Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-10

Evaluating Sea Turtle Injuries 

in Northeast Fishing Gear 

Report of the Sea Turtle Injury Workshop

November 17-18, 2009 Boston, Massachusetts

and 

Technical Guidelines for Assessing Injuries of Sea Turtles

Observed in Northeast Region Fishing Gear

by Carrie M. Upite

June 2011
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-10

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Regional Office

Gloucester, Massachusetts

June 2011

Evaluating Sea Turtle Injuries 

in Northeast Fishing Gear 

Report of the Sea Turtle Injury Workshop

November 17-18, 2009 Boston, Massachusetts

and 

Technical Guidelines for Assessing Injuries of Sea Turtles 

Observed in Northeast Region Fishing Gear

by Carrie M. Upite

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

This series is a secondary scientific series designed to assure the long-term documentation and 

to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, 

where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for 

the mission statement). These documents receive internal scientific review, and most receive 

copy editing. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, 

process, or product mentioned in these documents.

All documents issued in this series since April 2001, and several documents issued prior to 

that date, have been copublished in both paper and electronic versions. To access the electronic 

version of a document in this series, go to http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. The 

electronic version is available in PDF format to permit printing of a paper copy directly from 

the Internet. If you do not have Internet access, or if a desired document is one of the pre-April 

2001 documents available only in the paper version, you can obtain a paper copy by contacting 

the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for 

the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is 

corporate (i.e., non-individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole Laboratory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026).

Editorial Treatment: To distribute this report quickly, it has not undergone the normal technical and copy editing by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s (NEFSC’s) Editorial Office 

as have most other issues in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series. Other than 

the four covers and first two preliminary pages, all writing and editing have been performed by 

the authors listed within. 

Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-

554, the Northeast Regional Office completed both technical and policy reviews for this report. 

These predissemination reviews are on file at the Northeast Regional Office.

This document may be cited as:

Upite C. 2011. Evaluating Sea Turtle Injuries in Northeast Fishing Gear. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-10; 26 p. Available from: National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://

www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/
iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... iii 

Sea Turtle Injury Workshop Participants ...................................................................................................... iv 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 

Report of the Sea Turtle Injury Workshop ..................................................................................................... 2 

Workshop Purpose and Overview ............................................................................................................ 2 

Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2 

Workshop Background .......................................................................................................................... 2 

Workshop Overview .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Presentation Summaries ........................................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................ 3 

Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle/Longline Initiatives ........................................................................ 3 

2004 Scallop Dredge Injury Determinations .................................................................................... 4 

Current Project ................................................................................................................................. 4 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Overview ................................................................................ 5 

Information Available for Review .............................................................................................................. 6 

Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 6 

Known Fate Cases ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Observer Reporting Logs ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Discussion of Injuries and Observer Information ...................................................................................... 7 

Comments on Injuries and Working Guidance Categories ................................................................... 7 

Types of Injuries ............................................................................................................................... 7 

Behavior ........................................................................................................................................... 9 

Resuscitated Animals ....................................................................................................................... 9 

Animal Condition ............................................................................................................................ 10 

Information Collected by the Observer Program ................................................................................. 11 

Injury Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 11 

Observer Logs ................................................................................................................................ 11 

Observer Training/Permit ............................................................................................................... 12 

Technical Guidelines for Assessing Injuries of Sea Turtles Observed in Northeast Region Fishing Gear 13 

Changes to Guidelines ............................................................................................................................ 13 

Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 15 

Active normal behavior ........................................................................................................................ 15 

Acute ................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Fresh ................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Major long bones ................................................................................................................................. 16 

Superficial ............................................................................................................................................ 16 

Unresponsive/lethargic ........................................................................................................................ 16 

Observer Form Modifications .................................................................................................................. 16 

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 16 

Table 1. ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 

References .................................................................................................................................................. 18 

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda .................................................................................................................. 19 

Appendix 2. Previous injury guidance ......................................................................................................... 20 

Appendix 3. Evaluation feedback form ....................................................................................................... 21 

Appendix 4. NMFS NEFOP Reporting Logs ............................................................................................... 22 
iv 

SEA TURTLE INJURY WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Dr. Cindy Driscoll 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

Dr. Bridget Dunnigan1

Vineyard Veterinary Clinic 

Dr. Robert George 

Gloucester Veterinary Hospital/ 

Virginia Aquarium 

Mr. David Gouveia2 

NMFS Northeast Regional Office 

 

Dr. Heather Haas1

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Dr. Craig Harms 

North Carolina State University 

Dr. Charles Innis 

New England Aquarium 

Ms. Betty Lentell1

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Dr. Doug Mader 

Marathon Veterinary Hospital/ 

Marathon Sea Turtle Hospital 

 

1

 Workshop organizer 

2

 Facilitator

Dr. Terry Norton 

Georgia Sea Turtle Center 

Ms. Barbara Schroeder 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Dr. Brian Stacy 

University of Florida/ 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Ms. Lesley Stokes 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Ms. Carrie Upite1

NMFS Northeast Regional Office 

Ms. Sara Wetmore1

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Dr. C. Rogers Williams1 

National Marine Life Center/ 

Vineyard Veterinary Clinic 

Dr. Jeanette Wyneken 

Florida Atlantic University 
1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Fisheries incidentally capture sea turtles as bycatch, resulting in varying levels of injuries. 

In 2003, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Region (NER) 

developed working guidance to determine the severity of injuries for hard-shelled sea turtles 

taken in the Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery. This working guidance was used in Section 7 

consultations to help determine if a sea turtle caught (with varying types of injuries) in scallop 

dredge gear should be considered a lethal or non-lethal interaction. NMFS recognized the need to 

revisit the working guidance to attempt to encompass other NER gear types (e.g., gillnet, trawl, 

pound nets, pot/trap) and a wide range of sea turtle injuries, and to use a consistent approach for 

assessing post-release survival. A November 2009 workshop gathered various experts in sea 

turtle veterinary medicine, health assessment, anatomy, and/or rehabilitation to: (1) discuss case 

studies of sea turtles caught in fishing gear with varying levels of injuries; (2) critique the NMFS 

working guidance and approach for evaluating post-release survival; and (3) comment on the 

level of information collected by observers. Workshop participants discussed types of sea turtle 

injuries and associated survivability, turtle behavior, and resuscitation, as well as specific 

information that should be collected by observers to better assess sea turtle injuries. The 

information gathered by individual participants at this workshop was then used by NMFS to 

develop technical guidelines for assessing sea turtle injuries in Northeast fishing gear. The more 

significant changes to the revised guidelines are described, and the final technical working 

guidelines are presented. This document represents a summary of the scientific discussions that 

occurred at the workshop and the technical working guidelines developed by NMFS after 

consideration of that information. It should be noted that NMFS’ revision of the technical 

guidelines would not have been possible without the valuable comments and insight by the 

individual workshop participants. 
2 

REPORT OF THE SEA TURTLE INJURY WORKSHOP 

Workshop Purpose and Overview 

Goals and Objectives 

The purpose of the workshop was to gather various experts in sea turtle veterinary 

medicine, health assessment, anatomy, and/or rehabilitation to: (1) discuss case studies of sea 

turtles caught in fishing gear with varying levels of injuries; (2) critique the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) working guidance and approach for evaluating post-release survival; 

and (3) comment on the level of information collected by observers. The desired goals of the 

workshop were to obtain information needed to revise the guidance on evaluating sea turtle 

injuries in fishing gear and to acquire input on NMFS’ approach for conducting post-release 

mortality determinations in the Northeast Region (NER). The goal was not to obtain consensus 

recommendations from workshop participants, but instead to gather information from each 

individual (based on their own expertise) that could be used by NMFS to evaluate and revise the 

guidance at a later date. 

Workshop Background 

All sea turtles are listed as either endangered or threatened under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to 

ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize listed marine species. In the case of fisheries 

managed under a Federal Fishery Management Plan, NMFS must consult with itself on the 

impacts of the fishery on endangered and threatened species. The Sustainable Fisheries Division, 

Northeast Region, provides information on the action to the Protected Resources Division, which 

conducts the analysis. 

Sea turtles are taken incidentally as bycatch in fisheries. Observers are present on a small 

percentage of Federally permitted fishing trips and record data on sea turtle bycatch, among 

other things. Sea turtles are observed alive or dead, and with varying levels of injuries. 

In 2003, NMFS initiated an assessment of the magnitude of injuries from sea turtle 

interactions with Atlantic sea scallop dredge gear. Sea turtles caught in that fishery have been 

documented with varying types of injuries. Through a detailed questionnaire sent to various 

experts in sea turtle veterinary medicine and rehabilitation, NMFS obtained feedback on sea 

turtle injuries and the potential impacts of such damage on the long-term survivability of the sea 

turtle. The comments received were used in developing working guidance for serious injury 

determinations for hard-shelled sea turtles taken in the scallop dredge fishery. This working 

guidance was used in Section 7 consultations to help determine if a sea turtle caught (with 

varying types of injuries) in scallop dredge gear should be considered a lethal or non-lethal 

interaction. To make that determination, NMFS reviewed and evaluated observed sea turtle takes 

utilizing the working guidance. 

While NMFS had prepared guidance specific to the scallop dredge fishery, during 

Section 7 consultations on other fisheries, it became apparent that injury criteria should be 

relevant to all other fishing gear and sea turtle injury types. As such, the working guidance was 

recognized as needing revision to attempt to encompass other NER gear types and a wide range 

of fishing gear-related sea turtle injuries. Some examples of gear types with observed sea turtle 

interactions and/or injuries in the Northeast Region include, but are not limited to, gillnets, 

trawls, dredges, pound nets, and pots/traps. 
3 

Note that this initiative was only focused on those fisheries found in the NMFS Northeast 

Region (Maine through Virginia1). The geographical scope was chosen given the similarities of 

the fisheries and gear types used in the NER, environmental characteristics, the information 

available for review (e.g., Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) comments), and the 

future applicability of the workshop results to Northeast Regional Office management. However, 

some of this information may apply (or be applied) to other fisheries in other areas as 

appropriate. This initiative also excludes the longline fishery, which has a separate postinteraction mortality assessment (Ryder et al. 2006). 

Workshop Overview 

This two day workshop was convened by the NMFS Northeast Regional Office (NERO) 

and Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and held in Boston, Massachusetts, on 

November 17 and 18, 2009. Participants were invited based upon their experience in sea turtle 

veterinary medicine, health assessment, anatomy, and/or rehabilitation; a total of 17 individuals 

attended the workshop. 

As noted in Appendix 1, the first day included a background presentation describing 

other injury determinations (e.g., marine mammal and sea turtle/longline), NMFS’ previous 

scallop dredge injury initiative, the utility of such injury guidance, and an overview of the 

existing working guidance (Appendix 2). Twelve case studies, representing a variety of sea turtle 

species, injury types, and commercial fishing gear, were then presented. The workshop 

participants were asked to individually evaluate the case studies based upon the information 

presented (e.g., the observer reports and photos), and make injury recommendations using the 

existing NMFS working guidance as well as their expert opinion. Participants completed a 

feedback form (Appendix 3), which was collected at the end of Day One. Day Two consisted of 

a presentation on the NEFSC observer program, and discussion on the case studies and expert 

opinion. Participants proceeded to discuss the injury working guidance, as well as other relevant 

injury topics. 

Input received from individual participants at the meeting was later then used by NMFS 

to revise the technical guidelines for assessing sea turtle injuries in Northeast fishing gear. The 

technical guidelines are applicable to sea turtles observed alive with or without injuries. 

Presentation Summaries 

The number of formal presentations was limited in order to provide for case study review 

and ample time for discussion. Brief summaries of the two presentations that were given are as 

follows. 

Introduction and Background 

 Carrie Upite, NMFS Northeast Regional Office 

Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle/Longline Initiatives 

The first topics discussed were the marine mammal and sea turtle/longline serious injury 

guidance. Through regulatory action, NMFS has defined serious injury for marine mammals as 

 

1

 While the NMFS Northeast Region includes Maine through Virginia, the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

extends observer coverage into portions of North Carolina, as does Northeast Fisheries Science Center sea turtle 

bycatch estimates. 
4 

“any injury that will likely result in mortality.” “Injury” is further defined as “a wound or other 

physical harm. Signs of injury to a marine mammal include, but are not limited to, visible blood 

flow, loss of or damage to an appendage or jaw, inability to use one or more appendages, 

asymmetry in the shape of the body or body position, noticeable swelling or hemorrhage, 

laceration, puncture or rupture of the eyeball, listless appearance or inability to defend itself, 

inability to swim or dive upon release from fishing gear, or signs of equilibrium imbalance. Any 

animal that ingests fishing gear, or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, 

trailing or perforating any part of the body will be considered injured regardless of the absence of 

any wound or other evidence of injury.” (50 CFR 229.2). In 1997, a workshop was held that 

discussed injuries to marine mammals from commercial fishing operations, and the result was a 

series of recommendations on which injuries should be considered serious (Angliss and 

DeMaster 1998). In 2007, another workshop was convened to review the previous 

recommendations and guidance, review any newly available information, and discuss the use of, 

and necessary changes to, existing guidance for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries 

(Andersen et al. 2008). A matrix was developed that highlighted injury categories and serious 

injury status by taxonomic group. Using this table as a starting point, NMFS is currently working 

on national criteria for marine mammal serious injuries. 

In 2001, NMFS developed criteria for post-hooking mortality of sea turtles from longline 

gear. In 2004, a workshop was convened to review the 2001 criteria and revise if necessary. The 

result of subsequent NMFS discussions on the information obtained at this workshop was a table 

highlighting various injury categories, release conditions, species differences, and percent 

mortality after release from longline gear (Ryder et al. 2006). These criteria have been applied to 

sea turtle takes in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, as well as recently to the Gulf of Mexico 

reef fish bottom longline fishery. 

2004 Scallop Dredge Injury Determinations 

Prompted by observations of sea turtles with varying levels of injuries in the Atlantic sea 

scallop dredge fishery in 2001 and 2002, NMFS recognized the need to better assess post-release 

survivability for animals taken in this fishery. In 2003, NMFS sent a questionnaire to individuals 

with identified expertise in sea turtle carapace injuries, anatomy and/or veterinary medicine. 

Based on the feedback received, serious injury guidance for hard-shelled sea turtles taken in 

scallop dredge gear was developed and finalized in 2004. The guidance consisted of three 

categories (low, medium (50%), and high chance of survival) and corresponding injury type 

descriptions in each of the categories. This guidance was applied to 2003 observed scallop 

dredge sea turtle takes. A working group, consisting of staff from the NMFS NERO and NEFSC, 

reviewed each take record and placed the observed turtles into one of the three categories. NMFS 

NERO Section 7 staff used these results to develop a mortality rate for scallop dredge 

interactions of 64%; this mortality rate was applied to the fishery’s anticipated take in 

development of the Incidental Take Statement. Due to a number of reasons, one of which was the 

recognized need to expand the guidance to other gear and injury types, the injury guidance has 

not yet been applied to scallop dredge observed takes after 2003. 

Current Project 

Because there was a need to include other fishing gears, including scallop dredges, there 

was a need to discuss and update the injury determination guidance. Expanding the guidance on 

sea turtle injuries occurring from all NER gear types was identified as a priority for the NMFS 
5 

NERO sea turtle management program. In Section 7 consultations, it is necessary to estimate the 

amount or extent of take (lethal and non-lethal) expected from the proposed action. More 

accurately assessing the post-release survivability from sea turtle and fishery interactions would 

help predict the level of lethal versus non-lethal incidental take, assess the impacts of Federal 

fishery actions on sea turtles, and monitor lethal and non-lethal take levels. 

The guidance would be implemented by having NMFS staff evaluate each observed sea 

turtle take record and determine: (1) if the injury likely came from the observed haul/tow/set 

(which may be interpreted as a “fresh” injury); and, if fresh and from the interaction in question, 

(2) the corresponding chance of survival, based upon the working guidance categories. The 

fishery observers will not be making the post-release survival assignments at sea; those 

determinations will be made by the NMFS NERO and NEFSC staff, in consultation with 

veterinarians, when appropriate and available (“the workgroup”). The workgroup will evaluate 

all sea turtle takes observed by the NEFOP and apply the appropriate working guidance, which 

may be the guidance finalized in this document or through a separate initiative (e.g., longline 

post-release mortality workshop). For example, if a sea turtle is observed in Northeast bottom 

longline gear by the NEFOP, the workgroup would evaluate the likely interaction result using the 

current longline post-release criteria. Pound net takes documented by the NEFOP will also be 

evaluated by the workgroup. The existing pound net evaluation criteria may be amended in the 

future, as necessary. [Note that the distinction of the various available post-release criteria and 

their use by this workgroup was not highlighted in the workshop presentation, but is added here 

for clarification.] For post-release mortality, the workgroup will only be evaluating sea turtles 

documented as alive or unknown by the observer, as those noted as dead will be recorded as such 

in the observer database. It is the intent for the workgroup to meet to discuss the observer 

records, and then develop a document describing each sea turtle take, workgroup discussion 

comments, and corresponding chance of survival. To the extent possible, the goal is for the 

workgroup to use a consistent objective approach for assessing sea turtle injuries documented in 

observed interactions to better estimate post-release mortality from fisheries. 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program Overview 

 Sara Wetmore, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

An overview of the NEFOP was presented to give the participants background 

information on how and what fishery observer data is collected and used. A description of the 

program was provided, followed by the process of allocating program funding and seadays. The 

three-week observer training was described, including a detailed description of the sea turtle 

training and exam. The sea turtle training component includes classroom training, hands on 

workshops, and exams on sea turtle species identification, measuring, tagging, and handling 

(among other things), and typically lasts one full day. The type of information observers collect 

consists of vessel and trip information, economic costs, gear characteristics, haul information, 

environmental conditions, catch composition and disposition, biological sampling, sightings of 

marine mammals and sea turtles, and incidental take information. Incidental take information is 

entered onto an Incidental Take Log and Biological Sampling Log (Appendix 4). If a turtle is 

captured, observers are instructed to handle, photograph, measure, tag and biopsy the animal. 

The observer program operates under the auspices of an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific 

research permit issued to the NEFSC. Observers collect detailed information on sea turtle 

injuries, but do not state, record, or determine whether the sea turtle is “injured” or “not injured”. 
6 

After the trip, NMFS NEFOP staff review the information, de-brief observers, enter data, and 

post the information on the NEFOP website (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/). 

For reference during the meeting, workshop participants were given a binder with 

veterinarian comments from previously observed turtle takes, necropsy reports and veterinarian 

comments on cases in which the ultimate fate of the sea turtle was known, sea turtle incidental 

takes with observer comments from 1995 to 2009 for all Northeast Region areas and gear types, 

and blank observer sampling logs. 

Information Available for Review 

Case Studies 

The following represent the range of case studies that were evaluated by the workshop 

participants. Workshop participants were asked to review the information available on each case, 

indicate if the injury was fresh (likely a result of the gear interaction), the risk category based on 

the existing draft NMFS Working Guidance (Appendix 2), and the survival determination based 

on their expertise. The list of case studies is provided here for insight into the species, gear types 

and seasonality of the case studies evaluated. The animals presented with varying levels and 

types of injuries, such as carapace cracks, bleeding, and no wounds but needing resuscitation. 

1. Leatherback; otter trawl; November 2007 

2. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; July 2004 

3. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; October 2005 

4. Kemp’s ridley; beach seine; December 2007 

5. Kemp’s ridley; scallop dredge; August 2005 

6. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; October 2004 

7. Loggerhead; scallop trawl; July 2005 

8. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; October 2003 

9. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; September 2009 

10. Loggerhead; otter trawl; September 2009 

11. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; August 2009 

12. Loggerhead; otter trawl; January 2007 

Known Fate Cases 

In order to provide the participants a range of scenarios and circumstances to consider 

before reviewing the case studies, a series of cases was presented in which the fate of the turtle 

after capture in the gear was known. The purpose was to exemplify the range and variability of 

injuries that contributed to mortality after interactions with Northeast and Mid-Atlantic fishing 

gear. The veterinarian’s comments for each of these case studies were also provided to the 

participants for reference. Some of the following cases presented with conditions or injuries 

similar to other turtles that were released alive (some of which were included in the case studies 

noted above). 

1. Loggerhead; otter trawl; January 2007 

Resuscitated without success 

2. Loggerhead; gillnet; June 2008 

Lethal encounter without significant external injury 
7 

3. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; June 2008 

Alive when found, significant internal injuries, released dead 

4. Loggerhead; scallop dredge; August 2009 

Alive and active when found, carapace cracks and flipper injury, transported to 

rehabilitation facility 

5. Leatherback; gillnet; December 2006 

Thought to be alive when first observed, entangled in gear, when net able to be 

hauled, found dead 

Observer Reporting Logs 

The participants were provided with blank NMFS NEFSC observer reporting forms and 

asked to review the documents and provide verbal comments. The purpose was to determine if 

the information needed to make a decision on sea turtle injury and post-release survival is 

currently being collected by the observer program or if additional data fields are necessary. 

Appendix 4 contains the NMFS NEFOP information distributed, including: 

1. Marine Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Sea Bird Incidental Take Log 

2. Sea Turtle Biological Sample Log 

3. Sea Turtle Injury Reporting Form 

Note that the Sea Turtle Injury Reporting Form is not currently provided to the observers 

to fill out at-sea, but the NMFS data manger collects the information from the observer during 

the post-deployment de-briefing interviews. 

Discussion of Injuries and Observer Information 

Upon reviewing the participant comments, there was a wide variation in responses to the 

case studies. This was often due to the veterinarians’ interpretation and/or documented 

uncertainty of the observer photos and logs. Given the duplicative discussion on the various case 

studies, the following summary is grouped by injury-specific comments and then comments 

related to the quality or amount of information collected by fishery observers. Some of the 

information presented in the injury discussion may also apply to the information collected by 

observers. Many of these comments applied to different case studies, but several examples are 

provided to highlight specific injury conditions. 

Comments on Injuries and Working Guidance Categories 

Types of Injuries 

 Eye injuries: It is important to distinguish between an injury to the eye versus an injury to 

the eyelid or to the skin surrounding the eye. For instance, an injury to the globe of the 

eye would result in a lower chance of survival, while an injury to the area around the eye 

(e.g., the eyelid) may not have a large effect on survival as the injury would not likely 

impact the sea turtle’s long term vision. Similarly, an injury to only one eye may not be 

as life threatening as an injury to both eyes. As such, these differences were considered in 

the revised technical guidelines. Workshop participants also noted the importance of 

recording and considering unequal pupil size. Adding flashlights to the observer kits, 

demonstrating the pupil assessment during training, and including a field for recording 

this information would aid in pupil size assessments. 

 
8 

 Carapace cracks: 

o It is important to note (to the extent possible) whether the injury was previously 

existing or fresh. One consideration in this assessment may be to record the 

conditions of the crack edges (e.g., smooth or rough). 

o The injury guidance should clarify what is meant by “carapace crack”. That is, the 

previous guidance did not differentiate between cracks through the scutes versus 

underlying bone. The term “fracture” has a clinical meaning (e.g., a crack all the 

way through the bone), so may be a more appropriate term for these injury 

assessment purposes. 

o It was suggested that cracks be described as acute. 

o The depth of crack is also important to consider. Currently observers do not 

measure crack depth and geographic relation to the midline (e.g., whether it 

crosses the spinal cord). 

o For example, in one case study, the turtle presented with multiple carapace and 

plastron cracks, and the cloaca was slack. These signs suggested that the turtle 

received peripheral nerve damage, which led to a majority of the participants 

giving the animal a poor prognosis for survival. 

 Flipper injuries: Workshop participants noted that post-release survival for those animals 

experiencing injuries to flippers depends on the magnitude of the injury and whether it 

affects movement or function. For example, if half or more of the flipper is amputated, 

this would present as a lower probability of survival compared to injuries (e.g., deep cuts) 

to flippers that may affect swimming ability. Similarly, if only superficial cuts are 

documented on a flipper, this case would result in a higher probability of survival 

compared to the preceding two examples. Considering the location of the fractures (e.g., 

bilateral, multiple blade fractures) should also be part of the assessment. Ligature wounds 

may not always be immediately apparent on sea turtles and are important to consider 

when evaluating flipper injuries. 

 Location/source of injury: Details on observed interactions that may have caused the 

injury (e.g., dredge dropping on turtle) are important to record, but the observer should 

not speculate on cause of injury. When the workgroup evaluates each case however, the 

location of the injuries and potential cause of injury should be considered. 

o For example, in one case study, it could not be determined whether the plastron 

wounds were a previous injury or caused by the turtle’s interaction with the 

fishing gear. Some veterinarians thought they could have been pressure wounds 

from being out of the water, while others disagreed with that conclusion because 

the wounds appeared in an area not normally associated with these types of 

wounds (i.e., the wounds occurred posteriorly, not anteriorly). 

o If blood is present on the turtle, it is important to note from where the blood 

originated. In one case study, according to the observer notes, no blood was 

coming from the animal’s nares, but the photograph showed blood near the nares. 

It was discussed if the blood came from the turtle or if the fish in the catch was 

the source. That uncertainty resulted in difficulty assessing the true fate of the 

animal. If the blood was from the turtle’s nares, it may indicate a more serious 

condition compared to a superficial cut or transfer from the catch. 
9 

o The color of the blood (as included as a field on the draft Sea Turtle Injury 

Reporting Form) is not necessary to collect. The color of the blood may not be 

informative, but sources of the blood will be. 

Behavior 

 Considerable discussion occurred on the importance of fully describing the sea turtle’s 

behavior upon observation, in as much detail as possible. 

o For example, in one case study, the sea turtle’s eyes were closed in the 

photograph. Participants noted that whether the turtle’s eyes were closed is an 

important consideration for post-release survivability, as persistent eye closure is 

abnormal sea turtle behavior. It was assumed, because no further elaboration was 

made on the observer form, that the animal kept its eyes closed throughout the 

observation period and as a result, the participants discussed a potentially low 

post-release survival. 

o In another case study, the observer described the turtle as moving and eating, 

therefore showing near normal behavior. This, along with the assessment of 

injuries, resulted in a placement of high probability of survival. 

 If an animal is reported as lethargic, it is important to consider the water temperature and 

geographic location in order to determine whether this was a cold stun event. Water 

temperature is an important factor in subsequent survival. It was recommended that the 

injury guidelines or observer forms include a section where behavior and cold stun 

characteristics of sea turtles are described. These descriptions would also be valuable for 

observer training, and videos demonstrating normal and abnormal sea turtle behavior 

could be shown. This would aid in a more accurate description of the animal’s behavior 

in the field. 

Resuscitated Animals 

Regulations at 50 CFR 223.206(d)(1)(i)(B) identify resuscitation procedures for sea 

turtles that are comatose or inactive but not dead. However, as with other types of injuries, it is 

difficult to conclusively determine the ultimate fate of the animal when the animal is released 

after those procedures. Other initiatives have considered post-release survival of resuscitated 

animals caught in certain types of fishing gear (e.g., pelagic longline; Ryder et al. 2006), and 

similarly, participants at this workshop discussed the various facets to consider when assessing 

the ultimate survival of a turtle released after on-board resuscitation. 

 First, some veterinarians did not feel that the term “resuscitation” accurately defines what 

the observers (or others) do for turtles on-board. From a clinical perspective, resuscitation 

indicates an active process of doing something to the animal to aid, or cause, its revival 

(i.e., medical intervention). What occurs on-board the vessel by the observers is more of a 

“recuperation” from a trauma or oxygen deprivation event, with the animal becoming 

revived. While these comments were considered in the revised technical guidelines, the 

regulations at 50 CFR 223.206 use the term resuscitation. 

 Workshop participants discussed several conditions or symptoms of drowning and 

impairment after revival, some of which were related to specific case study examples. 

o If an animal is observed to have froth around its nares and/or mouth, it may be a 

sign of respiratory impairment due to fluid in the airways and/or lungs 

(pulmonary edema). 
10 

o There is a need to define abnormal and unresponsive behavior and for such 

behavior to be recorded on the observer data log. There is certain behavior that 

may be indicative of an underlying problem after revival. 

o In one case, the animal was unresponsive initially (i.e., inactive, no reflexes), but 

after being placed in an incline position, the turtle became more responsive. The 

right eye of the animal was also swollen. The initial unresponsive behavior of the 

animal, in addition to the swollen right eye, led some experts to believe that this 

animal may have suffered from a metabolic disturbance, neurological impairment, 

or fluid present in the lungs. The latter was the more accepted conclusion of why 

the animal was initially unresponsive. An alternative explanation provided by one 

veterinarian was that the cause of the animal’s unresponsiveness was due to dry 

drowning (when an air breathing animal dies of forced submergence, but the 

lungs remain dry). However, most experts believed that this topic is highly 

debatable in the literature and may not apply to this case. 

o In another case study, the animal was unresponsive initially, but after inclination, 

the animal became responsive and “spit up” water. Some participants expressed 

concern about the animal being unresponsive initially and then becoming more 

active after one hour had passed. This type of response may be a sign of 

dangerous internal injuries that may not be apparent right away, but instead, 

appear within a few hours to days. 

o Veterinarians believed that animals that are revived should not be released 

immediately, as the animal may have severe internal injuries (e.g., salt water 

intrusion into the lungs, aspiration pneumonia) that may not be apparent for a few 

days. Even if a turtle recovers from an unresponsive episode on-board, it still may 

have lung injury, resulting in a difference between the short and long term 

prognosis. If animals are released immediately after resuscitation, some experts 

believed that they will have a lower probability of survival. As such, the 

veterinarians suggested holding the animal for at least 24 hours (ideally longer), 

observing all behaviors and symptoms. Rehabilitation was suggested for all 

animals initially recovered unconscious/unresponsive. 

 Unresponsive, rather than comatose or inactive, is a more appropriate way to describe the 

condition. Veterinarians recommended replacing “comatose” in the guidelines with 

“unresponsive” and placing these animals in the high probability of mortality category, 

instead of intermediate probability of mortality. 

Animal Condition 

In the evaluation of the case studies, workshop participants were asked to determine if the 

injury was fresh. A fresh injury may be interpreted as one likely occurring as a result of the 

observed gear interaction. Determining whether an injury was the result of the gear interaction 

will be important in the future evaluation of each observer record and whether the injury/take 

will be attributed to a particular fishery or gear type. The description of a “fresh” injury was 

determined by evaluating the participant case study evaluation forms and related workshop 

discussion. In some cases (5 of 12), the determination of a whether an injury was fresh varied by 

respondents, with most participants interpreting the injury to be fresh, while others not 

considering the injury to be fresh, noting that it could not be determined given the information 

provided, or stating that a “freshness” determination was not applicable to the case study (e.g., 
11 

no apparent injuries). In other cases (7 of 12), there was unanimous or near unanimous (e.g., 

varied by 1) agreement that the injury was fresh. 

From the written feedback received, the characteristics of a fresh injury may include (but 

are not necessarily limited to): 

 Active bleeding (noted most commonly to be the deciding factor of freshness) 

 White bone, if exposed 

 Clean or sharp edges to scrapes/cracks 

 No epibiotic growth over or in lesions 

 Observer comments of “red tissue” (assumes this is muscle, viscera, etc.) 

 Became active on board or “spit up water” (observer notes), if originally found comatose 

When evaluating whether the injury is old, factors to consider are whether the fractures 

(if present) have smooth or rounded edges, whether any exposed bone is gray or green (not 

white), or whether the injury shows signs of healing. 

Information Collected by the Observer Program 

During the discussion on case studies and the review of the observer reporting logs 

(Appendix 4), participants suggested several revisions and/or clarifications on the types of 

information the observers should record in order for NMFS to make a more accurate assessment 

of the animal’s injuries. Note that, if deemed necessary by NMFS, some subsequent revisions to 

the observer reporting forms may also stem from discussions on sea turtle injuries, as included 

above. 

Injury Documentation 

 When taking photographs, it is important to focus on the lesions, cracks, abrasions, 

depressions, etc. Detailed photographs of the lesions/injuries were thought to be more 

helpful than drawings, but both should be collected/recorded. 

 The observer should record detailed information on things such as the depth, size, 

location, and length of injuries. For example, it is important to clarify whether the crack 

only affected the scute or if it extended into the bone and into the coelomic lining, as well 

as the overall depth and length of the crack. Further, additional descriptive details may 

include if there was bleeding and from where; if the carapace adjacent to a fracture was 

mobile; and the extent of displacement if the carapace was depressed. The observer 

should be as descriptive as possible so that when the case is analyzed, an accurate 

determination of the severity of the injuries and the probability of survival can be made. 

Observer Logs 

 It was recommended that the Sea Turtle Injury Reporting Form (or another comparable 

form with specific injury fields) be made mandatory for the observers to fill out while in 

the field. 

 An observer data form should be drafted or modified that includes all necessary 

information to allow for accurate injury determinations. By gathering more focused 

information from the observer and their hands-on assessment, this may minimize 

problems due to variance in injury determinations. Such an injury reporting form could 

be comprised of important characteristics that describe abnormal/normal behavior (e.g., 

lifted head, moved limbs, eyes open/closed), responsiveness (e.g., response to cloacal 

pinch, bilateral eye reflex, front and rear flipper pinch), activity level, and injuries (e.g., is 
12 

there an open cavity?). These characteristics could be provided in a way to be checked 

off/circled in the field, allowing for a written description once the observer is on shore or 

off-duty. This would also alleviate illegible handwriting issues that may affect NMFS’ 

ability to assess the case, increase objectivity in reporting, and potentially decrease 

observer recording time. Another way to expand on the information collected by 

observers is to develop a data log where particular questions related to each NMFS 

Category for injury are provided. After the observer answers the particular injury 

element, assigning post-release survival (based on the NMFS Categories) may be 

performed more efficiently as specific characteristics of the injuries will be clearly 

documented. 

 It was suggested that a detailed picture of a sea turtle head/eye should be included on the 

observer data sheets for recording specific injuries. Another recommendation was that a 

diagram of a sea turtle could be added (or modified) and by each flipper and the head, a 

space could be provided to record information on whether each limb was mobile or the 

head was lifted voluntarily. 

 On the existing Sea Turtle Injury Reporting Form, there is a question that asks whether 

the turtle had “buoyancy problems.” It was recommended that this be clarified and 

perhaps rephrased to whether the turtle remained on the surface after release and if so, for 

how long. 

 Only one measurement of the turtle’s body size (e.g., only measuring notch to tip length) 

is necessary for the injury assessment process. 

 One commenter noted the importance of recording the turtle’s responsiveness and any 

reflex tests completed by the observer. A field or checkbox that notes the reflex test 

results may ensure consistent, objective assessments of responsiveness. The reflex tests 

that may be conducted include bilateral eye reflex, bilateral front and rear flipper pinch, 

corneal reflex, or cloacal clasp. This information will be valuable in determining the 

difference between a lethargic and unresponsive animal. 

Observer Training/Permit 

 It was suggested that, during observer training, the difference between the scute and the 

bone be clarified, as latter implies a more serious injury to the turtle. By understanding 

the difference, in the field, the injury can clearly be defined, which will then aid in the 

final injury assessment. 

 Workshop participants suggested making the sea turtle exam a requirement for observer 

approval, similar to the exam for fish and marine mammals. 

 It was recommended that observers PIT tag all sea turtles, in addition to Inconel flipper 

tag. This would involve a modification to the existing NEFSC observer program 

scientific research permit and additional training on the technique. 

 Workshop participants suggested changing the NEFSC observer program scientific 

research permit to allow for on-board holding of sea turtles for 36 hours after 

recuperation (or revival), instead of the 24 hours as required by the regulations. This 

would enable observers to better monitor sea turtles after an unresponsive period and 

document subsequent breathing problems. Further, it was recommended that all sea 

turtles found unresponsive be transported to the closest rehabilitation facility. While the 

NEFSC permit specifies that stressed or injured animals should be transported to a 
13 

rehabilitation facility when possible, the requirement to do so for unresponsive (and 

revived) animals should be better emphasized during training and in the observer manual. 

TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING INJURIES OF 

SEA TURTLES OBSERVED IN NORTHEAST REGION FISHING 

GEAR 

After the workshop, NMFS staff discussed the case study results, participant notes, 

discussion at the workshop, and comments on the working guidance. As revisions to the previous 

working guidance were deemed necessary, all available information was considered in that 

revision. The following “Technical Working Guidelines for Assessing Injuries of Sea Turtles 

Observed in Northeast Fishing Gear” (Table 1) represent the final guidelines as developed as a 

result of the information generated by the workshop and subsequent NMFS discussion on that 

information. This is the version that will be used by NMFS to review each record of observed sea 

turtle take and determine associated survival. It is worthwhile to clarify that previous injury 

assessment categories were referred to as “Working Guidance”, while the revised version (and 

subsequent mention of the injury assessment categories in this document) is called “Technical 

Guidelines” or “Technical Working Guidelines”. 

Changes to Guidelines 

While each specific modification is not listed here, the following represents a summary of 

the more notable changes to the revised guidelines. In general, the language related to specific 

injuries and sea turtle anatomy was made clearer and more clinically accurate. 

 The category numbers were switched so that animals with a high probability of mortality 

are in Category III (previously Category I) and those with a low probability of mortality 

are in Category I (previously Category III). This change occurred in order to present the 

injuries in a more logical fashion and be consistent with sea turtle stranding codes, in 

which the lowest number is alive and dead sea turtles are classified by progressive 

decomposition state as code number increases. Throughout the remainder of this 

document, the revised category numbering will be used. 

 The previous guidance did not have associated mortality rates for each category, largely 

because it was uncertain what those percentages would be based upon. At the workshop, 

it was noted that if mortality rates were not assigned in the formulation of the revised 

guidelines, percent mortality for each category likely would be determined by NMFS 

Section 7 staff to determine anticipated take. It is likely that those percentages would be 

the same as used in previous years, or the 100% mortality rate for Category III and the 

0% mortality rate for Category I. Workshop participants felt that the 100% and 0% 

mortality rate assignments were not the most accurate, and, upon discussion, agreed that 

refined mortality rate percentages could be assigned to each category. As such, NMFS’ 

decision on the associated mortality rates is reflected in the revised guidelines categories. 

In addition, the associated mortality percentages (included in the revised guidelines) are 

based on the evaluation and discussion of hardshell and leatherback turtles. A 100% 

mortality rate will be assigned to any animal released into the water in a dead or 

unresponsive state regardless of its condition at first encounter. 

 Those animals that are recorded as unresponsive, revived and released were moved from 

the intermediate mortality category (II) to high mortality (III). This change is due to the 
14 

concern over the long term prognosis of a previously unresponsive, released animal with 

potentially compromised lungs/airway. The term “unresponsive” was used instead of 

“comatose,” and a description of the definition of and criteria for unresponsive was 

added. A distinction was made between those animals found unresponsive and those 

found lethargic (i.e., responsive to external stimuli but in a reduced manner, sluggish). 

Animals that are found lethargic, but become active on-board before release, remain in 

Category II. 

 The previous guidance only considered injuries to and associated survivorship of hardshelled sea turtles, because the 2003 questionnaire, on which the guidance was largely 

based, focused on hard-shelled turtles in scallop dredge gear and associated impacts. 

NMFS and the participants at this workshop noted that any revised guidelines should 

address leatherback injuries as well. Participants at the workshop addressed injuries and 

impacts to leatherbacks, and those considerations are reflected in NMFS guidelines in 

Table 1. 

 Instead of including cracks through various locations on the carapace or plastron (as 

noted in Appendix 2), the revised guidelines refined those injury categories as “Any shell 

fracture, excluding marginals” and “Penetration of body cavity.” Both of those 

descriptions now are included in Category III (high mortality), as were most of the 

similar injury types in the previous guidance. The change was made to be more inclusive 

of all types of injuries and to be technically accurate with respect to sea turtle anatomy 

and veterinary terminology. For example, using the term “fracture” (referring to scute and 

bone trauma) is more descriptive and relevant for injury assessments versus cracks which 

may extend through the scutes in various carapace locations but not into the bone. 

 The degree and location of flipper related injuries were expanded upon, with flipper 

amputations of half or more being included in Category III and other injuries to flippers 

in Category I or II. 

 Injuries to eyes were differentiated by whether one or two eyes were affected (Category 

II or III respectively). 

 Shell fractures affecting the marginal scutes were distinguished by the width of peripheral 

bone affected (greater, equal to, or less than 50%), resulting in different categories for 

those injuries as compared to all marginal scute injuries originally being in Category I. 

 Several injury categories were expanded. For instance, examples of behavioral 

abnormalities were added and more descriptive locations of bleeding were noted. The 

entry of “Animals with no apparent injuries” was expanded to include “and active normal 

behavior,” as workshop participants noted that the turtle’s behavior was an important 

consideration when assessing survivability. 

 The condition of “Any remaining gear left on the animal at release” was added to 

Category III. 

 Language was added related to the consideration of old injuries and adverse 

environmental conditions (e.g., extreme cold water temperatures). The purpose of adding 

these factors was to aid in the subsequent assessment of injuries and ensure all 

components of the gear interaction are addressed and considered. 
15 

Definitions 

There are several terms used by workshop participants to describe injuries and raised in 

the workshop discussion as a potentially beneficial for injury descriptions, or determined by 

NMFS to be sufficiently explanatory for future evaluations of injuries. These terms are either 

included in the revised guidelines or will be considered by the NMFS workgroup when assessing 

sea turtle injuries from gear interactions. Definitions are provided here so application of such 

terms used in the technical guidelines (Table 1) is uniform and they may be considered in the 

future assessment of such injuries. For instance, the NMFS workgroup will first determine if the 

injury is fresh (and likely a result of the observed gear interaction) and, if fresh, then determine 

the associated probability of mortality using the information in Table 1. 

Active normal behavior: 

In this instance, active normal behavior refers to, but is not limited to, the animal’s 

voluntary movement around the vessel, using/flapping its flippers appropriately, and lifting its 

head to breathe. As noted previously, it was recommended that observers record the specific 

behavior of the turtle, and that a description of normal versus abnormal sea turtle behavior be 

included in the observer training. 

Acute: 

During the workshop, participants suggested that the term “acute” be included with the 

mention of shell fractures. In medicine, acute generally refers to the time frame of an injury or 

illness; as sudden in onset, sharp rise, and short course (Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary). 

The purpose of adding “acute” to the description of shell fractures was to refer to a fracture that 

occurred recently (versus one that the animal sustained weeks/months previously or an ongoing 

chronic condition). For example, an acute fracture should be considered fresh. 

In the evaluation of sea turtle injuries by the NMFS workgroup, whether an injury was a 

result of the gear interaction will first be determined, followed by the assignment of probability 

of mortality using the working guidelines. As such, all of the conditions included in Table 1 

should relate to the gear interaction in question (should be “fresh” injuries). In the technical 

guidelines, acute was not included in the description of shell fracture injuries, as Table 1 only 

refers to acute/fresh injuries. It was noted that acute fresh injuries may occur in addition to 

chronic conditions. The latter may be discussed in the comments section of the observer logs. 

Fresh: 

 Characteristics of a fresh injury include active bleeding; white bone (if bone is 

exposed); clean or sharp edges to scrapes/cracks; no epibiotic growth over or in lesions; and red 

or pink exposed tissue. 

 While subject to some interpretation, a fresh dead animal may exhibit the following 

characteristics: little to no odor; fresh blood present; fresh (not necrotic, pink/healthy color) 

tissue, muscle, or skin; no bloating; color consistent with live animal; eyes clear; and live 

barnacles. Note that all of these characteristics need not be met in order to be categorized as 

“fresh”. Each case needs to be evaluated independently and thoroughly by trained individuals. 

Again, these characteristics are presented here for guidance only. 
16 

Major long bones: 

The revised technical guidelines have an injury description of “Any open fracture of 

major long bones”. To clarify what constitutes a “major long bone” and to aid in NMFS’ 

subsequent review of observed injuries, major long bones refer to the humerus, radius, ulna, 

femur, fibula, and tibia. For this project, carpals, metacarpals, tarsals, and metatarsals are not 

included in the definition of major long bones. 

Superficial: 

Of, relating to, or located near the surface; and lying on, not penetrating below, or 

affecting only the surface (Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary). 

In the application of the working guidelines, a superficial injury refers to a cut, scrape, 

abrasion, chip, scuff, etc. that only affects the keratinous scutes (not penetrating into the carapace 

bone) or surface of the skin (not impacting any muscles or underlying bones). 

Unresponsive/lethargic: 

 The determination of whether an animal is lethargic or unresponsive after capture will 

dictate the appropriate injury category in which to place the turtle (Category II or III, 

respectively). The observer comments will be critical in determining whether the animal was 

lethargic or unresponsive, and observer training on sea turtle behavior may help make these 

distinctions. The term “unresponsive” is currently defined in the revised guidelines. 

Unresponsive refers to an episode of lack of response to external stimuli at any time. Lack of 

response criteria may include bilateral eye reflex, bilateral front and rear flipper pinch, corneal 

reflex, or cloacal clasp. The definition of lethargy includes: abnormal drowsiness, sluggish, or 

indifferent to stimuli (Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary). In this instance, lethargic 

behavior refers to an animal that responds to external stimuli but in a reduced manner, moves 

slowly, or is sluggish. 

Observer Form Modifications 

 As described throughout this document, the workshop participants provided helpful 

insight into potential modifications of the type or quality of information collected by observers. 

NMFS is in the process of evaluating the workshop comments and revising the observer forms as 

deemed necessary and appropriate. After the Technical Working Guidelines are finalized, NMFS 

will consider potential changes to the observer forms. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This document and NMFS’ revision of the technical guidelines would not have been 

possible without the valuable comments and insight by the participants at the 2009 workshop. I 

am extremely grateful for their participation and feedback. 

Thank you to Heather Haas and Sara Wetmore for helping organize the workshop as well 

as for valuable review comments and guidance. Thanks also goes to Dave Gouveia for 

facilitating the workshop, and Mary Colligan for helpful edits and assistance. The NEFOP 

should also be acknowledged for collecting and providing the fishery observer information 

which helped shape the workshop discussion and subsequent technical guidelines. 

 
17 

TABLE 1. 

TECHNICAL WORKING GUIDELINES

FOR ASSESSING INJURIES OF SEA TURTLES 

OBSERVED IN NORTHEAST REGION FISHING GEAR2

 

Category I – Low probability of mortality (20% mortality rate) 

 Any shell fractures of the area of the marginal scutes, involving less than 50% of width of 

the underlying peripheral bone 

 Superficial abrasions, chips, or scuffs to carapace or plastron 

 Minor or superficial injuries to skin 

 Animals with no apparent injuries and active normal behavior 

Category II – Intermediate probability of mortality (50% mortality rate) 

 Any shell fractures of the area of the marginal scutes, involving 50% or more of width of 

the underlying peripheral bone 

 Injuries to flippers (including ligature wounds), which may impair movement or function 

 Injuries to one eye 

 Lethargic, but becomes active before release 

Category III – High probability of mortality (80% mortality rate) 

 Any shell fracture, excluding marginals 

 Fractures or wounds penetrating the body cavity 

 Evidence of bleeding from cloaca, nares, eyes, or oral cavity, unrelated to superficial 

wounds 

 Skull or mandibular fracture 

 Injuries to both eyes 

 Injuries to neck (including ligature wounds) which affects the spinal cord, major blood 

vessels, or airway 

 Amputation of half or more of one or more flippers 

 Any open fracture of major long bones 

 Behavioral abnormality, including circling, not using all four flippers appropriately, head 

tilting, not raising head, not breathing, eyes closed, listing/rolling, lethargic at release, 

inability to right itself in the water 

 Unresponsive3

, revived, and released 

 Any remaining gear left on the animal at release 

If an animal is found with multiple injuries in different categories, the animal should be placed in the category 

encompassing the most severe of the injuries. 

A 100% mortality rate will be assigned to any animal released into the water in a dead or unresponsive state 

regardless of its condition at first encounter. 

Old injuries determined to be unrelated to the current gear interaction or animals subject to adverse environmental 

conditions will be considered in the overall health assessment/survivability determination of the animal. 

 

2

 For the purposes of these guidelines, Northeast Region fishing gear excludes longline gear. 

3

 Unresponsive refers to an episode of lack of response to external stimuli at any time. Lack of response criteria may 

include bilateral eye reflex, bilateral front and rear flipper pinch, corneal reflex, or cloacal clasp. 
18 

REFERENCES 

Andersen, M.S., K.A. Forney, T.V.N. Cole, T. Eagle, R. Angliss, K. Long, L. Barre, L. Van 

Atta, D. Borggaard, T. Rowles, B. Norberg, J. Whaley, and L. Engleby. 2008. 

Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals: Report of the Serious 

Injury Technical Workshop, 10-13 September 2007, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Dep. 

Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-39, 94 pp. 

Angliss, R.P. and D.P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of 

Marine Mammals Taken Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations: Report of the 

Serious Injury Workshop. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-13, 48 pp. 

Ryder, C.E., T.A. Conant, and B.A. Schroeder. 2006. Report of the Workshop on Marine Turtle 

Longline Post-Interaction Mortality. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSF/OPR-29, 36 pp. 
19 

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA 

Workshop on Evaluating Sea Turtle Injuries in Northeast Fishing Gear 

National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region 

Mariner's House • 11 North Square • Boston, MA 

November 17-18, 2009 

AGENDA

DAY ONE • Tuesday, November 17 

1:00 PM Welcome – Dave Gouveia 

1:15 PM Introduction and background – Carrie Upite 

 Other serious injury assessment efforts 

 Previous scallop dredge initiative 

 Utility of such guidance 

 Review existing NMFS working guidance 

2:15 PM Evaluation process – Dave Gouveia 

2:30 PM Cases with known fate and case studies for evaluation – Rogers Williams

3:15 PM Independent evaluation of case studies – Workshop participants 

4:30 PM Adjourn 

DAY TWO • Wednesday, November 18 

8:30 AM Recap of Day One; Overview of Day Two – Dave Gouveia 

8:35 AM NE Fisheries Observer Program overview – Sara Wetmore 

9:10 AM Review of guidance and evaluation process – Rogers Williams 

Discussion of case study results 

10:15 AM Break 

10:30 AM Improving the working guidance to link animal condition to risk level 

12:30 PM LUNCH 

2:00 PM Evaluation of observer/sea turtle reporting forms 

3:30 PM Wrap up and next steps 
20 

APPENDIX 2. PREVIOUS INJURY GUIDANCE 

(Used in case study evaluations by workshop participants) 

DRAFT WORKING GUIDANCE 

 FOR SERIOUS INJURY DETERMINATIONS 

FOR HARDSHELLED SEA TURTLES TAKEN IN FISHING GEAR 

Category I – Low probability of survival 

 Carapace crack that goes entirely through1 any non-marginal scute 

 Carapace crack through or not through vertebral scutes 

 Carapace crack through or not through any portion of the region from anterior (nuchal 

notch) to mid-carapace scute (center of third vertebral scute), besides marginal scutes 

 Crack through plastron (any location) 

 Unstable carapace or plastron (e.g., edges of crack do not meet, shell depressed) 

 Bleeding from rectum, nose, or other orifice 

 Injuries to head, eyes, nares or oral cavity 

 Injuries to neck, affecting spinal cord, dorsal musculature, dorsal cervical sinus or trachea 

 Behavior abnormal (e.g., not able to right itself or not moving in water) 

 Comatose, revived, and released with injuries other than the ones listed in Category III 

Category II – Intermediate probability of survival 

 Comatose, revived, and released either without injuries or with the injuries listed in 

Category III 

 Non-marginal carapace cracks that do not go through the scutes (on any area of the 

carapace besides vertebral column or region from anterior to mid-carapace) 

 Plastron cracks that do not go through the scutes (any location) 

 Injuries to flippers, which may impair movement or function 

Category III – High probability of survival 

 Carapace cracks to marginal scutes 

 Superficial abrasions, chips, or scuffs to carapace 

 Minor or superficial injuries to neck 

 Superficial cuts to flippers, that do not impair movement or function in animals with 

good body condition 

 Animals with no apparent injuries 

Note: If an animal is found with multiple injuries in different categories, the animal should be 

placed in the category encompassing the most severe of the injuries. 

 

1

 “Through” a scute refers to a crack from the surface to the interior of a scute. 
21 

APPENDIX 3. EVALUATION FEEDBACK FORM 

Workshop on Evaluating Sea Turtle Injuries in Northeast Fishing Gear 

National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region • November 17-18, 2009 

CASE STUDY EVALUATION – FEEDBACK FORM 

For each case study, indicate if the injury is fresh (likely a result of the gear interaction), the risk 

category based on the Working Guidance (WG), and the survival determination based on your 

expertise. Briefly justify your decision. Risk I = Low probability of survival; Risk II = 

Intermediate probability of survival; Risk III = High probability of survival. 

Case 

Study Circle 1 per row Justification 

1 Fresh: Yes, No 

WG Risk: I, II, III 

Your Risk: 

Author’s note: In the feedback form distributed to the workshop participants, there was a 

separate field for each case study (n=12). However, in the interest of space, for this report, only 

one field is presented to provide an example of what information was requested of and collected 

from the participants.
22 

APPENDIX 4. NMFS NEFOP REPORTING LOGS 
23 
24 
25 
26 
Procedures for Issuing Manuscripts

in the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (CRD) Series

Clearance

All manuscripts submitted for issuance as CRDs 

must have cleared the NEFSC’s manuscript/abstract/

webpage review process. If any author is not a federal 

employee, he/she will be required to sign an “NEFSC 

Release-of-Copyright Form.” If your manuscript 

includes material from another work which has been 

copyrighted, then you will need to work with the 

NEFSC’s Editorial Office to arrange for permission 

to use that material by securing release signatures on 

the “NEFSC Use-of-Copyrighted-Work Permission 

Form.” 

For more information, NEFSC authors should see 

the NEFSC’s online publication policy manual, “Manuscript/abstract/webpage preparation, review, and dissemination: NEFSC author’s guide to policy, process, 

and procedure,” located in the Publications/Manuscript 

Review section of the NEFSC intranet page.

Organization

Manuscripts must have an abstract and table of 

contents, and (if applicable) lists of figures and tables. 

As much as possible, use traditional scientific manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study 

Area” and/or ”Experimental Apparatus,” “Methods,” 

“Results,” “Discussion,” “Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “Literature/References Cited.” 

Style

The CRD series is obligated to conform with the 

style contained in the current edition of the United 

States Government Printing Office Style Manual. That 

style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific 

manuscripts. The CRD series relies more on the CSE 

Style Manual. Manuscripts should be prepared to 

conform with these style manuals. 

The CRD series uses the American Fisheries Society’s guides to names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod 

crustaceans, the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s 

guide to names of marine mammals, the Biosciences 

Information Service’s guide to serial title abbreviations, 

and the ISO’s (International Standardization Organization) guide to statistical terms. 

For in-text citation, use the name-date system. A 

special effort should be made to ensure that all necessary bibliographic information is included in the list 

of cited works. Personal communications must include 

date, full name, and full mailing address of the contact.

Preparation

Once your document has cleared the review process, the Editorial Office will contact you with publication needs – for example, revised text (if necessary) and 

separate digital figures and tables if they are embedded 

in the document. Materials may be submitted to the 

Editorial Office as files on zip disks or CDs, email 

attachments, or intranet downloads. Text files should 

be in Microsoft Word, tables may be in Word or Excel, 

and graphics files may be in a variety of formats (JPG, 

GIF, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.).

Production and Distribution

The Editorial Office will perform a copy-edit of 

the document and may request further revisions. The 

Editorial Office will develop the inside and outside 

front covers, the inside and outside back covers, and 

the title and bibliographic control pages of the document.

Once both the PDF (print) and Web versions of 

the CRD are ready, the Editorial Office will contact 

you to review both versions and submit corrections or 

changes before the document is posted online.

A number of organizations and individuals in the 

Northeast Region will be notified by e-mail of the 

availability of the document online. 
Research Communications Branch

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is “stewardship of living marine resources 

for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the 

health of their environment.” As the research arm of the NMFS’s Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by “conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term 

sustainability of these resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use.” 

Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed 

scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the 

NEFSC occasionally releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of 

long-term field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports 

of overall assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature 

surveys of important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated 

bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data 

reports on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected 

abstracts of, and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review and 

most issues receive copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen’s Report) -- This information report is a regularly-issued, quick-turnaround report on 

the distribution and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC’s periodic research vessel surveys of the Northeast’s continental shelf. This report undergoes internal review, but receives no technical or copy editing.

TO OBTAIN A COPY of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document, 

either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2350) or consult the NEFSC webpage 

on “Reports and Publications” (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/). To access Resource Survey Report, consult the Ecosystem 

Surveys Branch webpage (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/ecosurvey/mainpage/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL