NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08

EVALUATION OF TED OPENING DIMENSIONS 

RELATIVE TO SIZE OF TURTLES STRANDING IN

THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC

Sheryan P. Epperly

Wendy G. Teas

September 1999

U. S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, FL 33149
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08

EVALUATION OF TED OPENING DIMENSIONS 

RELATIVE TO SIZE OF TURTLES STRANDING IN

THE WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC

Sheryan P. Epperly

Wendy G. Teas

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

William M. Daley, Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

D. James Baker, Administrator

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Penelope H. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

September 1999

Unpublished reports are used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary

results, interim reports, or special-purpose information, and have not received complete

formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing.
NOTICE

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend or endorse any

proprietary product or material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS,

or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would

indicate or imply that NMFS approves, recommends or endorses any proprietary product or

proprietary material herein or which has as its purpose any intent to cause directly or indirectly the

advertised product to be used or purchased because of NMFS publication.

Correct citation of this report is:

Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 1999. Evaluation of TED opening dimensions relative to size of

turtles stranding in the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commerce, National Marine

Fisheries Service SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08, 31 p.

Copies of this report can be obtained from:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Protected Species and Biodiversity Branch

75 Virginia Beach Drive

Miami, FL 33149

 
-1- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

INTRODUCTION

All five species of sea turtles in continental U.S. waters are protected under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL93-205). Elasticity models of turtle populations have

identified the large juveniles and adults as life stages with the highest elasticities (i.e., a reduction

in mortality in these stages would result in the greatest annual population multiplication rate)

(Crouse et al., 1987; Heppell, 1998a, b). The stage most frequently found dead on ocean beaches

is large immature sea turtles (Crouse et al., 1987; NMFS unpubl. data) and shrimp trawling is

thought to account for the majority of these deaths (Magnuson et al., 1990; Caillouet et al., 1991,

1996; Crowder et al., 1995).

Beginning in the fall of 1987, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) seasonally

required Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawl nets on most boats operating in ocean

waters off the southeastern U.S. as a mechanism to reduce the incidental catch of turtles in

general and the catch of the large immature stage in particular (Federal Register, 1987). Boats

working in inshore waters were allowed to use tow time limits in lieu of TEDs. The difference

between offshore and inshore regulations was due, in part, to the lack of information on the

distribution and abundance of sea turtles in inshore waters and to the lack of documentation of

incidental captures by shrimp trawlers working in these inshore waters (Federal Register 1992a). 

Full implementation of the regulations was delayed until 1989 in offshore waters and until 1990

in inshore waters.

Evidence of the importance of inshore areas to sea turtles, along with evidence that

shrimp trawlers catch sea turtles in inshore waters (Renaud et al., 1991; Edward F. Klima,

unpubl. data; Epperly et al., 1995) provided sufficient justification for NMFS to expand

requirements for turtle excluder devices in the shrimp fishery to all areas at all times, including

inshore waters; full implementation of these requirements was achieved by December 1994

(Federal Register, 1992a, 1992b). The expanded TED regulations were expected to reduce

shrimp trawling capture of sea turtles by 97% (Henwood et al., 1992).

TEDs incorporate a trap door to allow sea turtles to escape from trawl nets (Seidel and

McVea, 1982) and may be either rigid or soft in design (Federal Register, 1992b). To be

certified by NMFS, a TED design must be 97% effective in excluding sea turtles (Federal

Register 1987, 1992b). Regardless of design, certain parameters of the TED architecture are

regulated. Most important to this discussion are the requirements of the height and width

dimensions of the opening in the net through which turtles escape. Along the Atlantic Coast

these requirements are 35 in (88.90 cm) for width and 12 in (30.48 cm) for height (Federal

Register, 1992b). In the Gulf of Mexico these measurements are 32 in ( 81.28 cm) and 10 in

(25.40 cm), respectively. Height is measured simultaneously with width and is measured at the

midpoint of the straight-line distance of width (i.e., the width and height of a taut triangle is

measured) (Fig. 1).
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -2-

Width: 32 inches (81.28 cm) Gulf of Mexico

35 inches (88.90 cm) Atlantic

Height:

10 in. (25.40 cm)

Gulf of Mexico

12 in. (30.48 cm)

Atlantic

The purpose of this study was to compare the sizes of stranded sea turtles with the size of

the TED openings. This evaluation was prompted by the need, identified by NMFS’ Turtle

Expert Working Group (TEWG), to reduce the strandings of mature loggerhead sea turtles

(Caretta caretta) from the northern subpopulation (TEWG, 1998). We compared the sizes of

stranded loggerhead, green (Chelonia mydas), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea

turtles, the three species most commonly found in the strandings, to the minimum opening sizes

of TEDs.

Figure 1. Mimimum TED Opening Dimensions.

METHODS

In order to compare the sizes of stranded turtles to the minimum opening sizes of TEDs

we first constructed a predictor of body depth and carapace width. Thus, a morphometric

analysis for each species was conducted first and generally utilized data from captive reared, live

captured, or nesting turtles and not strandings data. The predictive regression for carapace width

was then applied to the strandings data when this measurement was not recorded for a given

turtle; the predictive regression for body depth was applied to all turtles in the database. A

strandings analysis of the entire strandings database, wherein the turtle sizes were compared to

minimum openings sizes of TEDs, ensued.

MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSES

The relationship between both body depth and carapace width with carapace length was

explored through regression analysis and predictive regression equations were developed. 
-3- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

Straight Green

Carapace Censored Censored

Length (cm) Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency

1.01-10 1 1 17 3032 105

10.01-20 1 1 5 3778 105

20.01-30 123 37 37 155 155

30.01-40 629 37 49 58 58

40.01-50 24 24 22 137 137

50.01-60 48 48 21 71 71

60.01-70 26 26 16

70.01-80 10 10 1

80.01-90 32 32 3

90.01-100 27 27 2

100.01-120 7 7 3

Loggerhead Kemp's Ridley

Regressions of untransformed data were compared to regressions of log transformed data by

comparing goodness of fit values.

Morphometric data: straight line carapace length, notch-to-tip (SCL), straight line

carapace width (SCW), and body depth (BD) were measured by a number of researchers

throughout the southeast U.S. and at the Cayman Turtle Farm (see Table 1 in each Appendix 1, 2,

and 3). Data for loggerhead turtles were concentrated in the 20-30 cm and 30-40 cm SCL size

classes and were censored (randomized selection of n=37 in each of the two size classes) to

create a more uniform distribution for the analysis (Table 1). Green turtle data were more

uniformly distributed across size classes and were not censored (Table 1). Data for Kemp’s

ridley turtles were concentrated in the 1-10 cm and 10-20 cm SCL size classes and were censored

(randomized selection of n=105) in each of the two size classes (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of sizes of turtles used in the morphometric analysis.

STRANDINGS ANALYSES

The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) documents dead or injured sea

turtles along the coasts of the eastern United States (Schroeder, 1989). The STSSN relies on a

trained group of volunteers, including state and federal employees and private individuals, to

collect basic biological data on each turtle located. Each animal is identified to species, the

condition or state of decomposition is determined, standard carapace measurements are taken,

and any obvious wounds, injuries, or abnormalities are noted and described. Volunteers who

have received additional training may also perform necropsies, or internal exams, on a carcass to

determine the general state of health of the animal prior to death, determine sex, and locate any
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -4-

obvious internal abnormalities. Data are recorded on standardized report forms which are

submitted first to a state coordinator and then to the national STSSN coordinator at the National

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida.

The predictive regression equations from the morphometric analyses were used to

estimate carapace widths for each turtle in the STSSN database for which these measurements

were not taken and to estimate body depths for each turtle. For turtles with curved measurements

only, straight line carapace lengths were estimated from curved carapace lengths (CCL) before

estimating body depth and carapace width. The following equations of Teas (1993) were used :

 Loggerhead: SCL = -1.442 + (0.948 * CCL)

Green: SCL = 0.294 + (0.937 * CCL)

Kemp’s ridley: SCL = 0.013 + (0.945 * CCL)

Within each region (Fig. 2) carapace widths were compared with the currently required minimum

TED width openings and body depths were compared with the currently required minimum TED

height openings. Only true strandings were used in the analysis (e.g., captive-reared turtles, coldstunned turtles, and incidental captures were censored).

RESULTS

MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSES

Loggerhead Sea Turtles

The relationships between carapace width and carapace length and between body depth

and carapace length were linear. R-square values of regressions using log-transformed data were

slightly (<0.002) higher than values based on untransformed data. Regression of each of the

morphometrics on carapace length was highly significant (P<0.0001) (Appendix 1: Tables 2, 3,

Figs. 1, 2) and resulted in the following predictive equations:

ln SCW = -0.0225 + (0.9507 * ln SCL), r2

 = 0.989

ln BD = -0.5682 + (0.9100 * ln SCL), r2

 = 0.966

Straight line carapace lengths corresponding to turtles with carapace widths of 81.28 cm

(32 in) and 88.90 cm (35 in) are 104.5 cm and 114.9 cm, respectively (Appendix 4). Straight line

carapace lengths corresponding to turtles with body depths of 25.40 cm (10 in) and 30.48 cm (12

in) are 65.3 cm and 79.8 cm, respectively.
-5- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

Green Sea Turtles

The relationships between carapace width and carapace length and between body depth

and carapace length were linear. R-square values of regressions using log-transformed data were

slightly (<0.015) higher than values based on untransformed data. Regression of each of the

morphometrics on carapace length was highly significant (P<0.0001) (Appendix 2, Tables 2, 3,

Figs. 1, 2) and resulted in the following predictive equations:

ln SCW = -0.1608 + (0.9812 * ln SCL), r2 = 0.995

ln BD = -1.0115 + (1.0023 * ln SCL), r2 = 0.977

Straight line carapace lengths corresponding to turtles with carapace widths of 81.28 cm

(32 in) and 88.90 cm (35 in) are 104.2 cm and 114.1 cm, respectively (Appendix 4). Straight line

carapace lengths corresponding to turtles with body depths of 25.40 cm (10 in) and 30.48 cm (12

in) are 69.2 cm and 83.0 cm, respectively.

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

The relationships between carapace width and carapace length and between body depth

and carapace length were linear. R-square values of regressions using log-transformed data were

slightly (<0.006) higher than values based on untransformed data. Regression of each of the

morphometrics on carapace length was highly significant (P<0.0001) (Appendix 3, Tables 2, 3,

Figs. 1, 2) and resulted in the following predictive equations:

ln SCW = -0.2039 + (1.0437 * ln SCL), r2 = 0.998

ln BD = -0.6283 + (0.9075 * ln SCL), r2 = 0.989

Straight line carapace lengths corresponding to turtles with carapace widths of 81.28 cm

(32 in) and 88.90 cm (35 in) are 82.2 cm and 89.6 cm, respectively (Appendix 4). Straight line

carapace lengths corresponding to turtles with body depths of 25.40 cm (10 in) and 30.48 cm (12

in) are 70.6 cm and 86.3 cm, respectively.

STRANDINGS ANALYSES

Straight carapace length and width were not measured for a number of stranded sea

turtles; body depth almost never was recorded. The total number of records, by species, for

which the predictive regressions were applied to estimate straight carapace length or straight

carapace width are given in Table 2. Note that the length of a turtle, straight line or curved, must

have been measured for the turtle to be included in the analyses, since the predictive measures 
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -6-

Figure 2. Regions and strandings zones. A. Northeast U.S. Atlantic, B. Southeast U.S.

Atlantic, and C. Gulf of Mexico. Note that the Gulf of Mexico is further divided into two

area: Eastern Gulf of Mexico (zones 1-12) and Western Gulf of Mexico (zones 13-21). 

A. Northeast U.S. Atlantic B. Southeast U.S. Atlantic

C. Gulf of Mexico
-7- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

are based on length. It should be noted that the conclusions from the strandings analyses were

not altered by the choice of linear or log transformed data in the morphometric analyses above.

Table 2. The total number of records, by species, for which the predictive regressions were

applied to estimate straight line carapace length or straight line carapace width.

Missing Measurement Loggerhead Green Kemp’s Ridley

Straight Line Carapace Length

(but Curved Length was

Measured) 8340 1034 1209

Straight Line Carapace Width 8555 1089 1261

Loggerhead Sea Turtles

Carapace Width

Strandings of loggerhead turtles with carapace widths greater than the currently required

minimum TED width openings have not exceeded 1% of the total measured strandings in any

year since 1986 (Table 3). The majority of the stranded large (wide) turtles occur in the Eastern

Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast U.S. Atlantic regions, areas where significant nesting occurs.

Body Depth

Strandings of loggerhead turtles with body depths greater than the currently required

minimum TED height openings has ranged between 33% and 47% of the total measured

strandings since 1986 (Table 4). In the last 3 years nearly 1300 stranded loggerhead turtles were

deeper bodied that the currently required minimum TED height opening. The problem is acute in

the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Table 4) off the nesting beaches and off the nesting beaches of the

Atlantic seaboard (Appendix 1).

Examination of the distribution of body depths of the stranded animals indicates that on

average 37.5 cm (14.8 in) represents the 97th percentile (TEDs must be 97% effective in

excluding turtles) of the distribution (Table 5). This varies by region, ranging from 34.7 cm

(13.7 in) in the Western Gulf of Mexico to 38.5 cm (15.2 in) in both the Eastern Gulf of Mexico

and North Atlantic regions.
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -8-

Region of Stranding Total Total

Western Gulf Eastern Gulf SEUS Atlantic North Atlantic Number Number

Year N % N % N % N % N % Measured Stranded

1986 0 0 2 2 5 1 1 5 8 1 959 1209

1987 1 1 3 2 5 1 0 0 9 1 1318 1728

1988 0 0 5 3 1 0 1 1 8 1 1105 1373

1989 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 7 1 1088 1425

1990 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 0 7 1 1258 1592

1991 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 777 975

1992 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 798 1101

1993 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 693 972

1994 0 0 5 7 2 0 0 0 7 1 1044 1342

1995 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 973 1424

1996 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 4 0 1461 1883

1997 0 0 6 4 0 0 2 1 8 1 1289 1643

All Regions

Region of Stranding Total

Western Gulf Eastern Gulf SEUS Atlantic North Atlantic Number

Year N % N % N % N % N % Measured

1986 68 44 72 89 188 27 4 24 332 35 954

1987 75 54 123 96 225 23 11 25 434 33 1309

1988 62 56 134 96 187 25 6 17 389 38 1027

1989 41 44 209 92 179 26 4 19 433 42 1042

1990 48 36 91 88 250 27 6 22 395 33 1188

1991 37 54 73 83 162 31 18 30 290 40 734

1992 35 58 66 85 198 34 13 28 312 41 763

1993 26 47 76 89 182 40 12 28 296 47 636

1994 97 57 64 88 237 35 15 15 413 41 1010

1995 56 52 66 90 207 30 18 19 347 36 956

1996 99 52 127 88 253 27 33 20 512 36 1436

1997 97 66 131 87 171 23 29 14 428 34 1266

All Regions

Table 3. Number of Stranded Loggerhead Turtles and Percentage of Those Measured with

[predicted] Carapace Widths Greater than Currently Required TED Width Openings.

Table 4. Number of Stranded Loggerhead Turtles and Percentage of Those Measured with

Predicted Body Depths Greater than Currently Required TED Height Openings.
-9- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

YEAR 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

1986 34.9 35.3 35.6 35.7 36.5 36.8 37.3 38.1 38.8 39.7

1987 34.9 34.9 35.3 35.7 35.9 36.5 37.1 37.3 38.1 39.7

1988 35.3 35.4 35.7 36.1 36.5 36.7 37.3 37.8 38.1 39.0

1989 35.0 35.3 35.7 35.7 35.9 36.1 36.5 36.8 37.3 38.5

1990 35.1 35.4 35.6 35.7 36.1 36.4 36.5 37.1 37.8 39.0

1991 36.1 36.1 36.5 36.5 37.0 37.3 37.6 37.8 38.1 39.0

1992 35.7 35.8 36.1 36.4 36.7 36.9 37.3 37.4 38.1 39.0

1993 36.1 36.5 36.5 36.9 37.3 37.3 37.8 38.1 39.0 40.0

1994 35.7 35.8 36.1 36.3 36.7 36.9 37.3 37.8 38.1 39.0

1995 35.7 35.7 36.0 36.1 36.6 36.9 37.1 37.3 37.8 39.3

1996 35.2 35.4 35.7 35.8 36.2 36.5 36.5 37.1 37.4 38.2

1997 35.1 35.5 35.7 35.9 36.5 36.6 37.1 37.6 38.3 39.0

Median 35.2 35.4 35.7 36.0 36.5 36.7 37.2 37.5 38.1 39.0

Mean 35.4 35.6 35.9 36.1 36.5 36.7 37.1 37.5 38.1 39.1

Std. Error 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.15

PERCENTILE

Table 5. Distribution of Predicted Body Depths (cm) of Stranded Loggerhead Turtles from

the U.S. Atlantic Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico.

Green Sea Turtles

Carapace Width

Strandings of green turtles with carapace widths greater than the currently required

minimum TED width openings have not exceeded 2 turtles or 2% of the total measured

strandings in any year since 1986 (Table 6). 

Body Depth

Strandings of green turtles with body depths greater than the currently required minimum

TED height openings has ranged between 1 and 7% of the total measured strandings since 1986

(Table 7). The large turtles are stranding in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast U.S.

Atlantic regions, areas of nesting activity.

Examination of the distribution of body depths of the stranded animals indicates that on

average 31.4 cm (12.4 in) represents the 97th percentile of the distribution (Table 8). This varies

by region, ranging from 15.8 cm (6.2 in) in the N.E. Atlantic to 31.8 cm (12.5 in) in the S.E.U.S.

region.
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -10-

Region of Stranding Total Total

Western Gulf Eastern Gulf SEUS Atlantic North Atlantic Number Number

Year N % N % N % N % N % Measured Stranded

1986 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 2 2 101 125

1987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 142

1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 193

1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 255

1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 308

1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 221

1992 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 184 208

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 200

1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 320

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 312 389

1996 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 508 584

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286 352

All Regions

Region of Stranding Total

Western Gulf Eastern Gulf SEUS Atlantic North Atlantic Number

Year N % N % N % N % N % Measured

1986 1 17 3 33 3 4 0 0 7 7 100

1987 2 13 3 12 3 4 0 0 8 7 122

1988 1 11 2 8 2 1 0 0 5 3 177

1989 3 21 3 9 6 3 0 0 12 5 219

1990 0 0 1 2 9 4 0 0 10 4 277

1991 0 0 3 8 3 2 0 0 6 3 196

1992 0 0 2 8 8 6 0 0 10 6 180

1993 0 0 4 11 4 3 1 33 9 5 175

1994 1 2 4 12 9 5 0 0 14 5 258

1995 0 0 1 2 3 1 0 0 4 1 301

1996 1 2 10 9 10 3 0 0 21 4 500

1997 1 3 4 10 7 3 0 0 12 4 282

All Regions

Table 6. Number of Stranded Green Turtles and Percentage of Those Measured with

[predicted] Carapace Widths Greater than Currently Required TED Width Openings.

Table 7. Number of Stranded Green Turtles and Percentage of Those Measured with

Predicted Body Depths Greater than Currently Required TED Height Openings.
-11- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

YEAR 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

1986 26.1 26.3 26.3 26.8 27.6 31.5 35.3 36.9 39.1 41.0

1987 26.8 27.2 27.2 27.4 30.1 30.2 31.6 31.6 33.6 33.6

1988 20.2 20.4 20.9 21.3 21.6 22.1 22.5 26.1 29.9 33.6

1989 23.2 23.7 23.9 25.1 25.7 27.8 34.4 35.3 36.1 36.5

1990 22.0 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.8 24.9 27.0 34.6 36.8 37.7

1991 22.2 22.5 22.8 23.7 24.2 24.6 26.9 29.2 34.2 36.9

1992 24.1 24.2 25.5 26.5 27.2 28.3 32.8 34.2 35.1 37.9

1993 23.9 25.7 26.9 27.0 27.8 28.1 38.6 29.4 33.6 36.4

1994 22.7 23.7 24.9 26.3 27.0 28.4 29.9 34.0 36.1 37.3

1995 22.0 22.4 23.3 23.7 24.0 24.2 24.2 25.0 25.9 30.4

1996 21.9 22.7 23.0 24.0 24.6 25.7 27.3 30.0 33.9 36.7

1997 20.9 21.5 22.1 24.4 25.0 25.9 29.0 30.7 31.2 35.5

Median 22.5 23.2 23.6 24.7 25.4 26.8 28.8 31.2 34.1 36.6

Mean 23.0 23.5 24.1 24.9 25.7 26.8 29.1 31.4 33.8 36.1

Std. Error 0.57 0.59 0.58 0.55 0.66 0.79 1.13 1.06 1.01 0.77

PERCENTILE

Table 8. Distribution of Predicted Body Depths (cm) of Stranded

Green Turtles from the U.S. Atlantic Seaboard and the Gulf of

Mexico.

Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

None of the nearly 3000 measured Kemp’s ridley turtles which stranded during 1986-

1997 (total stranded=3476) had carapace widths or body depths greater than the currently

required minimum TED width and height openings.

DISCUSSION

The status of Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles was evaluated by the NMFS Turtle

Expert Working Group (1998; in preparation). Kemp’s ridleys constitute a single management

unit and the population appears to be increasing. There are four known subpopulations of

loggerhead turtles in the Western North Atlantic (Encalada et al., 1998) but only the status of two

could be addressed by the TEWG. Nesting of the South Florida subpopulation appears to be

increasing, meeting recovery goals set for nesting activity in Florida. The northern subpopulation

does not appear to be increasing and may be declining. The status of the Florida Panhandle

subpopulation could not be determined, but it is very small. Mortality on at least the northern

subpopulation needs to be reduced throughout its range. 
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -12-

Although subpopulations of loggerhead turtles easily can be distinguished on the nesting

beaches based on geography, the four subpopulations comingle on the foraging grounds (RankinBaransky, 1997; Norrgard, 1995; Bass et al., 1998; Sears et al., 1995; Sears, 1994 ). At this

time, from genetic studies of foraging ground animals and tag recapture data, we know that the

benthic animals of the northern subpopulation are distributed along the Atlantic seaboard (Ibid.),

in Florida Bay (Schroeder, personal communication), and in the Gulf of Mexico (Caldwell et al.,

1959; Meylan, 1995). A comprehensive study of the natal origin of stranded loggerheads

throughout the Atlantic Coast of North America is ongoing (Schroeder, personal

communication).

Eight nesting subpopulations were identified for green turtles in the Atlantic Ocean

(Encalada et al., 1996), but later were reduced to 5 regional population units (Bass and Witzell,

in review). Like loggerheads, the subpopulations comingle on the foraging grounds (Bass et al.,

1998; Lahanas et al., 1998; Bass and Witzell, in review). The status of these subpopulations has

not been evaluated quantitatively, but it appears that nesting on the east coast of Florida has been

increasing (Meylan et al., 1995; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, unpublished

data).

A large proportion of stranded loggerhead turtles and a small proportion of stranded green

turtles appear too large to fit through the required minimum-sized TED openings. This is

corroborated by analyses of the TEWG (in preparation) which suggest that the size distribution of 

stranded loggerheads is different (larger) than the size distribution of turtles in the nearshore

waters (determined from data on turtles caught in shrimp trawls without TEDs; Gulf & South

Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, 1998). The relatively large proportion of stranded

loggerhead turtles with dimensions greater than the required minimum TED height opening is

cause for concern in light of the need to reduce mortality on the northern subpopulation of

loggerheads. (TEWG, 1998). Loggerhead turtles are exceeding the minimum required TED

height openings before reaching maturity, especially in the Gulf of Mexico where the allowed

opening is smaller than in the Atlantic. A reduction in mortality in exactly the size classes not

fitting through the TED openings would result in the greatest annual population multiplication

rate (Crouse et al., 1987; Heppell, 1998a). A reduction in subadult and adult mortality from

drowning in trawls would benefit all species and subpopulations of listed sea turtles (Heppell,

1998b).

To decrease the mortality on large turtles caused by trawling, the opening dimensions of

TEDs need to be larger than the current minimum requirements and need be the same in the Gulf

of Mexico and the Atlantic. A few of the management options include (1) increasing the

dimensions to accommodate some desired proportion of loggerhead turtles currently too large to

fit through the existing minimum dimensions, based on strandings data (Table 5); (2) increasing

the dimensions to accommodate some desired proportion of the adult loggerheads of the

northern subpopulation (Appendix 5); (3) adopting the “leatherback” modification for all areas

and all times which would allow the exclusion of turtles of all sizes, including leatherbacks

(Federal Register, 1993, 1994, 1995).
-13- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the following people for providing morphometric measurements:

Allen Foley, Jerris Foote, Jonathan Gorham, Ben Higgins, John Hammond, Joanne Braun

McNeill, Joe Parsons, Jeffrey Schmid, and Jeanette Wyneken. We thank the state coordinators

of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network and its innumerable volunteers, past and

present, for providing the numbers and size distributions of stranded sea turtles and we thank

Brannon Quel, Sam Bland, Mike Rikard, John Hammond, Tom Murphy, Mark Dodd, and Kris

Williams for providing size data on nesting loggerhead turtles.
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -14-

LITERATURE CITED

Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, J. Braun, D.W. Owens, and R.M. Patterson. 1998. Natal origin and sex

ratios of foraging sea turtles in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex. U.S.

Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415:137-138.

Bass, A.L. and W.N. Witzell. in review. Demographic composition of immature green turtles

(Chelonia mydas) from the East Central Florida Coast: evidence from mtDNA markers. 

Herpetologica.

Bass, A.L., J. Lageux, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Origin of green turtles, Chelonia mydas, at

“sleeping rocks” off the coast of Nicaragua. Copeia 1998:1064-1069.

Caillouet, C.W., Jr., M.J. Duronslet, A.M. Landry, Jr., D.B. Revera, D.J. Shaver, K.M. Stanley,

R.W. Heinly, and E.K. Stabenau. 1991. Sea turtle strandings and shrimp fishing effort in

the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1986-1989. Fishery Bulletin 89:712-718.

Caillouet, C.W., Jr., D.J. Shaver, W.G. Teas, J.M. Nance, D.B. Revera, and A.C. Cannon. 1996. 

Relationship between sea turtle stranding rates and shrimp fishing intensities in the

northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 1986-1989 versus 1990-1993. Fishery Bulletin 94:237-

249.

Caldwell, D.K., A. Carr, and L. Ogren. 1959. The Atlantic loggerhead sa turtle, Caretta caretta

caretta (L.), in America. 1. Nesting and migration of the Atlantic loggerhead turtle. 

Bulletin of the Florida State Museum 4:293-348.

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-based population model for

loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423.

Crowder, L.B., S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and J.A. Royle. 1995. Effects of turtle excluder devices

(TEDs) on loggerhead sea turtle strandings with implications for conservaton. Copeia

1995:773-779.

Encalada, S.E., P.N. Lahanas, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, N.M. Miyamoto, and B.W. Bowen. 

1996. Phylogeography and population structure of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in

the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea: a mitochondrial DNA control region

assessment. Molecular Ecology 5:473-484.

Encalada, S.E., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, J.C. Zurita, B. Schroeder, E. Possardt, C.J. Sears,

and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Population structure of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)

nesting colonies in the Atlantic and Mediterranean as inferred from mitochondrial DNA

control region sequences. Marine Biology 130:567-575.
-15- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

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

Conservation Biology 9:384-394.

Federal Register. 1987. 52(124):24244-24262. June 29, 1987.

Federal Register. 1992a. 57(84):18446-18461. April 30, 1992.

Federal Register. 1992b. 57(234):57348-57358. December 4, 1992.

Federal Register. 1993. 58(93):28795-28798. May 17, 1993.

Federal Register. 1994 59(95):25827-25831. May 18, 1994.

Federal Register. 1995. 60(178):47713-47715. September 14, 1995.

Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation. 1998. Alternatives to TEDs Final

Report. Report to NOAA, Contract 50WCNF606083, 19 p.

Henwood, T., W.E. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluations of U.S. turtle protective

measures under existing TED regulations, including estimates of shrimp trawler related

turtle mortality in the wider Caribbean. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-303:1-14.

Heppell, S.S. 1998a. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle

conservation. Copeia 1998:367-375.

Heppell. S.S. 1998b. Eigenvalue elasticity analysis of species life histories for conservation and

management: methods and applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, Durham, N.C.,

162 pp.

Lahanas, P.N., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, S.E. Encalada, M.M. Miyamoto, R.A. Valverde, and

B.W. Bowen. 1998. Genetic composition of a green turtle (Chelonia mydas) feeding

ground population: evidence for multiple origins. Marine Biology 130:345-352.

Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjorndal, W.D. Dupaul, G.L. Graham, F.W. Owens, C.H. Peterson, P.C.H.

Pritchard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles:

causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Meylan, A. 1995. Sea turtle migration - evidence from tag returns. Pages 91-100 in K.A.

Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, revised edition. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08 -16-

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the state of

Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications 52:1-51.

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.A. Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, 47 p.

Rankin-Baransky, K. C. 1997. Origin of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the western

North Atlantic as determined by mt DNA analysis. M.S. Thesis, Drexel University,

Philadelphia, PA.

Renaud, M., G. Gitschlag, E. Klima, A. Shah, D. Koi, and J. Nance. 1991. Evaluation of the

impacts of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) on shrimp catch rates in coastal waters of the

United States along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, September 1989 through August

1990. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC288:1-80.

Schroeder, B.A. 1989. Marine turtle database management: National Marine Fisheries Service -

Miami Laboratory. Pages 153-156 in C.W. Caillouet and A.M. Landry, Jr., editors. 

Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology,

Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University Sea Grant Publication TAMUSG-89-105.

Sears, C.J. 1994. Preliminary genetic analysis of the population structure of Georgia loggerhead

sea turtles. U.S. Dep. Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC351:135-139.

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 feeding population of juvenile

loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) off Charleston, South Carolina: evidence from

mitochondrial DNA markers. Marine Biology 123:869-874.

Seidel, W.R., and C. McVea, Jr. 1982. Development of a sea turtle excluder shrimp trawl for

the southeast U.S. penaeid shrimp fishery. Pages 497-502 in K.A. Bjorndal, editor. 

Biology and Conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Teas, W.G. 1993. Species composition and size class distribution of marine turtle strandings on

the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast United States coasts, 1985-1991. U.S. Department of

Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-315:1-43.

Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii)

and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the Western North Atlantic. 

U.S Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409:1-96.
-17- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

Turtle Expert Working Group. in preparation. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley

(Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the

Western North Atlantic. Final Report. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC.
Appendix 1. Loggerhead Sea Turtles -18-

APPENDIX 1. LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES

 Table 1. Data Sources for Loggerhead Turtle Morphometric Analysis

Source of Data and Contact Person N Range of Sizes

 (cm SCL)

Florida Power and Light, St. Lucie Power Plant,

Jonathan Gorham

36 61.2-98.7

Mote Marine Lab, Jerris Foote 12 77.8-101.7

Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, John Hammond 11 88.4-109.2

NMFS, Beaufort Laboratory, Joanne Braun McNeill 36 47.8-75.6

NMFS, Galveston Laboratory, Ben Higgins 759 22.7-40.0

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Allen

Foley

74 8.1-102.0

Table 2. Regression of ln carapace width on ln carapace length.

 Sum of Mean

Source DF Squares Square F-value 

Model 1 44.87501 44.87501 21513.459

Error 248 0.51730 0.00209

Total 249 45.39231

Root MSE 0.047567 R-square 0.9886

Dep Mean 3.75319 Adj R-square 0.9886

C.V. 1.21688

Parameter Estimates Estimate Std. Error

Intercept -0.0225 0.0259

Length 0.9507 0.0065 

 

Table 3. Regression of ln body depth on ln carapace length.

 Sum of Mean

Source DF Squares Square F-value 

Model 1 41.12154 41.12154 6953.267

Error 248 1.46667 0.00591

Total 249 42.58821 

Root MSE 0.07690 R-square 0.9656

Dep Mean 3.04614 Adj R-square 0.9654

C.V. 2.52458

Parameter Estimates Estimate Std. Error

Intercept -0.5682 0.0436

Length 0.9100 0.0109 

 
Appendix 1. Loggerhead Sea Turtles -19- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

Figure 1. Regression of Ln Carapace Width on Ln Carapace Length.

Figure 2. Regression of Ln Body Depth on Ln Carapace Length.
Appendix 1. Loggerhead Sea Turtles -20-

ZONE N % N % N % N % N % N %

1 0 0 1 100 3 100 11 92 8 80 7 88

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 100 2 67

4 18 86 50 98 25 100 89 97 15 88 17 94

5 41 93 40 100 54 98 86 99 33 97 23 96

6 2 100 0 0 6 100 3 75 1 100 3 100

7 1 100 4 100 1 100 1 100 1 50 1 100

8 3 75 4 80 22 85 6 67 9 90 6 86

9 1 100 0 0 1 100 0 0 3 75 0 0

10 1 100 3 75 6 100 5 100 7 88 4 80

11 5 71 14 88 15 94 8 53 9 75 10 71

12 0 0 7 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 1 100 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 7 28 5 36 0 0 0 0 4 57 2 67

18 19 44 9 45 6 86 4 19 11 31 10 48

19 5 71 10 53 10 53 6 46 9 33 6 55

20 26 48 32 56 32 52 14 48 16 35 9 47

21 9 39 18 64 13 65 17 57 8 44 10 71

24 2 67 2 67 3 75 3 33 6 55 0 0

25 1 20 3 50 3 38 6 43 2 22 3 30

26 9 82 8 50 10 67 12 52 25 86 15 65

27 10 32 15 35 23 35 21 40 38 57 22 40

28 10 29 21 48 26 37 39 36 50 45 26 51

29 24 33 26 28 25 23 23 20 34 25 8 18

30 38 21 34 15 27 16 18 12 17 10 23 17

31 30 31 45 24 19 23 19 28 25 22 16 30

32 34 22 37 18 14 20 9 17 13 23 13 35

33 14 34 18 23 17 33 6 29 16 31 12 55

34 8 26 14 21 10 20 14 23 13 15 10 22

35 7 18 1 3 10 21 9 28 11 15 6 20

36 1 50 1 100 2 29 0 0 0 0 14 52

37 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

38 0 0 3 43 0 0 1 25 0 0 5 45

39 4 50 7 41 1 20 2 25 4 40 4 50

40 0 0 1 6 2 20 0 0 2 13 3 27

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL TOO DEEP 332 35 434 33 389 38 433 42 395 33 290 39

TOTAL MEASURED 954 1309 1027 1042 1188 734

TOTAL STRANDED 1209 1728 1373 1425 1592 975

YEAR OF STRANDING

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Table 4. Number of Stranded Loggerhead Turtles and Percentage of Those Measured

with Body Depths Greater than Currently Required TED Height Openings by Statistical

Stranding Zone.
Appendix 1. Loggerhead Sea Turtles -21- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

ZONE N % N % N % N % N % N %

1 5 100 15 88 7 88 5 71 8 89 16 100

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100 4 100

3 1 100 0 0 1 100 2 100 6 86 9 100

4 21 95 22 96 21 95 18 95 43 93 38 100

5 24 96 22 100 14 100 26 96 32 89 28 93

6 1 100 1 100 1 50 2 100 2 100 1 100

7 2 100 1 50 0 0 1 100 6 100 1 50

8 7 64 7 100 6 67 7 100 12 80 14 82

9 3 43 5 71 5 100 0 0 7 78 6 46

10 2 67 0 0 5 100 4 67 2 100 10 67

11 0 0 3 50 4 57 0 0 8 73 4 67

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 1 33 2 100 2 50 1 100

14 1 33 1 100 0 0 0 0 2 100 4 100

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 50 0 0

18 5 45 5 42 16 48 9 45 27 51 22 65

19 4 44 7 58 32 70 12 38 14 39 22 71

20 22 69 9 43 40 57 18 58 44 57 39 67

21 3 60 4 44 7 41 15 68 9 60 9 56

24 8 80 4 44 4 80 3 60 3 75 7 58

25 3 50 5 38 6 75 4 50 3 27 10 59

26 13 59 13 59 15 58 4 36 17 74 8 30

27 48 63 24 51 31 62 29 58 41 58 17 40

28 31 61 37 61 45 51 38 52 50 41 24 38

29 13 27 20 54 10 20 18 30 24 26 15 21

30 13 11 6 11 18 15 10 12 15 12 8 6

31 8 22 22 42 31 40 16 20 21 27 9 17

32 15 45 19 44 10 24 13 23 17 20 17 20

33 9 27 11 26 21 38 14 23 20 27 11 27

34 8 14 10 20 12 24 4 7 10 8 12 14

35 15 25 7 41 23 30 35 36 20 19 19 18

36 21 44 4 29 18 41 19 49 22 28 22 18

37 0 0 1 100 1 6 0 0 3 8 4 7

38 4 80 4 50 4 18 6 26 11 44 11 35

39 2 22 4 31 1 7 7 18 7 21 2 15

40 0 0 3 33 2 13 5 22 2 17 4 24

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL TOO DEEP 312 41 296 47 413 41 347 36 512 36 428 34

TOTAL MEASURED 763 636 1010 956 1436 1266

TOTAL STRANDED 1101 972 1342 1424 1883 1643

1992 1995 1996 1997

YEAR OF STRANDING

1993 1994

Table 4. continued
Appendix 2. Green Sea Turtles -22-

APPENDIX 2. GREEN SEA TURTLES

 Table 1. Data Sources for Green Turtle Morphometric Analysis.

Source of Data and Contact Person N Range of Sizes

 (cm SCL)

Florida Power and Light, St. Lucie Power Plant,

Jonathan Gorham

1 55.1

NMFS, Beaufort Laboratory, Joanne Braun McNeill 9 42.4-53.2

Cayman Turtle Farm, Joe Parsons 27 49.1-117.5

NMFS, SEFSC, Wendy Teas 4 58.4-65.6

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Allen

Foley

114 16.0-106.0

Florida Atlantic University, Jeanette Wyneken 21 3.2-10.8

Table 2. Regression of ln carapace width on ln carapace length.

 Sum of Mean

Source DF Squares Square F-value 

Model 1 88.15237 88.15237 33660.661

Error 174 0.45568 0.00262

Total 175 88.60805

Root MSE 0.05117 R-square 0.9949

Dep Mean 3.24703 Adj R-square 0.9948

C.V. 1.57605

Parameter Estimates Estimate Std. Error

Intercept -0.1607 0.0190

Length 0.9812 0.0053 

 

Table 3. Regression of ln body depth on ln carapace length. 

 Sum of Mean

Source DF Squares Square F-value 

Model 1 91.98555 91.98555 7515.668

Error 174 2.12962 0.01224

Total 175 94.11517 

Root MSE 0.11063 R-square 0.9774

Dep Mean 2.46967 Adj R-square 0.9772

C.V. 4.47958

Parameter Estimates Estimate Std. Error

Intercept -1.0115 0.0410

Length 1.0023 0.0116 

 
Appendix 2. Green Sea Turtles -23- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

Figure 1. Regression of Ln Carapace Width on Ln Carapace Length.

Figure 2. Regresson of Ln Body Depth on Ln Carapace Length.
Appendix 2. Green Sea Turtles -24-

ZONE N % N % N % N % N % N %

1 0 0 1 11 1 10 0 0 1 3 1 10

2000000000000

3 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 1 50 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0

5000000000000

6000000000000

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0

8 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 1 50 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 0 0 0 0

19 2 100 1 100 1 100 1 50 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0

24 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 2 8 1 5 0 0 6 19 7 17 1 3

27 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

28 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 10

29 0 0 0 0 1 33 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL TOO DEEP 7 7 8 7 5 3 12 5 10 4 6 3

TOTAL MEASURED 100 122 177 219 277 196

TOTAL STRANDED 125 142 193 255 308 221

YEAR OF STRANDING

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Table 4. Number of Stranded Green Turtles and Percentage of Those Measured with

Body Depths Greater than Currently Required TED Height Openings by Statistical

Stranding Zone.
Appendix 2. Green Sea Turtles -25- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

ZONE N % N % N % N % N % N %

1 2 25 3 14 2 22 0 0 5 28 2 18

2000000000000

3 0 0 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0

5000000001218

6000000160000

7000000000000

8000000000000

9 0 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 100 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 6

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 2 22 4 36 0 0 2 9 1 4 2 9

26 3 13 0 0 4 15 1 5 1 2 2 6

27 3 5 0 0 2 3 0 0 4 3 1 2

28 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 3 14 0 0

29 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 5

36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL TOO DEEP 10 6 9 5 14 5 4 1 21 4 12 4

TOTAL M EASURED 180 175 258 301 500 282

TOTAL STRANDED 208 200 320 389 584 352

1995 1996 1997

YEAR OF STRANDING

1992 1993 1994

Table 4. continued
Appendix 3. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles -26-

APPENDIX 3. KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLES

 Table 1. Data Sources for Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Morphometric Analysis.

Source of Data and Contact Person N Range of Sizes

 (cm SCL)

NMFS, SEFSC, Wendy Teas 2 53.6-57.7

NMFS, SEFSC, Jeffrey Schmid 243 26.8-58.5

NMFS, Galveston Laboratory, Tim Fontaine 6964 3.8-59.6

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Allen

Foley

2 38.6-59.6

Cayman Turtle Farm, Joe Parsons 20 46.5-59.5

Table 2. Regression of ln carapace width on ln carapace length.

 Sum of Mean

Source DF Squares Square F-value 

Model 1 378.69109 378.69109 307363.482

Error 629 0.77497 0.00123

Total 630 379.46606

Root MSE 0.03510 R-square 0.9980

Dep Mean 3.02605 Adj R-square 0.9980

C.V. 1.15995

Parameter Estimates Estimate Std. Error

Intercept -0.2039 0.0060

Length 1.0437 0.0019 

 

Table 3. Regression of ln body depth on ln carapace length.

 Sum of Mean

Source DF Squares Square F-value 

Model 1 286.33626 286.33626 56002.923

Error 629 3.21600 0.00511

Total 630 289.55226 

Root MSE 0.07150 R-square 0.9889

Dep Mean 2.18029 Adj R-square 0.9889

C.V. 3.27958

Parameter Estimates Estimate Std. Error

Intercept -0.6283 0.0122

Length 0.9075 0.0038 

 
Appendix 3. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles -27- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

Figure 1. Regression of Ln Carapace Width on Ln Carapace Length.

Figure 2. Regression of Ln Body Depth on Ln Carapace Length.
Appendix 4. Predicted Morphometrics -28-

SCL SCW BD SCW BD SCW BD

5 4.5 2.4 4.1 1.8 4.4 2.3

6 5.3 2.9 4.9 2.2 5.3 2.7

7 6.1 3.3 5.7 2.6 6.2 3.1

8 7.0 3.7 6.6 2.9 7.1 3.5

9 7.8 4.2 7.4 3.3 8.1 3.9

10 8.6 4.6 8.2 3.7 9.0 4.3

11 9.5 5.0 9.0 4.0 10.0 4.7

12 10.3 5.4 9.8 4.4 10.9 5.1

13 11.1 5.8 10.5 4.8 11.9 5.5

14 11.9 6.2 11.3 5.1 12.8 5.9

15 12.7 6.6 12.1 5.5 13.8 6.2

16 13.5 7.0 12.9 5.9 14.7 6.6

17 14.3 7.4 13.7 6.2 15.7 7.0

18 15.1 7.8 14.5 6.6 16.7 7.4

19 15.9 8.2 15.3 7.0 17.6 7.7

20 16.7 8.6 16.1 7.3 18.6 8.1

21 17.5 9.0 16.9 7.7 19.6 8.5

22 18.3 9.4 17.7 8.1 20.5 8.8

23 19.1 9.8 18.5 8.4 21.5 9.2

24 19.9 10.2 19.3 8.8 22.5 9.5

25 20.7 10.6 20.0 9.2 23.5 9.9

26 21.5 10.9 20.8 9.5 24.4 10.3

27 22.3 11.3 21.6 9.9 25.4 10.6

28 23.1 11.7 22.4 10.3 26.4 11.0

29 23.9 12.1 23.2 10.6 27.4 11.3

30 24.7 12.5 24.0 11.0 28.4 11.7

31 25.5 12.9 24.7 11.4 29.4 12.0

32 26.2 13.2 25.5 11.7 30.4 12.4

33 27.0 13.6 26.3 12.1 31.4 12.7

34 27.8 14.0 27.1 12.5 32.3 13.1

35 28.6 14.4 27.9 12.8 33.3 13.4

36 29.4 14.7 28.7 13.2 34.3 13.8

37 30.1 15.1 29.4 13.6 35.3 14.1

38 30.9 15.5 30.2 13.9 36.3 14.5

39 31.7 15.9 31.0 14.3 37.3 14.8

40 32.5 16.2 31.8 14.7 38.3 15.2

41 33.3 16.6 32.6 15.0 39.3 15.5

42 34.0 17.0 33.3 15.4 40.3 15.9

43 34.8 17.3 34.1 15.8 41.3 16.2

44 35.6 17.7 34.9 16.1 42.3 16.5

45 36.3 18.1 35.7 16.5 43.3 16.9

46 37.1 18.4 36.5 16.9 44.3 17.2

47 37.9 18.8 37.2 17.2 45.4 17.6

48 38.7 19.2 38.0 17.6 46.4 17.9

49 39.4 19.5 38.8 18.0 47.4 18.2

50 40.2 19.9 39.6 18.4 48.4 18.6

Loggerhead Green Kemp's Ridley

APPENDIX 4. PREDICTED MORPHOMETRICS

Table 1. Predicted Straight Carapace Widths (cm SCW) and Body Depths (cm BD) of

Loggerhead, Green, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles, 5-125 cm SCL.
Appendix 4. Predicted Morphometrics -29- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

SCL SCW BD SCW BD SCW BD

51 41.0 20.3 40.3 18.7 49.4 18.9

52 41.7 20.6 41.1 19.1 50.4 19.3

53 42.5 21.0 41.9 19.5 51.4 19.6

54 43.3 21.4 42.7 19.8 52.4 19.9

55 44.0 21.7 43.4 20.2 53.4 20.3

56 44.8 22.1 44.2 20.6 54.5 20.6

57 45.6 22.4 45.0 20.9 55.5 20.9

58 46.3 22.8 45.8 21.3 56.5 21.3

59 47.1 23.2 46.5 21.7 57.5 21.6

60 47.9 23.5 47.3 22.0 58.5 21.9

61 48.6 23.9 48.1 22.4 59.5 22.3

62 49.4 24.2 48.9 22.8 60.6 22.6

63 50.1 24.6 49.6 23.1 61.6 22.9

64 50.9 24.9 50.4 23.5 62.6 23.2

65 51.7 25.3 51.2 23.9 63.6 23.6

66 52.4 25.7 51.9 24.2 64.6 23.9

67 53.2 26.0 52.7 24.6 65.7 24.2

68 53.9 26.4 53.5 25.0 66.7 24.6

69 54.7 26.7 54.3 25.3 67.7 24.9

70 55.4 27.1 55.0 25.7 68.7 25.2

71 56.2 27.4 55.8 26.1

72 57.0 27.8 56.6 26.4

73 57.7 28.1 57.3 26.8

74 58.5 28.5 58.1 27.2

75 59.2 28.8 58.9 27.6

76 60.0 29.2 59.7 27.9

77 60.7 29.5 60.4 28.3

78 61.5 29.9 61.2 28.7

79 62.2 30.2 62.0 29.0

80 63.0 30.6 62.7 29.4

81 63.8 30.9 63.5 29.8

82 64.5 31.3 64.3 30.1

83 65.3 31.6 65.0 30.5

84 66.0 32.0 65.8 30.9

85 66.8 32.3 66.6 31.2

86 67.5 32.7 67.4 31.6

87 68.3 33.0 68.1 32.0

88 69.0 33.4 68.9 32.3

89 69.8 33.7 69.7 32.7

90 70.5 34.1 70.4 33.1

91 71.3 34.4 71.2 33.4

92 72.0 34.8 72.0 33.8

93 72.8 35.1 72.7 34.2

94 73.5 35.4 73.5 34.6

95 74.2 35.8 74.3 34.9

Loggerhead Green Kemp's Ridley

Table 1. continued
Appendix 4. Predicted Morphometrics -30-

SCL SCW BD SCW BD SCW BD

96 75.0 36.1 75.0 35.3

97 75.7 36.5 75.8 35.7

98 76.5 36.8 76.6 36.0

99 77.2 37.2 77.3 36.4

100 78.0 37.5 78.1 36.8

101 78.7 37.9 78.9 37.1

102 79.5 38.2 79.6 37.5

103 80.2 38.5 80.4 37.9

104 81.0 38.9 81.2 38.2

105 81.7 39.2 81.9 38.6

106 82.4 39.6 82.7 39.0

107 83.2 39.9 83.5 39.3

108 83.9 40.2 84.2 39.7

109 84.7 40.6 85.0 40.1

110 85.4 40.9 85.8 40.4

111 86.2 41.3 86.5 40.8

112 86.9 41.6 87.3 41.2

113 87.6 41.9 88.0 41.6

114 88.4 42.3 88.8 41.9

115 89.1 42.6 89.6 42.3

116 89.9 43.0 90.3 42.7

117 90.6 43.3 91.1 43.0

118 91.3 43.6 91.9 43.4

119 92.1 44.0 92.6 43.8

120 92.8 44.3 93.4 44.1

121 93.6 44.6 94.2 44.5

122 94.3 45.0 94.9 44.9

123 95.0 45.3 95.7 45.2

124 95.8 45.7 96.5 45.6

125 96.5 46.0 97.2 46.0

Loggerhead Green Kemp's Ridley

Table 1. continued
Appendix 5. Nesting Loggerhead Turtles -31- Epperly and Teas. 1999.

State Beach Years N Range (cm SCL) Mean Std Dev Source

NC Baldhead Island 1998 33 79.5-103.5 92.4 5.6 Brannon Quel

Bear Island 1990-1999 91 78.2-108.5 97.7 5.8 Sam Bland

Cape Lookout 1977-1983 65 77.7-105.2 94.3 5.5 Mike Rikard

Onslow Beach 1990-1995 40 82.8-112.9 93.9 5.7 John Hammond

SC South Island 1978-1979; 92 82.8-111.7 93.6 5.2 Tom Murphy

1986-1989;

1994, 1996

GA Jekyll Island 1991-1995; 181 81.0-106.6 93.2 5.2 Mark Dodd

1997-1998

Wassaw Beach 1991-1998 295 80.1-108.1 93.7 4.7 Kris Wiliams

Summary 797 77.7-112.9 94.1 5.3

SCL SCW BD

Percentile

10 87.7 68.7 33.2

20 89.6 70.2 33.9

25 90.5 70.9 34.2

30 91.3 71.4 34.4

40 92.4 72.3 34.8

50 94.3 73.7 35.5

60 95.3 74.4 35.8

70 96.5 75.3 36.2

75 97.3 75.9 36.5

80 98.5 76.8 36.9

90 100.9 78.6 37.8

91 101.9 79.3 38.1

92 101.9 79.3 38.1

93 102.1 79.5 38.2

94 102.8 80.0 38.4

95 102.8 80.0 38.4

96 103.8 80.7 38.7

97 104.7 81.4 39.0

98 104.7 81.4 39.0

99 107.1 83.2 39.8

(cm)

APPENDIX 5. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF NESTING NORTHERN

SUBPOPULATION LOGGERHEAD TURTLES

Table 1. Data Sources for Size Distribution Information of Nesting Loggerhead Turtles.

Table 2. Distribution of Sizes (cm SCL) of Nesting Loggerhead Turtles of the Northern

Subpopulation and Estimated Straight Carapace Widths (cm SCW) and Body Depths (cm

BD).