Unit 2 system has been in 

operation since January 23, 1996. The Taprogge system works by passing hundreds of sponge 

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 and returned to the head of the condenser for re-use. Four separate water boxes 

and sponge circulating systems are installed on the condenser. Each water box is normally 

charged with 1,800 sponge balls. The sponge ball 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

5
300 ft (91 m) wide and 2,200 ft (670 m) long. The canal terminates at two headwall structures 

approximately 450 ft (137 m) behind the primary dune line. One structure supports a 12-ft (3.65

m) diameter pipeline that is buried under the ocean floor and runs approximately 1,500 ft (460 m) 

offshore where it terminates into a two-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) of this pipeline contain a multiport diffuser 

segment with 58 discharge ports. To minimize plume interference, the ports are oriented in an 

offshore direction on alternating sides of the pipeline. The velocity of the water inside this 

pipeline averages about 5.7 ft/sec (174 cm/sec), and the jet velocity of the discharge water at each 

port averages approximately 13 ft/sec (400 cm/sec) to ensure quick dissipation of the thermal 

load (Bellmund et al. 1982). 

Thermal Plume 

FP&L had the thermal plume modeled for the two-unit operation. The results indicated that the 

maximum surface temperatures are strongly dependent on ambient ocean conditions. The 

maximum surface horizontal temperature difference is predicted 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 et al. 1982). 

Sea Turtle Capture and Removal Program 

The goal of the sea turtle capture program at the St. Lucie Plant is to remove entrapped turtles 

from the intake canal system quickly once they have entered the system. FP&L, in conjunction 

with Applied Biology, Inc., and Quantum Resources, Inc., former and 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&L hypothesizes that the intake structures and velocity caps serve as an artificial reef, since 

the structures are the only significant physical feature in this inshore environment. Turtles may 

encounter these structures in their normal range of activities and feed on the fouling organisms 

growing on the structures, or seek the structures for shelter. Based on the intake velocities of the 

intake structures, once a turtle passes the vertical plane of the velocity cap, it can be quickly 

sucked into the intake pipeline and, after a 3-5 minute ride through the pipeline, be discharged 

into the intake canal. 

From 1976 through 1999, all five species of turtles present in the inshore waters of Florida have 

been entrapped. A total of 6,576 turtles have been removed from the intake canal of the St. Lucie 

Plant since 1976. Loggerheads are the dominant turtle in numbers, greens are next, followed by 

Kemp's ridleys, leatherbacks, and hawksbills. 

Barrier Nets-Past Configuration 

To facilitate the capture of entrapped turtles and to reduce the likelihood of turtles moving down

6
the intake canal toward the plant to be impinged, a large mesh barrier net (8-in [20.3 cm] square 

mesh) was erected at the AlA bridge in 1978. The net was suspended across the canal and was 

anchored at the bottom with weights and supported at the top by cables and floats. The net was 

hung so that it had a 1:1 slope, with the bottom anchors being positioned upstream of the surface 

floats. This configuration was designed to prevent bowing of the net in the center, minimizing 

the risk of an injured or lethargic turtle being pinned against the net and drowning. By confining 

most turtles to the canal area east of the A1A bridge, the net capture of turtles in this part of the 

canal was facilitated. Additionally, any turtle with a carapace width of 11.3 in (28.7 cm) or 

greater was excluded from passing through the net and moving down the canal and becoming 

impinged. 

The net has been rehung several times (e.g., 1985, 1988, 1990) to maintain its 1:1 slope and 

blockage of the canal. The net is inspected approximately quarterly to ensure its integrity 

throughout the water column, its sides, and its bottom. Repairs are made as necessary, and 

sediment is removed by an air lift if the foot of the net is buried by a build-up of material. 

Because of deterioration over time, a new net with the same 8-in (20.3 cm) mesh was installed in 

1987. In 1990, the headcable of the net was given more support by attaching a series of flotation 

rafts, which would keep the top of the net at or above the surface of the water under varying 

water levels that result from tides or operational changes of the generating units (e.g., if a unit is 

not operating, the water level in the canal rises about 4 ft ([1.2 m]). This reconfiguration would 

also keep turtles from swimming over the top of the net. 

Barrier Net-New Configuration 

Due to observed increases in the entrapment rate in 1993 and 1994 (Quantum 1994) for greens 

and loggerheads, the continuing upward trend in 1995, and the increases in impingement rates 

and subsequent mortality at the intake wells of the plant, construction of a new, smaller mesh 

barrier net east of the present barrier net was identified early in the consultation process as a 

necessary mitigation measure to reduce lethal takes. Specific details of the net configuration 

were discussed during early consultation activities, which included FP&L's solicitation of ideas 

from their engineers, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC, formerly 

Department of Environmental Protection) turtle specialists, and NMFS personnel. FP&L 

completed construction of the new barrier net, a 5-in (12.7 cm) square mesh with a deployed 

diagonal measurement of 7 in (18 cm) in January 1996. FP&L selected the 5-in mesh size based 

on the size distribution of turtles seen in the first half of 1995. None of the 414 green turtles 

entrapped in the intake canal during the first half of 1995 had a straight carapace width 

measurement smaller than 7 in (18 cm). FP&L predicts that all turtles encountering the 5-in 

barrier net will be prevented from moving down the canal toward the plant if future turtle size 

distributions match those of 1995. The net is located approximately halfway between the old 8

in barrier net and the intake headwalls, thus entrapped sea turtles will be confined in a much 

smaller area. The 5-in net is anchored along the bottom of the canal and is held up by an aerial 

wire that is strung between tensioning towers on the sides of the canal. The net is designed to 

remain partially out of the water at varying water levels. Due to potential fouling situations from 

jellyfish or seaweed, the top of the net can be quickly released from the tensioning towers so that

7
it can drop to the bottom of the 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 be maintained in its existing place to serve as a backup in case there is a failure of 

the 5-in (12.7-cm) mesh net or the new net needs to be lowered because of fouling from jellyfish, 

seaweed, or flotsam. 

Underwater Intruder Detection System (UIDS) 

In 1986, the UIDS was installed to prevent human entry into the plant via the canal system and to 

provide further security for the plant. This system also provides an additional barrier for turtles 

that penetrate the old 8-in barrier net. The barrier is on the north-south arm of the canal and 

consists of a rigid net with a 9-in (22.9-cm) mesh. The net is hung at approximately a 0.9:1 slope 

with the bottom of the net downstream of the top. This net is inspected periodically by security 

personnel; and several turtles, both live and dead (the exact numbers and species were not 

recorded), were removed from this area in 1994 and 1995, prior to the installation of the 5-inch 

barrier net. 

Intake Well Inspection and Removal 

Since December 1994, FP&L has provided inspection of the intake wells at least once every three 

hours over a 24-hour period. This increase in surveillance was necessary due to increased turtle 

presence and mortality in the intake wells. 

Plant or security personnel who see any turtle impinged or swimming in the intake well area are 

required to notify a plant turtle biologist through a beeper system. Sea turtle biologists are 

constantly on call and response time is within an hour. The responding biologist then captures 

the turtle with a long-handle dip net and places it in a padded box for holding and transport. 

Netting Program 

Sea turtles are removed from the intake canal by means of large-mesh entanglement nets fished 

between the intake head wall and the barrier net at the AlA 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 presently used 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

mesh multifilament nylon. Large floats are attached to the top of the net to provide buoyancy and 

the bottom of the net is unweighted. Prior to April 1990, turtle nets were deployed on Monday 

mornings and retrieved on Friday afternoons. During periods of deployment, the nets were 

inspected for captures at least twice daily (e.g., mornings and afternoons). Additionally, plant 

and security personnel checked the net periodically, and notified biologists immediately if a 

capture had occurred. Sea turtle biologists were on call 24 hours/day to retrieve turtles entangled 

in capture nets. 

Beginning in April 1990, after consultation with NMFS, net deployment was scaled back to 

daylight hours only. Concurrently, surveillance of the intake canal and the nets was increased to 

the hours the nets were being fished. This measure decreased response time for removal of

8
entangled turtles from the nets and decreased mortalities from accidental drowning. The 

presence of a biologist also provided a daily assessment of turtle numbers in the canal and an 

indication of when a given turtle was first sighted. Biologists were then able to estimate the 

residence time of the turtle from the first observation to capture and release. 

Hand Capture and Dip Netting 

In addition to the use of entanglement 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 from the 

canal banks and head walls are effective in capturing turtles with carapace lengths of 12 in (30.5 

cm) or less. Hand nets have also been used to 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 of all sizes, particularly inactive turtles partially buried in the sediment near the barrier net 

or sleeping individuals throughout the canal. FP&L believes that hand captures have had a 

significant impact in reducing residence times for turtles 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 of capture. 

Since July 1, 1994, all turtles captured are photographed dorsally and ventrally prior to release, 

and the photographs are retained for future reference. Inconel tags supplied by NMFS are 

applied to the proximal edge of the foreflippers. The tag numbers, species, and morphometrics 

of each turtle are reported monthly to FFWCC. 

If a turtle has been previously tagged either at the St. Lucie facility or elsewhere, that fact is 

noted in a monthly data sheet and reported. These data are forwarded by FFWCC to NMFS for 

inclusion in their data base. From 1990 through 1999, recaptures of green 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 they reached 15% (Quantum 

1999). Several other turtles with tag scars have also been recovered, suggesting that the actual 

number of recaptures may be higher. Occasionally, turtles are captured that have been tagged by 

other researchers. One such capture occurred in 1994: a female 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. If further 

treatment is warranted, 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.

9
Sea Turtle Conservation and Monitoring Program

FP&L has been conducting nesting studies as part of the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 reporting 

requirements for the 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 of this program. 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 by predators are recorded for each of the 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 are routinely provided to FFWCC and NMFS through the 

Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN). NMFS uses the STSSN database to 

monitor impacts to sea turtles from natural and human sources of mortality, as well as to infer 

turtle population characteristics. Also FP&L has been conducting turtle walk programs at the St. 

Lucie Plant since 1982 as a public service. These walks are permitted by FFWCC and have 

become quite popular. 

Action Area 

The action area consists of St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, located on a 437

hectare site on Hutchinson Island, Florida, and the piping, canals, and equipment, described 

above, that make up the circulating seawater cooling system. The Island is bound by the Atlantic 

Ocean on the 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 the two inlets. 

II. Status of Listed Species and Critical Habitat 

The following listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are known to occur in the action 

area and may be affected by the proposed action: 

Endangered 

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus 

Northern right whale Eubalaena glacialis 

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis 

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus 

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea 

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata 

Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii

10
Chelonia mydas*

*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 Caretta caretta 

Johnson's seagrass Halophilajohnsonii 

Species of large whales protected by the ESA are not likely to be affected by the proposed action. 

Species of large whales will not be affected by the intake structures and cannot be trapped in the 

intake canal. Therefore, species of large 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 (Caretta caretta) 

Loggerhead sea turtles occur throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, 

Pacific, and Indian Oceans and are the most abundant species of sea turtle occurring in U.S. 

waters. Loggerhead sea turtles concentrate their nesting in the north and south temperate zones 

and subtropics, but generally avoid nesting in tropical areas of Central America, northern South 

America, and the Old World (Magnuson et al. 1990). The largest known nesting aggregation of 

loggerhead sea turtles occurs on Masirah and Kuria Muria Islands in Oman (Ross and Barwani 

1982). In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida 

and along the Gulf coast of Florida. The best scientific and commercial data available on the 

genetics of loggerhead sea turtles suggests there are four major subpopulations of loggerhead sea 

turtles in the northwest Atlantic: (1) a northern nesting subpopulation that occurs from North 

Carolina to northeast Florida, about 29' N; (2) a south Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring 

from 29°N on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast; (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting 

subpopulation, occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida; and 

(4) a Yucatan nesting subpopulation, occurring on the eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico 

(Mfrquez 1990). This biological opinion will focus on the northwest Atlantic subpopulations of

11

Green sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtles, which occur in the action area.

Although NMFS has not completed the administrative processes necessary to formally recognize 

populations or subpopulations of loggerhead sea turtles, these sea turtles are generally grouped by 

their nesting locations. Based on the most recent reviews of the best scientific and commercial 

data on the population genetics of loggerhead sea turtles and analyses of their 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 of these 

nesting aggregations would survive and recover would appreciably reduce the species' likelihood 

of survival and recovery in the wild. Consequently, this biological opinion will focus on the four 

nesting aggregations of loggerhead sea turtles identified in the preceding paragraph (which occur 

in the action area) and treat them as subpopulations for the purposes of this 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 by the many examples of extirpated 

nesting assemblages in the world. 

The loggerhead sea turtles in the action area are likely to represent differing proportions of the 

four western Atlantic subpopulations. Although the northern nesting subpopulation produces 

about 9 percent of the loggerhead nests, they comprise more of the loggerhead sea turtles found 

in foraging areas from the northeastern United States to Georgia: between 25% and 59% of the 

loggerhead sea turtles in this area are from the northern subpopulation (Bass et al. 1998; 

Norrgard 1995; Rankin-Baransky 1997; Sears 1994, Sears et al. 1995). In North Carolina, the 

northern subpopulation is estimated to make up from 28% to 32% of the loggerheads (NMFS, 

unpublished data; Bass et al. 1998). About 10% of the loggerhead sea turtles in foraging areas 

off the Atlantic coast of central Florida are from the northern subpopulation (Witzell et al. in 

prep.). In the Gulf of Mexico, most of the loggerhead sea turtles in foraging areas will be from 

the South Florida subpopulation, although the northern subpopulation may represent about 10% 

of the loggerhead sea turtles in the gulf (Bass pers. comm.). In the Mediterranean Sea, about 

45%-47% of the 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 et al. 1998). In the vicinity of the Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes, about 

19% of the pelagic loggerheads are from the northern subpopulation, about 71% are from the 

South Florida subpopulation, and about 11% are from the Yucatan subpopulation (Bolten et al. 

1998). 

Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to 

lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years. 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 et al. in press). Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature 

loggerheads reach 40-60 cm SCL they recruit to coastal inshore and nearshore waters of the

12
continental shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

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 of the strandings and in

water captures (Schroeder et al. 1998) along the southern and western coasts of Florida as 

compared with the rest of the coast, but it is not known whether the larger animals actually are 

more abundant in these areas or just 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 et al. 1995; Keinath 1993; Morreale 

and Standora 1999; Shoop and Kenney 1992), and migrate northward in spring. Given an 

estimated age at maturity of 21-35 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 of this species in the United 

States and throughout the Caribbean Sea. As discussed in the beginning of this section, they nest 

primarily from North Carolina southward to Florida with additional nesting assemblages in the 

Florida Panhandle and on the Yucatan Peninsula. Non-nesting, adult female loggerheads are 

reported throughout the United States and Caribbean Sea; however, little is known about the 

distribution of adult 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% in the 

northeast U.S. Atlantic, 12% in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and 5% in the western Gulf of 

Mexico (TEWG 1998). 

There is general agreement that the number of nesting females provides a useful index of the 

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 the population 

size of loggerhead sea turtles. Between 1989 and 1998, the total number of nests laid along the 

U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts ranged from 53,016-89,034 annually, representing, on average, an 

adult female population of 44,780 [(nests/4.1) * 2.5]. On average, 90.7% of the 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 Gulf of 

Mexico west of Florida, 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 of this 

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 off Oman and 

represents about 35% and 40% of the nests of this species. The status of the Oman nesting 

beaches has not been evaluated recently, but they are located in a part of the world that is 

vulnerable to extremely disruptive events (e.g., political upheavals, wars, and catastrophic oil

13
spills), the resulting risk facing this nesting aggregation and these nesting beaches is cause for 

considerable concern (Meylan et al. 1995). 

Loggerhead sea turtles face a number of threats 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 of marine debris; 

marina and dock construction and operation; boat collisions; 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 and beach vegetation; predation by exotic species such 

as fire ants, raccoons (Procyon lotor), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and opossums 

(Didelphus virginiana). 

Large numbers of loggerhead sea turtles from the four subpopulations that occur in the action 

area are captured, injured, or killed in a wide variety of fisheries. Virtually all of the pelagic 

immature loggerheads taken in the Portuguese longline fleet in the vicinity of the Azores and 

Madeira are from western North Atlantic nesting subpopulations (Bolten et al. 1994, 1998) and 

about half of those taken in both the eastern and western basins of the Mediterranean Sea are 

from the western North Atlantic subpopulations (Bowen et al. 1993; Laurent et al. 1998). 

Aguilar et al. (1995) estimated that the Spanish swordfish longline fleet, which is only one of the 

many fleets operating in the region, alone captures more than 20,000 juvenile loggerheads 

annually, killing as many as 10,700. Estimated bycatch of marine turtles by the U.S. Atlantic 

tuna and swordfish longline fisheries, based on observer data, was significantly greater than 

reported in logbooks through 1997 (Johnson et al. 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. fleet between 1992-1998, of which an estimated 43 were dead (Yeung et al. 

in prep.). For 1998 an estimated 510 loggerheads (225-1250) were captured and, based on 

serious injury criteria developed for marine mammals (which may be inappropriate for sea 

turtles), all were presumed dead or were expected to die subsequent to being 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 the hook was found in 

the mouth, the tongue or, in a few cases, externally (flippers, etc.); the presumption is that all 

others had ingested the hook. 

Loggerhead sea turtles also face numerous threats from natural causes. For example, there is a 

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 on the survival of eggs in sea turtle nests. In 

1992, Hurricane Andrew affected turtle nests over a 90-mile length of coastal Florida; all of the 

eggs were destroyed by storm surges on beaches that were closest to the eye of this hurricane 

(Milton et al. 1992). On Fisher Island near Miami, Florida, 69% of the eggs did not hatch after

14
Hurricane 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 of specific year classes; particularly given the increasing frequency and intensity of 

hurricanes in the Caribbean Sea and northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

Status and trend of loggerhead sea turtles 

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 et al. 1993, 

Congdon and Dunham 1994, Crowder et al. 1994). In general, these reports concluded that 

animals that delay sexual maturity and reproduction must have high, annual survival as juveniles 

through adults to ensure that enough juveniles survive to reproductive maturity and then 

reproduce enough times to maintain stable population sizes. This general rule applies to sea 

turtles, particularly loggerhead sea turtles, because the rule originated in studies of sea turtles 

(Crouse et al. 1987, Crowder et al. 1994, Crouse 1999). Heppell et al. (in prep.) specifically 

showed that the growth of the loggerhead sea turtle population was particularly sensitive to 

changes in the annual survival of both juvenile and adult sea turtles and that the adverse effects 

of the pelagic longline fishery on loggerheads from the pelagic immature phase appeared critical 

to the survival and recovery of the species. Crouse (1999) concluded that relatively small 

changes in annual survival rates of both juvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles will adversely 

affect large segments of the total loggerhead sea turtle population. 

The four major subpopulations of loggerhead 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 of natural phenomena like hurricanes as well as human-related 

activities. Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expanses of the 

northwest Atlantic coast (in areas like Merritt Island, Archie Carr, and Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuges), other areas along these coasts have limited or no protection and probably 

cause fluctuations in sea turtle nesting success. Volusia County, Florida, for example, allows 

motor vehicles to drive on sea turtle nesting beaches (the County has filed suit against the 

USFWS to retain this right) and sea turtle nesting in Indian River, Martin, West Palm, and 

Broward Counties of Florida can be affected by beach armoring, beach renourishment, beach 

cleaning, artificial lighting, predation, and poaching. 

As discussed previously, the survival of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles is threatened by a 

completely different set of threats from human activity once they migrate to the ocean. Pelagic 

immature loggerhead sea turtles from these four subpopulations circumnavigate the North 

Atlantic over several years (Carr 1987, Bjomdal 1994). During that period, they are exposed to a 

series of longline fisheries that include an Azorean longline fleet, a Spanish longline fleet, and 

various fleets in the Mediterranean Sea (Aguilar et al. 1995, Bolten et al. 1994, Crouse 1999). 

Based on their proportional distribution, the capture of immature loggerhead sea turtles in

15
longline fleets in the Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes and the Mediterranean Sea will have a 

significant, adverse effect on the annual survival rates of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles from the 

western Atlantic subpopulations, with a disproportionately large effect on the northern 

subpopulation that may be significant at the population level. 

In waters off the coastal United States, the survival ofjuvenile loggerhead sea turtles is 

threatened by a suite of fisheries in Federal and State waters. Loggerhead turtles are captured, 

injured, or killed in shrimp fisheries off the Atlantic coast; along the southeastern Atlantic coast, 

loggerhead turtle populations were declining where shrimp fishing is intense off the nesting 

beaches, before the required use of TEDs (Magnuson et al. 1990). Conversely, these nesting 

populations did not appear to be declining where nearshore shrimping effort is low or absent. 

The management of shrimp harvest in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates the correlation between 

shrimp trawling and impacts to sea turtles. Waters out to 200 nm 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 of estuarine waters; sea turtle strandings decline dramatically during this 

period (NMFS, STSSN unpublished data). Loggerhead sea turtles are captured in fixed pound 

net gear in the Long Island Sound, in pound net 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 for monkfish and for spiny dogfish, and in northeast sink gill net 

fisheries (see further discussion in the Environmental Baseline of this Opinion). Witzell (1999) 

compiled data on capture rates of loggerhead and leatherback turtles in U.S. longline fisheries in 

the Caribbean and northwest Atlantic; the cumulative takes of these fisheries approach those of 

the U.S. shrimp fishing fleet (Crouse 1999, Magnuson et al. 1990). 

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 

The Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) contains a description of the 

natural history and taxonomy of this species (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Leatherbacks are 

widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found throughout waters of the 

Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and the GOM (Ernst and Barbour 1972). They are predominantly 

distributed pelagically, feeding primarily on jellyfish such as Stomolophus, Chryaora, and 

Aurelia (Rebel 1974). Leatherbacks are deep divers, with recorded dives to depths in excess of 

1000 m (Eckert et al. 1989), but they may come into shallow waters if there is an abundance of 

jellyfish nearshore. Leary (1957) reported a large group of up to 100 leatherbacks just offshore 

of Port Aransas, Texas, associated with a dense aggregation of Stomolophus. They also occur 

annually in places such as Cape Cod and Narragansett Bays during certain times of the year, 

particularly the fall. 

The leatherback is the largest living turtle and it ranges 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 with jellyfish. TDR data recorded by Eckert et al. (1989) indicate that 

leatherbacks are night feeders. Of the Atlantic turtle species, leatherback turtles seem to be the

16
most susceptible to entanglement in lobster gear and, along with loggerheads, to longline gear. 

This susceptibility may be the result of attraction to gelatinous organisms and algae that collect 

on buoys and buoy lines at or near the surface, and perhaps 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 about 13-14 years for 

females, and an estimated minimum age at sexual maturity of 5-6 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 of leatherbacks to date indicate 

that within the Atlantic basin significant genetic differences occur between St. Croix, U.S.V.I., 

and mainland Caribbean populations (Florida, Costa Rica, Suriname and French Guiana) and 

between Trinidad and the same mainland populations (Dutton et al. 1999), leading to the 

conclusion that there are at least three separate subpopulations of leatherbacks in the Atlantic. 

Much of the genetic diversity is contained in the relatively small insular subpopulations. To date, 

no studies have been published on the genetic make-up of pelagic or benthic foraging 

leatherbacks in the Atlantic and thus it is not known what populations are being impacted by 

particular actions. 

Although populations or subpopulations of leatherback sea turtles have not been formally 

recognized, based on the most recent reviews of the analysis of population trends of leatherback 

sea turtles, and due to our limited understanding of the genetic structure of the entire species, the 

most conservative approach would be to treat leatherback nesting populations as distinct 

populations whose survival and recovery is critical to the survival and recovery of the species. 

Further, any action that appreciably reduced the likelihood for one or more of these nesting 

populations to survive and recover in the wild would appreciably reduce the species' likelihood 

of survival and recovery in the wild. 

Nest counts are currently the only reliable indicator of population status available for leatherback 

turtles. Recent declines have been seen in the number of leatherbacks nesting worldwide (NMFS 

and USFWS 1995). The status of the leatherback population in the Atlantic is difficult to assess 

since major nesting beaches occur over broad 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 of the Caribbean such as St. John and St. Thomas. The 

nesting beach at Sandy Point, St. Croix, which has witnessed an increase in the population, has 

been subject to intensive conservation management efforts since 1981. However, it is not known 

whether the observed increase is due to improved adult survival or recruitment of new 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

17
interval of one to five years, Dutton et al. (in press) estimate a 19- 49% mortality rate for re

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 nesting beaches occur in French Guiana, Suriname, and 

Costa Rica. The nesting population of leatherback sea turtles in the Suriname-French Guiana 

trans-boundary region has been declining since 1992 (Chevalier and Girondot 1998). The 

current status of nesting 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 Sea Turtle Symposium on March 2, 2000, entitled "Driftnet Fishing in the 

Marconi Estuary: the Major Reason for the Leatherback Turtle's Decline in the Guianas," stated 

that since the 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 is no human-induced mortality on the beach in French 

Guiana, and natural mortality of adults should be low. There has been very low hatchling 

success on beaches used for the last 25 years. Chevalier believes that threats to the population 

include fishing (longlines, driftnets, and trawling), pollution (plastic bags and chemicals), and 

boat propellers. Around 90% of the nests are laid within 25 km from the Maroni estuary. 

Strandings in 1997, 1998, and 1999 in the estuary were 70, 60, and 100, which Chevalier 

considers underestimates. He questioned the fishermen and actually observed a 1 km 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 in French Guiana; offshore, driftnets are set. There are no such 

protected areas off Suriname, 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 of the 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 of the driftnet fishery to the nesting areas. 

Swinkels (pers. comm.) also gave a presentation at the symposium on March 3, 2000, entitled 

"The Leatherback on the 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 a very dynamic beach 

which has been newly created (by natural events) and now is a nesting beach. In 1999, there 

were >4000 nests of which about 50% were poached. In 1995 very few were poached (very little 

poaching effort was concentrated there because at the time there wasn't much beach or nesting). 

Swinkels indicated that since that time, however, poaching has been increasing. The beach has 

naturally been renourished over this period. Swinkels' null hypothesis was that there had been a 

shift in nesting activity (from other nesting areas). His alternate hypothesis was that the new

18
nesting represented new recruitment to the population.

The status of leatherbacks 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 et al. (1996) reported an average annual decline in nesting of about 23% between 

1984 and 1996. The total number of females nesting on the Pacific coast of Mexico during the 

1995-1996 season was estimated at fewer than 1,000. Less than 700 females are estimated for 

Central America (Spotila et al. 2000). In the western Pacific, the decline is equally severe. 

Current nestings at Terengganu, Malaysia, represent 1% of the levels recorded in the 1950s 

(Chan and Liew 1996). 

Globally, leatherback populations have been decimated worldwide. The population was 

estimated to number approximately 115,000 adult females in 1980 (Pritchard 1982) and only 

34,500 by 1995 (Spotila et al. 1996). The decline can be attributed to many factors including 

fisheries as well as intense exploitation of the eggs (Ross 1979). On some beaches, nearly 100% 

of the 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 a result of driftnet and 

longline fisheries. The Pacific population appears to be in a critical state of decline, now 

estimated to number less than 3,000 total adult and subadult animals (Spotila 2000). The status 

of the Atlantic population is less clear. In 1996, it was reported to be stable, at best (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) and the eastern Atlantic (i.e., off Africa, 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 only 48.5%, but that the overall nesting 

population grew (McDonald et al. 1993). This is in contrast to a Pacific nesting beach at Playa 

Grande, Costa Rica, where only 11.9% of turtles tagged in 1993-94 and 19.0% of turtles tagged 

in 1994-95 returned to nest over the next five years. Characterizations of this population suggest 

that it has a very low likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild under current conditions. 

Spotila et al. (2000) states that a conservative estimate of annual leatherback fishery-related 

mortality (from longlines, trawls, and gill nets) in the Pacific during the 1990s is 1,500 animals. 

He estimates that this represented about a 23% mortality rate (or 33% if most mortality was 

focused on the East Pacific population). Spotila et al. (2000) asserts that most of the mortality 

associated with the Playa Grande nesting site was fishery related. As noted above, leatherbacks 

normally live at least 30 years, usually maturing at about 12-13 years. Such long-lived species 

cannot withstand such high rates of anthropogenic mortality. 

Spotila et al. (1996) describe a hypothetical life table model based on estimated ages of sexual 

maturity at both ends of the species' natural range (5 and 15 years). The model concluded that 

leatherbacks maturing in 5 years would exhibit much greater population fluctuations in response

19
to external factors than would turtles that mature in 15 years. Furthermore, the simulations 

indicated that leatherbacks could maintain a stable population only if both juvenile and adult 

survivorship remained high and if other life history stages (i.e., egg, hatchling, and juvenile) 

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 of more than 1% above background levels in a stable population was 

unsustainable. Spotila et al. (1996) recommended not only reducing mortalities resulting from 

fishery interaction, but also advocated protection of eggs during the incubation period and of 

hatchlings during their first day, and indicated that such practices could potentially double the 

chance for survival and help counteract population effects resulting from adult mortality. They 

conclude "the Atlantic population is the most robust, but it is being exploited at a rate that cannot 

be sustained and if this rate of mortality continues, these populations will also decline. 

Leatherbacks are on the road to extinction." 

Zug (1996) point out that the combination of the loss of long-lived adults in fishery related 

mortality and the lack of recruitment stemming from elimination of annual influxes of hatchlings 

because of intense egg harvesting has caused the sharp decline in leatherback populations. The 

authors state that "the relatively short maturation time of leatherbacks offers some hope for their 

survival if we can greatly reduce the harvest of their eggs and the accidental and intentional 

capture and killing of large juveniles and adults." 

Summary 

The conflicting information regarding the status of Atlantic leatherbacks makes it difficult to 

conclude whether or not the population is currently in decline. Numbers at some nesting sites are 

up, while at others they are down. At one site (St. Croix), population growth has been 

documented despite large apparent mortality of nesting females; where data are available, 

population numbers are down in the western Atlantic, but stable in the Caribbean and eastern 

Atlantic. It does appear, however, that the western Atlantic portion of the population is being 

subjected to mortality beyond sustainable levels, resulting in a continued decline in numbers of 

nesting females. 

In the absence of any other population 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 are many anthropogenic sources of 

mortality to leatherbacks; a tally of all leatherback takes anticipated annually under current 

biological opinions yields a potential for up to 1,166 leatherback takes, although this sum 

includes many takes expected to be nonlethal and takes of males, juveniles, and possibly 

leatherbacks from the Caribbean and West African nesting assemblages. In combination with 

other threatening factors, such as the continued harvest of eggs and adult turtles for meat in some 

Caribbean and Latin nations, the effects of ocean pollution, and natural disturbances such as 

hurricanes (which may wipe out nesting beaches), it is clear that the endangered leatherback

20
populations of the Atlantic require significant conservation efforts to ensure their long-term 

survival and recovery in the wild. 

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

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 for their 

flesh, fat, eggs, and shell, and fisheries in the United States and throughout the Caribbean are 

largely to blame for the decline of the 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 monitoring began in 

1971. The increase is from an annual fitted-estimated number of emergences of under 20,000 in 

1971 to over 40,000 in 1996. Over 100,000 emergences occurred in 1995 (Bjorndal et al. 

1999b). In the continental United States, green turtle nesting occurs on the Atlantic coast of 

Florida (Ehrhart 1979). Occasional nesting has been documented along the Gulf coast of Florida, 

at southwest Florida beaches, as well as the beaches on the Florida Panhandle (Meylan et al. 

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 of green turtle nesting shows biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally positive trend 

during the ten years of regular monitoring since establishment of the index beaches in 1989, 

perhaps due to increased protective legislation throughout the Caribbean (Meylan et al. 1995). A 

long-term in-water monitoring study in the Indian River Lagoon of Florida has tracked the 

populations of juvenile green turtles in a foraging environment and noted significant increases in 

catch per 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, 

the majority portion of a green turtle's life is spent on the foraging grounds. Green turtles are 

herbivores, and appear to prefer marine grasses and algae in shallow bays, lagoons, and reefs 

(Rebel 1974). Some of the principal feeding pastures in the Gulf of Mexico include inshore 

south Texas waters, the upper west coast of Florida and the northwestern coast of the 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 of Cuba, the Mosquito coast of Nicaragua, 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 of the Gulf to support 

a commercial fishery, which landed over one million pounds of green turtles in 1890 (Doughty 

1984). Doughty reported the decline in the turtle fishery throughout the Gulf of Mexico by 1902.

21
Currently, green turtles are uncommon in offshore waters of the northern Gulf, but abundant in 

some inshore embayments. Shaver (1994) live-captured a number of green turtles in channels 

entering into Laguna Madre, in South Texas. She noted the abundance of green turtle strandings 

in Laguna Madre inshore waters and opined that the turtles may establish residency in the inshore 

foraging habitats as juveniles. Algae along the jetties at entrances to the inshore waters of South 

Texas was thought to be important to green turtles associated with a radio-telemetry project 

(Renaud et al. 1995). Transmitter-equipped turtles remained near jetties for most of the tracking 

period. This project was restricted to late summer months, and therefore may reflect seasonal 

influences. Coyne (1994) observed increased movements of green turtles during warm water 

months. 

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

The hawksbill turtle is relatively uncommon in the waters of the continental United States, 

preferring coral reefs, such as those found in the Caribbean and Central America. Hawksbills 

feed primarily on a wide variety of sponges but also consume bryozoans, coelenterates, and 

mollusks. 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, off the 

west coast of Puerto Rico, as critical habitat for hawksbills. Mona Island supports the largest 

population of nesting hawksbills in the U.S. Caribbean. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, a 

surprising number of small hawksbills are encountered in Texas. Most of the Texas records are 

probably in the 1-2 year class range. Many of the individuals captured or stranded are unhealthy 

or injured (Hildebrand 1983). The lack of sponge covered reefs and the cold winters in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico probably prevent hawksbills from establishing a strong presence in that 

area. Of the 65 geopolitical units worldwide, where estimates of relative hawksbill nesting 

density exist, 38 of them 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 (Lepidochelys kempit) 

Of the seven extant species of sea turtles of the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the 

lowest population level. The Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii) (USFWS and NMFS 1992b) contains a description of the natural history, taxonomy, and 

distribution of the Kemp's ridley turtle. Kemp's ridleys nest in daytime aggregations known as 

arribadas, primarily at Rancho Nuevo, a stretch of beach in Mexico. Most of the population of 

adult females nest in this single locality (Pritchard 1969). When nesting aggregations at Rancho 

Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 

40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the early 1970s, the world population estimate of 

mature female Kemp's ridleys had been reduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals. The population 

declined further through the mid-1 980s. Recent observations of increased nesting suggest that 

the decline in the ridley population has stopped and there is cautious optimism that the 

population is now increasing.

22
The nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico are believed to provide important developmental 

habitat for juvenile Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles. Ogren (1988) suggests that the 

Gulf coast, from Port Aransas, Texas, through Cedar Key, Florida, represents the primary habitat 

for subadult ridleys in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Stomach contents of Kemp's ridleys along 

the lower Texas coast consisted of a predominance of nearshore crabs and mollusks, as well as 

fish, shrimp, and other foods considered to be shrimp fishery discards (Shaver 1991). Analyses 

of stomach contents from sea turtles stranded on upper Texas beaches apparently suggest similar 

nearshore foraging behavior (Plotkin pers. comm.). 

Research being conducted by Texas A&M University has resulted in the intentional live-capture 

of hundreds of Kemp's ridleys at Sabine Pass and the entrance to Galveston Bay. Between 1989 

and 1993, 50 of the Kemp's ridleys captured were tracked (using satellite and radio telemetry) by 

biologists with the NMFS Galveston Laboratory. The tracking study was designed to 

characterize sea turtle habitat and to identify small and large scale migration patterns. 

Preliminary analysis of the data collected during these studies suggests that subadult Kemp's 

ridleys stay in shallow, warm, nearshore waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico until cooling 

waters force them offshore or south along the Florida coast (Renaud pers. comm.). 

In recent years, unprecedented numbers of Kemp's ridley carcasses have been reported from 

Texas and Louisiana beaches during periods of high levels of shrimping effort. NMFS 

established a team of population biologists, sea turtle scientists, and managers, known as the 

Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG), to conduct a status assessment of sea turtle populations. 

Analyses conducted by the group have indicated that the Kemp's ridley population is in the early 

stages of recovery; however, strandings in some years have increased at rates higher than the rate 

of increase in the Kemp's population (TEWG 1998). While many of the stranded turtles 

observed in recent years in Texas and Louisiana are believed to have been incidentally taken in 

the shrimp fishery, other sources of mortality exist in these waters. These stranding events 

illustrate the vulnerability of Kemp's ridley and loggerhead turtles to the impacts of human 

activities in nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters. 

The TEWG (1998) developed a population model to evaluate trends in the Kemp's ridley 

population through the application of empirical data and life history parameter estimates chosen 

by the TEWG. Model results identified three trends in benthic immature Kemp's ridleys. 

Benthic immatures are those turtles that are not yet reproductively mature but have recruited to 

feed in the nearshore benthic environment, where they are available to nearshore mortality 

sources that often result in strandings. Benthic immature ridleys are estimated to be 2-9 years of 

age and 20-60 cm in length. Increased production of hatchlings from the nesting beach 

beginning in 1966 resulted in an increase in benthic ridleys that leveled off in the late 1970s. A 

second period of increase followed by leveling occurred between 1978 and 1989 as hatchling 

production was further enhanced by the cooperative program between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Pesca to increase the nest protection and relocation 

program in 1978. A third period of steady increase, which has not leveled off to date, has 

occurred since 1990 and appears to be due to the greatly increased hatchling production and an

23
apparent increase in survival rates of immature turtles beginning in 1990 due, in part, to the 

introduction of turtle excluder devices (TEDs). Adult ridley numbers have now grown from a 

low of approximately 1,050 adults producing 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 ridley population; however, the TEWG listed a number of preliminary conclusions. 

The TEWG indicated that the Kemp's ridley population appears to be in the early stage of 

exponential expansion. Over the period 1987 to 1995, the rate of increase in the annual number 

of nests accelerated in a trend that would continue with enhanced hatchling production and the 

use of TEDs. Nesting data indicated that the number of adults declined from a population that 

produced 6,000 nests in 1966 to a population that produced 924 nests in 1978 and a low of 702 

nests in 1985. Thus, the trajectory of adult abundance tracks trends in nest abundance from an 

estimate of 9,600 in 1966 to 1,050 in 1985. The TEWG estimated that in 1995 there were 3,000 

adult ridleys. The increased recruitment of new adults is illustrated in the proportion of 

neophyte, or first time nesters, which has increased from 6% to 28% from 1981 to 1989 and from 

23% to 41% from 1990 to 1994. The 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 year 2020, if the assumptions of age to sexual maturity and age specific 

survivorship rates plugged into their model are correct. It determined that the data reviewed 

suggested that adult Kemp's ridley turtles were restricted somewhat to the Gulf of Mexico in 

shallow nearshore waters, and benthic immature turtles of 20-60 cm straight line carapace length 

are found in nearshore coastal waters including estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. 

The TEWG (1998) identified an average Kemp's ridley population growth rate of 13% per year 

between 1991 and 1995. Total nest numbers have continued to increase. However, the 1996 and 

1997 nest numbers reflected a slower rate of growth, while the increase in the 1998 nesting level 

was much higher, then decreased in 1999, and increased again strongly in 2000. The population 

growth rate does not appear as steady as originally forecasted by the TEWG, but annual 

fluctuations, due in part to irregular internesting periods, are normal for other sea turtle 

populations. Also, as populations increase and expand, nesting activity would be expected to be 

more variable. 

The area surveyed for ridley nests in Mexico was expanded in 1990 due to destruction of the 

primary nesting beach by Hurricane Gilbert. The TEWG (1998) assumed that the increased 

nesting observed particularly since 1990 was a true increase, rather than the result of expanded 

beach coverage. Because systematic surveys of the adjacent beaches were not conducted prior to 

1990, there is no way to determine what proportion of the nesting increase documented since that 

time is due to the increased survey effort rather than an expanding ridley nesting range. As noted 

by TEWG, trends in Kemp's ridley nesting even on the Rancho Nuevo beaches alone suggest 

that recovery of this population has begun but continued caution is necessary to ensure recovery 

and to meet the goals identified in the Kemp's Ridley Recovery Plan.

24
III. Species Likely to Be Affected

Of the above-listed species occurring in the Atlantic Ocean offshore of the southeastern United 

States, NMFS believes that the five sea turtle species are vulnerable to capture, injury, and death 

from some of the activities associated with the proposed action. However, based on stranding 

records and records from the plant, hawksbill and leatherback turtles are rare in this area; 

therefore, NMFS believes that although there is a chance that a hawksbill or leatherback sea 

turtle could be affected by the proposed action the chances of one of these species being affected 

is remote. 

IV. Environmental Baseline 

This section contains an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors 

leading to the current status of the species, their habitat, and ecosystem, within the action area. 

The environmental baseline is a snapshot of a species' health at a specified point in time and 

includes state, tribal, local, and private actions already affecting the species, or that 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 also part 

of the environmental baseline, as are Federal and other actions within the action area that may 

benefit listed species or critical habitat. 

The environmental baseline for this biological opinion includes the effects of several activities 

that affect the survival and recovery of threatened and endangered species in the action area. The 

activities that shape the environmental baseline in the action area of this consultation are 

primarily fisheries and recovery activities associated with reducing fisheries impacts. Other 

environmental impacts include effects of discharges, dredging, military activities, oil and gas 

development activities, and industrial cooling water intake. 

Status of the Species Within the Action Area 

The five species of sea turtles that occur in the action area are all highly migratory. NMFS 

believes that no individual members of any of the species are likely to be year-round residents of 

the action area. Individual animals will make migrations into near shore waters as well as other 

areas of the North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Therefore, the range

wide status of the five species of sea turtles, given in section II above, most accurately reflects 

the species' status within the action area. Likewise, while the following discussion of factors 

affecting species reflects conditions both inside and outside of the immediate action area, this 

discussion most accurately reflects those factors acting on sea turtles which may occur within the 

action area seasonally or transiently. 

Factors Affecting Species within the Action Area 

Federal Actions

25
In recent years, NMFS has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects 

of Federally-permitted fisheries and other Federal actions on threatened and endangered species 

in the action area. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the 

probability of adverse effects of the action on sea turtles. Similarly, recovery actions NMFS has 

undertaken under both the MMPA and the ESA are addressing the problem of take of sea 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 1 below, 

followed by a brief discussion of each action consulted on. The following summary of 

anticipated incidental take of turtles includes only those Federal actions which have undergone 

formal section 7 consultation.

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 Area 3 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 Gulf of 30(30) 0 8(8) 14(14) 2(2) 

Mexico 

COE Dredging - E Gulf of Mexico 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, Gulf of Mexico 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 Fishery 7 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

26
Summer 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 of the total anticipated take; numbers less than whole are rounded up. 

2 The anticipated take level may represent any combination of species and thus is tallied under each column (note: in most 

cases, it is expected that takes of turtle species other than loggerheads will be minimal). 

Navy Operations along the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, Mine Warfare Center, Eglin AFB, Moody SIncludes AFB. 

' Total estimated take includes acoustic harassment. 

5

Up to 8 turtles total, of which, no more than 5 may be leatherbacks, greens, Kemp's or hawksbill, in combination. 

•Total anticipated take is 3 turtles of any combination over a 30-year period. 

Not to exceed 25 turtles, in total. 

Anticipated take for post-hatchlings for total period June 21, 1999 through January 2001. 

9

Represents estimated take; however, the Incidental take statement cites observed take (5 loggerheads, 2 leatherbacks, or 3 

Kemp's ridleys or greens or hawksbills in any combination) as a representative of the estimated take. The estimated take 

represents any combination of species other than the leatherback. 

"'Represents estimated total take and observed lethal take in parentheses. 

"Represents estimated total and lethal take. 

"

2

Take levels for nonlethal were not identified because entrainment is a function of turtle abundance & environmental 

conditions; lethal take is also expressed as 1.5% of the total number entrained in the plant, whichever is greater. 

"12 Represents a minimum number of turtles taken annually because the majority of the take is observed take and is not an 

estimate of true 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 the total anticipated take, in many cases, represents a combination of 

species. 

Vessel Operations 

Potential adverse effects from Federal vessel operations in the action area of this consultation 

include operations of the 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 of Engineers (COE). NMFS has 

conducted formal consultations with the USCG, the USN (described below) and is currently in 

early phases of consultation with the other Federal 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 of interaction. 

Refer to the biological opinions for the USCG (NMFS 1995, 1996a, and 1998b) and the USN

27
(NMFS 1997b) for detail on the scope of vessel operations for these agencies and conservation 

measures being implemented as standard operating procedures. Since the USN consultation only 

covered operations out of Mayport, Florida, potential still remains for USN vessels to adversely 

affect sea turtles when they are operating in other areas within the range of these species. 

Similarly, operations of vessels by other Federal agencies within the action area (NOAA, EPA, 

COE) may adversely affect sea turtles. However, the in-water activities of those agencies are 

limited in scope, as they operate a limited number of vessels or are engaged in 

research/operational activities that are unlikely to contribute a large amount of risk. 

Additional military activities, including vessel operations and ordnance detonation, also affect 

sea turtles. U.S. Navy aerial bombing training in the ocean off the southeast U.S. coast, 

involving drops of live ordnance (500- and 1,000-lb bombs) is estimated to have the potential to 

injure or kill, annually, 84 loggerheads, 12 leatherbacks, and 12 greens or Kemp's ridley, in 

combination (NMFS 1997a). The USN will also conduct ship-shock testing for the new 

SEAWOLF submarine and the DDG-81 WINSTON S. CHURCHILL guided missile destroyer 

off the Atlantic coast of Florida, 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, for the SEAWOLF and 8 sea turtles in any combination of 

the five species found in the action area for the Winston Churchill (NMFS 1996b; NMFS 2000). 

The USN Mine Warfare Center in Corpus Christi, Texas, may take, annually, up to 5 loggerheads 

and 2 leatherbacks, hawksbills, greens, or Kemp's ridleys, in combination, during training 

activities in the western Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Air Force operations in the Eglin Gulf Test Range 

in the eastern Gulf of Mexico may also kill or injure sea turtles. Air-to-surface gunnery testing is 

estimated to kill a maximum of 3 loggerheads, 2 leatherbacks, and 1 green, hawksbill or Kemp's 

ridley. Search and rescue training operations are expected to have a low level of impacts, taking 

2 turtles over a 20-year period. Operation of the USCG's boats and cutters in the U.S. Atlantic, 

meanwhile, is estimated to take no more than one individual turtle-of any species-per year 

(NMFS 1995). Formal consultation on overall USCG or USN activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

has not been conducted. 

The construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels has also been identified as a 

source of turtle mortality. Hopper dredges, which are frequently used in ocean bar channels and 

sometimes in harbor channels and offshore borrow areas, move relatively rapidly (compared to 

sea turtle swimming speeds) and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag arm of 

the moving dredge overtakes the slower moving turtle. Along the Atlantic coast of the 

southeastern United States, NMFS estimates that annual, observed injury or mortality of sea 

turtles from hopper dredging may reach 35 loggerheads, 7 greens, 7 Kemp's ridleys, and 2 

hawksbills (NMFS 1997c). A combination of hopper dredging and the use of explosives is 

expected to take 18 sea turtles (all species) during the deepening and widening of Wilmington 

Harbor, North Carolina. Along the north and west coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, channel 

maintenance dredging using a hopper dredge may injure or kill 30 loggerhead, 8 green, 14 

Kemp's ridley, and 2 hawksbill sea turtles annually (NMFS 1997d). Additional incidental take 

statements for dredging of Charlotte Harbor and Tampa Bay, Florida, anticipate these projects

28
may incidentally take, by injury or mortality, 2 loggerheads or 1 Kemp's ridley or 1 green or 1 

hawksbill sea turtle for Charlotte Harbor and 8 sea turtles, including no more than 5 documented 

Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, or green turtles, in any combination, for Tampa Bay. 

The COE and Minerals Management Service (MMS) (the latter is nonmilitary) rig removal 

activities also adversely affect sea turtles. For the COE activities, an incidental take (by injury or 

mortality) of one documented Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill, leatherback, or loggerhead turtle 

is anticipated under a rig removal consultation for the New Orleans District (NMFS 1998c). 

MMS activities are anticipated to result in annual incidental take (by injury or mortality) of 25 

sea turtles, including no more than 5 Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill, or leatherback turtles and 

no more than 10 loggerhead turtles, due to MMS' OCS oil and gas exploration, development, 

production, and abandonment activities. 

Federal Fishery Operations 

Adverse effects on threatened and endangered species from several types of fishing gear occur in 

the action area. Efforts to reduce the adverse effects of commercial fisheries are addressed 

through the ESA section 7 process. Gill net, longline, trawl gear, and pot fisheries have all been 

documented as interacting with sea turtles. For all fisheries for which there is a Federal fishery 

management plan (FMP) or for which any Federal action is taken to manage that fishery, impacts 

have been evaluated under section 7. 

Several formal consultations have been conducted on the following fisheries that NMFS 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 Sea Bass fisheries. These 

consultations are summarized below; for more detailed information, refer to the respective 

biological opinions. 

The Northeast Multispecies Sink Gill Net Fishery is one of the other major fisheries that is 

known to take sea turtles. This fishery has historically occurred from the periphery of the Gulf of 

Maine to Rhode Island in water to 60 fathoms. In recent years, more of the effort in this fishery 

has occurred in offshore waters and into the Mid-Atlantic. Participation in this fishery declined 

from 399 to 341 permit holders in 1993 and is expected to continue to decline as further 

groundfish conservation measures are implemented. The fishery operates throughout the year 

with peaks in the spring and from October through February. Data indicate that gear used in this 

fishery has seriously injured loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. It is often difficult to assess 

gear found on stranded animals or observed at sea and assign it to a specific fishery. Only a 

fraction of the takes are observed, and the catch rate represented by the majority of takes, which 

are reported opportunistically, i.e., not as part of a random sampling program, is unknown. 

Consequently, the total level of interaction cannot be determined through extrapolation. The 

incidental take level established for this fishery in the July 5, 1989, BO estimated that 10 

documented Kemp's ridley, 10 green, 10 hawksbill, 10 leatherback, and 100 loggerhead sea 

turtles would be killed or injured by the fishery annually.

29
The 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 on the 

status of endangered and threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental baseline 

for the action area, the effects of the action, and the cumulative effects, NMFS concluded in a 

biological opinion issued December 21, 1998, that conduct of the monkfish fishery, with 

modification to reduce impacts of entanglement through the whale and porpoise TRPs, may 

adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and 

threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction. 

The Monkfish Fishery Management Plan was recently completed by the New England and Mid

Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. This fishery uses several gear types which may entangle 

protected species, and takes of shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles have been recorded from 

monkfish trips. NMFS completed a formal consultation on the Monkfish FMP on December 21, 

1998, which concluded that the fishery, with modification under the take reduction plans, is not 

likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. The ITS provided under 

this Opinion anticipates up to 6 incidental takes of loggerhead turtles (no more than 3 lethal), 1 

lethal or nonlethal take of a green sea turtle, 1 lethal or nonlethal take of a Kemp's ridley, and 1 

lethal or nonlethal take of a leatherback. However, the implication of this fishery in the recent 

pulse of sea turtle strandings in North Carolina noted elsewhere in this Opinion necessitate 

reinitiation of consultation and likely the current incidental take levels will be revised in a new 

incidental take statement. 

A consultation was recently concluded for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery. This fishery is similar to 

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) of loggerheads, 

and 1 take (lethal or nonlethal) each for Kemp's ridley, leatherbacks, and, green sea turtles. 

The Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass fisheries are known to interact with sea turtles. 

Significant measures have been developed to reduce the take of sea turtles in summer flounder 

trawls and trawls that meet the definition of a summer flounder trawl (which would include 

fisheries for other species like scup and black sea bass) by requiring TEDs in nets in the area of 

greatest bycatch off the 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 will work in the flynets used in the weakfish fishery. The anticipated observed 

annual take rates for turtles in this multispecies fishery is 15 loggerheads and 3 leatherbacks, 

hawksbills, greens, or Kemp's ridleys, in combination annually (NMFS 1997a). 

The Atlantic Pelagic Fisheries for Swordfish, Tuna, Shark, and Billfish are known to incidentally 

capture large numbers of turtles, 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, and 46 hawksbills, with a resulting 

mortality rate of approximately 30%. The interactions resulting from the shark gillnet, shark

30
bottom longline, and other gears used in this fishery are lower. The shark gillnet component is 

estimated, based on limited observer data, to injure or kill 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 of no more than 3 turtles, in total, of any species. 

The Southeast U.S. Shrimp Fishery is known to incidentally take high numbers of sea turtles. 

Shrimp trawlers in the southeastern United States are required to use TEDs, which reduce a 

trawler's capture rate by 97%. Even so, NMFS estimated that 4,100 turtles may be captured 

annually by shrimp trawling, including 650 leatherbacks that cannot be released through TEDs, 

1,700 turtles taken in try nets, and 1,750 turtles that fail to escape through the TED (NMFS 

1998d), including large loggerheads. Henwood and Stuntz (1987) reported that the mortality rate 

for trawl-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 

of the true mortality rate. 

Other Federal Actions 

Sea turtles entering coastal or inshore areas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling

water systems of electrical generating plants. At the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant at 

Hutchinson Island, Florida, large numbers of green and loggerhead turtles have been captured in 

the seawater intake canal in the past several years. Annual capture levels from 1994-1997 have 

ranged from almost 200 to almost 700 green turtles and from about 150 to over 350 loggerheads. 

Almost all of the 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 in Brunswick, North Carolina, may take 50 sea 

turtles in any combination annually, that are released alive. NMFS also estimated the total lethal 

take of turtles 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 of take of sea turtles in the plant's intake 

canal may reach 55 sea turtles with an estimated 50 being released alive biennially. 

Environmental Contaminants 

An extensive review of environmental contaminants in turtles has been conducted by Meyers

Schrne and Walton (1994); however, most available information relates to freshwater species. 

High concentrations of chlorobiphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in the eggs of the 

freshwater snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina, have been correlated with population effects 

such as decreased hatching success, increased hatchling deformities and disorientation (Bishop et 

al. 1991, 1994). Very little is known about baseline levels and physiological 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 et al. 

1994). Mckenzie et al. (1999) measured concentrations of chlorobiphenyls and organochlorine

31
pesticides in marine turtles tissues collected from the Mediterranean (Cyprus, Greece) and 

European Atlantic waters (Scotland) between 1994 and 1996. Omnivorous loggerhead turtles 

had the highest organochlorine contaminant concentrations in all the tissues sampled, including 

those from green and leatherback turtles. It is thought that dietary preferences were likely to 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 diet with age. Sakai et 

al. (1995) found the presence of metal residues occurring in loggerhead turtle organs and eggs. 

More recently, Storelli et al. (1998) analyzed tissues from twelve 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 other marine 

organisms like dolphins, seals and porpoises by Law et al. (1991). Research is needed on the 

short- and long-term health and fecundity effects of chlorobiphenyl, organochlorine, and heavy 

metal accumulation in sea turtles. 

State or Private Actions 

Private and commercial vessels 

Commercial traffic and recreational 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 as well. The magnitude of these marine events is not currently 

known. NMFS and the USCG are in early consultation on these events, but a thorough analysis 

has not been completed. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) also reports 

many records of vessel interaction (propeller injury) with sea turtles off coastal states such as 

New Jersey and Florida, where there are high levels of vessel traffic. 

State fishery operations. 

A biological opinion on the NMFS/ASMFC interjurisdictional FMP for weakfish was conducted 

in June 1997. Weakfish are caught in the summer flounder fishery and are also fished with fly 

nets. Analyses of the NMFS' observer data showed 36 incidental captures of sea turtles for trawl 

and gill net vessels operating south of Cape May, New Jersey, from April 1994 through 

December 1996. Of those turtles taken, 28 loggerheads were taken in trawls that also caught 

weakfish, and resulted in two deaths. Most of the sea turtle takes occurred in late fall. In all 

cases, weakfish landings were second in poundage behind Atlantic croaker and summer flounder 

(NEFSC unpub. data). 

The North Carolina observer program documented 33 fly net trips from November through April 

of 1991-1994 and recorded no turtles caught in 218 hours of trawl effort. However, a NMFS 

observed vessel fished for summer flounder for 27 tows with an otter trawl equipped with a TED 

and then fished for weakfish and Atlantic croaker with a fly net that was not equipped with a 

TED. They caught one loggerhead in 27 TED equipped tows and seven loggerheads in nine fly 

net tows without TEDs. In addition, the same vessel using the fly net in a previous trip took 12 

loggerheads in 11 out of 13 observed tows targeting Atlantic croaker. Weakfish landings from

32
these fly net 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 by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

(McFee et al. 1996). No takes of protected species were observed. Florida has banned all but 

very small nets in state waters, as has the state of Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

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 of North Carolina. 

Most pot fisheries in the southeast are prosecuted in areas frequented by sea turtles. 

Pulses of greatly 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 of April through early May 

2000, approximately 300 turtles, mostly loggerheads, stranded north of Oregon Inlet, North 

Carolina. Gill nets were found with four of the 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 of the strandings. Strandings in this area represent at best, 7%-13% of 

the actual nearshore mortality (Epperly et al. 1996). Studies by Bass et al. (1998), Norrgard 

(1995), and Rankin-Baransky (1997) indicate that the percentage of northern loggerheads in this 

area is highly over-represented in the strandings when compared to the approximately 9% 

representation from this subpopulation in the overall U.S. sea turtle nesting populations. 

Specifically, the genetic composition of sea turtles in this area is 25%-54% from the northern 

subpopulation, 46%-64% from the South Florida subpopulation, and 3%-16% from the Yucatan 

subpopulation. The cumulative removal of these turtles on an annual basis would severely impact 

the recovery of this species. 

Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline 

NMFS implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of 

sea turtles in commercial fisheries. In particular, NMFS has required the use of TEDs in 

southeast U.S. shrimp trawls since 1989 and in summer flounder trawls in the mid-Atlantic area 

(south of Cape Charles, Virginia) since 1992. It has been estimated that TEDs exclude 97% of 

the turtles caught in such trawls. These regulations have been refined over the years to ensure 

that TED effectiveness is maximized through proper placement and installation, configuration 

(e.g., width of bar spacing), floatation, and more widespread use. Recent analyses by Epperly 

and Teas (1999) indicate that the minimum requirements for the escape opening dimensions are 

too small, and that as much as 47% of the loggerheads stranding annually along the Atlantic 

seaboard and Gulf of Mexico were too large to fit through existing openings. On April 5, 2000, 

NMFS published an Announcement of Proposed Rulemaking to require larger escape openings 

(65 FR 17852). 

In 1993 (with a final rule implemented 1995), NMFS established a Leatherback Conservation

33
Zone to restrict shrimp trawl activities from off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, to the 

North Carolina/Virginia border. This provides for short-term closures when high concentrations 

of normally 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 of most NMFS-approved TEDs. This rule was originally 

established because of coastal concentrations of leatherbacks which sometimes appear during 

their spring northward migration, but the rule was also recently implemented in the fall of 1999 

off the coast of northern Florida due to unseasonable concentrations there, and leatherback TEDs 

were also required off the coast of Texas in the spring of 2000 due to unusual numbers of 

leatherback strandings there. 

NMFS is also working to develop a TED which can be effectively used in a type of trawl known 

as a fly net, which is sometimes used in the mid-Atlantic and northeast fisheries to target 

sciaenids and bluefish. Limited observer data indicate that takes can be quite high in this fishery. 

A prototype design has been developed, but testing under commercial conditions is still 

necessary. 

In addition, NMFS has been active in public outreach efforts to educate fishermen regarding sea 

turtle handling and resuscitation techniques. As well as making this information widely available 

to all fishermen, NMFS recently conducted a number of workshops with longline fishermen to 

discuss bycatch issues including protected species, and to educate them regarding handling and 

release guidelines. NMFS intends to continue these outreach efforts and hopes to reach all 

fishermen participating in the pelagic longline fishery over the next 1 to 2 years. 

Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Activities 

There is an extensive network of sea turtle stranding and salvage network (STSSN) participants 

along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico which not only collects data on dead sea turtles, but also 

rescues and rehabilitates any live 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 of disease, study 

toxicology and contaminants, and conduct genetic studies to determine population structure. All 

of the states that participate in the STSSN are collecting tissue for and/or conducting genetic and 

ageing studies to better understand the population dynamics of the 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 of sea turtle movements, longevity, reproductive patterns, etc. 

Other Potential Sources of Impacts in the Environmental Baseline 

A number of activities that may indirectly affect listed species include discharges from 

wastewater systems, dredging, ocean dumping and disposal, and aquaculture. The impacts from

34
these 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 is being required for a major discharge in Massachusetts Bay (Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority) in order to detect any changes in habitat parameters associated with this 

discharge. Close coordination is occurring through the section 7 process on both dredging and 

disposal sites to develop monitoring programs and ensure that vessel operators do not contribute 

to vessel-related impacts. 

NMFS and the U.S. Navy have been working cooperatively to establish a policy for monitoring 

and managing acoustic impacts from anthropogenic sound sources in the marine environment. 

Acoustic impacts can include temporary or permanent injury, habitat exclusion, habituation, and 

disruption of other normal behavior patterns. It is expected that the policy on managing 

anthropogenic sound in the oceans will provide guidance for programs such as the use of acoustic 

deterrent devices in reducing marine mammal-fishery interactions and review of Federal 

activities and permits for research involving acoustic activities. The Office of Naval Research 

hosted a meeting in March 1997 to develop scientific and technical background for use in policy 

preparation. NMFS hosted a workshop in September 1998 to gather technical information which 

will support development of new acoustic criteria. 

Summary and Synthesis of the Status of Species and Environmental Baseline 

In summary, the potential for dredging, military activities, fisheries, etc., to adversely affect sea 

turtles exists for the sea turtles considered in this consultation. However, recovery actions have 

been undertaken as described and continue to evolve. Those actions have started to produce 

positive changes in the nesting numbers of Kemp'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 the recovery actions taken: e.g., green, leatherback, and 

hawksbill turtle nesting is mostly outside the United States and Mexico and likely has received 

less beachside protection efforts, and loggerheads and Kemp's ridleys are the major 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 of sea turtles, but are expected to reduce sources of human-induced mortality as well. 

However, factors in the existing baseline for loggerhead sea turtles and leatherback sea turtles 

leave cause for considerable concern regarding the status of these populations and the current 

impacts upon these populations: 

a. The leatherback sea turtle is declining worldwide. Overall sources of mortality, including the 

NMFS HMS fisheries, incurred by this population exceed the 1% sustainable level proposed 

by Spotila et al. (1996). 

b. The nesting numbers for the northern subpopulation of loggerhead sea turtles are stable or 

declining, and the nesting females currently number only about 3,700. The percent of

35
northern loggerheads represented in sea turtle strandings in northern U.S. Atlantic states is over

representative of their 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 of the Action 

Summary of FP&L's Report on the Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle 

Entrainment at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 

The terms and conditions of the incidental take statement of NMFS' January 1997 Opinion 

required FP&L to conduct a study of the physical and ecological factors influencing sea turtle 

interactions with the plant. This report was completed in March 2000 and the results are 

summarized below. For further 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" (Florida Power and Light, 2000). 

Inmature loggerhead and green turtles apparently use the near shore ocean environment in the 

vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant as developmental/foraging habitat. This appears to be related to 

the water depth in the area, the presence of hard bottom substrates and worm reefs, and the 

occurrence of preferred food items. Based on recapture data, it appears that some turtles reside in 

the area throughout the year, while others transmigrate seasonally. The area is apparently also 

used as internesting habitat by large numbers of female loggerhead turtles that nest on 

Hutchinson Island every year. 

Turtles migrating along the coast and/or utilizing hard bottom substrates and worm reefs in the 

vicinity of the plant would be brought into close proximity with the plant's intake structures. 

Turtles may enter the intake structures to rest or avoid attack from predators and/or competition 

from other turtles. Green and loggerhead turtles may also be attracted to the intakes for the 

purpose of foraging, since the structures resemble reefs, important foraging habitat for both 

species. 

The majority of the loggerhead and green turtles entrained into the St. Lucie Plant intake canal 

between 1977 and 1998 were juveniles. However, loggerhead captures included a higher 

proportion of subadults and adults than green turtle captures. This probably reflects the fact that 

the loggerhead nesting population is considerably larger than the 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 at the 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 on Hutchinson Island. The upward trends in juvenile loggerhead and green 

turtle captures were primarily due to increases that occurred in the 1990s.

36
On average, more turtles were captured each year after Unit 2 was placed on line than before, 

suggesting that the addition of a 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 for ten years. 

Changes in the physical appearance of the intake structure velocity caps following their repair 

coincided with substantial increases in juvenile green turtle captures at the plant. However, the 

extent to which the two are causally related is unclear. 

Power plant outages over the life of the 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 of either species that occurred during the 1990s. Flow rates 

from 1988 through 1998 appeared to have a weak but significant effect on short-term juvenile 

loggerhead entrainment rates. Again, however, flow rates were not responsible for the long-term 

increases in juvenile 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 relief of 

nearby worm reefs and hard bottom or to changes in the abundance of food items in the area were 

lacking. One environmental factor that was 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 of high, wave producing winds also did not appear to affect 

entrainment of turtles. Seasonal increases in the number of juvenile loggerhead and green turtles 

in the vicinity of the plant may be more closely related to the migration patterns of turtles from 

more northern areas than to local conditions. 

There is evidence (mainly from nesting beach surveys) that the adult populations of both green 

and loggerhead turtles that provide juveniles to the Hutchinson Island area increased during the 

study period. It would logically follow that the juvenile component of those 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 

Lagoon in an area well beyond the influence of the St. Lucie Plant. Unfortunately, there are 

relatively few other study sites for which long-term quantitative data are available for juvenile 

loggerheads. However, the strong correlation between adult loggerhead captures at the St. Lucie 

Plant and nesting on Hutchinson Island elucidates the relationship between canal rates and the 

relative numbers of individuals in the nearshore environment. 

Even though changes in physical plant design and operating characteristics have occurred over 

the life of the plant, these changes do not appear to be responsible for the long-term increases in 

the numbers of juvenile and adult loggerhead and juvenile green turtles captured at the St. Lucie 

Plant. The most logical explanation for these increases is that there are more individuals of these

37
life history stages present in the vicinity of the plant.

Direct Effects 

At least 6,576 sea turtles have become entrapped at the St. Lucie intake canal between 1976 

through 1999. One hundred ninety-seven of those have died, for a total mortality rate of 3.0%. 

Loggerheads have been the species most frequently taken over this period, although green turtles 

have been the dominant species encountered since 1993. 

Entrapment at the St. Lucie intake canal can result in direct negative impacts on turtles in a 

number of ways: drowning in the intake pipes, injury sustained in the pipes and the canal, injury 

sustained during canal dredging, debilitation of condition 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 if discharged sponge balls are ingested. 

Drowning and injury in the intake pipes are unlikely to be a major direct impact. With both 

generating units operating, the transit time through the intake pipes (5 minutes through the 12-ft 

pipes and 3 minutes through the 16-ft pipes) is likely too short to drown a sea turtle, and there are 

no known instances of turtle mortalities from forced submergence in the intake pipes. Some 

captured turtles have shown recent superficial scrapes, usually to the anterior carapace or 

plastron, which may have resulted from contact with encrusting organisms in the pipeline. 

NMFS has conducted several formal consultations with the COE on the effects of channel 

maintenance dredging on sea turtles, generally concluding that the operation of hopper dredges 

may adversely affect sea turtles, but not hydraulic or clam shell dredges. This latter conclusion 

does not apply, however, to dredging conducted in the narrow confines of the St. Lucie intake 

canal where turtles have limited ability to evade a dredge. All types of dredging may affect sea 

turtles there. In fact, from 1976 to 1990, 7 loggerheads were killed during maintenance dredging 

in the St. Lucie intake canal. In 1994, however, hydraulic dredging was accomplished without 

any sea turtle mortality by isolating the dredging area with a temporary 4-in square barrier net. 

FP&L engineers expect that future maintenance dredging in the intake canal will generally only 

be necessary west of the 5-in barrier net. Impacts to sea turtles from dredging west of the barrier 

net are considered unlikely. In the rare instances where dredging may be required to the east of 

the 5-in barrier net, FP&L will contact NMFS and initiate consultation on the particular project, 

in conjunction with NRC or COE. Dredging associated with the construction of the 5-in barrier 

net was the subject of a separate informal consultation with NMFS (concluded October 26, 

1995); and the work was accomplished without any impacts to turtles. 

The extent of impacts resulting from loss of condition and exposure to predation is largely 

dependent on the species and the total residence time of individual animals in the intake canal. 

Green turtles, in particular, would not have access to their normal food sources of sea grasses or

38
algae in the canal. Loggerheads may be able to find some of their prey species that have also 

become entrapped in the canal. In 1994, FP&L reported residence times based on visual 

observations for turtles entrapped east of the Highway AlA barrier net. Average residence times 

were 1.5 days for loggerheads and 2 days for green turtles, and 100% percent of the loggerheads 

and 97% percent of the greens were captured within one week of first sighting. Loss of condition 

from lack of adequate food sources should not have serious negative impacts on turtles over these 

relatively short periods of time. Predatory fish, including barracuda, sharks, and jewfish, occur in 

the intake canal and may pose a threat to the smaller turtles in the canal. The level of predation 

on turtles 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 

of predation to the overall turtle mortality rate at the St. Lucie Plant is probably small. 

Drowning in capture nets has occurred occasionally throughout the history of the 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% of the total 

number of turtles captured). Turtles can drown when they become tightly entangled, when the 

net becomes fouled on the bottom, or when a small turtle becomes tangled with a large turtle and 

is held underwater. Since April 1990, the nets have 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-half hour to 

obtain biological information and to tag the animal) and by keeping turtles cool and shaded prior 

to release. 

Impingement of turtles on the barrier nets has been implicated in only one mortality since 

improvements to the 8-in barrier 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 of death is unknown and the carcasses 

would naturally accumulate at the barrier net. The UIDS barrier is believed by FP&L to pose a 

greater threat to turtles than the other barrier nets because of its downward slope relative to the 

current flow. One UIDS-associated mortality has been reported since 1990. Generally, however, 

small turtles capable of penetrating the 8-in barrier net can presumably penetrate the UIDS 

barrier without impingement and end up in the intake wells. The large number of small turtles 

removed from the intake wells between 1990 and 1995 bears this out. However, with the 

installation of the 5-in barrier net in 1996, fewer turtles have been getting through to the intake 

wells. 

Since 1992, the number of small green turtles entrapped in the St. Lucie intake canal has been 

rising. Correspondingly, until the installation of the 5-in barrier net, more small turtles were 

penetrating the barrier nets and eventually reaching the intake wells. In 1995, 673 green turtles

39
were entrapped in the St. Lucie intake canal, and 97 of those had to be removed from the intake 

wells, where 7 died. Since 1990, a total of 16 green turtles have been recovered dead from the 

intake wells. FP&L has reported that 3 of the 16 died as the result of injury inflicted by the 

mechanical debris-removing rakes. The other 13 are reported by FP&L as dying of unknown 

causes. However, as stated previously, turtles reaching the intake wells have decreased due to 

the installation of the 5-in barrier net in 1996, with only 55 turtles making it through to the intake 

wells from 1996 through 2000 and only 3 of these being found dead. This has helped to decrease 

total turtle mortalities at the plant. 

Possible impacts of the Taprogge condenser cleaning system have been examined. Release of 

the system's sponge balls in the plant's discharge waters would introduce persistent marine 

debris offshore of the plant. The cleaning balls, made of vulcanized natural rubber, could be 

mistaken for prey items by turtles and consumed, with unknown health effects. To address this 

and other concerns relating to the Taprogge system's operation, FP&L instituted operational 

procedures for the system to prevent sponge ball release into the environment. FP&L has been 

making operational reports to FFWCC since March 1996 on the Taprogge system. Based on 

these reports, sponge ball loss is quite low, with the maximum estimated at three balls/day. 

These sponge balls would most likely have been lost as a result of deterioration to a small enough 

size to pass 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 of very small sponge parts. No impacts to sea turtles are expected from this 

normal operational loss rate. Single, large losses of sponge balls should be preventable through 

proper management controls, which FP&L has implemented. No impacts from the Taprogge 

system are anticipated as long as effective operational and management measures are maintained. 

FP&L should continue to generate the yearly reports on the operation of the Taprogge system, 

which have been required by the FFWCC Bureau of Protected Species Management, and a copy 

should also be provided to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office to allow NMFS to evaluate 

whether impacts from sponge ball loss are greater than presently anticipated. 

In addition to the impacts to sea turtles already discussed, entrapment at the St. Lucie intake 

canal can have several other negative effects on sea turtles, through interruption of migration, 

loss of mating opportunities, and loss of nesting opportunities. Leatherbacks are probably more 

sensitive to interruption of migration than the other species of sea turtle because their spring 

migrations seem to be closely synchronized with the presence of prey species. The problem of 

loss of mating opportunities is impossible to quantify but would affect adults prior to and during 

the nesting season. Loss of nesting opportunities is a documented problem, with several 

instances of females nesting on the canal bank reported by FP&L. The severity of any of these 

impacts can be reduced by minimizing residence time of individual turtles in the canal. 

Since reporting of sea turtle entrapment and mortality at St. Lucie Plant began in 1976, two 

general trends in the impacts on sea turtles are clear. The total number of turtles entrapped has 

increased, particularly in the last five years, and the mortality rate of the entrapped turtles has 

decreased. With the exception of the activation of Unit 2 in 1982, the operating characteristics of

40
the 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 of the 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 on Hutchinson Island was a good predictor of 

nesting trends on other Florida index beaches and may well reflect nesting trends for the total 

South Florida loggerhead nesting population. FP&L (2000) found that loggerhead nesting on 

Hutchinson Island has increased significantly from 1981 through 1998. If trends on Hutchinson 

Island do accurately reflect nesting trends for the whole South Florida loggerhead nesting 

population, then nesting for this population also has increased from 1981 through 1998. Based 

on results of genetic testing by Bass (1999) the majority of loggerheads 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 for the years 1977 through 1979. Therefore, the increased number of entrapments of 

turtles could be a result of increased local abundances. The decreasing mortality rates are due to 

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 half of these mortalities. 

From 1976 to 1990, an average of 11 turtles per year were found dead out of an average of 183 

total turtles captured in some part of the circulating seawater cooling system. Due to 

improvements in the turtle detection and capture methods, discussed above, the number of dead 

turtles has decreased from 1991 through 1999 to 4.8 turtles per year even though the total number 

of turtles captured has increased to a average of 487 turtles per year during that time period. 

Future levels of impacts to marine turtles at the St. Lucie Plant are difficult to assess in absolute 

terms due to fluctuating capture rates. If the years 1995 through 1999 are broken out from the 

averages above, those years give an average of 722 turtles captured per year with a high of 933 in 

1995 and a low of 382 in 1997. Therefore, NMFS believes that there is a possibility that 1,000 

turtles, in any combination of the five species found in the action area, could be captured during 

any given year at the plant. The majority of these 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% of the total 

number of green and loggerhead turtles (combined) captured (which ever is less) in any 

combination of green and loggerhead turtles may be incidentally taken by injury or mortality, per 

year, as a result of the proposed action. NMFS believes that one Kemp's ridley turtle, per year, 

and one hawksbill or leatherback turtle, every two years, may be incidentally taken by injury or 

mortality, per year, as a result of the proposed action. 

V. Cumulative Effects

41
Cumulative effects are the effects of future state, local, or private activities that are reasonably 

certain to occur within the action area considered in this biological opinion. Federal actions that 

are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require 

separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. 

Within the action area, major future changes are not anticipated in the ongoing human activities 

described in the environmental baseline. The present, major human uses of the action area -

commercial and recreational fishing and recreational beach use and boating -- are expected to 

continue at the present levels of intensity in the near future. As discussed in Section III, 

however, listed species of turtles and whales migrate throughout the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 

Mexico and may be affected during their life cycles by non-Federal activities outside the action 

area. 

Beachfront development, lighting, and beach erosion control all are ongoing activities along the 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts. These activities potentially reduce or degrade sea turtle nesting habitats 

or interfere with hatchling movement to sea. Nocturnal human activities along nesting beaches 

may also discourage sea turtles from nesting sites. The extent to which these activities reduce 

sea turtle nesting and hatchling production is unknown. However, more and more coastal 

counties are adopting more stringent protective measures to protect hatchling sea turtles from the 

disorienting effects of beach lighting. Some of these measures are being drafted in response to 

ongoing law suits brought against the counties by concerned citizens who charged the counties 

with failing to uphold the ESA by allowing unregulated beach lighting which resulted in takes of 

hatchlings. 

State-regulated commercial and recreational fishing activities in the Gulf of Mexico waters 

currently result in the incidental take of threatened and endangered species. Other recreational 

activities, such as whale watch cruises, have also resulted in the incidental take of endangered 

whales. It is expected that states will continue to license/permit large vessel and thrill-craft 

operations which do not fall under the purview of a Federal agency and regulations that will 

affect fishery activities. Any increase in recreational vessel activity in inshore and offshore 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean will likely increase the number of turtles and 

whales taken by injury or mortality in vessel collisions. Recreational hook-and-line fisheries 

have been known to lethally take sea turtles. Future cooperation between NMFS and the states 

on these issues should help decrease take of sea turtles and whales caused by recreational 

activities. NMFS will continue to work with coastal states to develop and refine ESA section 6 

agreements and section 10 permits to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate these takes. 

VI. Conclusion 

After reviewing the current status of the endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's 

ridley sea turtles and the threatened loggerhead sea turtle in the action area, the environmental 

baseline, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS' biological 

opinion that the continued use of St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's circulating seawater cooling

42
system is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered green, leatherback, 

hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, or the threatened loggerhead sea turtle. No critical 

habitat has been designated for these species in the action area; therefore, none will be affected. 

VII. Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose 

of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and 

section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not 

considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. 

The measures described below are nondiscretionary and must be undertaken by the NRC so that 

they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for 

the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity 

covered by this incidental take statement. If NRC fails to assume and implement the terms and 

conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact 

of incidental take, NRC must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to 

NMFS as specified in the incidental take statement. 

Amount or Extent of Anticipated Take 

The lethal take levels below are based on the historical observed lethal takes, but provide for 

increased total numbers of lethal takings as entrapment levels increase. 

Based on stranding records and historical data, five species of sea turtles are known to occur in 

the action area. Currently available information on the relationship between sea turtle capture 

and mortality and the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant's circulating seawater cooling system 

indicates that injury and/or death of sea turtles is likely to occur from entrapment in the system's 

intake canal associated with the proposed action. In recent years turtle entrapment has increased, 

especially green turtles, and will likely continue to increase, as the green turtle population, and 

other species' populations, continue to increase and recover. Therefore, pursuant to section 

7(b)(4) of the ESA, NMFS anticipates an annual incidental capture of up to 1,000 turtles, in 

any combination of the five species found in the action area. NMFS anticipates 1% of the 

total number of green and loggerhead turtles (combined) captured (i.e., if there are 900 total 

green and loggerhead turtles captured in one year, then 9 turtles in any combination of greens and 

loggerheads are expected to be injured or killed as a result. In cases where 1% of the total is not 

a whole number, then the total allowable incidental take due to injury or death will be rounded to 

the next higher whole number) will be injured or killed each year over the next 10 years as a 

result of this incidental capture. NMFS also anticipates two Kemp's ridley turtles will be

43
killed 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 of this incidental capture. NMFS anticipates that the 

turtles most likely to be entrapped and taken will be green turtles, followed by loggerhead turtles, 

and to a much lesser extent, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles. If the actual 

incidental captures, injuries or mortalities meets or exceeds this level, NRC must immediately 

request reinitiation of formal consultation. NMFS Southeast Region will cooperate with NRC in 

the review of the incident. 

Effect of the Take 

NMFS believes that the aforementioned level of anticipated take (lethal, injury or non-lethal) 

over the next 10 years is not likely to appreciably reduce either the survival or recovery of 

Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles in the wild by reducing 

their reproduction, numbers, or distribution. In particular, NMFS determined that it does 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 way that reduces the number of animals born in a 

particular year (i.e., a specific age-class), the reproductive success of adult sea turtles, or the 

number of young sea turtles that annually recruit into the adult breeding population. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to 

minimize impacts of incidental take of the Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, leatherback, and 

hawksbill sea turtles. 

1. FP&L shall have a program in place to monitor, protect, and capture turtles entrapped in 

the intake canal. 

2. FP&L shall report all turtle captures and subsequent mortalities per permit conditions. 

Terms and Conditions 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, NRC must comply with the 

following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described 

above and outline required reporting and monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions 

are nondiscretionary. 

1) FP&L shall maintain a 5-in bar mesh barrier net across the intake canal, east of the 

existing 8-in mesh barrier net. The 5-in net must receive regular inspection, 

maintenance, and repair on at least a quarterly basis. The regular maintenance schedule 

notwithstanding, any holes or damage to the net that are discovered must be promptly 

repaired to prevent the passage of turtles through the barrier net.

44
2) The existing 8-in mesh barrier net must be retained to serve as a backup to the 5-in 

mesh barrier net, which may be lowered occasionally because of fouling 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 

or damage to the net that are discovered must be promptly repaired to prevent the passage 

of turtles 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 by the plant have experienced a 19% loss 

rate of the tags and some turtles have experienced severe flipper scaring (Gorhan 

et al. 1998). Therefore all turtles released shall be PIT tagged. However, in order 

to continue to gain data on flipper tag loss rates turtles not exhibiting flipper 

scaring and damage shall also be flipper tagged. The handling and tagging of 

captured turtles, treatment, and rehabilitation of sick and injured turtles, and 

disposition of dead turtle carcasses shall be in accordance with permits granted 

through the state of Florida. FP&L biologists shall immediately (within 30 

minutes) notify the Florida STSSN staff of any sick or injured turtle so the turtle 

can receive proper attention at the earliest possible time. The Florida 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) 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, under normal circumstances; 

b) 12 hours per day or during daylight hours, whichever is less, 7 days per week, 

under any of the following circumstances: 

i) an' adult turtle occurs in the canal during mating or nesting season (March 1 

through September 30), 

ii) an individual turtle has remained in the canal for 7 days 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 safety considerations (i.e., severe 

weather) are expected. 

5) If a turtle is observed in the intake canal west of the 8-in barrier net, directed capture 

efforts shall be undertaken to capture the turtle and to prevent it from entering the intake 

wells.

45
6) The gratings at each of the intake wells shall be visually checked for turtles at least 

eight times each 24-hour period. If a turtle is sighted in an intake well, dip nets, or other 

non-injurious methods should be used to remove the turtle. 

7) FP&L shall continue to participate in the STSSN, under proper permits and authority, 

in order to assess any possible delayed lethal impacts of capture as well as to provide 

background data on the mortality sources and health of local sea turtles. As a point of 

clarification, stranded sea turtles will generally not be counted against the authorized level 

of lethal incidental take in this incidental take statement, but information from strandings 

may be the basis for the determination that unanticipated impacts or levels of impacts 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) Monthly reports 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 any sponge ball loss at St. Lucie Plant shall be furnished 

to NMFS. All reports shall be sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. 

Petersburg, Florida 33702. 

NMFS anticipates that no more than 1% of the total number of green and loggerhead turtles and 

two Kemp's ridleys entrapped in the canal will be taken by injury or mortality annually for each 

of the next 10 years of the proposed action. NMFS also anticipates that no more than one 

hawksbill or leatherback turtle entrapped in the canal will be taken by injury or mortality every 

two years for the next 10 years. These reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing 

terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise 

result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is 

exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation 

and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. NRC must immediately request 

initiation of formal consultation, provide an explanation of the causes of the taking, and review 

with NMFS the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. 

IX. Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authority to further the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat to help 

implement recovery plans or to develop information.

46
(1) The NRC should promote FP&L's continued research to determine the subsequent dispersal 

of captured and released turtles through its tagging program and through cooperation with 

properly permitted scientists. 

(2) Current procedures for determining turtle residence times in the intake canal tend to 

underestimate actual residence times. The NRC should direct FP&L to continue efforts to 

improve residence time estimates. These efforts may include directed studies of residence time, 

so long as 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 of turtles interacting with the plant's cooling water intake system. 

In order for NMFS to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefitting listed species or their habitats, NMFS requests notification of the implementation of 

any conservation recommendations. 

X. Reinitiation of Consultation 

This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in NRC's letter dated May 9, 2000. 

As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary 

Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) 

and if (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is met or 

exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or 

critical habitat (when designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, (3) the 

identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or 

critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or 

critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. In instances where the 

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, NRC must immediately request reinitiation of 

formal consultation.

47
References

Aguirre, A.A., Balazs, G., Zimmerman, B. and F.D. Galey. 1994. Organic contaminants and 

trace metals in the tissues of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) 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 of the Bermuda Islands, with a survey of the present state 

of the 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 of the impacts of the St. Lucie 

Nuclear Plant on threatened or endangered species. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear 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 of the 

common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) from Ontario, Canada. Journal of 

Toxicology and Environmental Health 33:521-547. 

Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B., and C.J. Lagueux. 1994. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile 

sea turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 3, 154-158. 

Bolten, A.B. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Effects of marine debris on juvenile, pelagic sea turtles. 

Interim Project Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Entanglement 

Research Program. 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 on the Mexico/United States of America 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 of sea turtles from Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. A 

dissertation presented to the faculty of the School of Marine Science, The College of

48
William and Mary in Virginia, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 

Doctor of Philosophy. 

Carr, A.F., M.H. Carr and A.B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 7. 

The western Caribbean green turtle colony. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162(l):1-46. 

Carr, A.F. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 4. The green turtle in 

the Caribbean Sea. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 131(l):1-48. 

Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 

Carr, A.F. 1954. The passing of the fleet. A. I .B. S. Bull. 4(5):17-19. 

CeTAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mammals and turtles in the mid- and north-Atlantic 

areas of the U.S. outer continental shelf, Final Report. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Contract No. AA55 I-CT8-48, Washington, D.C. 538 pp. 

Chevalier, J. and Girondot, M. 1998. Nesting dynamics of marine 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 of Sea Turtles by the 

Brownsville-Port Isabel Gulf Shrimp 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 of Sea Turtles Listed Under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973. Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Prepared for NMFS, Silver 

Spring, MD. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian River lagoon system. Florida Sci. 

46(3/4):337-346. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. A survey of marine turtle nesting at Kennedy Space Center, Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, North Brevard County, Florida, 1-122. Unpublished report 

to Division of Marine Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, Fla. Dept. Nat. Res.

49
Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the 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 of at-sea mortality of sea 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 to NMFS 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 of the loggerhead turtle 

population (Caretta caretta) 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 sea turtle 

entrainment at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant: 1976-1998. 

Frazer, N.B. 1992. Sea turtle conservation and halfway technology. Cons. Biol. 6:179-184. 

Fuller, D.A. and Tappan, A.M. The Occurrence of Sea Turtles in Louisiana Coastal Waters. 

Coastal Fisheries Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University. 

1986 Sep. 46 pages. 

Fulton, J. 1998. Personal Communication. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, AL. 

Gitschlag, G., and B.A. Herczeg. 1994. Sea Turtle Observations at Explosive 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 for Two 

Styles of Flipper Tags. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. 

U.S. Dep.Commer. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415. 294 pp.; p. 179-182 

Henwood, T.A. and W. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during

50
commercial shrimp trawling. Fishery Bulletin 85(4): 813-817.

Henwood, T.A., W. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluation of U.S. Turtle Protective 

Measures under existing TED regulations, including estimates of shrimp trawler related 

mortality in the Wider Caribbean. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFSC-303. 

Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western 

Gulf of Mexico, pp. 447-453 in Bjorndal, K., (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles. Proc. World Conf. of Sea Turtle Conserv. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington, 

D.C. 

Hildebrand, H.H. Random Notes on Sea Turtles in the Western Gulf of Mexico. Western Gulf of 

Mexico Sea Turtle Workshop Proceedings, January 13-14, 1983. 1983 Oct:34-41. Note: 

A copy of the entire Workshop Proceedings is at SP000480. 

Hilborn, R. 1998. The economic performance of marine stock enhancement projects. Bulletin 

of Marine Science, 62(2):661-674. 

Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus) 

1758. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. 85:1-77. 

Iverson, S., D.M. Allen, and J.B. Higman. 1993. Shrimp capture and culture fisheries of the 

United States. Imprint of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 

Klima, E.F. 1986. Summary report on biological impacts of offshore petroleum platform 

severance using explosives. NMFS Galveston Laboratory. 

Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the 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 of trace metals in the livers of 

marine mammals (seals, porpoises and dolphins) from waters around the British Isles. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 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 of leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, on the Texas 

coast. Copeia 1957(3):232. 

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle 

survival. In: Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton,

51
FL: CRC Press. pp. 387-409.

Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart, and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and 

clinicopathologic effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Arch. Environ. Contain. 

Toxicol. 28:417-422. 

Lutz, P.L., 1987. Effects of ingestion of non-biodegradable debris in sea turtles. Final Report 

for the U.S. Department of Commerce; 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 of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle population in 

the Mexican Beach of Rancho 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 

of organochlorine 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 of immature 

Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia. (1):161-167. 

Mexico. 1966. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Biologico-Pesqueras. Programa nacional 

de marcado de tortugas marinas. Mexico, INIBP: 1-39. 

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea Turtle Nesting Activity in the State of 

Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 52. 

Meylan, A.B. The Ecology and Conservation of the 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 Gulf of Mexico. NMFS, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: Causes and prevention. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 259 p. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Turtle Expert Working Group, An Assessment of the 

Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Sea Turtle 

Populations in the Western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp.

52
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation 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 off the 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 of channels and borrow 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 a hopper dredge in the Galveston and New Orleans 

Districts of the Army Corps of Engineers. Biological Opinion, September 22. 15 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997e. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the 

continued operation of the circulating water system of the St. Lucie nuclear generating 

plant. Biological Opinion, February 7. 39 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996a. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Summer Flounder to include the management and 

fishing activities under the Draft FMPs for Scup and Black Sea Bass. Biological Opinion. 

January 20. 52pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996b. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on the 

proposed shock testing of the SEAWOLF submarine off the Atlantic Coast of Florida 

during the summer of 1997. Biological Opinion, December 12. 50 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Endangered Species Act section 7 consultation on 

United States Coast Guard vessel and aircraft activities along the Atlantic coast. 

Biological Opinion, September 15. 56 pp. 

Norrgard, J. 1995. Determination of stock composition and natal origin of a juvenile loggerhead 

turtle population (Caretta caretta) in Chesapeake Bay using mitochondrial DNA analysis. 

M.S. Thesis, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 47 pp. 

Ogren, L.H. Biology and Ecology of Sea Turtles. 1988. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries, 

Panama City Laboratory. September 7.

53
Paladino, F.V., M.P. O'Connor, and J.R. Spotila. 1990. Metabolism of leatherback turtles, 

gigantothermy and thermoregulation of dinosaurs. Nature 344:858-860. 

Parsons, J.J. 1962. The green turtle and man. Gainesville, University of Florida Press. 

Peters, J.A. 1954. The amphibians and reptiles of the coast and coastal sierra of Michoacan, 

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 of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. in R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey (eds.). Proceedings of 

the Second International Conference on Marine Debris. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS

SWFSC-154: 736-743. 

Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine 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 of the loggerhead sea 

turtle Caretta caretta in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Biology 115: 1-15. 

Prescott, R.L. 1988. Leatherbacks in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 1977-1987. In: 

Schroeder, B.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle 

Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214:83-84. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Sea turtles of the 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. for Florida Power 

& Light Co. Juno Beach, Florida. Vol. 1, 49 pp. 

Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West Indies, Florida and the Gulf of 

Mexico. Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. 

Sakai, H., Ichihashi, H., Suganuma, H., and R. Tatsukawa. 1995. Heavy metal monitoring in 

sea turtles using eggs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30:347-353.

54
Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken. 1990. Orientation by Swimming Sea Turtles: Role of Photic 

Intensity Differences While Near-shore. Proceedings of the 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 of the world's largest 

nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 74: 2-5. 

Schroeder. B.A. 1995. Personal Communication. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. Tequesta, Florida. 

Sears, C.J. 1995. Preliminary genetic analysis of the population structure of Georgia loggerhead 

sea turtles. Presented at the Fifteenth Annual Symposium of Sea 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 of the juvenile loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 

caretta) feeding population off Charleston, South Carolina: evidence from mitochondrial 

DNA markers. Mar. Biol. 123:869-874. 

Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology of wild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles in south 

Texas waters. Journal of Herpetology. 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 of the 

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 Start turtles nesting on Padre 

Island, Texas. 

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological 

Monographs. 6:43-67. 

South, C. and S. Tucker. 1991. Personal communication regarding sea turtle nesting in the state 

of Alabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne Field Office, Alabama. 

Stanley. K.M., E.K. Stabenau, and A.M. Landry. 1988. Debris ingestion by sea turtles along the 

Texas Coast. Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology, Fort 

Fisher, North Carolina.

55
Storelli, M.M., E.Ceci, and G.O. Marcotrigiano. 1998. Distribution of heavy metal residues in 

some tissues of Caretta caretta (Linnaeus) specimens beached along the Adriatic Sea 

(Italy). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 60:546-552. 

Teas, W.G. and A. Martinez. 1992. Annual report of the sea turtle stranding and salvage 

network Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the 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 of Jamaican 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 

of St. Lucie Plant Unit 2, Docket No. 50-389. USAEC, Directorate of Licensing. 

Washington, D.C. 

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleep and G. Bossart. 1986. Final report: Study of effects 

of oil on marine turtles. Tech. Rep. O.C.S. study MMS 86-0070. Vol. 2, 181pp. 

Vicente, V.P. 1993. Spongivory in Caribbean hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata: data 

from stranded specimens. Extended abstract for Proceedings: 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. of Environmental Protection. 73 pp. 

Witkowski, S.A. and J.G. Frazier. 1982. Heavy metals in sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 

13:254-255.

56