# Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population

of the 

# Loggerhead Sea Turtle

( Caretta caretta )

Second Revision

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. FISH AND WI LDLIFE SERVICE

# Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population

of the 

# Loggerhead Sea Turtle

(Caretta caretta)

Second Revision

Original Approved: September 19,1984
First Revision Approved: December 26,1991

Approved:

Date:

Date: James 

### W. Balsiger, 

## S.D., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Silver Spring, Maryland 

## DEC 

# - 8 

## 2008

Approved:
Sam 

### D. Hamilton, Regio a1 

### irector, Southeast Region

U.S. Fish and Wildlife &ke Atlanta, Georgia



### DEC 

## 3 

## 1 2088ii 

### PREFACE

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq .) (ESA), establishes policies and procedures for iden tifying, listing, and pr otecting species of wildlife that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The purposes of the ESA are “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered speci es and threatened species depend may be conserved, [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species...” The ESA defines an “enda ngered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction thro ughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A “threatened species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”

The Secretaries of the Depart ment of the Interior and th e Department of Commerce are responsible for administering the ESA’s provisions as they apply to the loggerhead turtle. Dayto-day management authority for endangered a nd threatened species under the Departments’ jurisdictions has been delegate d to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), respectively. FWS and NMFS (collectively referred to as the Services) share Federal jurisdic tion for sea turtles, with FW S having lead responsibility on nesting beaches and NMFS having lead res ponsibility in the ma rine environment.

To help identify and guide species recovery needs, section 4(f) of the ES A directs the Secretaries to develop and implement recovery plans for list ed species. Such plans are to include: (1) a description of site-specific mana gement actions necessary to cons erve the species or populations; (2) objective, measurable criteria which, when me t, will allow the specie s or populations to be removed from the endangered and threatened species list; and (3) estimates of the time and funding required to achieve the plan’s goals. Sec tion 4 of the ESA and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement its listing prov isions also set forth the procedures for reclassifying and delisting species on the Federal lists. A species can be delisted if the Secretary

of the Interior and/or the Secr etary of Commerce determines that the species no longer meets the endangered or threatened status based upon the follo wing five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) of

the ESA:

(1) the present or threatened de struction, modification, or curtai lment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existin g regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Further, a species may be delist ed, according to 50 CFR Part 424.11(d) , if the best scientific and

commercial data available substantiate that the species or population is neither endangered nor threatened for one of the following reasons: (1) ex tinction, (2) recovery, or (3) original data for classification of the sp ecies were in error.

NMFS approved the initial recove ry plan for the loggerhead on September 19, 1984. This initial plan was a multi-species plan for all six species of sea turtles occurring in the U.S. On December 26, 1991, NMFS and FWS approved a separa te recovery plan for the U.S. populationiii of the loggerhead, focusing on the Atlantic. A sepa rate plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the loggerhead was approved in 1998. In 2001, NMFS and FWS initiated the process to revise the 1991 plan for the loggerhead. An Atlantic Logge rhead Recovery Team, consisting of species experts, was established to draft this revision.

Since approval of the first revised plan in 1991, significant research has been accomplished and important recovery activities have been undertaken. As a result, we have a greater knowledge of the species and its status. This second revision of the recovery plan fo r the Atlantic loggerhead

addresses current threats and n eeds, highlights conservation accomplishments that have been undertaken since the species was listed, and specif ically addresses the pl anning requirements of

the ESA.iv 

### DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate such reasonable ac tions as may be necessary, based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, for th e conservation and survival of listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wild life Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Se rvices. They represent the official position of the Services on ly after they have been signed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director and/or National Marine Fisheries Service Assistant Administrator. Recovery plans are guidance a nd planning documents only; identification of an action to be implemented by any public or privat e party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in any one fiscal year in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year in contraven tion of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other la w or regulation. Approved rec overy plans are subject to modification as dictated by ne w findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions.

LITERATURE CITATION SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

National Marine Fisherie s Service and U.S. Fish and Wild life Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Popu lation of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta

caretta ), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM:

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway, 13 th Floor Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

This recovery plan can be downloaded from:

National Marine Fisheries Service’s Of fice of Protected Resources website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm#turtles

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's J acksonville Field Office's website: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida

Cover photos by Blair E. Witherington.v 

### RECOVERY TEAM

The Services gratefully acknowledge the comm itment and efforts of the members of the Recovery Team for the Northwest Atlantic pop ulation of the loggerhead sea turtle in the development of this revised recovery plan.

Alan B. Bolten, Ph.D. (Team Leader)

Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research University of Florida

Larry B. Crowder, Ph.D. Duke University Marine Laboratory

Mark G. Dodd Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Sandra L. MacPherson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service John A. Musick, Ph.D. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary

Barbara A. Schroeder

National Marine Fisheries Service

Blair E. Witherington, Ph.D.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Kristy J. Long (Assistant to the Team)

National Marine Fisheries Service



### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Recovery Team and the Serv ices gratefully acknowledge the key input and assistance of the following individuals during the revision of the recovery plan : Selina Heppell (Oregon State University) and Melissa Snover (Nat ional Marine Fisheries Service).

Additional thanks go to the following individual s for their technical assistance during the preparation of the recovery plan : Gloria Bell (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Kelly Bibb (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Karen Bjorndal (A rchie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida), Benjamin Bolker (D epartment of Zoology, Univ ersity of Florida), Michael Bresette (Quantum Resources, Inc.), Therese Conant (Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service), Debby Crouse (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice), Peter Eliazar (Arc hie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida), Al len Foley (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission), Matthew Godfrey (North Caro lina Wildlife Resources Commission), DuBose Griffin (South Carolina Departme nt of Natural Resources), Paul Kubilis (IFAS Statistics Department, University of Florid a), Ann Marie Lauritsen (U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service), Kate Mansfield (The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary), Anne Meylan (Florida Fish and W ildlife Conservation Commission) , Sally Murphy (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources), Susan Pultz (National Marine Fisher ies Service), Jeffrey Seminoff (National Marine Fisheries Service), James Spotila (Drexel University), Wendy Teas (National Marine Fisheries Se rvice), and Chuck Underwood (U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service).vi 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) was listed as threatened throughout its range on July 28, 1978, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), and has received Federal protection since that time. Therefore, the entire species is the listed entity. However, in this recovery plan, we have id entified recovery units for the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population. Establishing recovery units is a useful tool for spec ies occurring across wide ranges with multiple populations, varying ecological pressure s, or different threats in different parts of their range. By using this approach, we were ab le to set recovery goals for each unit and will be

able to measure their contribution toward r ecovery of the Northwes t Atlantic loggerhead population.

At this time, the Northwest Atlantic loggerh ead population is only a “potential” distinct population segment (DPS) and cannot be consider ed for delisting separately from the listed entity (i.e., the entire species) until it meets bot h the recovery criteria for each recovery unit and has completed a formal DPS evaluation and designation, which would involve a proposed rulemaking, public review and comment, and a final rulemaking. (In 1996, FWS and NMFS published a joint policy defining the phrase “d istinct population segment” (FWS and NMFS 1996, 61 FR 4722). Three elements are considered in a decision regarding the listing, delisting,

or reclassification of a DPS as endangered or threatened under the ESA: discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species, significance of the population segment to the species, and conservation status . In early 2008, NMFS established a Loggerhead Biological Review Team to assess the loggerh ead population structure globally to determine whether DPSs exist and, if so, to assess the status of each DPS. The Loggerhead Biological Review Team will review and synthesize info rmation, render expert opinion, and prepare a written report (status review) by mid-2009. With this in mind, we have identified recovery units

for the Northwest Atlantic l oggerhead population as follows.

R ECOVERY U NITS : The Recovery Team designated the following five recovery units for the Northwest Atlantic populat ion of the loggerhead. Th e first four recovery units represent nesting assemblages in the southeast U.S. The boundaries of these four recovery units were delineated based on geographic isolation and geopolitical boundaries. The fi fth recovery unit includes all other nesting assemblages with in the Northwest Atlantic.

Northern Recovery Unit : The Northern Recovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia border through southern Virginia (the northern exte nt of the nesting range).

Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit : The Peninsular Florida Re covery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west coast of Florid a, excluding the islands west of Key West,

Florida.

Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit : The Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches throughout the islands located west of Key West, Florida, because these islands are geographically separated from other recovery units.vii Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit : The Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest Gulf coast of Florida through Texas (t he western extent of U.S. nesting range).

Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit : The Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit is composed of loggerheads originat ing from all other nesting assembla ges within the Greater Caribbean (Mexico through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles).

C URRENT S TATUS : The Recovery Team evaluated the stat us and trends of the five identified recovery units.

Northern Recovery Unit: Annual nest totals for this recovery unit averaged 5,215 nests from 1989-2008. The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys showed a significant decline of 1.3% annua lly since 1983. Nest totals from aerial surveys conducted by SCDNR showed a 1.9% annual decline in nesting in South Carolina since 1980. Overall, there is strong sta tistical evidence to suggest the Northern Recovery Unit has experienced a long-term decline.

Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit: Annual nest totals for this recovery unit averaged 64,513 nests from 1989-2007. An analysis of index nesting beach survey data has shown a decline in nesting. Results of the analysis indicated that ther e has been a decrease of 26% over the 20-year period from 1989-2008 and a 41% decline since 1998. The mean annual rate of decline for the 20-year period was 1.6%.

Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit: Annual nest totals for this recovery unit averaged 246 nests from 1995-2004 (surveys not conducted in 2002). The nesting trend data for the Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit are from beaches that are not part of the Florida index nesting beach survey program but are part of the st atewide nesting beach survey program. There are 9 years of data for this recovery unit. A simple linear regression accounting for temporal autocorrelation revealed no trend in nesting numbers. Because of the annual variability in nest totals, a longer time series is needed to detect a trend.

Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit: Annual nest totals for this recovery unit averaged 906 nests from 1995-2007. Evaluati on of long-term nesting trends for the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit is difficult because of changed and expanded beach coverage. However, there are 12 years of Florida index nesting beach survey data for the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit. A log-linear regression showed a significant declining tr end of 4.7% annually.

Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit: Statistically valid anal yses of long-term nesting

trends for the entire Greater Caribbean Rec overy Unit are not available because there are few long-term standardized nesting surveys representative of the region. Additionally, changing survey effort at monitored beach es and scattered and low-level nesting by loggerheads at many locations currently prec ludes comprehensive analyses. The most complete data are from Quintana Roo, Yucat án, Mexico, where an increasing trend wasviii reported over a 15-year period from 1987-2001. However, nesting since 2001 has declined and the previously reported increasing trend ap pears not to have been sustained. Other smaller nesting populations have experienced declines over the past few decades.

T HREATS TO R ECOVERY : The Loggerhead Recovery Team conducted a detailed analysis of threats to assist in prioritizing r ecovery actions. The highest prior ity threats, adjusted for relative reproductive values for each life stage/ecosystem , include bottom trawl, pelagic longline, demersal longline, and demersal large mesh gillnet fisheries; legal and illegal harvest; vessel strikes; beach armoring; beach erosion; marine de bris ingestion; oil pollution; light pollution; and predation by native and exotic species.

R ECOVERY G OAL : To ensure that each recovery unit meets its Recovery Criteria alleviating threats to the species so that protecti ons under the ESA are no longer necessary.

R ECOVERY O BJECTIVES : The highly migratory behavior of loggerheads makes them shared resources among many nations. Therefore, conser vation efforts for loggerhead populations in one country may be jeopardized by activities in a nother. Protecting loggerheads on U.S. nesting beaches and in U.S. waters alone, therefore, is no t sufficient to ensure the continued existence of the species. Although this revised recovery plan focuses on activities to recover the loggerhead in the U.S., it also recognizes and encourages co operative efforts with other nations to ensure the survival and recovery of the species thr oughout the Northwest Atlantic. The Loggerhead Recovery Team identified the following recovery objectives:

1. Ensure that the number of nests in each recovery unit is increasing and that this increase corresponds to an increase in the number of nesting females. 2. Ensure the in-water abundance of juvenile s in both neritic and oceanic habitats is increasing and is increasing at a greater rate than strandings of similar age classes. 3. Manage sufficient nesting beach ha bitat to ensure successful nesting. 4. Manage sufficient feeding, migratory, and internesting marine habitats to ensure successful growth and reproduction. 5. Eliminate legal harvest. 6. Implement scientifically based nest management plans. 7. Minimize nest predation. 8. Recognize and respond to mass/unusual morta lity or disease events appropriately. 9. Develop and implement local, state, Federal, and international legislation to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and th eir terrestrial and marine habitats. 10. Minimize bycatch in domestic and interna tional commercial and artisanal fisheries. 11. Minimize trophic changes from fish ery harvest and ha bitat alteration.

12. Minimize marine debris i ngestion and entanglement. 13. Minimize vessel strike mortality.ix D EMOGRAPHIC R ECOVERY C RITERIA :

1. Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Females

a. Northern Recovery Unit (1) There is statistical confidence (95%) th at the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 2% or great er resulting in a total annual number of nests of 14,000 or greater for this r ecovery unit (approxim ate distribution of nests is NC=14% [2,000], SC=66% [9,200], and GA=20% [2,800]). (2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

b. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (1) There is statistical confidence (95%) th at the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is statistically detectable (1%) resulting in a total annual number of nests of 106,100 or gr eater for this recovery unit. (2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

c. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (1) There is statistical confidence (95%) th at the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 3% or great er resulting in a total annual number of nests of 1,100 or greater for this recovery unit. (2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

d. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (1) There is statistical confidence (95%) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 3% or great er resulting in a total annual number of nests of 4,000 or greater for this re covery unit (approximate distribution of nests (2002-2007) is FL= 92% [3,700] and AL=8% [300]). (2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

e. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (1) The total annual number of nests at a minimum of three nesting assemblages, averaging greater than 100 nests an nually (e.g., Yucatán, Mexico; Cay Sal Bank, The Bahamas) has increased over a generation time of 50 years.

(2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).x 2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds A network of in-water sites, both oceanic and neritic, distribu ted across the foraging range is established and monitoring is impl emented to measure abundance. There is

statistical confidence (95%) that a compos ite estimate of relative abundance from these sites is increasing for at least one generation.

3. Trends in Neritic Strandings Relative to In-water Abundance Stranding trends are not increasi ng at a rate greater than the trends in in-water relative abundance for similar age classes for at least one generation.

L ISTING F ACTOR R ECOVERY C RITERIA :

1. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modi fication, or Curtailment of a Species Habitat or Range

a. Terrestrial (1) Beach armoring, shoreline stabilization st ructures, and all other barriers to nesting are categorized and inventorie d for areas under U.S. jurisdiction. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed a nd implemented to ensure that the percentage of nesting beach free of barrier s to nesting is stable or increasing

relative to baseline levels. (2) Beach sand placement projects conducted in areas under U.S. jurisdiction are in compliance with state and FWS crite ria and are conducted in a manner that accommodates loggerhead needs and does not degrade or eliminate nesting

habitat. (3) At least 1,581 km of loggerhead nesting beaches and adjacent uplands (current amount as identified in Appendix 4) u nder U.S. jurisdiction are maintained within conservation lands in public (Feder al, state, or loca l) or private (NGO and private conservation lands) owners hip that are managed in a manner compatible with sea turtle nesting. (4) A peer-reviewed model is developed that describes the effects of sea level rise on loggerhead nesting beaches, and steps have been taken to mitigate such

effects. (5) Nesting beaches outside U.S. jurisdicti on are managed for compatibility with loggerhead nesting.

b. Marine (estuarine, neritic, and oceanic) A peer-reviewed, comprehensive strate gy is developed and implemented to identify, prioritize, and protect marine habitats (e.g., feeding, migratory, internesting) important to loggerheads.

2. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreati onal, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

a. Legal harvest (both commercial and subsis tence) in the Caribbean, Atlantic, and Mediterranean is identified and quant ified. A strategy is developed and implemented to eliminate legal harv est through international agreements.xi b. A scientifically based nest management plan outlining strategies for protecting nests (under U.S. jurisdiction) from na tural and manmade impacts is developed and implemented.

3. Disease or Predation

a. Ecologically sound predator control program s are implemented to ensure that the annual rate of mammalian predation on nests (under U.S. jurisdiction) is 10% or below within each recovery unit based on standardized surveys.

b. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed to recognize, respond to, and investigate mass/unusual mortality or disease events.

4. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

a. Light management plans, which meet mini mum standards identified in the Florida Model Lighting Ordinance (F lorida Administrative Code Rule 62B-55), are developed, fully implemented, and effec tively enforced on nesting beaches under U.S. jurisdiction. Annual perc entage of total nests with hatchlings disoriented or misoriented by artificial lighting does not exceed 10% based on standardized

surveys. b. Specific and comprehensive Federal le gislation is developed, promulgated, implemented, and enforced to ensure long-term (including post-delisting) protection of loggerheads and their terrest rial and marine habitats, including protection from fishery interactions.

c. State and local legislatio n is developed and/or maintained, promulgated, implemented, and enforced to ensure long-term (including post-delisting) protection of loggerheads and their terrest rial and marine habitats, including protection from fishery interactions.

d. Foreign nations with signif icant loggerhead foraging or migratory habitat haveimplemented national legislation and have acceded to international and multilateral agreements to ensure long-term prot ection of loggerheads and their habitats. Nations that have important foraging or migratory habitat include Canada, Mexico, Cuba, The Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, and Cape Verde Islands.

e. Nations that conduct activiti es affecting loggerheads in foraging or migratory

habitats in the North Atlantic Basi n and the western Mediterranean haveimplemented national legislation and have acceded to international and multilateral agreements to ensure long-term pr otection of loggerheads and their habitats throughout the high seas and in foreign EEZs.

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

a. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to minimize fishery interactions and mortality for each domestic commercial fishing gear type that has loggerhead bycatch.

b. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed a nd fully implemented in cooperation with relevant nations to minimize fishery inte ractions and mortality of loggerheads in foreign EEZs and on the high seas.xii c. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to quantify, monitor, and minimize effects of trophic changes on loggerheads (e.g., diet, growth rate, fecundity) from fishery harves ts and habitat alterations.

d. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to quantify, monitor,

and minimize the effects of marine debris ingestion and entanglement in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. EEZ, foreign EEZs, and the high seas.

e. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to minimize vessel strike mortality in U.S. territo rial waters and the U.S. EEZ.

A CTIONS N EEDED : The Plan identifies 208 actions needed to achieve recovery of the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerh ead sea turtle. These actions are aimed at addressing the 13 Recovery Objectives identified above. The Plan includes 34 Priority 1 acti ons (i.e., actions that must be taken to prevent extinc tion or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future). Priority 1 actions includ e monitoring trends on nesting beaches and at inwater sites; minimizing the effects of coastal armoring; maintaining the current length and quality of protected nesting beach; acquiring a nd protecting additional properties on key nesting beaches; protecting and monitoring important neritic and oceanic habitats; implementing measures to minimize bycatch in large mesh and other gillnet fisheries; promulgating regulations to require TEDs in trawl fisheries where th ey currently are not required (e.g., domestic commercial flynet trawl fisheries; domestic commer cial non-shrimp trawl fi sheries south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; all trynets in the domes tic commercial shrimp fi shery); reducing effort in the domestic commercial shrimp trawl fish ery; implementing seasonal TED regulations for domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisheries operating from Cape Charles, Virginia, north to Long Island Sound; investigating th e effectiveness of time-area cl osures to minimize loggerhead interactions in domestic commercial pelagic a nd demersal longline fisheries; promulgating regulations that minimize logge rhead interactions with comm ercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries; enforcing longl ine regulations in U.S. territori al waters, the U.S. EEZ, and on the high seas; reducing vessel interactions wi th loggerheads; maintaining the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network; working with fo reign nations to eliminate commercial and subsistence harvest; encouraging and assis ting foreign nations in the development, implementation, and enforcement of fishery re gulations to minimize loggerhead bycatch in commercial pelagic longline fisheries, commerci al trawl fisheries, and commercial gillnet fisheries; and encouraging I CCAT, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union to implement standards for collecting loggerhead bycatch information and requirements to minimize loggerhead bycatch.xiii 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

............................................................................................................................... ....... ii

DISCLAIMER

.............................................................................................................................. iv

RECOVERY TEAM

..................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

............................................................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

......................................................................................................... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.......................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

.................................................................. xv PART I. BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................I- 1

A. B RIEF O VERVIEW .............................................................................................................I- 1

B. T AXONOMY .......................................................................................................................I- 2

C. S PECIES D ESCRIPTION .....................................................................................................I- 3

D. D ISTRIBUTION AND P OPULATION S IZE ............................................................................I- 3

E. P OPULATION S TATUS AND T RENDS .................................................................................I- 5

E.1. N ESTING P OPULATIONS ...............................................................................................I- 5

E.2. I N

- WATER P OPULATIONS ...........................................................................................I- 11

F. L IFE H ISTORY AND H ABITAT .........................................................................................I- 17

F.1. T ERRESTRIAL Z ONE (N ESTING B EACH ) ....................................................................I- 22

F.2. N ERITIC Z ONE : H ATCHLING S WIM F RENZY S TAGE AND P OST

- HATCHLING
T RANSITIONAL S TAGE ...............................................................................................I- 23

F.3. O CEANIC Z ONE : J UVENILE S TAGE ...........................................................................I- 24

F.4. N ERITIC Z ONE : J UVENILE S TAGE .............................................................................I- 27

F.5. N ERITIC Z ONE : A DULT S TAGE .................................................................................I- 29

F.6. O CEANIC Z ONE : A DULT S TAGE ................................................................................I- 30

G. B IOLOGICAL C ONSTRAINTS AND N EEDS .......................................................................I- 31

H. T HREATS .........................................................................................................................I- 31

H.1. T ERRESTRIAL Z ONE (N ESTING B EACH ) ...................................................................I- 31

R ESOURCE U SE ( NON

- FISHERIES ) ......................................................................................I- 31

C ONSTRUCTION AND D EVELOPMENT ..................................................................................I- 35

E COSYSTEM A LTERATIONS .................................................................................................I- 41

P OLLUTION .......................................................................................................................I- 42

S

PECIES I NTERACTIONS .....................................................................................................I- 44

O THER F ACTORS ...............................................................................................................I- 45

H.2. N ERITIC Z ONE ...........................................................................................................I- 46

R ESOURCE U SE (F ISHERIES ) ..............................................................................................I- 46

R ESOURCE U SE (N ON -F ISHERIES ) .....................................................................................I- 51

C ONSTRUCTION A ND D EVELOPMENT .................................................................................I- 55

E COSYSTEM A LTERATIONS .................................................................................................I- 56

P OLLUTION .......................................................................................................................I- 58

S

PECIES I NTERACTIONS .....................................................................................................I- 61

O THER F ACTORS ...............................................................................................................I- 62

H.3. O CEANIC Z ONE ..........................................................................................................I- 63

R ESOURCE U SE (F ISHERIES ) ..............................................................................................I- 63

R ESOURCE U SE (N ON -F ISHERIES ) .....................................................................................I- 64xiv E COSYSTEM A LTERATIONS .................................................................................................I- 65

S

PECIES I NTERACTIONS .....................................................................................................I- 66

P OLLUTION .......................................................................................................................I- 66

O THER F ACTORS ...............................................................................................................I- 67

I. M AJOR C ONSERVATION E FFORTS .................................................................................I- 67

I.1. T ERRESTRIAL Z ONE (N ESTING B EACH ) .....................................................................I- 67

I.2. N ERITIC Z ONE .............................................................................................................I- 70

I.3. O CEANIC Z ONE ...........................................................................................................I- 76

I.4. O THER .........................................................................................................................I- 76

PART II. RECOVERY STRATEGY ..................................................................................... II- 1

A. O VERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... II- 1

B. R ECOVERY U NITS ........................................................................................................... II- 2

C. R ECOVERY G OAL ........................................................................................................... II- 6

D. R ECOVERY O BJECTIVES ................................................................................................ II- 6

E. R ECOVERY C RITERIA ..................................................................................................... II- 7

E.1. D EMOGRAPHIC R ECOVERY C RITERIA ...................................................................... II- 7

E.2. L ISTING F ACTOR R ECOVERY C RITERIA ................................................................. II- 21

F. R ECOVERY P ROGRAM .................................................................................................. II- 23

F.1. R ECOVERY A CTION O UTLINE .............................................................................. II- 23

F.2. R ECOVERY A CTION N ARRATIVE ......................................................................... II- 35

PART III. RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................. III- 1

PART IV. LITERATURE CITED .........................................................................................IV- 1

PART V. APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... V- 1

A PPENDIX 1: L OGGERHEAD T HREATS A NALYSIS ................................................................ V- 3

A PPENDIX 2: T HREATS T ABLES .......................................................................................... V- 17

A PPENDIX 3: L EGAL H ARVEST T ABLE ............................................................................... V- 25

A PPENDIX 4: C ONSERVATION L ANDS T ABLE ..................................................................... V- 33xv 

### LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

The following are standard abbreviations fo r acronyms and terms found throughout this

document:

ACCSTR - Archie Carr Center for Sea Tu rtle Research, University of Florida ADCNR - Alabama Department of C onservation and Natural Resources ADEM - Alabama Department of Environmental Management

ASMFC - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission CCL - Curved Carapace Length CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

CITES - Convention on the Internat ional Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMTTP - Cooperative Marine Turtle Tagging Program COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DOD - Department of Defense DOS - U.S. Department of State DTRU - Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit

EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone EPA - Environmental Protection Agency ESA - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended FAO-COFI - Food and Agriculture Organization-Committee on Fisheries FDEP - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FFWCC - Florida Fish and Wild life Conservation Commission FMC - Fishery Management Council FMP - Fishery Management Plan FPL - Florida Power and Light Company FR - Federal Register

FWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FWS-ES - U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service-Ecological Services

GCRU - Greater Cari bbean Recovery Unit GDNR - Georgia Department of Natural Resources GIS - Geographic Information System GMFMC - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

GSMFC - Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission

HCP - Habitat Conservation Plan

IAC - Inter-American Convention for the Cons ervation and Protection of Marine Turtles

ICCAT - International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas INBS - Index Nesting Beach Survey MAFMC - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council MMS - Minerals Management Service

mtDNA - Mitochondrial De oxyribonucleic Acid MTSG - Marine Turtle Specialist Group NCDENR - North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

NCWRC - North Carolina Wild life Resources Commission NEFMC - New England Fishery Management Council NGO - Non-governmental Organizationxvi NGMRU - Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit

NM - National Monument

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS - National Ocean Service

NPS - National Park Service NRU - Northern Recovery Unit

NS - National Seashore NWR - National Wildlife Refuge PFRU - Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit SAFMC - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SCDHEC - South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control SCDNR - South Carolina Depart ment of Natural Resources SCDPRT - South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism SCL - Straight Carapace Length

SEFSC - Southeast Fish eries Science Center

SP - State Park

SRA - State Recreation Area STSSN - Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network

TED - Turtle Excluder Device TEWG - Turtle Expert Working Group TPWD - Texas Parks and Wildlife Department UCF - University of Central Florida

USC - U.S. Code

USCG - U.S. Coast Guard USGS-NWHC - U.S. Geological Survey -National Wildlife Health Center VIMS - The Virginia Institute of Marine Science

WIDECAST - Wider Caribbean Se a Turtle Conservation NetworkI-1 

### PART I. BACKGROUND

A. B RIEF 

### O VERVIEW

The loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) was listed as threatened throughout its range on July 28, 1978, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (FWS and NMFS 1978, 43 FR 32800) and has received Federal protection si nce that time. Therefore, the entire species is the listed entity. However, in this recovery plan, we have identified recovery units for the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead pop ulation (see Part II.B. Recovery Units). At this time, the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population is only a “potential ” distinct popul ation segment (DPS) and cannot be considered for delisting sepa rately from the listed entity (i.e., the entire species) until it meets both the recovery crite ria for each recovery unit and has completed a formal DPS evaluation and designation, which would involve a proposed rulemaking, public review and comment, and a final rulemaking. (In 1996, FWS and NMFS published a joint policy defining the phrase “distinct population segmen t” (FWS and NMFS 1996, 61 FR 4722). Three elements are considered in a decision regarding the listing, delisting, or re classification of a DPS as endangered or threatened under the ESA: disc reteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species, significance of the population segmen t to the species, and

conservation status. In earl y 2008, NMFS established a Loggerhead Biological Review Team to assess the loggerhead populat ion structure globally to determine whether DPSs exist and, if so, to assess the status of each DPS. The Loggerh ead Biological Review Team will review and synthesize information, render e xpert opinion, and prepare a writt en report (status review) by

mid-2009.

Loggerhead sea turtles inhabit the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and

Indian Oceans. Within the con tinental U.S., loggerheads nest fr om Texas to Virginia. Major nesting concentrations in the U.S. are found on the coastal islands of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and on the Atlantic and Gu lf coasts of Florida (NMFS 1984). Within the western Atlantic, loggerheads also nest in Mexico, The Bahamas, Cuba, and the Greater Caribbean (Addison and Morford 1996, D odd 1988, Moncada Gavilán 2001, Zurita et al . 2003). The estimated annual number of loggerhead nests in the southeast U.S., The Bahamas (Cay Sal Bank), Cuba, and Mexico is presented in Figure 1 (FFWCC, unpublished data; GDNR, unpublished data; SCDNR, unpublished data; NCWR C, unpublished data; FWS, unpublished data; NPS, unpublished data; Julio Zuri ta, personal communcation, 2006; Dow et al . 2007).I-2 Figure 1. Estimated annual number of loggerhead nests in the southeast U.S., The Bahamas (Cay Sal Bank), Cuba, and Mexico, 2001-2008.

From a global perspective, the U.S. nesting aggregation is of paramount importance to the survival of the species as is the population that nests on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman (Ross 1982, Ehrhart 1989). The loggerhead nesting aggregations in Oman and the U.S. account for the majority of nesting worldwide.

The highly migratory behavior of loggerhead s makes them shared resources among many nations. Therefore, conservation efforts for loggerhead populations in one country may be jeopardized by activities in anothe r. Protecting loggerheads on U.S. nesting beaches and in U.S. waters alone, therefore, is not sufficient to en sure the continued existence of the species. Although this revised recovery plan primarily focu ses on activities to recover the loggerhead in the U.S., it also recognizes and encourages cooper ative efforts with other nations to ensure the survival and recovery of the spec ies throughout the Northwest Atlantic.



### B. T AXONOMY

The loggerhead was first described by Linnaeus in 1758 and named Testudo caretta . Over the next two centuries more than 35 names were app lied to the species (Dodd 1988), but there is now general agreement on Caretta caretta as the valid name. While De raniyagala described an IndoPacific form as C

. gigas in 1933, he revised that vi ew in 1939 to hold that gigas was a subspecies

of C

. caretta . The genus has generally been regarded as monotypic sin ce that time. The A NNUAL NUMBER
OF NESTS

1,001 - 10,000 101 - 1,000 1 - 100

10,001 - 100,000 Virginia

North Carolina

East Florida Georgia

Dry Tortugas South Carolina

Cay Sal Bank Tamaulipas

Texas

Campeche

Vera Cruz Yucatan Louisiana Mississippi Alabama
Florida

Panhandle

SW Florida

Quintana Roo Cuba The BahamasI-3 subspecific designation of gigas has likewise been challenged persuasively (Brongersma 1961, Pritchard 1979). Dodd (1988) has declared fla tly that “the diagnostic characters used to distinguish C

. c

. gigas from C

. c

. caretta are not valid.” Thorough synonymies and taxonomic reviews of this form are given most recently by Pritchard and Trebbau (1984) and Dodd (1988). Subspecies assignments are not supporte d based on genetic evidence (Bowen 2003).



### C. S PECIES 

### D ESCRIPTION

The carapace of adult and juveni le loggerheads is reddi sh-brown. The dorsa l and lateral head scales and the dorsal scales of the flippers ar e also reddish-brown, but with light to medium yellow margins. The unscaled areas of the inte gument (neck, shoulders, limb bases, inguinal area) are dull brown dorsally and light to medium yellow laterally and ventrally. The plastron is medium to light yellow, and the thick, bony carap ace is covered by non-overlapping scutes that meet along seam lines. There are 11 or 12 pairs of marginal scutes, five pairs of costals, five vertebrals, and a nuchal (precentral) scute that is in contact with th e first pair of costal scutes. The plastron is composed of paired gular, humeral , pectoral, abdominal, fe moral, and anal scutes and connected to the carapace by three pairs of por eless inframarginal scutes. Mean straight carapace length (SCL) of adults in the southeast U.S. is approximately 92 cm; corresponding mass is approximately 116 kg (Ehrhart and Yoder 1978). Hatchlings vary from light to dark brown to dark gray dorsally and lack the reddish-brown colorati on of adults and juveniles. Flippers are dark gray to brown above with distinct white margins. The ventral coloration of the plastron and other areas of the integument are ge nerally yellowish to tan. The carapace has three keels and the plastron ha s two keels. At emergence, hatchlings average 45 mm in SCL and weigh approximately 20 g (Dodd 1988).



### D. D ISTRIBUTION AND 

### P OPULATION 

### S IZE

The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tr opical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. However, the majority of logge rhead nesting is at the western rims of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Figure 2). The mo st recent reviews show that only two loggerhead nesting aggregations have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year (Baldwin et al . 2003,

Ehrhart et al . 2003, Kamezaki et al . 2003, Limpus and Limpus 2003, Margaritoulis et al . 2003): South Florida (U.S.) and Masirah (Oman). Those nesting aggregations with 1,000 to 9,999 females nesting each year are Georgia through North Carolina (U.S.), Quintana Roo and Yucatán (Mexico), Brazil, Cape Verde Islands (Cape Verd e, eastern Atlantic off Africa), and Western Australia (Australia). Smaller nesting aggreg ations with 100 to 999 nesting females annually

occur in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (U.S.), Dry Tortugas (U.S.), Cay Sal Bank (The Bahamas), Tongaland (South Africa), Mozambique, Arabian S ea Coast (Oman), Halaniyat Islands (Oman), Cyprus, Peloponnesus (Greece), Isla nd of Zakynthos (Greece), Turk ey, Queensland (Australia), and Japan.

In the U.S., loggerheads nest from Texas to Virgin ia. The majority of ne sting in the southeast U.S. currently occurs on over 2,400 km of beach es: North Carolina (531 km), South Carolina (303 km), Georgia (164 km), Flor ida (1,327 km), and Alabama (78 km). Total estimated nesting in the U.S. has fluctuated between 47,000 a nd 90,000 nests per year over the last decade (FFWCC, unpublished data; GDNR, unpublished data; SCDNR, unpublished data; NCWRC,I-4 unpublished data). About 80% of loggerhead nesting in the southeast U.S. occurs in six Florida counties (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Ma rtin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties). Adult loggerheads are known to make considerable mi grations between foraging areas and nesting beaches (Plotkin and Spotila 2002, Schroeder et al . 2003, Hawkes et al . 2007, Foley et al . in press). During non-nesting years, adult females fro m U.S. beaches are distributed in waters off the eastern U.S., The Bahamas, Greater Antill es, and Yucatán, and throughout the Gulf of

Mexico.

Figure 2. Global distribution of loggerhead nesting assemblages.

The loggerhead is commonly found throughout the Nort h Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico, the northern Caribbean, The Bahamas archipelago (Dow et al . 2007), and eastward to West Africa, the western Mediterranean, and the west coast of Europe. In contrast to determining population size on nesting beaches, determining p opulation size in the marine environment has been localized (Bjorndal and Bolten 2000). At present, there are no da ta on population size in

the oceanic habitat. ≥ 10,000 1,000 - 9,999 100 - 999 NESTING FEMALES

PER YEARI-5 

### E. P OPULATION 

### S TATUS AND 

### T RENDS

E.1. N ESTING P OPULATIONS

Numbers of nests and nesting females are often highly variable from year to year due to a number of factors including environmental stochasticity, pe riodicity in ocean conditions, anthropogenic effects, and density-dependent and density-independent factors affecting survival, somatic growth, and reproduction (Meylan 1982, Hays 2000, Chaloupka 2001, Solow et al

. 2002). Despite these sources of variation, and b ecause female turtles exhibit strong nest site fidelity, a nesting beach survey can provide a valuable assessment of changes in the adult female population, provided that the study is sufficiently long and effort and methods are standardized (Meylan 1982, Gerrodette and Brandon 2000, Reina et al . 2002).

Two important sources of variati on with regard to nesting trends are remigration interval and clutch frequency. These two demographic parame ters affect the number of nests laid during a nesting season (Hays 2000, Solow 2001, Solow et al . 2002). For example, if the mean remigration interval (i.e., the length of time be tween successive nesting migrations) of females in a population increases as a result of environmenta l conditions, a subsequent decrease in numbers of nests does not necessarily indi cate a decrease in adult females. Similarly, if clutch frequency decreases, a subsequent decrease in numbers of nests does not necessa rily equate to a decrease in adult females. Alternatively, if remigration interv al decreases and/or clut ch frequency increases, a subsequent increase in numbers of nests does no t necessarily equate to an increase in adult

females.

With regard to loggerheads nesting in the southe ast U.S., we have no information that indicates a change in clutch frequency or remigration inte rval has occurred. Theref ore, standardized time

series data on the number of nests were evaluate d to determine whether trends could be detected for U.S. nesting assemblages. Within a nesting season, the number of nesting females is directly

related to the number of nests de posited. Clutch frequency for loggerheads has been reported as 3-5.5 nests per female per season (see Table 3). The conversion from number of nests to number of females nesting within a season is a simple division of nests divide d by clutch frequency.

The Recovery Team designated five recovery uni ts for the Northwest At lantic population of the loggerhead. The first four of th ese recovery units represent nes ting assemblages in the southeast U.S. The fifth recovery unit is composed of a ll other nesting assemblages of loggerheads within the Greater Caribbean, outside the U.S. The bi ological basis and delineat ions of all recovery units are described in detail in Part II, Recovery Program. The five recovery units representing nesting assemblages are:

1. Northern Recovery Unit (FL/GA border through southern VA) 2. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (FL/GA border through Pinellas County, FL) 3. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (islands located west of Key West, FL) 4. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (Franklin County, FL, through TX) 5. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (Mexico through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles)I-6 The Recovery Team evaluated the status and trends of the Northwes t Atlantic loggerhead population for each of the five recovery units. To determine population status and trends, the Recovery Team used nesting data available as of October 2008. Table 1 describes the available time series analyzed for each recovery unit.

Table 1. Time series analyzed for each recovery unit to determine population size, trend, annual variation, and baseline number of nests fo r calculating demographic recovery criteria.

Recovery Unit Population Size and

Baseline Number of

Nests Trend and Annual Variation (CV)

NRU 1989-2008 (Table 5(c)) 1983-2008 (Table 5(b))

PFRU 1989-2007 (Table 6(c)) 1989-2008 (Table 6(b))

DTRU 1995-2001, 2003-2004 (Table 7(b)) 1995-2001, 2003-2004 (Table 7(b))

NGMRU 1995-2007 (FL) 2002-2007 (AL) (Table 8(c)) 1997-2008 (Table 8(b))

Northern Recovery Unit (NRU)

The Northern Recovery Unit is the second la rgest loggerhead nesti ng aggregation in the

Northwest Atlantic. Annual nest totals from northern beaches averaged 5,215 nests from 1989- 2008, a period of near-complete surveys of NRU nesting beaches (Table 5(c); GDNR, unpublished data; NCWRC, unpublished data, SC DNR, unpublished data), representing approximately 1,272 nesting females per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984). The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys showed a significant decline of 1.3% annually. Nest totals from aerial surveys c onducted by SCDNR showed a 1.9% annual decline in nesting in South Carolina sin ce 1980. Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline.

Standardized Ground Surveys of Nesting Beaches

Historically, survey effort on NRU beaches ha s been variable, making it difficult to assess nesting trends. In order to st andardize the data used in our analyses, we included only annual nest totals from beaches that met the following cr iteria: (1) nesting surveys were initiated in May and continued through August; (2) surveys were conducted daily throughout the nesting season; and (3) the survey area was standardized th roughout the duration of the study, although we allowed for small changes in beach length (± 0.5 km).

Sea turtle project coordinators from GDNR, NC WRC, and SCDNR supplied nesting data for the analysis. Generally, coordinators used informa tion from annual nesting reports to ensure data met standardized survey protocols. If survey start and end dates were not included in reports,

first and last nest dates were used to determine the beginning and end of the survey period.I-7 When annual reports were not available, coordinato rs relied on interviews with field personnel to confirm historic survey effort data.

The dataset used for this analys is included the summed annual nest totals from all beaches with an uninterrupted time-series of at least 20 years (Table 5(a)). Ten beaches from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia met the criteria fo r inclusion in the analysis. In addition, we included nesting data from Cape Island, South Ca rolina, because of its relative importance as a NRU nesting beach. Cape Island increased in size from approximately 8 km to 13 km during the study period and, therefore, did no t meet the criteria for standard ized survey length. However, Cape Island is the highest dens ity nesting beach in the NRU and represented approximately 16% of total nesting in 2008. We included data fr om Cape Island to ensure our sample was representative of NRU trends. The sample of 11 beaches included in the analysis represented approximately 27% of NRU nesting in 2008.

Figure 3 shows summed nest totals from 11 NRU beaches (Hammocks Beach State Park, Onslow Beach, Bald Head Island, Cape Island, Ed isto Beach State Park, Edisto Beach, Fripp Island, Pritchards Island, Wassa w Island, Blackbeard Island, and L ittle Cumberland Island) from 1983-2008 (Table 5(b)). To examine trends in annua l nest totals, we used a log-linear regression with an autoregressive error corr ection to account for temporal corr elation in annual nest totals. Results from the regression analysis showed a significant (P=0.03) declining trend of 1.3% annually in loggerhead nesting.

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

1 9 83

1 9 8 5

1 9 87

1 9 89

1 9 91

1 9 93

1 9 95

1 9 97

1 9 99

2 0 01

2 0 03

2 0 05

2 0 07

YearLoggerhead Nests

Figure 3. Summed annual loggerhead nest counts from 11 Northern Recovery Unit beaches, 1983-2008 (Table 5(b)).I-8 Standardized Aerial Surveys of Nesting Beaches

Standardized aerial surveys of nesting beach es conducted by SCDNR represent an additional dataset for assessing NRU nesting trends (Hopkins-Murphy et al . 2001). Beginning in 1980, aerial surveys were conducted in 3-year bloc ks separated by 2-year blocks during which complete aerial surveys were not conducted. Tw elve aerial surveys were conducted biweekly during June and July for the enti re South Carolina coast with the exception of Horry County. An annual nest total was derived by estimating the pe rcent nesting represente d by the 12 flight days (after adjusting for bias from ground truth beaches) and then extrapolating to an overall total for the season (from a summary composite curve of nesting) (Hopkins-Murphy et al . 2001). Figure 4 shows loggerhead nest estimates from South Caro lina aerial surveys, 1980-2007. A log-linear regression with autoregressive error correction showed a significant (P<0. 003) annual decrease of 1.9% in loggerhead nesting. The South Carolina data represent 68% of NRU nesting totals in 2007 (SCDNR, unpublished data).

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,00019801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

YearLoggerhead Nests

Figure 4. Annual loggerhead nest estimates for South Carolina from aerial surveys conducted in 3-year blocks, 1980-2007.

Peninsular Florida Re covery Unit (PFRU)

The Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit is the largest loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic. A near-complete nest census of the PFRU undertaken from 1989 to 2007 (2008 statewide data were not ava ilable prior to completion of this recovery plan) reveals a mean of 64,513 loggerhead nests per year representing approximately 15,735 females nesting per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (T able 6(c); FFWCC, unpublished data). ThisI-9 near-complete census provides the best statewide estimate of total abundance, but because of variable survey effort, these numbers cannot be used to assess trends.

Loggerhead nesting trends are be st assessed using sta ndardized nest counts made at index nesting beach sites surveyed with constant effort over time (Table 6(a)). An analysis of these data has shown a decline in nesting from 1989-2008 (Figure 5; Table 6(b); Witherington et al

. 2009). The analysis that reveal s this decline uses nest-count data from 345 representative Atlantic-coast index zones (tot al length = 301 km) and 23 repr esentative zones on Florida’s southern Gulf coast (total leng th = 23 km). The spatial a nd temporal coverage (annually, 109 days and 368 zones) accounted for an average of 70% of statewide l oggerhead nesting activity between 1989 and 2008. Negative binomial regressi on models that fit restricted cubic spline curves to aggregated nest-counts were used in trend evaluations. Re sults of the analysis

indicated that there had been a decrease of 26% over the 20-year period (95% CI: -42% to -5%) and a 41% decline since 1998 (r2 = 0.7196, P<0.0001). The mean annual rate of decline for the 20-year period was 1.6%.

Figure 5. Summed annual loggerhead nest counts from 26 Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit beaches, 1989-2008 (Table 6(b)). The trend lin e was estimated by fitting a restricted cubic spline curve to the total counts via negative binomial regression (Witherington et al . 2009).

Note: Y-axis does not start at zero.

Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU)

The Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit, located west of the Florida Keys, is the smallest of the identified recovery units. A near-complete ne st census of the DTRU undertaken from 1995 to 2004, excluding 2002, (9 years surveyed) reveals a m ean of 246 nests per year, which equates to 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000

1988

1 989 19 9 0 19 9 1 19 9 2 1993

1 994

1 99

5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8

1 999 2 00

0 20 0 1 20 0 2 2003
2 00

4
2 00

5 2 00

6 20 0 7 2008

YearNestsI-10 about 60 females nesting per year (4.1 nests pe r female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (Table 7(b); FFWCC, unpublished data). Surveys after 2004 did not include principal nesting beaches within the recovery unit (i.e., Dr y Tortugas National Park).

The nesting trend data for the DTRU are from beach es that are not part of the INBS program but are part of the statewide nesting beach survey pr ogram (Table 7(a)). There are 9 years of data for this recovery unit (Figure 6; Table 7(b)). A simple linear regression accounting for temporal autocorrelation revealed no trend in nesting numbers . Because of the annual variability in nest totals, a longer time series is needed to detect a trend.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

YearLoggerhead Nests

Figure 6. Summed annual loggerhead nest counts from three Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit beaches, 1995-2004, excluding 2002 (Table 7(b)).

Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU)

The Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit is the third largest nes ting assemblage among the four U.S. recovery units. Nesting surveys c onducted on approximately 300 km of beach within the NGMRU (Alabama and Florida only) we re undertaken betw een 1995 and 2007 (2008 statewide data were not available prior to comple tion of this recovery plan; statewide surveys in Alabama began in 2002). The mean nest coun t during this 13-year period was 906 nests per year, which equates to about 221 females nestin g per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (Table 8(c); FFWCC, unpublished data).

Evaluation of long-term nesting trends for th e NGMRU is difficult because of changed and expanded beach coverage. Loggerhead nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at index nesting beach sites surveyed with constant effort over time (Table 8(a)). There are 12 years (1997-2008) of Florida index nesting beach survey (INBS) data for theI-11 NGMRU (Figure 7; Table 8(b); FFWCC, unpublished data). A log-linear regression showed a significant declining trend (P=0.02) of 4.7% annually.

0 50 100 150 200 250

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

YearLoggerhead Nests

Figure 7. Summed annual loggerhead nest counts from three Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit beaches, 1997-2008 (Table 8(b)).

Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU)

The Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit is com posed of all other nesting assemblages of loggerheads within the Greater Caribbean. Stat istically valid analyses of long-term nesting

trends for the entire GCRU are not available because there are few long-term standardized nesting surveys representative of the region. Ad ditionally, changing survey effort at monitored

beaches and scattered and low-level nesti ng by loggerheads at many locations currently precludes comprehensive analyses. The most co mplete data are from Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where an increasing trend was re ported over a 15-year period from 1987-2001. However, nesting since 2001 has declined and th e previously reported in creasing trend appears not to have been sustained (Julio Zurita, pe rsonal communcation, 2006). Other smaller nesting populations have experienced declines over the past few decades (e.g., Amorocho 2003).

E.2. I N

- WATER P OPULATIONS

In contrast to determining population size and trends on nesting beaches, determining population

size and trends in the marine environment is l ogistically difficult and comparatively costly. Short-term loggerhead population trends have be en determined at a limited number of neritic sites in the U.S. (Table 2). However, extrapol ation of these localized trends to the broader population and relating localized tre nds at neritic sites to populati on trends at nesting beaches isI-12 a problem of scale and requires the integra tion of many representative foraging grounds throughout the population range (Bjorndal et al . 2005).

Despite these problems, long-term in-water studi es are needed in conjunction with surveys on nesting beaches to monitor popula tion status and effectively track population changes, especially as recovery efforts are implemented and assesse d. In addition to adding a vital component to monitoring trends in population numbers, in-water capture studi es can provide information on sex ratios, population structure, genetic identities, health and o ccurrence of disease, behavior, survivorship, and growth. All of these factors must be dete rmined for accurate population modeling and assessment, and in-w ater studies provide a means of empirically deriving these important population parameters. In-water studies of sea turtles in the U.S. have focused on relatively few geographic areas and most have not monitored trends in popul ation numbers. This section provides a summary of in-water studies where loggerheads are regularly captured, and where efforts have been made to provide local in dices of abundance. Caution must be exercised in evaluating results from these studies given th e relative short-term dur ation of most of the studies, noted difficulties in comparisons of trend data across disparate sampling periods, changes in sampling methodologies and equipment, small study areas, and uncontrolled variables such as weather, sea-state, migration patterns, and shifts in loggerhead distributions.I-13 Table 2. Summary of loggerhead in-water population st udies in the U.S. from which trend data have been reported.

Location Methodology Study

Period 1 Trend

Result 2 Reference

New York, inshore

waters Fishery Dependent (pound nets) 1987-2004 Declining Morreale et al . 2005

Chesapeake Bay, VA Aerial Survey 1982-2004 Declining Mansfield 2006 Pamlico Sound, NC Fishery Dependent (pound nets) 1995-2003 Increasing Epperly et al . 2007

Southeast U.S. Atlantic -

SEAMAP Trawl 1990-2000 No trend NMFS 2001

Southeast U.S. Atlantic Trawl 2000-2003 No trend Maier et al . 2004 Mosquito Lagoon, FL Tangle Net 1977-2005

1995-2005 Declining

No trend Jane Provancha, Dynamac Corporation, personal communication, 2006 Indian River Lagoon, FL Tangle Net 1982-2005 No trend Ehrhart et al . 2007

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, FL Power Plant

Intake

Structures 1977-2004 Increasing FPL and Quantum Resources, Inc. 2005

Florida Bay, FL Sightings 2000-2006 No trend Barbara Schroeder, NMFS, personal communication, 2006

1 Study period does not imply continuous annual sa mpling, see project discussion for details.

2 See project discussion for potentia l biases, caveats, and details.

New York

In-water studies of juvenile sea turtles in New York inshore waters (including Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay, Shinnecock Bay) were in itiated in 1987 and continued through 1992. Turtles were collected from established pound nets throughout Long Island Sound. Research resumed in 2002 using a subset of the pound ne ts sampled during the earlier study period. Comparisons across the two study pe riods reveal a sharp decline in the percentage of turtle captures that were loggerheads from 59% of to tal captures from 1987-1992 to less than 4% of total captures during 2002-2004. In addition to the relative propor tions of loggerheads changing dramatically between the two study periods, the ab solute number of loggerheads captured in the latter study also changed dramatically - only two loggerheads were cap tured over the entire three-year period. Potential explanations for th is decline include major shifts in loggerhead foraging areas and/or increased mortality in pela gic or early benthic stag e/age classes (Morreale

et al . 2005).I-14 Chesapeake Bay, VA

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the c ontinental U.S. It lies adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and is surrounded by Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay's mainstem is 304 km long, extending from the Susquehanna River in the north to the Atlantic O cean in the south. The Bay is 6.4 km wide at its narrowest point ne ar Annapolis, Maryland, and 50 km wide at its widest point near the mouth of the Potomac River. The Bay hosts a seasonal population of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles ( Lepidochelys kempii ), of which 95% are subadult/benthic juveniles. The Virginia Institu te of Marine Science (VIMS) has maintained stranding and live mark-recapture datasets si nce 1979 and aerial abundance datasets spanning between 1982-1985, 1994, and 2001-2004 (Mansfield a nd Musick 2006). The mark-recapture program has tagged over 850 individual turtles to date from local fishing gears and live strandings. Up to 20-25% of individuals captured by pound net were subsequently recaptured in the same gear type indicating st rong foraging site fidelity relative to these fixed gears (Mansfield 2006). Aerial surveys conducted from 2001-2004 indicated a 65% to 75% decline in the Chesapeake Bay sea turtle population since the 1980s (Mansfield 2006).

Available prey items (e.g., blue crab and horseshoe crab) have declined significantly within the Bay since the 1980s (Lipcius and Stockhausen 2002). Gut content analyses of Virginia strandings indicate a significan t shift in diet among loggerhea d sea turtles over time (1980-1994, 1997, and 2000-2002) from predominantly horseshoe cr abs in the early to mid-1980s to blue crabs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to mostly finfish in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Seney 2003, Seney and Musick 2007). These data suggest that turtles are foraging in greater numbers in or around fishing g ears and on discarded bycatch (S eney 2003). The decline in observed sea turtle populations in the Bay may be related to this decline in prey with turtles redistributing outside of Bay wa ters. Replication of aerial su rveys conducted in offshore areas by Keinath (1993) could provide additional information on observed declines in the Bay.

Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex

North Carolina's Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex is the largest estuarine system in the

southeast U.S. and the third la rgest in North America (Gross 1972). The area encompasses

several diverse estuarine habitats: open waters of the sounds, deeper central basins, embayments and tributary creeks, and shallow shelf areas contai ning seagrasses. This system is an important developmental habitat for loggerhead, green ( Chelonia mydas ), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Epperly et al . 1995b). Loggerheads, present in the s ounds from April through December, are incidentally captured in pound nets . Population studies were initi ated in 1995 to develop an

index of sea turtle abundance a nd monitor long-term trends at this foraging site (Epperly et al

. 2000). Catch rates of loggerh eads in pound nets were derive d for six sampling years (1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003) from 1995 to 2003 (Epperly et al . 2007). Loggerhead catch rates increased significantly during th e duration of the study (Epperly et al . 2007).

In addition to the index of abundance surveys, pound nets in Pamlico and Core Sounds have been systematically sampled several times per w eek for 6 months/year from May to December in recent years. Turtles are measured and PIT a nd flipper tagged, and blood and skin samples are collected from loggerheads to invest igate growth rates (Braun-McNeill et al . 2002, NMFS 2001),I-15 sex ratios (Braun-McNeill et al . 2004, 2007a), populati on structure (Bass et al . 1998, RankinBaransky et al . 2001), health status (Harms et al . 2002, 2006a, 2006b; Stamper et al . 2005;

Valentine et al . 2007), tag retention (Braun-McNeill et al . 2002), survival (Sasso et al . 2006), abundance (Sasso et al . 2007), and site fidelity (Avens et al . 2003).

Southeast U.S. Atlantic

Maier et al . (2004) collected baseline data on sea turtle abundance along the southeast U.S. coast using bottom trawl gear (2-20 m nets; 16 cm stretch mesh) from 2000 through 2003. Between 602 and 709 stations were sampled annually from Georgetown, South Carolina, to St. Augustine, Florida, in water depths from 4.8 m to 14.9 m. No difference was found in loggerhead catch per unit effort among survey years (2000-2003). Logge rhead catch rates were also compared with fishery-dependent data collected on shrimp trawlers from 1979 through 1981 by Henwood and Stuntz (1987). Loggerhead capture rates were found to be approxi mately one order of magnitude higher in the present study than in the early 1980s. However, the authors warn that direct comparisons should be viewed with caution because net mesh size and tow speeds varied

between studies. Both variables are known to infl uence capture rates. Despite these differences, the authors suggest that loggerheads were subs tantially more abundant during the study (2000- 2003) than in the early 1980s (Maier et al . 2004).

The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Pr ogram - South Atlantic Surveys (SEAMAP) program is an ongoing trawl survey conducted by SCDNR to assess the status of finfish, crab, shrimp, sea turtle, and squid populations in the co astal waters of the southeast U.S. Samples were taken from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Canaveral, Florida, using paired bottom trawls (two 22.9 m nets; 4.1 cm mesh) in depths ranging from 4 to 10 m. Between 78 and 102 stations were sampled during three seasons from April through November . SEAMAP sea turtle capture data from 1990 to 2000 were analyzed by NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS 2001). Sea turtle capture rates were gene rally found to be low, and no significant trend was detected in loggerhead abundance during th e study period. However, the authors caution that the power to detect a tr end in loggerhead abundance was poor due to the short time series (11 years) and high variability in loggerhead capture rates.

Mosquito Lagoon, FL

Mosquito Lagoon, located in Brevard and Volusia coun ties on the east-central coast of Florida, is an elongate shallow estuary 54 km long and 4 km wide at its widest point. The lagoon is bordered on the east by barrier islands and on the west by the Florida mainland. In the late 1970s, baseline data were collected on sea tu rtle life history, abunda nce, distribution, and behavior in the southern reaches of Mosquito Lagoon. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) derived for loggerheads over the 2-year study period (1977 -1978) was 0.21 loggerheads per km-net hour (339 km-net hours) (Mendonça and Ehrhart 1982). In 1995, a new research project using the same capture methodology (large mesh tangle nets) and sampling locations was initiated to provide updated information on the life histor y, distribution, abundance, and movement of sea

turtles within this estuarin e ecosystem (Jane Provancha, Dynamac Corporation, personal communication, 2006). Captured turtles are meas ured, flipper and PIT (passive integrated transponder) tagged, blood sample d, externally examined, photogr aphed, and released. CatchI-16 per unit effort is derived annua lly; CPUE for loggerheads over the 11-year study period was 0.07 loggerheads per km-net hour (311 km-net hours). A comparison of the CPUEs derived from

these two studies indicates a decrease in the ca pture frequency of loggerheads from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s and early 2000s. Howeve r, caution must be exercised in directly comparing these results. Despite using similar capture techniques, the two studies, initiated almost 20 years apart, had very different total ne tting effort (i.e., the earlier study resulted in 339 km-net-hours over 2 years versus 328 km-net-hou rs over 12 years in the latter study). These

differences could account for the observed CPUE decline between the two studies, or the decline may be real. There is no statistically signi ficant trend in loggerhead CPUE over the 11-year sampling period in the more recent study (1995- 2006) (Jane Provancha, Dynamac Corporation, personal communication, 2006).

Central Indian River Lagoon, FL

The Indian River Lagoon system extends 260 km al ong the Atlantic coast of Florida from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in northern Pa lm Beach County. In 1982, the University of Central Florida Marine Turtle Research Group began a study of the life history, population structure, and relative abundance of sea turtle populations in th e central region of the Indian River Lagoon within a large embayment 3 km south of Sebastian Inlet and within 1 km of

the east shore in Indian River County. One of the primary purpos es of the study is to monitor long-term trends in relative abundance of l oggerheads using large-mesh tangle net capture methodologies. Annual CPUE is derived based on standard capture methodologies and similar year-to-year sampling effort. Captured tu rtles are measured, flipper and PIT tagged, photographed, blood sampled, assessed for signs of fibropapilloma tumors, and released. There was no statistically significant trend detected in loggerhead CPUE over the 23-year period from 1982-2005 (Ehrhart et al . 2007).

St. Lucie Power Plant, FL

The Florida Power and Light Company's St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, an electric generating

station located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida, ha s provided an opportunity to monitor loggerheads from waters adjacent to it s cooling-canal intake. The power plant draws cooling water from the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to nearshore hardbottom, internesting habitat, and migratory routes. The water is drawn throug h large pipes (two with 3.7 m and one with 4.9 m diameter) at a moderate velocity (<30 cm/sec) into a long intake canal. Loggerheads that swim beneath a velocity cap covering the intake are drawn into the intake canal where they are manually captured and returned to the ocean. Si nce the plant became operational in 1976, turtles trapped in the intake canal ha ve been systematically capture d, measured, weighed, tagged, examined for overall condition, and released. Si nce 1977, the first full year of plant operation, the number of loggerheads captured each year ranged from 62 in 1981 to 624 in 2004 (total captures = 6,482, 1976-2005). Loggerheads captured at the plant range in size from 39 to 112 cm minimum carapace length, which includes juven iles and adults that are foraging, migrating, or between nesting attempts at nearby nesting beaches. Total annual captures of loggerheads has been increasing (FPL and Quantum Resources, Inc. 2005), with high annual variation in captures. Biases associated with long-term capture trends include variable local habitatI-17 conditions, prey abundance and dist ribution, migration paths, condition of the intake pipes and caps, and power plant flow-rate changes.

Florida Bay, FL

Population studies of sea turtles in Florida Bay (southern terminus of the Florida peninsula) were initiated in 1990 in the central western portion of the Bay. Both juvenile and adult loggerheads are captured by hand during annual sampling even ts; approximately 750 individual loggerheads have been captured to date. Sampling methodol ogies introduced in 2000 were designed to monitor population trends within the study area us ing shipboard sightings per unit effort (SPUE)

as an annual index of abundance. There was no significant difference in loggerhead SPUE over the 7-year period (2000-2006) (Barbara Sc hroeder, NMFS, personal communication, 2007).



### F. L IFE 

### H ISTORY AND 

### H ABITAT

This section provides a general ove rview of loggerhead life history and habitat use. Loggerheads have a complex life history that encompasses te rrestrial, nearshore, and open ocean habitats. Key life history characteristics ar e summarized in Tables 3 and 4.I-18 Table 3. Typical values of life history paramete rs for loggerheads nesting in the U.S.

Life History Parameter Data

Clutch size 100-126 eggs 1

Egg incubation duration (varies depending on time of year and latitude) 42-75 days 2,3

Pivotal temperature (incubation temperature that produces an equal number of males and females) 29.0  ̊ C 5

Nest productivity (emerged hatchlings/total eggs) x 100 (varies depending on site specific factors) 45-70% 2,6

Clutch frequency (number of nests/female/season) 3-5.5 nests 7

Internesting interval (number of days between successive nests within a season) 12-15 days 8

Juvenile (<87 cm CCL) sex ratio 65-70% female 4

Remigration interval (number of years between successive nesting migrations) 2.5-3.7 years 9

Nesting season late April-early September

Hatching season late June-early November

Age at sexual maturity 32-35 years 10

Life span >57 years 11

1 Dodd 1988.

2 Dodd and Mackinnon (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004).

3 Blair Witherington, FFWCC, personal comm unication, 2006 (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in 2005, n=865).

4 National Marine Fisheries Service (2001); Allen Foley, FF WCC, personal communication,

2005.

5 Mrosovsky (1988).

6 Blair Witherington, FFWCC, personal comm unication, 2006 (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in 2005, n=1,680).

7 Murphy and Hopkins (1984); Frazer and Ri chardson (1985); Ehrhart, unpublished data;

Hawkes et al . 2005; Scott 2006; Tony Tucker, Mo te Marine Laboratory, personal communication, 2008.

8 Caldwell (1962), Dodd (1988).

9 Richardson et al . (1978); Bjorndal et al . (1983); Ehrhart, unpublished data.

10 Melissa Snover, NMFS, personal communication, 2005; see Table A1-6.

11 Dahlen et al . (2000).I-19 Table 4. Reported size distributions, st age durations, annual survival probabilities, and growth rates for loggerheads nesting in the U.S. See citations for details regarding values reported.

Life Stage Size Stage

Duration Annual

Survival

Probabilities Growth Rate

Hatchling 4 cm CCL 1 1-5 days 2

--
Post-hatchling 4-6 cm CCL 4 <6 months 5 Year 1 = 0.7 3,6 10.8 cm/yr 5

Oceanic juvenile 8.5-64 cm CCL 5,7 7-11.5 years 8 0.9 6,9 2.9-5.4 cm/yr 10

Neritic juvenile 46-87 cm CCL 11 13-20 years 12 0.7-0.8 13 1.8-2.1 cm/yr 14

Adult female >87 cm CCL 1,15 >25 years 16 0.9 6,17 0.6 cm/yr 18

Adult male >83 cm CCL 19 -- -- 0.1 cm/yr 20

1 Ehrhart (1980).

2 Duration from hatching out of the egg until entering the water.

3 Hatchling and post-hatchling st ages are combined because estim ates of survival probabilities from stage-based models are based on annual ra tes; these two stages occur within the first year. Stage based survival estimates are based on similar size classes used in the matrix population models (Heppell et al . 2003b) and differ slightly with those presented in this table, which are based on empirical data.

4 Blair Witherington, FFWCC, personal communication, 2006.

5 Bjorndal et al . (2000).

6 Heppell et al . (2003b).

7 Bjorndal et al . (2003b).

8 Bjorndal et al . (2003a) (7 years: 8.5-46 cm CCL; 11.5 years: 8.5-64 cm CCL).

9 Bjorndal et al . (2003b) (estimated annual survivorship for years 2-6).

10 Snover (2002) (mean 2.9 cm SCL/yr); Bjorndal et al . (2003a) (mean 5.4 cm CCL/yr).

11 Bjorndal et al . (2001).

12 Bjorndal et al . (2001) (13 years: 64-87 cm CCL; 20 years: 46-87 cm CCL).

13 Heppell et al . (2003b).

14 Bjorndal et al . (2001) (mean = 1.8 cm CCL/yr (64-87 cm CCL); mean = 2.1 cm CCL/yr (46- 87 cm CCL)); Snover (2002) (mean = 2.1 cm SCL/yr (45.1-80.6 cm SCL)).

15 Witherington (1986), Byrd et al . (2005).

16 Dahlen et al . (2000).

17 Hedges (2007).

18 Bjorndal et al . (1983).

19 Schroeder, unpublished data from Florida Bay (based on tail lengths > 40 cm from plastron to tip of tail).

20 Schroeder, unpublished data from Florida Bay.I-20 The three basic ecosystems in wh ich loggerheads live are the:

1. Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nes ting beach where both oviposition (egg laying) and embryonic development and hatching occur.

2. Neritic zone - the nearshore marine environm ent (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths do not exceed 200 meters. The neritic zone generally includes the continental shelf, but in areas where the con tinental shelf is very narrow or nonexistent, the neritic zone conventionally extends to areas where water depths are less than 200

meters.
3. Oceanic zone - the vast open ocean environm ent (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths are greater than 200 meters.

Within the two marine ecosystems:

• Organisms are pelagic if they occupy the water column, but not the sea floor, in either the neritic zone or oceanic zone. Organisms are epipelagic if they occupy the upper 200 meters

in the oceanic zone.

• Organisms on the sea floor in either the neritic zone or oceanic zone are described as benthic

or demersal.

Bolten (2003) reviews this terminology with resp ect to sea turtle life history; see Lalli and Parsons (1997) for review of basic oceanographic terminology.

The generalized life history of Atlantic loggerheads is shown in Figure 8 (from Bolten 2003). The life history stages are described in the following sections.I-21 NERITIC ZONE

Reproductive Stage Internesting Habitat TERRESTRIAL ZONE
Nesting Beach (supralittoral)

Oviposition Egg, Embryo, Hatchling Stage

OCEANIC & NERITIC ZONES

Juvenile Transitional Stage NERITIC ZONE

Neritic Juvenile Stage Adult Stage Reproductive Stage

Migration Corridors Breeding Habitats OCEANIC ZONE

Oceanic Juvenile Stage NERITIC ZONE

Hatchling Swim Frenzy Stage Post-Hatchling Transitional Stage

Pelagic (Epipelagic)

(Primary Habitat and Foraging Behavior)

Epibenthic / Demersal

Banks and Seamounts Pelagic

Epibenthic / Demersal

(Primary Habitat and Foraging Behavior) Seasonal Movements (North & South) Developmental Movements NERITIC &

OCEANIC ZONES

Figure 8. Generalized life history of North Atlan tic loggerhead sea tu rtles (Bolten 2003).I-22 F.1. T ERRESTRIAL Z ONE (N ESTING B EACH )

Nesting Habitat

Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. Nests are typically laid betw een the high tide line and the du ne front (Routa 1968, Witherington 1986, Hailman and Elowson 1992). Wood and Bjornda l (2000) evaluated four environmental factors (slope, temperature, moisture, and sa linity) and found that slope had the greatest influence on loggerhead nest-site selection on a beach in Florida. Loggerheads appear to prefer relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse-grained beaches, although nearshore contours may also play a role in nesting beach site selection (Provancha and Ehrhart 1987). A re view of nest site selection studies found no consistency among f actors analyzed and preference exhibited by loggerhead females for particul ar nest locations (Miller et al . 2003).

Nest Characteristics/Requirements

Sea turtle eggs require a high-humidity substrat e that allows for sufficient gas exchange for development (Miller 1997, Miller et al . 2003). Mean clutch size va ries from about 100 to 126 eggs along the southeast U.S. coast (Dodd 1988). L oggerhead nests incubate for variable periods of time. The length of the incubation period (commonly measured from the time of egg deposition to hatchling emergence) is inversely re lated to nest temperature, such that between

26 o C and 32 o C, a change of 1 o C adds or subtracts approxima tely 5 days (Mrosovsky 1980).

The warmer the sand surrounding the egg chamber, the faster the embryos develop (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Sand temperatures prevaili ng during the middle third of the incubation period also determine the sex of hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Incubation temperatures near the upper e nd of the tolerable range produce only female hatchlings while incubation temperatures near the lower end of th e tolerable range produce only male hatchlings. The pivotal temperature (i.e., th e incubation temperature that pr oduces equal numbers of males and females) in loggerheads is approximately 29 o C (Limpus et al . 1983, Mrosovsky 1988,

Marcovaldi et al . 1997). Moisture conditions in the ne st influence incubation period, hatching success, and hatchling size (McGehee 1990, Carthy et al . 2003).

Hatchling Emergence Behavior

Loggerhead hatchlings pip and escape from thei r eggs over a 1- to 3- day interval and move upward and out of the nest over a 2- to 4-day interval (Christens 1990). The time from pipping to emergence ranges from 4 to 7 days with an average of 4.1 days (Godfrey and Mrosovsky 1997). Hatchlings emerge from their nests en masse almost exclusively at night, and presumably using decreasing sand temperature as a cu e (Hendrickson 1958, Mr osovsky 1968, Witherington

et al . 1990). Moran et al . (1999) concluded that a lowering of sand temperatures below a critical threshold, which most typically occurs after night fall, is the most probable trigger for hatchling emergence from a nest. After an initial emergence, there may be secondary emergences on subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960, With erington 1986, Ernest and Martin 1993, Houghton and Hays 2001).I-23 Hatchlings use a progression of orientation cues to guide their movement from the nest to the marine environments where they spend th eir early years (Lohmann and Lohmann 2003). Hatchlings first use light cues to find the ocean. On naturally lighted b eaches without artificial lighting, ambient light from the open sky creates a relatively bright horizon compared to the dark silhouette of the dune and vegetation landward of the nest. This contrast gui des the hatchlings to the ocean (Daniel and Smith 1947, Limpus 1971, Salmon et al . 1992, Witherington 1997, Witherington and Martin 1996, Stewart and Wyneken 2004).

F.2. N ERITIC Z ONE : H ATCHLING S WIM F RENZY S TAGE AND P OST

- HATCHLING
T RANSITIONAL S TAGE

Swim Frenzy

Immediately after hatchlings emerge from the ne st, they begin a period of frenzied activity. During this active period, hatchl ings move from their nest to the surf, swim and are swept through the surf zone, and con tinue swimming away from land for approximately 20 to 30 hours (Carr and Ogren 1960; Carr 1962, 1982; Wyneke n and Salmon 1992; Witherington 1995). Orientation cues used by hatchlings as they cr awl, swim through the su rf, and migrate offshore are discussed in detail by Lohmann and Lohmann ( 2003). Mortality from fish predation was 5 of 74 hatchlings swimming within approximately 1 km from the beach and within 2 hours of entering the Atlantic at three Fl orida locations (Witherington a nd Salmon 1992). Predation over reefs and at hatcheries may be hi gher (Wyneken and Salmon 1996, Wyneken et al . 1998).

Observations of loggerheads swimming in a labo ratory setting (Wyneken and Salmon 1992) and at sea (Witherington 1995) reveal a pronounced reduction in activity after 20 to 30 hours postemergence, although oriented swimming continues for several days afterward. In addition to swimming, hatchlings may stop briefly to move within the floating seaweeds in the genus Sargassum located in their path (Witheringt on and Salmon 1992, Witherington 1995). Hatchlings swimming from land rely on an appr oximately 5-day store of energy and nutrients

within their retain ed yolk sac (Kraemer and Bennett 1981).

Post-hatchling Transition

Neonate loggerheads that have migrated away from land differ from swim frenzy stage hatchlings in that they are infrequently low- energy swimmers and they have begun to feed, no longer relying on their retained yolk (Witheri ngton 2002). As post-hatchlings, loggerheads are pelagic and are best known from neritic waters along the continental shelf. This neritic posthatchling stage is weeks or months long (With erington 2002) and may be a transition to the oceanic stage that loggerheads enter as they grow and are carried within ocean currents (Bolten 2003).

Post-hatchling loggerheads inhabit areas wh ere surface waters converge to form local downwellings (Witherington 2002). These areas ar e characterized by linear accumulations of floating material, especially Sargassum , and are common between the Gulf Stream and the southeast U.S. coast, and between the Loop Current and the Florida coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Post-hatchlings within this habitat are observed to be low-energy float-and-wait foragers thatI-24 feed on a wide variety of floating items (W itherington 2002). Witherington (2002) found that small animals commonly associated with the Sargassum community, such as hydroids and copepods, were most commonly found in esophag eal lavage samples. As post-hatchlings, loggerheads may linger for months in waters just off the nesting beach or become transported by

ocean currents within the Gulf of Mexico and North Atlantic.

F.3. O CEANIC Z ONE : J UVENILE S TAGE

The biology of the oceanic juvenile stage (which will be referred to as the oceanic stage) has recently been reviewed by Bolten (2003).

Habitat Description

The oceanic stage begins when loggerheads enter the oceanic zone and, in the North Atlantic, has been primarily studied in the waters around the Azores and Madeira (Bolten 2003). Other populations exist (e.g., in the region of the Gr and Banks off Newfoundland), but data on these populations are very limited. Turt le movements in this stage ar e both active and passive relative

to surface and subsurface oceanic currents and winds; turtles may use bathymetric features for orientation (ACCSTR, unpublished da ta). These turtles are epip elagic, spending 75% of their time in the top 5 meters of the water column. Eighty percent of the dives are between 2 to 5

meters with the remainder of the dives distri buted throughout the top 100 meters of the water column; occasionally dives are greater than 200 meters (ACCSTR, unpublished data). In the vicinity of seamounts, oceanic banks or ridges that come close to the surface, or around oceanic islands, loggerheads may become epibenthic /demersal by feeding or spending time on the bottom (Bolten 2003).

In Azorean waters, satellite te lemetry data and flipper tag re turns suggest a long period of residency (Bolten 2003), whereas turtles appe ar to be moving through Madeiran waters (Dellinger and Freitas 2000). This may not be surprising when one considers the physical oceanographic aspects of the regions. The Azorea n region is characterize d by a complexity of seamounts, banks, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, wh ich results in a complexity of eddies and convergent zones – prime habitats for oceanic-s tage loggerheads. Seamounts are less prevalent in the Madeiran region.

Diet

The diet of oceanic-stage loggerheads has been poorly studied in the Atlantic basin. They are primarily carnivorous, although they do ingest so me vegetation (Bjorndal 1997). Loggerheads in this life stage consume primarily coelenterates (e.g., sea jellies, hydroids ) and salps, but also ingest a range of organism s including the pelagic snail Janthina spp., barnacles ( Lepas spp.), and crabs (see Bjorndal 1997 for review).

Relationship of Oceanic Juvenile Populations to Rookery Sources

Carr (1986) and later Bolten et al . (1993) used the comparison of size frequency distributions to suggest that loggerheads found in the oceanic zone around the Azores were an earlier life stageI-25 of the larger turtles in the neritic waters of th e western North Atlantic. The relationship between the little loggerheads in the oceanic zone and the larger-si zed neritic loggerheads in the

Northwest Atlantic was further s upported by recaptures of turtles tagged in the oceanic zone and recaptured in the neritic zone of the Northwest Atlantic (Bolten 2003).

With the development of molecular genetic tools (e.g., mitochondrial DNA sequence analyses),

the relative contributions of rookeries to mixe d populations of oceanic- stage loggerheads could be evaluated (Bowen 1995, 2003). After the Atlantic rookeries were genetic ally characterized by

Encalada et al . (1998), Bolten et al . (1998) were able to demons trate that the oceanic-stage loggerheads in the waters around the Azores and Madeira were primarily from rookeries in the southeast U.S. (90%) and Mexico (10%). Based on flipper tag re turns (Bolten 2003, Bolten et
al . 1992) and on molecular ge netic studies (Laurent et al . 1993, 1998), movement of little loggerheads from Northwest Atlantic rookeri es and Azorean waters into the western Mediterranean is probably more common than or iginally thought. A portion of the juveniles found foraging in both the eastern and western basi ns of the Mediterranean Sea originate from the western Atlantic populati on (Basso and Cocco 1986, Bolten et al . 1992, Manzella et al . 1988,

Carreras et al . 2006). Approximately 45-47% of the j uvenile loggerheads in both the western

and eastern basins are derived from the western Atlantic (Laurent et al . 1998). These loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic apparen tly leave the Mediterranean before they mature and reproduce (Laurent et al . 1998).

Size Distribution

The size distribution of oceanic-stage loggerheads in the waters around the Azores ranges from 8.5 to 82 cm curved carapace le ngth (CCL) with a mean and standard deviation of 34.5 ± 12.6 cm (Bolten 2003). Most turtles in this area ( 99.3% of the sample) range from 8.5 to 64 cm (n = 1,680, mean = 34.2, SD = 12.2; ACCSTR, unpublished data). This size distribution is not significantly different from a nother nearby oceanic-zone aggr egation in the waters around Madeira (Bolten et al . 1993). For this recovery plan, th e size range of the oceanic stage is

defined as 8.5 to 64 cm CCL.

Growth Rates

Bjorndal et al . (2003a), using skeletochronology and longi tudinal growth anal yses, estimated a mean growth rate of 5.4 cm CCL per year (SD = 1.8 cm). The size-specific growth rate function from length-frequency analyses is consistent w ith growth rates calculated from recaptures of tagged turtles (summa rized in Bjorndal et al . 2000). Zug et al . (1995) evaluated the somatic growth rates of oceanic-stage loggerheads in the Pacific using skel etochronology. The agespecific growth function for the Pacific was similar in shape but with a slower growth rate than those for the Atlantic (Bjorndal et al . 2003a).

Duration of the Oceanic Juvenile Stage

Length-frequency analyses (Bjorndal et al . 2000) and skeletochronology (Bjorndal et al . 2003a)

were used to estimate the duration of the oceanic stage as 7 to 11.5 years depending on the size of the turtles when they leave the ocea nic zone (46 to 64 cm CCL). Based on aI-26 skeletochronology study of ner itic-stage loggerheads, Snover et al . (2000) concluded that loggerheads are approximately 52 cm SCL when th ey settle in th e neritic zone off the U.S.

Atlantic coast. This value of 52 cm SCL is sim ilar to the value of 53 cm CCL at the intersection of the length frequency distributions of the o ceanic stage and the neritic stage, which is equivalent to 8.2 years duration in the oceanic stage (Bjorndal et al . 2000).

Survival Probabilities

Survival probabilities for the oceanic stage have been generated as fitted values in demographic models rather than direct estimates (Chaloupka 2003, Heppell et al . 2003b). Bjorndal et al

. (2003b) used catch-curve analyses to directly es timate survival probabilities of oceanic-stage loggerheads in the waters around th e Azores. At ages before logge rheads begin to emigrate from the oceanic zone (2 to 6 years of age), the es timate of annual survival probability is 0.911. Turtles that are 2 to 6 years of age (18 to 44 cm CCL, Bjorndal et al . 2003b) are not generally caught in the eastern Atlantic l ongline fishery (Bolten 2003). Afte r emigration begins at 7 years of age, the estimate of annual survival pr obability drops to 0.643, which is confounded by emigration but includes mortality from by catch in longline fisheries (Bjorndal et al . 2003b). Using satellite telemetry, Sasso and Epperly (2007) calculated a survival ra te of 0.81 for juvenile loggerheads (mean of 52 cm SCL) off the Grand Ba nks and Azores. Estimates of mortality prior to age 2 are not available, but mortality ma y be high during this stage both from natural predation and stochastic events that result in little loggerhea ds being passively swept into inappropriate habitats, such as the waters around Labrador or the waters around the British Isles (Carr 1986, Hays and Marsh 1997).

Juvenile Transition from Oceanic to Neritic Zone

The shift from the oceanic to the neritic zone is a dramatic one. As such, there is probably a period of transition, perhaps in both behavior and morphology. Kamezaki and Matsui (1997) discuss specific allometric relationships that ch ange during the juvenile transitional stage, which are related to changes in foraging behavior (e .g., epipelagic versus benthic). The geographic regions where the transitional stages occur may be in regions where major oceanic currents approach or enter the neritic z one. The broad size range over wh ich the turtles in the Atlantic

leave the oceanic zone and ente r the neritic zone (Bjorndal et al . 2000, 2001) may also suggest that this transitional stage is of variable duration. Factors that may drive this habitat shift (e.g., differential growth rates) are discussed in Bo lten (2003). Size freque ncy distributions of populations that fall between the oceanic stage and the neritic juvenile stage may support the existence of this transitional stage. The mean size of 53 cm CCL of a population off the Atlantic coast of Morocco is the estimated mid-point of th e size distributions for the juvenile transitional stage and suggests that this population may repr esent a transitional stage between the oceanic and neritic stages (Tiwari et al . 2002). A juvenile transitiona l stage for the Mediterranean populations has also been suggested (Laurent et al . 1998). As Figure 8 indicates, if the oceanicneritic transition is not complete, loggerheads may return to the oceanic zone. For example, a 73 cm SCL loggerhead tagged along the Atlantic co ast of Florida was recaptured in the Azores (Eckert and Martins 1989), and McClellan and Read (2007) describe periodic movements by juveniles between neritic and ocean ic habitats. If juvenile logg erheads make multiple loops inI-27 the Atlantic gyre system rather than a single developmental lo op, this could also result in periodic movements between the oceanic and neritic zones (Witzell 2002, Bolten 2003).

F.4. N ERITIC Z ONE : J UVENILE S TAGE

Habitat Description

Juvenile stage loggerheads in th e North Atlantic commonly inhabit continental shelf waters from Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, south through Flor ida, The Bahamas, Cuba, and the Gulf of Mexico. Juvenile loggerheads are also found in lower abundance elsewhere in the Greater Caribbean (e.g., Panama [Engstrom et al . 2002]). Estuarine waters, including areas such as Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Pamlico and Core Sounds, the large open sounds of South Carolina and Georgia, Mosquito and Indian River Lagoons, Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and numerous embayments fringing the Gulf of Mexico, comprise important inshore habitat (Musick and Limpus 1997, Spotila et al . 1997, Hopkins-Murphy et al . 2003). Along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shoreline, essentially all shelf waters are inhabited by loggerheads. Longterm in-water studies indicate that juvenile loggerheads reside in particular developmental foraging areas for many years. Seasonal moveme nts of juvenile loggerh eads along the Atlantic coast, from more northerly resi dent areas during warmer months to more southerly or offshore resident areas during colder months, have b een well documented. Results from satellite telemetry have demonstrated that some juveniles may return to the oceani c zone particularly in the winter (Morreale and Standora 2005, McClellan and Read 2007, Mansfield 2006).

Diet

Juvenile stage loggerheads feed on a wide variety of organisms inhabiting the neritic zone. Diet

studies focused on North Atlantic juvenile stage loggerheads indica te that benthic invertebrates, notably mollusks and benthic crabs, are the primary food items (Burke et al . 1993, Youngkin 2001, Seney 2003). In south Texas, sea pens (a co lonial coral) were the most common prey item, followed by benthic crabs (Plotkin et al . 1993). Seasonal dietary shifts with changing prey abundance and/or geographic differences in prey selection have been documented (Plotkin et al

. 1993, Ruckdeschel and Shoop 1988, Youngkin 2001). Youngkin (2001) found that discarded fish bycatch, from nearshore shrimp trawl fishing was commonly i ngested by juvenile loggerheads. Gut content analyses of loggerhea ds in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, by Seney and Musick (2007) documented a shift in loggerhead prey items from predominantly horseshoe crabs ( Limulus polyphemus ) during the early to mid-1980s, to pr edominantly blue crabs during the 1980s, to finfish discarded by fisheries in the mid-1990s and in 2000-2002.

Relationship of Neritic Juvenile Populations to Rookery Sources

The development of molecular genetic tools (e.g., mtDNA sequence analyses) has provided a basis for evaluating the relations hip of neritic juvenile popula tions to rookery sources (see

Bowen et al . 2004 for a review). Two factors may e xplain the genetic composition of neritic juvenile foraging populations: population size of source rookeries and proximity to these rookeries. There is a significan t correlation between the genetic composition of neritic juvenile populations and adjacent nesting populations that provides eviden ce for juvenile homing to natalI-28 regions (Bowen et al . 2004). Results from Bass et al . (2004) for a North Carolina foraging assemblage also support juvenile homing to nata l regions. There have been new developments

in statistical mode ling of mixed foraging populations (Bolker et al . 2003, 2007; Okuyama and Bolker 2005), as well as more complete rook ery sampling (e.g., Cape Verde Islands and The Bahamas) (ACCSTR, unpublished da ta) and increased sampling of southeast U.S. rookeries (ACCSTR, unpublished data). These new statistical models and more complete rookery samples will provide a better basis for analyzing sour ce rookeries for neritic juvenile populations.

Size Distribution

At about 46 cm CCL, oceanic juveni les begin to leave the oceanic habitat for the neritic habitat (Bjorndal et al

. 2000, 2003a; Bolten 2003). By about 65 cm CCL, almost all of the juveniles have left the oceanic habitat. For the purposes of this recovery plan, the size range of the neritic juvenile stage is designated as 46-87 cm CCL. However, due to natural variations in the life history of the loggerhead, turtles smaller than 46 cm CCL may occur in the neritic habitat, turtles greater than 87 cm CCL may still not be sexually mature, and there is some overlap between the

size distribution of oceanic and neritic juvenile stages (see Section F.3. above).

Growth Rates

Several studies have reported growth rates fr om juvenile loggerheads in neritic habitats (summarized in Bjorndal 2003, NMFS 2001). Publis hed estimates for growth, based on carapace length for juvenile loggerheads in coastal waters of the U.S., are highly variable. Much of the

variation is due to differences in body size and environment (e.g., water temperature). In addition, most studies suffer from very small sa mple sizes. Based on two studies with large sample sizes (Bjorndal et al . 2001 used length-frequency analyses; Snover 2002 used skeletochronology), the average growth rates for ne ritic juvenile turtles ar e 1.8 to 2.1 cm per year (see Table 4).

Duration of the Neritic Juvenile Stage

Several estimates of the duration of the neritic juvenile stage have been generated (summarized in Heppell et al . 2003a, NMFS 2001) employing a variet y of techniques including markrecapture, length frequency, and skeletochronolo gy. These estimates are difficult to compare because they are based on different size ranges for the neritic juvenile stage. The duration from

recruitment to 87 cm CCL is estimated as 13 to 20 years depending on whether loggerheads

recruit to neritic habitats at a size of 64 or 46 cm CCL, respectively (Bjorndal et al . 2001). Loggerhead matrix models generated estimates of 14 to 24 years for neritic juvenile loggerheads ranging from 45 to 92 cm CCL (Heppell et al . 2003b).

Survival Probabilities

The first survival probabilities for neritic st age loggerheads were estimated by Frazer (1987) using a catch curve analysis. Survival probabili ties have recently been updated using new sizeat-age curves based on improved data from skeletochronology and mark-recapture (NMFS 2001). Annual survival probabilities for neritic j uvenile loggerheads were estimated to be 0.7-I-29 0.8 (Heppell et al . 2003b). Using a mark recapture model, Sasso et al . (2006) estimated annual survival probability as 0.81 for loggerheads seasonally inhabiting Core Sound, North Carolina.

F.5. N ERITIC Z ONE : A DULT S TAGE

Habitat Description

Habitat preferences of non-nesting adult loggerheads in the neritic zone differ from the juvenile stage in that relatively enclosed, shallow water estuarine habitats with limited ocean access are less frequently used. Areas such as Pamlico Sound and the Indian River Lagoon, regularly used by juveniles, are only occasionally frequented by adult loggerheads. Other estuarine areas, such as Chesapeake Bay in the northeast U.S., are more frequently used by adults during warmer seasons (John Musick, VIMS, personal communi cation, 2008). Shallow water habitats with large expanses of open ocean access, such as Florida Bay, provide year-round resident foraging areas for significant numbers of male and female adult loggerheads. Offshore, adults primarily inhabit continental shelf waters, from New York south through Florida, The Bahamas, Cuba, and the Gulf of Mexico (Schroeder et al . 2003). Seasonal use of mid-Atlantic shelf waters, especially offshore New Jersey, Delaware, a nd Virginia, during summer months and offshore shelf waters, such as Onslow Bay (off the North Carolina coast), during winter months has been documented for the Northern Recovery Unit (Hawkes et al . 2007; GDNR, unpublished data; SCDNR, unpublished data). Shel f waters along the west Florida coast, The Bahamas, Cuba, and

the Yucatán Peninsula have been identified, using satellite telemetry, as important resident areas for Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit adult female loggerheads (Foley et al . in press).

Diet

Adult loggerheads feed on a wide variety of orga nisms inhabiting the neritic zone. The majority of diet studies of North Atlantic loggerheads have involved gut conten t analyses of stranded juveniles. However, Youngkin (2001) reported ontogenetic shifts in diet among loggerheads stranded in Georgia -- larger (presumably older) individuals consumed proportionally more mollusks than smaller, younger turtles. Proporti onally more discarded shrimp trawl fishery bycatch was consumed by smaller turtles than by la rger, older turtles. Limited studies of adult loggerheads indicate that mollusk s and benthic crabs make up thei r primary diet, similar to the more thoroughly studied neritic juvenile stage (Youngkin 2001).

Relationship of Neritic Adult Populations to Rookery Sources

The genetic population structure of adult loggerhead s at their foraging areas is generally unknown. The vast majority of in-water studi es target juvenile stage loggerheads. Reproductively mature female loggerheads tagged in Florida Bay are part of the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit based on satellite telemetry results and tag returns (Schroeder, unpublished data).I-30 Growth Rates

Growth data collected during ma rk-recapture studies of adult l oggerheads indicate that growth rates (measured as curved carapace length) slow considerably as animals mature and reach their maximum size. Mean growth rates of adult fema le loggerheads nesting along the southeast U.S. coast was 0.57 cm/year (SCL) (Bjorndal et al . 1983). The growth rate (CCL) of adult male loggerheads (maturity assumed at >40 cm tail length, measured from plastron to tail tip) inhabiting inshore foraging areas in Florida Bay was essentially zero (Schroeder, unpublished data).

Duration of the Neritic Adult Stage

The duration of the adult stage in the neritic environment can be reasonably estimated for females from tag return data at nesting beaches . For the Northwest Atlantic nesting population, data from Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, show reproductive longevity, and hence duration of neritic adult female stage, as long as 25 years (Dahlen et al . 2000). This is likely an underestimate of the average repr oductive life span given tag lo ss and incomplete surveys of nesting beaches at night. Comparable data for adult males do not exist.

Survival Probabilities

Adult females exhibit a strong degree of nest site fidelity, allowing fo r the possibility of “recapturing” the same turtle when she returns to nest. Therefore, most estimates of sea turtle survival rates are for adult females. An assumption of survival rates estimated from nesting females

is that females that nest at the monitored beach will re turn to that beach to nest . It is known that nest site fidelity in sea turtles is not perfect (Mille r 1997) and that females may try out one or more beaches before selecting a nesting beach to which she remains faithful. In most cases, survival rates estimated from nesting data likely underestimate actual survival rates. Recent analysis of adult

females from the NRU show an annual survival rate (0.85) slightly higher than used in the earlier loggerhead models (0.805) (Heppell et al . 2003b).

F.6. O CEANIC Z ONE : A DULT S TAGE

Based on stable isotope analyses and satellite telemetry, Hatase et al . (2002) demonstrated that some adult female loggerheads nesting in Japan inhabit oceanic habitats rather than neritic habitats. Satellite tagged adult loggerheads in we stern Africa have also been demonstrated to use oceanic foraging areas (Hawkes et al . 2006). Preliminary results from stable isotope analyses suggest that some loggerheads nesting in Florid a may also inhabit ocean ic habitats (Reich et al

. 2007). In both Japan and Florida, the females inhabiting oceanic habita ts were significantly

smaller than those in neritic habitats. The ex tent to which adult loggerheads occupy oceanic habitats needs to be evaluated, and effects on survival probabilities and reproductive output

should be assessed. If a substant ial number of adult loggerhead s are in oceanic habitats, the management and conservation imp lications are significant because of additional exposure to threats in these regions.I-31 

### G. B IOLOGICAL 

### C ONSTRAINTS AND 

### N EEDS

Loggerheads are long-lived, slow-growing animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean basins throughout their life hist ory. Maximum intrinsic growth ra tes of sea turtles are limited by the extremely long duration of the juvenile st age and fecundity. L oggerheads require high survival rates in the juvenile and adult stages, common constraint s critical to maintaining longlived, slow-growing species, to achieve positiv e or stable long-term population growth (Congdon

et al . 1993; Heppell 1998; Crouse 1999; Heppell et al . 1999, 2003a; Musick 1999).



### H. T HREATS

This section provides descriptive information on each of the identified thre ats to the loggerhead. A comprehensive assessment of reco very plans indicated that the an alysis of threats has received insufficient attention (Clark et al . 2002) and that this lack of knowledge regarding the nature of threats facing a species is likely to contribu te to the failure of recovery plans (Lawler et al

. 2002). In response to these a ssessments, the Loggerhead Recove ry Team conducted a detailed analysis of threats to assist in prioritizing recovery actions. A ppendix 1 describes the process the Recovery Team used to identify, categorize, qua ntify, and prioritize the threats to the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population. The results of th is threats analysis are presented in Appendix 2. Please refer to the threats tables in Appendi x 2 to gain an understanding of the relative significance of each threat describe d below. Conservation efforts to address threats are primarily described in Section I; however, some references to conservation e fforts are also included in this

Section.

H.1. T ERRESTRIAL Z ONE (N ESTING B EACH )

R ESOURCE U SE ( NON

- FISHERIES )

Illegal Harvest

In the U.S., killing of nesting loggerheads is infrequent. However, on some beaches, human poaching of turtle nests and clandestine market s for eggs has been a problem (Ehrhart and Witherington 1987; Mark Dodd, GDNR, persona l communication, 2000; Jorge Picon, FWS, personal communication, 2002). Fr om 1983 to 1989, the Florida Marine Patrol made 29 arrests for illegal possession of turtle eggs (figure not ap portioned by species). In Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie counties only (Florida coastal areas with what may be the highest prevalence of egg poaching), there were 33 arrests for possession or sale of sea turtle eggs from 1980 to 2002 (Captain Jeff Ardelean, FFW CC, personal communication, 2002).

Illegal harvest, outside the U.S., is summarized in Dow et al . (2007) and Bräutigam and Eckert (2006). Bräutigam and Eckert (2006) documented il legal harvest of sea turtles in 26 jurisdictions surveyed in the Lesser Antilles, Caribbean, and Central and South America. Illegal harvest included the taking of eggs and the killing of nesti ng females. In some jurisdictions, illegal take of sea turtles was recognized as a serious mana gement challenge although the extent to which loggerhead turtles were taken was not determined.I-32 Beach Cleaning

Beach cleaning to collect debris and trash may damage nests and hatchlings. Several methods are used to clean beaches, including mechani cal raking, hand raking, and picking up debris by hand. In mechanical raking, heavy machinery can repeatedly traverse nests and potentially compact the sand above them. Mann (1977) suggeste d that mortality within nests might increase when externally applied pressure from beach -cleaning machinery is common on soft beaches with large-grain sand. Beach cleaning vehicles also may leave ruts along the beach that hinder or trap emergent hatchlings (Hosier et al . 1981). Mechanically pulled rakes and hand rakes, particularly if the tongs are longer than 10 cm, penetrate the beach surface and may disturb incubating nests or uncover pre-emergent hatchlings near the surface of the nest.

In some areas, collected debris is buried direct ly on the beach, and this can lead to excavation and destruction of incubating egg clutches. Dis posal of debris near th e dune line or on the high beach can cover incubating egg clutches, hinder and entrap emergent hatchlings, and alter natural nest temperatures. Beach cleaning activities that occur prior to daily nesting surveys may harm turtles still attempting to nest in the early mo rning hours. Nesting females may be injured by

direct contact with beach clean ing equipment or may abort nes ting attempts as a result of disturbance. In addition, beach cleaning activities conducted prio r to the completion of daily nesting surveys obscure crawls a nd make it difficult to determine if nests have been laid, which may lead to undercounting of nests and the loss of appropriate nest protection efforts (e.g., predator screening). In Florida, mechanical beach cleaning is a common activity that occurs on various beaches throughout the st ate, although a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit, which includes conditions to protect sea turtles, is required. Beach cleaning also occurs in Horry County in South Carolina. In Alabama, beach cleaning primarily occurs on private lands in the cities of Gulf Shores and Orange Beach.

Human Presence

The greatest threat posed by humans on the beach at night is disturbance of female turtles before they have finished nesting. From the time a female exits the surf until she has begun covering her nest, she is highly vulnerable to disturbance, especially prior to and during the early stages of egg laying. Females that abort a nesting attempt ma y attempt to nest again at or near the same

location or select a new site later that night or the followi ng night. However, repeated interruption of nesting attempts may cause a turtle to constr uct her nest in a sub-optimum incubation environment, postpone nesting for se veral days, prompt movement many kilometers from the original chosen nesting site, or resu lt in the shedding of eggs at sea (Murphy 1985). Direct harassment may also cause adult turt les to reduce the time spent covering the nest (Johnson et al . 1996). Visitors using flashlights or lant erns or lighting campfires on the beach at night during the nesting season may deter nestin g females from coming ashore and may disorient hatchlings (Mortimer 1989). In addition, h eavy pedestrian traffic may compact sand over unmarked nests (Mann 1977), although the effect of this compaction has not been determined and may be negligible (Arianoutsou 1988). De pending on the nesting su bstrate, pedestrian traffic over nests near the time of emergence can cause nests to collapse and result in hatchling mortality (Mann 1977, Dutton et al . 1994). A study in Japan found loggerhead nests laid inI-33 beach areas with pedestrian access had higher rates of dead pipped hatchlings than nests laid in restricted beach zones (Kudo et al . 2003).

Recreational Beach Equipment

The use and storage of lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, ca tamarans, and other types of recreational equipment on the beach can hamper or deter nesting by adult females and trap or impede hatchlings during their nest to sea migration. The documentation of non-nesting emergences (also referred to as false crawls) at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more recreational beach equipment is left on the beach at night. Sobel (2002) describes nesting turtles being deterred by wooden lounge chai rs that prevented access to the upper beach. Additionally, there are documented reports of nesting females being trapped under heavy wooden lounge chairs and cabanas, eggs being destroyed by equipment (e.g., beach umbrellas) penetrating the egg chamber, and hatchlings being hampered during emergence by equipment inadvertently placed on top of th e nest (FFWCC, unpublished data).

Beach Vehicular Driving

Operating privately owned vehicles on nesting b eaches for recreational purposes or beach access

is allowed on certain beaches in northeast Fl orida (Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, and Volusia counties), northwest Florida (Walton and Gu lf counties), Georgia (Cumberland, Little Cumberland, and Sapelo Islands), North Carolina (Fort Fisher State Recreation Area, Carolina Beach, Freeman Park, Onslow Beach, Emerald Isle, Indian Beach/Salter Pat h, Pine Knoll Shores, Atlantic Beach, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Nag’s Head, Kill Devil Hills, Town of Duck, and Currituck Banks), Virginia (Chincoteague NWR and Wallops Island), and Texas (the majority of b eaches except for a highly developed section of

South Padre Island and Padre Island National Se ashore, San Jose Island, Matagorda Island, and Matagorda Peninsula where driving is not allo wed or is limited to agency personnel, land owners, and/or researchers). Op erating vehicles to conduct scient ific research and management is generally allowed throughout th e loggerhead’s nesting range.

The presence of vehicles on the beach has the potential to negatively impact sea turtles by running over nesting females, hatchlings, stranded tu rtles that have washed ashore, and nests. In addition, the ruts left by vehicles in the sand may prevent or impede hatchlings from reaching the ocean following emergence from the nest (Mann 1977, Hosier et al . 1981, Cox et al . 1994, Hughes and Caine 1994). Hatchlings impeded by vehi cle ruts are at greater risk of death from predation, fatigue, desiccation, and being crushed by additional vehicle traffic.

Vehicle lights and vehicle movement on the beach after dark can deter females from nesting and disorient hatchlings. Sand compaction due to ve hicles on the beach may hinder nest construction and hatchling emergence from nests. Driving di rectly above incubating egg clutches can cause sand compaction, which may decrease hatching succe ss and directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings (Mann 1977). Additionally, vehicle traffic on nesting beaches may contribute to erosion, especially during high tides or on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated on the high

beach and foredune.I-34 Research and Conservation Management Activities

Research and conservation management activi ties (e.g., nesting surveys, tagging of nesting females, nest manipulation) are tools to advance the recovery of the loggerhead; however, they have the potential to adversely affect nesting fe males, hatchlings, and developing embryos if not properly conducted. Research and conservation management ac tivities should be carefully evaluated to determine their potential risks and conservation benefits. Th e States, in cooperation with FWS, have established permitting program s to ensure that proposed research and conservation activities are necessary for recovery , carried out by appropria tely trained persons, non-duplicative, the least manipulat ive possible, and carried out in such a way to minimize chances of mortality. A low le vel of lethal take is author ized annually for research and conservation purposes. Under conditions wh ere the conservation benefits (e.g., embryo survivorship, hatchling survivorship, cons ervation knowledge gained) are forecast to substantially outweigh the potenti al conservation risks, these ac tivities can be beneficial to loggerhead recovery.

Most research and conservation management activ ities are likely to have minimal effects on nesting turtles, hatchlings, and developing embryos when conducted in accordance with established protocols designed to minimize distur bance and risk. On many beaches, surveyors

use small 4-wheeled all-terrain ve hicles with low-pressure (<5 ps i) tires that minimally impact nesting habitat. In addition, almost all survey s to count nests are conduc ted after sunrise when encounters with nesting turtles and emergent hatchl ings are unlikely. Research activities, such as flipper and PIT tagging, blood sampling, skin sampling, satellite and radio transmitter attachment, and hatchling orientation surveys, ha ve a minimal affect on individual turtles when conducted according to established guideline s (e.g., FFWCC Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Guidelines/MarineTurtleGuidelines.htm]). Potential

benefits from this research in clude important insight into population structure, species health, habitat use, and other important aspe cts of loggerhead biology and ecology.

Nest relocation is a management technique for prot ecting nests that are predicted to be destroyed by environmental factors, such as erosion or repeated tidal inundation, or permitted human activities, such as beach nourishment during th e nesting season. However, the unnecessary relocation of nests may result in negative impact s to eggs and hatchli ngs. Historically, the relocation of sea turtle nests to higher beach el evations or into hatc heries was a regularly recommended conservation management activity throughout the southeast U.S. However, advances in our knowledge of the incubation en vironment have provided important information to guide nest mana gement practices.

Nests located where there are th reats from beachfront lighting, foot traffic, and mammalian predators can be effectively managed by addressing the threat directly or by protecting the nest in situ rather than by moving the nest. In situ protection, which addresses the root causes of egg and hatchling mortality, is in keeping with Frazer’s (1992) call to move away from “halfway technology.” Increased understand ing of the potential adverse effects asso ciated with nest relocation, restraint of hatchlings, and concentr ated hatchling releases has resulted in less manipulative management strategies to protect ne sts and hatchlings. In Florida, the FFWCC’s sea turtle conservation guidelines consider nest relocation to be a management technique of lastI-35 resort [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Guidelines /MarineTurtleGuidelines.htm]. At training workshops, nest monitors are advised to relocate ne sts only if they are cert ain that the nest will otherwise be lost, and if this certainty is ba sed on extensive experience at the specific beach. Recovery action 6111 describes de velopment of protocols by wh ich managers could identify threatened nests with greater precision, ther eby minimizing the numbe r of nests that are

relocated.

Military Activities

Military training activities that occur on coastal bases in the southeast U.S. (i.e., Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in North Carolina, and Eglin and Tyndall Air Force Bases in Florida) have the potential to increase non-nesti ng emergences of nesting females, run over nesting females and emerging hatchlings, and destro y nests. Periodic training exer cises include such activities as beach landings of air cushioned landing craft, am phibious assault vehicles, and other craft; aerial bombing simulations over the beach; excavation of bunkers on the beach; testing missile defense systems; troops movements on the beach; and mission-related beach driving needs.

C ONSTRUCTION AND D EVELOPMENT

Beach Sand Placement

Beach sand placement refers to beach restoratio n, beach nourishment, and inlet maintenance projects carried out to provide a temporary remedy for beach erosion. Beach restoration is the placement of sand along the shoreline to rebuild a b each that has been totally lost to erosion. Beach nourishment is the periodic replenishment of a restored beach to maintain a desired beach width for protection of coastal structures. Beach nourishment often involves excavating large quantities of sand from one site and placing it on an existing, but eroding, s ection of coastline. Sand is most typically dredged from inlets or offshore, although inland sand sources may also be

used. Inlet maintenance invol ves removing sand from an inlet for navigational purposes and often involves dredging and disposal of the ma terial onto a nearby beach. Inlet sand bypass systems are engineered to allow sand that has be en restricted from its normal movement pattern by a man-made structure (jetty or artificially de epened channel) to be placed on the downdrift beach. These systems usually consist of a large de pression constructed near the end of a jetty or groin on the updrift side of an inle t. As sand migrates past the st ructure, it collects in the sink. When the sink is full, sand is pumped to the downdrift beach with a hydraulic dredge.

Beach sand placement is generally vi ewed as less harmful to sea turtles than armoring, but it too can affect sea turtle reproductiv e success in a variety of ways . Although placing sand on beaches may provide a greater quantity of nesting habitat, the quality of th at habitat may be less suitable than pre-existing natural beaches. Sub-optimal nesting habitat may cause decreased nesting success, place an increased energy burden on nesting females, result in abnormal nest construction, and reduce the survivorsh ip of eggs and hatchlings. Crain et al . (1995) provides a review of the potential effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles.

During the nesting and hatching season, construc tion impacts of sand placement projects can occur. Pipelines and heavy equipment can creat e barriers to nesting fe males, causing a higherI-36 incidence of non-nesting emergences. Increase d human activity on the project beach at night may cause further disturbance to nesting fema les. Unmarked nests may be crushed by construction equipment or buried during sand placement. Nests relocated to a beach site outside the project area may experience reduced reproductive success (Limpus et al . 1979, Moody 1998). Project lighting along the beach and in the nearshore area of a borrow site may deter nesting females and misorient emergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches.

Constructed beaches tend to differ from natural beaches in several important ways. They are typically wider, flatter, more compact, and the sediments are mo re moist than those on natural beaches (Nelson et al . 1987, Ackerman et al . 1991, Ernest and Martin 1999). On severely eroded sections of beach, where little or no suitable nesting habitat previously existed, sand placement can result in increased nesting (Ernes t and Martin 1999). However, on most beaches, nesting success typically declines for the first year or two following construction, even though more nesting habitat is available for turtles (Trindell et al . 1998, Ernest and Martin 1999, Herren 1999). Reduced nesting success on constructed beach es has been attributed to increased sand compaction, escarpment formation, and changes in beach profile (Nelson et al . 1987, Crain et al

. 1995, Lutcavage et al . 1997, Steinitz et al . 1998, Ernest and Martin 1999, Rumbold et al . 2001). Compaction can inhibit nest cons truction or increase the amount of time it takes for turtles to construct nests, while escarpments often cause female turtles to return to the ocean without nesting or to deposit their nests seaward of the escarpment where they are more susceptible to frequent and prolonged tidal inundation.

Beach sand placement can affect the incubation e nvironment of nests by altering the moisture content, gas exchange, and temp erature of sediments (Ackerman et al . 1991, Ackerman 1997,

Parkinson et al . 1999). The extent to which the incuba tion environment is altered is largely dependent on the similarity of the placed sa nds and the natural sediments they replace. Consequently, the results of studies assessi ng the effects of sand placement on reproductive success have varied among study sites.

Even though constructed beaches are wider, nests deposited there may experience higher rates of wash out than those on relatively narrow, steeply sloped beaches (Ernest and Martin 1999). This

occurs because nests on constructe d beaches are more broadly distributed than those on natural beaches, where they tend to be clustered near the base of the dune. Nests laid closest to the waterline on constructed beaches may be lost du ring the first year or two following construction as the beach undergoes an equilibration process during which seaward porti ons of the beach are

lost to erosion.

Placing sand on highly eroded beaches, especially those with a complete absence of dry beach, can benefit nesting turtles if c onducted properly. Sea turtle con cerns must be considered in project planning to ensure th e sand source is compatible w ith naturally occurring beach sediments in the area (in terms of grain size, shape, color, etc.) a nd that remediation measures are incorporated into the project to allow for successful nesting, nest incubation, and hatchling emergence. Beach and dune profiles that mimi c the beaches nesting l oggerheads prefer (narrow and steeply sloped with a promin ent vegetated dune (Provanchaand Ehrhart 1987)) are seldom the choice for sand placement projects. Rather, constructed beaches are commonly engineered toI-37 be wide and flat, traits that achieve the principal goals of upland property protection and

increased area for human use.

Although inlet maintenance and sand bypassing effo rts have the potential to reduce downdrift erosion effects, there may be effects on sea turt le reproduction that are similar to those from beach nourishment. For example, several researchers have eval uated the effects of an inlet maintenance program on sea turtle reproductive success at Sebastian Inle t on Florida’s Atlantic

coast. The first of those studies detected no si gnificant differences in hatchling emerging success between the beach receiving bypassed sand and a c ontrol beach farther downdrift (Ryder 1993). However, in a study of a subsequent sand bypass effort, Herren (1999) found a significant reduction in hatchling emerging success on the nour ished beaches compared to a control.

Differences in results between st udies probably relate to variabil ity in the characteristics of sediments placed on the beach. In addition to reduced reproductive success, Herren (1999) also noted a decline in nesting success downdrift of th e inlet during the first ye ar or two following a sand bypass project, likely caused by the presence of escarpments that formed on the beach postconstruction. Witherington et al . (2005) measured loggerhead nesting density over a 12-year period (1989 to 2000) within 6 km of Sebastian Inlet and found nesting decreased significantly with proximity to the inlet in both updrift and dow ndrift directions.

Beach Armoring

Armoring is any rigid structure placed parallel to the shorelin e on the upper beach to prevent

both landward retreat of the shoreline and i nundation or loss of upla nd property by flooding and wave action (Kraus and McDougal 1996). Armori ng includes bulkheads, s eawalls, soil retaining walls, rock revetments, sandbags, and geotextile tubes. Schroeder and Mosier (2000) provide descriptions of these different structures. Although armoring stru ctures may provide short-term protection to beachfront property, they do little to promote or maintain sandy beaches. These structures influence natural shoreline processe s and the physical beach environment, but the

effects are not well understood. It is clear that ar moring structures prevent long-term recovery of the beach/dune system (i.e., building of the back beach) by physically prohibiting dune formation from wave uprush and wind-blown sand. Reporte d topographic effects seaward and adjacent to these structures vary between project sites (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979, Pilkey et al . 1984, Kraus 1988, Kraus and McDougal 1996).

Erosion of adjacent downdrift beaches can occur if an updrift armoring stru cture acts as a jetty and impounds sand (Kraus 1988, Tait and Griggs 1990) . Additionally, these structures can cause wave reflection and scour, processes that acceler ate erosion seaward of the structure and that steepen the offshore profile (Pilkey et al . 1984). Sand can move al ong shore past an armoring structure, but it is not clear wh ether the longshore sediment tran sport rate changes (Kraus and McDougal 1996). Pilkey et al . (1984) contend that the intensity of longshore currents increases in front of armoring structures and this hastens removal of beach sand. Most likely, the extent to which any of these potentially ha rmful effects may be realized is largely dependent upon a structure’s physical position on the beach relative to the surf zone (Kraus 1988, Tait and Griggs 1990). The closer an armoring stru cture is to the surf zone, the greater its potential for altering shoreline processes.I-38 Considerable anecdotal information suggests that permanent armoring structures can diminish the quality of sea turtle nesting habitat. Howe ver, there have been fe w experimental studies designed specifically to assess th e impacts of these structures on sea turtle nesting. Mosier (1998) and Mosier and Witherington (2002) recorded the behavior of nesting turtles in front of seawalls and adjacent unarmored sections of beach. Mosier (1998) reported that fewer loggerheads made nesting attempts on beaches fronted by seawalls than on adjacent beaches where armoring structures were absent. Both st udies found that when turtles did emerge in the presence of armoring structures, more returned to the water without nesting than those on nonarmored beaches. Additionally, Mosier (1998) fo und that turtles on armored sections of beach tended to wander greater distances than those th at emerged on adjacent natural beaches. It is unknown if this additional energy ex penditure reduces reproductive output. Armoring structures can effectively eliminate a tu rtle’s access to upper regions of the beach/dune system. Consequently, nests on armored beaches were gene rally found at lower elevations than those on non-walled beaches. Lower elevations subject nests to a greater risk of repeated tidal inundation and erosion and can potentially alte r thermal regimes, an important factor in determining the sex ratio of hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Provanc ha 1989, Mrosovsky 1994, Ackerman 1997, Delpech and Foote 1998). The negative effects of ar moring become more pronounced the closer the

structures are to the surf zone. Thus, the quality of beach habita t seaward of armoring structures on eroding sections of coastline can be expected to diminish as the shoreline recedes.

Impacts also can occur if the installation of structures takes place during the nesting season. Unmarked nests can be crushed or uncovered by heavy equipment. Vibrations and water runoff from jetting operations during installation of struct ures can damage nests as well. There have also been reported incidents of nesting turtles and hatchlings getting caught in construction debris or trapped in excavations at construc tion sites (FFWCC, unpublished data). In addition, hatchlings have been trapped in holes or crevices of exposed riprap and ge otextile tubes. Both nesting turtles and hatchlings have been entangled or entrapped in the debris of failed structures. There have also been reports of injuries and deaths of nestin g turtles that have fallen from seawalls after crawling onto them from adjacent propertie s (FFWCC, unpublished data).

As the extent of armoring on beaches increases, th e probability of a nesting turtle encountering a seawall or depositing a nest in sub-optimal hab itat increases. Nests deposited in sub-optimal habitat are likely to suffer increased mortality. The proportion of coastline that is armored is approximately 18% (239 km) in Florida (Cla rk 1992, Schroeder and Mosier 2000, Witherington

et al . 2006), 9% (14 km) in Georgia (Mark D odd, GDNR, personal communication, 2000), 12% (29 km) in South Carolina (Sally Murphy, SC DNR, personal communication, 2000), and 2% (9 km) in North Carolina (Sean McGuire, Nort h Carolina Division of Coastal Management, personal communication, 2002). Thes e assessments of armoring exte nt do not include structures that are a barrier to sea turtle nesting but that do not fit the definition of armoring, such as dune crossovers, cabanas, sand fences, and recreational equipment.I-39 Other Shoreline Stabilizations

a

. Groins and Jetties

Groins and jetties are shore-perp endicular structures that are de signed to trap sand that would otherwise be transported by longshore currents. Je tties are defined as structures placed to keep sand from flowing into channels (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979, Komar 1983). In preventing normal sand transport, these structures accrete updrift beaches while causing accelerated beach

erosion downdrift of the stru ctures (Komar 1983, Pilkey et al . 1984, National Research Council 1987), a process that results in degradation of sea turtle nesting habitat. As sand fills the area updrift from the groin or jett y, some littoral drift and sand deposition on adjacent downdrift beaches may occur due to spillover. However, these structures often force the stream of sand into deeper offshore water where it is lost from the system (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). The greatest changes in beach profile ne ar groins and jetties are observ ed close to the structures, but effects eventually may extend many kilometers along the coast (Komar 1983).

Jetties are placed at ocean inlets to keep tran sported sand from closing the inlet channel. Together, jetties and inlets are known to have profound effects on adjacent beaches (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). Witherington et al . (2005) found a significant ne gative relationship between loggerhead nesting density and distance from the n earest of 17 ocean inlets on the Atlantic coast

of Florida. The effect of inlets in lowering nesting dens ity was observed both updrift and downdrift of the inlets, leading researchers to pr opose that beach instability from both erosion and accretion may discourage loggerhead nesting.

Construction of groins and jettie s during the nesting season may resu lt in the destruction of nests, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation of em erging hatchlings from project lighting. Following construction, th e presence of groins and jettie s may interfere with nesting turtle access to the beach, result in a change in beach profile and width (downdrift erosion, loss of sandy berms, and escarpment formation), trap hatchlings, and concentrate predatory fishes, resulting in higher probab ilities of hatchling predation. Expe rimental mesh groins have been tested as a potential beach restoration system. The mesh groin system is a temporary set of groins composed of net “fences” se t in the intertidal and subtidal zone that have the potential to entrap turtles and other marine life within the open ings of the net or other parts of the structure.

Escarpments may develop on beaches between groins as the beaches equilibrate to their final profiles. These escarpments are known to prevent females from nesting on the upper beach and can cause them to choose unsuitable nesting areas, such as seaward of an escarpment. These nest sites commonly receive prolonged tidal inundation and erosion, which results in nest failure (Nelson and Blihovde 1998).

As groin structures fail and break apart, they spread debris on the beach, which may further impede nesting females from accessing suitable nesti ng sites and trap both hatchlings and nesting turtles. Geotextile tubes begin to disintegrate when exposed to ultraviolet light (life expectancy is approximately 5 to 10 years) . This may result in pieces of geotextile material, a woven plastic-like substance, floating off or being washed up on the beach. Although painting the exposed portions of the geotextile tube to protect them from u ltraviolet light will slow down theI-40 rate of disintegration, it will stil l occur. The material may be ingested by sea turtles or entangle them, either of which could result in death.

b

. Offshore Breakwaters

Breakwaters are typically construc ted from rock or concrete and are placed in nearshore waters to reduce wave energy (National Research C ouncil 1990b). This re duction in wave energy modifies the longshore transport of sand and may result in an accumulation of sand and a reduction in erosion along the shor eline adjacent to the breakwater. However, the placement of breakwaters may result in the formation of a sa nd bar that connects the beach to the breakwater

as sand accumulates. This creates a situation wh ere the breakwater acts as a headland rather than

an offshore feature. The breakwater then functio ns as a barrier to the longshore transport of material in a manner similar to a groin, resu lting in downdrift erosi on (National Research Council 1995) and degradation of dow ndrift sea turtle nesting habitat.

Breakwaters may be built with di fferent top elevations. They may be built to project above the water’s surface or they may be built as submerge d structures that are designed to reduce the height of waves but not to abso rb or reflect all wave energy (N ational Research Council 1989). Emergent breakwaters that are or iented parallel to the shoreline have the potential to interfere

with the movement of adult females to and fr om the nesting beach; function as barriers to hatchlings during offshore migration; entrap hatchli ngs in the crevices of the structures or within

eddies or other currents associated with the st ructures; and increase hatchling and adult female energy expenditure in their atte mpts to bypass the structures.

Sand Fences

Sand fences, also known as snow fences and drif t fences, are erected to build and stabilize dunes by trapping sand moving along the beach and by preventing excessive sand loss. Additionally, these fences can protect dune systems by deterring foot traffic. Sand fen ces are constructed of narrowly spaced wooden or plastic slats or plas tic fabric. If improperly placed, sand fencing may act as a barrier to nesting females or trap hatchlings (National Research Council 1990a). The placement of sand fencing during the nesting s eason may result in destruction of unmarked

nests.

Stormwater Outfalls

Rainfall on dunes and beaches percolates rapidly into the permeable sands and produces little, if any, runoff. However, runoff from beachfront parking lots, building rooftops, roads, decks, and draining swimming pools adjacent to th e beach is frequently discharg ed directly to the beach and dune either by sheet flow, thr ough stormwater collection system outfalls, or through small diameter pipes. These outfalls are known to cr eate localized erosion ch annels, prevent natural dune establishment, and wash out sea turtle nests (FFWCC, unpublished data). Stormwater runoff can result in beach erosion and prevent natural dune building in localized areas. Contaminants contained in stormwater, such as oils, grease, antifreeze, gasoline, metals, pesticides, chlorine, and nutrients, may affect se a turtle nests and other beach fauna when large amounts of stormwater are discharged onto the beach.I-41 Coastal Construction

In addition to shoreline protec tion activities, there are a variet y of other coas tal construction activities that may affect sea tu rtles. These include construc tion, repair, and maintenance of upland structures and dune crossovers; installation of utility cables; installation and repair of public infrastructure (such as coastal highw ays and emergency evacuation routes); and construction equipment and lighting associated w ith any of these activities. Many of these activities may alter nesting habitat and harm nests, adults, and hatc hlings as described previously for coastal armoring. Most direct construction-related impacts can be avoided by requiring that non-emergency activities be performed outside of the nesting and hatching season. However, indirect effects can also result from the post- construction presence of st ructures on the beach. The presence of these structures may cause nestin g turtles to return to the ocean without nesting, deposit their nests lower on the beach where they are more susceptible to frequent and prolonged tidal inundation, or select less suitable nesting sites where shading from the structures can influence incubation temperatures and potentially result in ch anges in hatchling sex ratios (Mrosovsky et al . 1995).

E COSYSTEM A LTERATIONS

Beach Erosion and Accretion

Natural beach erosion events may influence the qu ality of nesting habitat. Nesting females may deposit eggs at the base of an escarpment formed during an erosion event where they are more susceptible to repeated tidal inundation. Eros ion, frequent or prol onged tidal inundation, and accretion can negatively affect incubating egg cl utches. Short-term erosion events (e.g., atmospheric fronts, northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes) are common phenomena throughout the loggerhead nesting range and may va ry considerably from year to year. Sea turtles have evolved a strategy to offset these na tural events by laying la rge numbers of eggs and by distributing their nests both spatially and temporally. T hus, the total annual hatchling production is never fully affected by storm- generated beach erosi on and inundation, although local effects may be high. For example, stor m-induced mortality in the DTRU has been high during years of high trop ical storm activity and may limit reco very (Van Houtan and Bass 2007). However, human activities along coastlines ca n accelerate erosion rate s, interrupt natural shoreline migration, and reduce bo th the quantity and quality of available nesting habitat.

During erosion events, some nests may be uncovered or completely washed away. Nests that are not washed away may suffer reduced reproductive success as the result of frequent or prolonged tidal inundation. Eggs saturated with seawater are susceptible to embryonic mortality (Bustard and Greenham 1968, Milton et al . 1994, Martin 1996). However, in spite of the potential for reduced hatching success, loggerhead eggs can su ccessfully survive periodic tidal inundation (Foley 1998, Foley et al . 2006). Similarly, Ernest and Ma rtin (1993) found that although frequent or prolonged tidal i nundation resulted in fewer emergent hatchlings, occasional overwash of nests appeared to have minimal eff ect on reproductive succe ss. Accretion of sand above incubating nests may also result in egg and hatchling mortality (Ehr hart and Witherington 1987).I-42 P OLLUTION

Oil Pollution

Oil spills in the vicinity of nesting beaches just prior to or during the nesting season could place nesting females, incubating egg clutches, and hatc hlings at significant ri sk (Fritts and McGehee 1982, Lutcavage et al . 1997, Witherington 1999). Fritts and McGehee (1982) conducted both field and laboratory studies to determine th e effects of petroleum on the development and survival of sea turtle embryos. Their results suggest that an oil spill resulting in contamination of nesting beaches before the nesting season may aff ect nesting success for only a short period, if at all, but a spill resulting in the de position of oil on eggs or on top of an incubating nest is likely to increase mortality and result in abnormal development of hatchlings. They concluded that the overall effect of oil spills on tu rtles was likely dependent on the tim ing of the spill and the age of

the oil.

Two oil spills that occurred near loggerhead nest ing beaches in Florida were observed to affect eggs, hatchlings, and nesting females. Approxi mately 350,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled in Tampa Bay in August 1993 and was carried onto ne sting beaches in Pinell as County. Observed mortalities included 31 hatchlings and 176 oil covered nests; an additional 2,177 eggs and hatchlings were either exposed to oil or disturbed by response activities (FDEP et al . 1997). Another spill near the beaches of Browar d County in August 2000 involved approximately 15,000 gallons of oil and tar (NOAA and FDEP 2002). Models estimated that approximately 1,500 to 2,000 hatchlings and 0 to 1 adults were injured or killed.

Oil cleanup activities can also be harmful. Earth-moving equipment can dissuade females from nesting and destroy nests, containment booms can entrap hatchlings, and lighting from nighttime activities can misdirect turtles (Witherington 1999).

Lighting Pollution

Both nesting and hatchling sea turtles are advers ely affected by the presen ce of artificial lighting on or near the beach (Witherington and Martin 19 96). Experimental studies have shown that artificial lighting deters adult female turtles fr om emerging from the ocean to nest (Witherington 1992). Witherington (1986) noted that loggerhea ds aborted nesting at tempts at a greater frequency in lighted areas. Because adult female s rely on visual brightness cues to find their way back to the ocean after ne sting, those turtles that nest on lighted beaches may become disoriented (unable to maintain constant directional movement) or misoriented (able to maintain constant directional movement but in the wrong direction) by artifici al lighting and have difficulty finding their way back to the ocean. In some cases, misdirected nesting females have crawled onto coastal highways and have b een struck and killed by vehicles (FFWCC, unpublished data).

Hatchlings exhibit a robust se a-finding behavior guided by visual cues (Witherington and Bjorndal 1991, Salmon et al . 1992, Lohmann et al . 1997, Witherington and Martin 1996, Lohmann and Lohmann 2003), and direct and timely mi gration from the nest to sea is critical toI-43 their survivorship. Although the mechanism i nvolved in sea-finding is complex, involving cues from both brightness and shape, it is clear th at strong brightness stimuli can override other competing cues (Witherington and Martin 1996).

Hatchlings have a tendency to orient toward th e brightest direction as integrated over a broad horizontal area. On natural undeveloped beaches , the brightest direct ion is commonly away from elevated shapes (e.g., dune, vegetation, et c.) and their silhouettes and toward the broad open horizon of the sea. On developed beaches, the brightest direction is often away from the ocean and toward lighted structures. Hatchlings unable to find the ocean, or delayed in reaching it, are likely to incur high mortality from dehydration, exhausti on, or predation (Carr and Ogren 1960, Ehrhart and Witherington 1987, Witherington and Martin 1996). Hatchlings lured into lighted parking lots or toward streetlights are often crushed by passing vehicles (McFarlane 1963, Philibosian 1976, Peters and Verhoeven 1994, Witherington and Martin 1996). Uncommonly intense artificial lighting can draw hatchlings back out of the surf (Daniel and Smith 1947, Carr and Ogren 1960, Ehrhart and Witherington 1987).

Although the attributes that can make a light sour ce harmful to sea turtles are complex, a simple rule has proven useful in identifying lights th at pose potential proble ms for sea turtles. Witherington and Martin (1996) pr opose that artificial light sour ces are “likely to cause problems for sea turtles if light from the source can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the beach.” This visible light can come directly from any glowing portion of a luminaire, including the lamp, globe, or reflector, or indirectly by re flection from buildings or trees that are visible from the beach. Bright or numerous light s ources, especially those directed upward, will illuminate sea mist and low clouds, creating a distin ct sky glow visible from the beach. Field research suggests hatchling orientation can be disrupted by the sky glow from heavily lighted coastal areas even when no direct lighting is visible (Witherington et al . 1994).

The ephemeral nature of evidence from hatchlin g disorientation and mortality makes it difficult to accurately assess how many hatchlings are mi sdirected and killed by artificial lighting. Reports of hatchling disorientation events in Florida describe severa l hundred nests each year and are likely to involve tens of thousands of hatchlings (Nelson et al . 2002). However, this number calculated from disorientation reports is likely a vast underestimate. Independent of these reports, Witherington et al . (1996) surveyed hatchling orie ntation at nests located at 23 representative beaches in six counties around Florida in 1993 and 1994 and found that, by county, approximately 10 to 30% of nests showed evidence of hatchlings disoriented by lighting. From this survey and from measures of ha tchling production (FFWCC, unpublished data), the number of hatchlings disoriente d by lighting in Florida is calcul ated in the range of hundreds of thousands per year.

Beach Debris

Hatchlings often must navigate through a variet y of obstacles before r eaching the ocean. These

include natural and human-made debris. Debris on the beach may interfere with a hatchling’s progress toward the ocean. Research has shown that travel times of hatch lings from the nest to the water may be extended when traversing areas of heavy foot traffic or vehicular ruts (Hosier

et al . 1981); the same is true of debris on the b each. Hatchlings may be upended and spend bothI-44 time and energy in righting themselves. Some be ach debris may have the potential to trap hatchlings and prevent them fr om successfully reachi ng the ocean. In addition, debris over the tops of nests may impede or prevent hatchling emergence.

S

PECIES I NTERACTIONS

Predation

Predation of eggs and hatchli ngs by native and introduced species occurs on almost all nesting beaches. The most common predators in the southeast U.S. are ghost crabs ( Ocypode quadrata ), raccoons ( Procyon lotor ), feral hogs ( Sus scrofa ), foxes ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes ), coyotes ( Canis latrans ), armadillos ( Dasypus novemcinctus ), and red fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta ) (Dodd 1988, Stancyk 1982). In the absence of nest protection programs in a number of locations throughout the southeast U. S., raccoons may depredate up to 96% of all nests deposited on a beach (Davis and Wh iting 1977, Hopkins and Murphy 1980, Stancyk et al

. 1980, Talbert et al . 1980, Schroeder 1981, Labisky et al . 1986). Prior to h og control efforts, up to 45% of all nests deposited at the Cape Canave ral Air Force Station, Flor ida, were depredated by feral hogs (FFWCC, unpublished data). In 1990, an estimated 70% of loggerhead nests were destroyed by feral hogs on Ossabaw Island, Geor gia (GDNR, unpublished data). In addition to the destruction of eggs, predators may take cons iderable numbers of hatchlings prior to or upon emergence from the sand. Florida beaches re port hatchlings being preyed upon by coyotes, foxes, raccoons, domestic dogs, red fire ants, a nd ghost crabs during emergence from the nest (FFWCC, unpublished data).

Although not considered a typical form of predation, roots of sea oats ( Uniola paniculata ), railroad vine ( Ipomoea pes-caprae ), and other dune plants someti mes invade the nest cavity and penetrate incubating eggs (Wither ington 1986). This occurs primar ily in nests laid high on the

beach at or landward of the toe of the dune.

Exotic Dune and Beach Vegetation

Non-native vegetation has invaded many coastal ar eas and often outcompetes native species such as sea oats, railroad vine, sea grape ( Coccoloba uvifera ), bitter panicgrass ( Panicum amarum ), and seaside pennywort ( Hydrocotyle bonariensis ). The invasion of less stabilizing vegetation can lead to increased erosion and degradation of suitable nesting habitat. Exotic vegetation may also form impenetrable root mats that can prevent proper nest cavity excavation, invade and desiccate eggs, or trap hatchlings.

The Australian pine ( Casuarina equisetifolia ) is particularly harmful to sea turtles. Dense stands have taken over many coastal areas throughout centra l and south Florida. Australian pines cause excessive shading of the beach that would not othe rwise occur. Studies in Florida suggest that

nests laid in shaded areas are subjected to lower incubation te mperatures, which may alter the natural hatchling sex ratio (Marcus and Maley 1987, Schmelz and Mezich 1988, Hanson et al

. 1998). Fallen Australian pines limit access to suit able nest sites and can entrap nesting females (Austin 1978, Reardon and Mansfield 1997). The shallow root network of these pines can interfere with nest construction (Schmelz and Mezich 1988). Davis and Whiting (1977) reportedI-45 that nesting activity declined in Everglades Nati onal Park where dense stands of Australian pine took over native dune vegetation on a remote nesting beach.

Beach vitex ( Vitex rotundifolia ) was introduced to the horticulture trade in the mid-1980s and is

often sold as a “dune stabilizer.” The plant is native to Japan, Korea, and Hawaii. Its presence

on North Carolina and South Carolina beaches could have a negative effect on sea turtle nesting. This exotic plant is crowding out the native species, such as sea oats and bitter panicum, and can colonize large areas in just a few years.

Sisal, or century plant, ( Agave americana ) is native to arid regions of Mexico. The plant was widely grown in sandy soils around Florida in order to provide fiber for cord age. It has escaped cultivation in Florida and has been purposely pl anted on dunes. Although the effects of sisal on sea turtle nesting are uncertain, thickets with impenetrable sharp spin es are occasionally found on developed beaches.

O THER F ACTORS

Climate Change

Climate change has the potential to greatly imp act loggerhead turtles. Impacts from climate change, especially due to global warming, are likel y to become more apparent in future years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IP CC) 2007a). The global mean temperature has risen 0.76oC over the last 150 years, and the linear tr end over the last 50 year s is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a).

One of the most certain consequences of climate change is rising sea leve ls (Titus and Narayanan 1995), which will result in increased erosion rates along nesting beaches. This could particularly impact areas with low-lying beaches where sa nd depth is a limiting f actor, as the sea will inundate nesting sites an d decrease available nesting habitat (Daniels et al . 1993, Fish et al

. 2005, Baker et al . 2006). The loss of habitat as a result of climate ch ange could be accelerated

due to a combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an increase in the frequency of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion (Antonelis et al . 2006, Baker et al . 2006). On some undeveloped beaches, shoreline migration will have limited effects on the suitability of nesting habitat. Bruun (1962) hypothesized that during a sea level rise a typical beach profile will maintain its configuration but will be tran slated landward and upward. However, along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where erosion control structures have been constructed to limit shoreline movement, rising s ea levels will cause seve re effects on nesting females and their eggs. Erosion control structures can result in the perman ent loss of dry nesting beach or deter nesting females from reaching su itable nesting sites (N ational Research Council 1990a). Nesting females may deposit eggs seaward of the erosion control structures potentially subjecting them to repeated tidal inundation. C limate change may also affect loggerhead sex ratios. Loggerhead turtles exhi bit temperature-dependent sex de termination. Rapidly increasing global temperatures may result in warmer inc ubation temperatures and highly female-biased sex ratios (e.g., Glen and Mrosovsky 2004).I-46 Natural Catastrophes

Aperiodic, short-term weather-related erosion events (e.g., atmospheric fronts, northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes) are common phenomena throughout the loggerhead nesting range and may vary considerably from year to year. Milton et al . (1994) reported that 24.5% of all loggerhead nests laid on Deerfield Beach, Fl orida, in 1992 were lost or destroyed by Hurricane Andrew as a result of storm surge. Similarly, Martin (1996) reported a 22.7% loss of total loggerhead nest producti on on the southern portion of Hu tchinson Island, Florida, during the passage of Hurricane Erin in 1995. Ehrhar t and Witherington (1987) reported a 19% loss of loggerhead nests at Melbourne B each, Florida, after a 5-day nor theaster in 1985. In Georgia, 16% of loggerhead nests were lost to tr opical storm systems in 2001 (Dodd and Mackinnon 2001); nest loss was particularly high on Sapelo (54%) and Little Cumberland Islands (28%). On Fisher Island in Florida, Milton et al . (1994) reported that ha tchling emerging success decreased significantly following Hurricane Andrew in 1992. They found that hatchlings were unable to emerge from nests where sand had accrete d in large quanti ties and that these hatchlings probably died from asphyxiation or exhaustion while struggling to emerge from the nests. Sea turtles have evolved a strategy to offset these na tural events by laying la rge numbers of eggs and by distributing their nests bot h spatially and temporally.

H.2. N ERITIC Z ONE

R ESOURCE U SE (F ISHERIES )

Trawl Fisheries

Of all commercial and recreationa l fisheries in the U.S., shrimp trawling is the most detrimental to the recovery of sea turtle populations. In a 1990 study, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that between 5,000 and 50,000 loggerh eads were killed annually by the offshore shrimping fleet in the southeast U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Me xico (National Research Council 1990a). Mortality associated with shrimp trawls was estimated to be 10 times greater than that

of all other human-related factors combined. Most of these turt les were neritic juveniles, the life stages most critical to the stability and recovery of s ea turtle populations (Crouse et al . 1987,

Crowder et al . 1994).

In 1978, NMFS initiated the development of a ne t modification to allow captured turtles to escape from shrimp nets. The result of this research was a device known as a turtle excluder device (TED). The original TED design was a large cage-like design th at was effective in excluding turtles, but proved unwieldy and poten tially dangerous for fishermen. Commercial fishermen, in cooperation with NMFS, developed several new lighter TED designs based on net modifications commonly used by shrimper s to reduce unwanted bycatch (e.g., cannonball jellyfish). These designs consisted of a metal-gr id or webbing ramp (i.e., soft TED) that directed turtles to an escape opening cut in the top or bo ttom of the net. Because of the increasing number of new TED designs developed by fisher men, NMFS adopted standardized guidelines that required all approved TEDs to be 97% eff ective in excluding turtles (NMFS 1987, 52 FR 24244).I-47 By 1986, lack of widespread voluntary use of TEDs by shrimpers resulted in Federal regulations requiring their implementation. NMFS published final regulations in June 1987; however, implementation was delayed as a result of legal and congressional action. This delay prompted South Carolina and Florida to require the use of TEDs in waters under their jurisdiction. The use

of TEDs for all offshore trawlers from North Ca rolina to Texas was implemented in 1990 for the period May through August and was extended to year-round in 1991. By December 1994, regulations requiring fish ery-wide use of TEDs in shrimp tr awls, including a ll inshore areas, were finalized or enacted (NMFS 1992, 57 FR 57348).

The overall effectiveness of TEDs is difficult to assess. Crowder et al . (1995) found sea turtle strandings were reduced by 44% in South Caro lina following the implementation of TEDs. Royle (2000) found strandings were reduced by 37% in Georgia over the period from 1980 to 1997. In contrast, Shoop et al . (1999) found no reduction in sea turtle strandings on Cumberland Island, Georgia, with increased TED use. In the Gulf of Mexico, Caillouet et al . (1996) found that TED regulations did not diminish the stat istical correlation betw een stranding rates and commercial fishing intensity. Large-scale stra nding events associated with shrimp fishing activity have been documented following the mandatory use of TEDs (Lewison et al . 2003; Mark Dodd, GDNR, personal communication, 2008).

Although TEDs were found to reduce trawl related sea turtle mortality, in so me cases the use of inefficient designs and small opening sizes reduced their potential effectiveness. For example, NMFS approved several TED configurations (e .g., Morrison soft TED) that were later

disallowed when additional tes ting found they captured and drowne d turtles. Epperly and Teas (2002) found minimum TED opening si zes were too small to allo w large juvenile and adult loggerheads to escape from shrimp trawls. They estimated that 33 to 47% of the total loggerhead strandings measured on U.S. beaches from 1986 to 1999 were too large to fit through the minimum TED opening. In response to this fi nding, South Carolina enacted regulations requiring increased TED escape open ings in 2002 (South Carolina C ode of Laws 50-5-765). In 2003, NMFS revised the regionwide comprehensive TED regulations to require larger escape openings (NMFS 2003b, 68 FR 8456).

Several other shrimp-fishery relate d factors likely contribute to hi gh loggerhead mortality rates. These factors include illegally modified TEDs (closed TED openings), high fishing densities (multiple capture of individual turtles), high capture rates in sampling nets (trynets), and bycatch in skimmer trawls and butterfly nets. Data are not currently available to assess the impacts of these factors on sea turtle mortality.

Other trawl fisheries operating in waters under Fe deral jurisdiction that are known to capture sea turtles include, but are not limited to, summer fl ounder, calico scallop, Atla ntic sea scallop, blue crab, whelk, cannonball jellyfis h, horseshoe crab, and mid-Atlantic directed finfish trawl

fisheries and the Sargassum fishery. The summer flounder fishery is the only trawl fishery (other than the shrimp fishery) with federally ma ndated TED use, in certai n areas, as a result of high mortality rates. In the winter of 1991-1992, Epperly et al . (1995a) estimated a total of 1,063 sea turtle captures in the fl ounder fishery, and 89 to 191 of the captures were estimated as mortalities. Loggerhead annual bycatch esti mates in 2004 and 2005 in mid-Atlantic scallop trawl gear ranged from 81 to 191 turtles, de pending on the estimation methodology used (MurrayI-48 2007). Estimated average annual bycatch of lo ggerheads in other mid-Atlantic federally managed bottom otter trawl fisheries during 1996-2004 was 616 turtles (Murray 2006). The

harvest of Sargassum by trawlers can result in incidental capture of pos t-hatchlings and habitat destruction (Schwartz 1988, Witherington 2002).

Regulations regarding trawl fisher ies under state jurisdiction are hi ghly variable. Some states, including New Hampshire, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and Florida, maintain offshore areas permanently closed to trawling. The State of Georgia requires the use of NMFS-approved TEDs in all trawl fisheries operating in state waters. So uth Carolina uses a wate r-temperature trigger to ensure whelk trawling occurs when sea turtles are less abundant. With the exception of the shrimp fishery and part of the summer flounder fishery, TEDs are not requ ired in most trawl fisheries operating in state waters.

Dredge Fisheries

Dredge fishing gear is the predominant gear us ed to harvest sea scallops off the mid- and

northeastern Atlantic coast. S ea scallop dredges are composed of a heavy steel frame and cutting bar located on the bottom part of the frame and a bag, made of metal rings and mesh twine, attached to the frame. The gear is fish ed along the bottom and weighs from 500-1,000 pounds (National Research Council 2002). Turtles can be struck and in jured or killed by the dredge frame and/or captured in the bag where they may drown or be further injured or killed when the catch and heavy gear are dumped on the vessel de ck. Total estimated bycatch of loggerhead turtles in the sea scallop dredge fishery operating in the mid-Atlan tic region (New York to North Carolina) from June through November 2003 was 749 turtles (CV=0.28) (Murray 2004). Total estimated loggerhead bycatch in this region fo r the period June through November 2004 was 180 turtles (CV=0.37) (Murray 2005) and 0 turtles (CV=0.19) in 2005 (Murray 2007). Takes were observed in 2005; however, they oc curred “off watch” and were ther efore not used in developing the 2005 bycatch estimate. This apparent reducti on in estimated annual bycatch must be viewed with caution as operation of the fishery cha nged in 2004. Specifically, scallop closures and rotations were implemented, and an unquantifie d number of vessels implemented voluntary use of a chain mat that prevents turtles (live and/or killed or injured by the dredge) from entering the bag and being observed, which likely affected th e total observed bycatch of turtles. NMFS (2008a) anticipates that up to 929 loggerheads will be captured biennially in the U.S. Atlantic scallop dredge fishery, 595 of thes e captures are anticipated to be lethal. Scallop chain mats are now required in the sea scallop fish ery in certain areas and at certa in times; however, they are not expected to reduce the effect s of the dredge on turtles en countered on the bottom. The interaction of the sea scallop dredge fishery on loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic remains a

serious concern.

A small dredge fishery for whelks has been pursu ed in inshore waters of Virginia. Occasional loggerhead takes have been reported in this fi shery, but total bycatch is unknown (John Musick, VIMS, personal communication, 2005).I-49 Longline Fisheries

The principal longline fishery affecting loggerheads in the neritic environment is the commercial bottom longline fishery for sharks, which operates in summer off the mid-Atlantic States and all year long off the south Atlantic and Gulf states . Estimated bycatch of loggerheads in shark bottom longline gear between 2004 and 2006 was 588 loggerheads caught in th e Gulf of Mexico (176 dead) and 197 loggerheads caught in the southeast U.S. A tlantic (167 dead) (NMFS 2007, Richards 2007). The Gulf of Mexico reef fi sh and south Atlantic snapper-grouper commercial

fisheries also have bottom l ongline components that impact loggerheads. These fisheries generally have shorter soak times , but sometimes deeper sets than the bottom longline fishery for

sharks. NMFS estimated 974 hardshelled turtles (433 alive, 325 dead, and 216 unknown condition), predominantly loggerheads, were caught in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery from July 2006 through December 2007 (NMFS 2008b).

Other Hook and Line Fisheries

There are numerous Atlantic commercial and re creational fisheries that use other types of hook and line gear (e.g., rod and reel, handline, bandit gear). The impact of these fisheries on loggerheads likely varies depe nding on the fishing practices us ed, the area fished, and the concentration of effort. The magnitude of sea tu rtle capture and mortalit y associated with these

fisheries is not known. In addition to commercia l fisheries, the recreat ional hook and line fishery is extensive, particularly in the Southeast, wh ere loggerheads are susceptib le to fishing impacts year-round. Turtle captures on recreational hook and line gear are not uncommon, but the overall level of take and percent mortality are unknown. It is assu med that most turtles captured

in the commercial and recreationa l hook and line fisheries are rele ased alive, but ingested hooks and entanglement in associated monofilament or steel line have been documented as the probable cause of death for some stranded turtles (NMFS, unpublished data). Most reports of sea turtle captures are from fishing off piers, but there are also reports of offshore captures from both

commercial and recreational fisher men. Divers have reported s eeing dead loggerheads entangled in monofilament line on artificial reefs and shipwr ecks where fishing effort is often concentrated.

Gillnet (Demersal and Drift) Fisheries

Although a detailed summary of gill net fisheries operating off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the U.S. was presented in TEWG (1998, 2000), the lack of sea turtle mortality data for these fisheries precluded a quantitative analysis of their impacts on loggerhead populations. Many states (South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisi ana, and Texas) have prohibited gillnets, but there remain active fisheries in other states (esp ecially the mid-Atlantic) and in Federal waters. Federal fisheries including the bluefish, monk fish, northeast multispecies, spiny dogfish, summer and southern flounder, Spanish and king macker el, and shark fisherie s all have gillnet components. The impact of some of these fisher ies, particularly those using large mesh nets, could be significant. For example, in the spring of 2000, the monkfish fishery north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, was likely responsible for approximately 280 sea turtle strandings over a 2-week period (NMFS, unpublished data). In res ponse to this event and other stranding events coinciding with increasing effort in offshore gillnetting, NMFS enacted seasonally adjusted restrictions to gillnetting in portions of the mid-Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) inI-50 2003 (NMFS 2002b, 67 FR 71895). Similarly, in re sponse to strandings and documented interactions, NMFS enacted a large mesh gillnet closure in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina, in

2002.

Pound Nets and Weirs

Pound nets are fixed gear composed of a seri es of poles driven in to the bottom upon which netting is suspended. Pound nets basically opera te like a trap with th e pound constructed of a series of funnels leading to a bag that is open at the top, and a long (200 to 400 m) linear “hedge” or leader of netting that exte nds from shallow to deeper wate r where the pound is located. In some configurations, the leader is suspended from the surface by a series of stringers or vertical lines. Sea turtles incidentally captured in the pound, which is composed of small mesh webbing, are usually safe from injury and may be rel eased easily when the fishermen pull the nets (Mansfield et al . 2002a). However, sea turtle mortalities have been documented in the leader of certain pound nets. Large mesh leaders (greater than 12-inch stretched mesh) may act as a gillnet, entangling sea turtles by th e head or foreflippers (Bellmund et al . 1987) or may act as a barrier against which turtles ma y be impinged (NMFS, unpublished da ta). Nets with small mesh leader (less than 8 inches) usually do not pr esent a threat to loggerheads (Mansfield et al . 2002a, Morreale and Standora 1998, Epperly et al . 2000). Chesapeake Bay a ppears to be the primary location where pound nets with large mesh leader s are used (NMFS 2001). In the early 1980s, 3

to 33% of all sea turtle mortali ties in Virginia were attributed to large mesh leaders in the Bay (Bellmund et al . 1987). At that time, 173 such nets we re fished. However, the fishery has declined since then and in 2000 only 20 large me sh nets remained in the Bay (Mansfield et al

. 2002a). In 2002, NMFS prohibited, in certain ar eas and at certain times in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, pound nets with leaders having mesh great er than or equal to 12 inches and leaders with stringers. Epperly et al . (2007) reported observed captures of sea turtles from pound nets in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex, No rth Carolina, between 1995 through 1997 and 2001 through 2003. They observed a total of 1,303 cap tures of sea turtles, of which 987 captures were loggerheads, two of those were observed de ad. The pound net fishery in which these turtles

were observed uses leaders with a stretched mesh size of approximately 6 to 8 inches (Epperly et
al . 2007), which may account for the observed infrequent mortality.

Similar to pound nets, weirs consist of a maze of nets and poles to trap schooling fish such as scup, herring, mackerel, and squid as they migr ate through shallow waters. NMFS has several records of turtles, including loggerheads, cap tured in weirs (Ellen Keane, NMFS, personal communication, 2008). The magnitude of bycatch and mortality in this gear is currently

unknown.

Pots/Traps

Pots/traps are commonly used to target crabs, lobs ters, and fishes. These traps vary in size and configuration, but all are attached to a surface float by means of a ver tical line leading to the trap. Turtles can become entangled in vertical lines below the surface of the water and subsequently drown. In other instances, strand ed turtles have been recovered en tangled in vertical lines with the trap in tow. Loggerheads may be particular ly vulnerable to entanglem ent in vertical lines because of their attraction to, or attempts to feed on, baits and species caught in the traps andI-51 epibionts (living organisms) growin g on traps, trap lines, and floats . Recently, a small number of loggerhead entanglements have been recorded in whelk pot bridle s in the Mid-Atlantic States (Meredith Fagan, VIMS, personal communicatio n, 2008). Approximately 0.4% of stranded loggerheads (1997-2005 average) were found entangled in pot/t rap line from Maine through Texas (NMFS, unpublished data).

Haul Seines and Channel Nets

Haul seines and channel nets have been reporte d to take loggerheads in North Carolina (NMFS 2001), but it is not known how many, if any, loggerhead mortalities are caused by these fisheries. In South Carolina, channel nets are required to use TEDs (Epperly et al . 2002).

Purse Seines

Purse seines are used in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast to capture bluefin tuna and menhaden. The tuna fishery is confined to wa ter over the continental shelf, and no sea turtle

mortalities have been observed in this fish ery (NMFS 2001). The menhaden fishery is pursued close to the coast and in large estuaries such as Chesapeake Bay. Thus, the potential for loggerhead interactions with this fishery may be higher than for the tuna fishery. Although no

interactions were observed between sea turtles and purse seines in a study of finfish bycatch in Chesapeake Bay (Herbert Austin, VIMS, persona l communication, 2000), sea turtles trapped in menhaden purse seines might be impinged on the grates of inlet pipes used to suck the catch into the hold; however, recent obser vations indicate these grates are regularly monitored and loggerheads are not likely to be injured (She ryan Epperly, NMFS, personal communication, 2007).

R ESOURCE U SE (N ON -F ISHERIES )

Legal Harvest

Loggerhead turtles have been harvested in waters of the northwest Atlantic for centuries as a source of protein and for other domestic uses. Cu rrently, 32 of the 46 (70 %) countries/t erritories in the northwestern Atlantic legislate complete pr otection of loggerhead turt les in their territorial waters (Appendix 3). The ESA prohibits the harv est of loggerhead turtles in U.S. territorial waters. However, 13 of 29 (45%) Caribbean countri es/territories allow ha rvest of loggerheads. The loggerhead harvest in the Caribbean is genera lly restricted to the non -nesting season with the exception of St. Kitts and Nevis and the Turks and Ca icos Islands. Most countries/territories that allow harvest have regulations that favor harv est of large juveniles and adults, the most reproductively valuable stages of the population. Exceptions incl ude the Cayman Islands, which mandates maximum size limits, and Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago, which have no size

restrictions. All Central and South American countries in th e northwest Atlantic legislate complete protection of loggerheads in their territorial waters with the exception of Guyana. The North Atlantic islands of Bermuda, the Azores, Madeira, Cape Verde, and the Canary Islands have legislative prohibitions on the harvest of loggerhead turtles in territorial waters.I-52 Illegal Harvest

Illegal directed harvest of juven ile and adult loggerhead turtles in the waters of the continental U.S. is uncommon, but no estimates of the level of take exist. In the Caribbean region, the illegal harvest of sea turtles has been reported in most juri sdictions where surveys were conducted. Bräutigam and Eckert (2006) documen ted illegal harvest of sea turtles in 26 jurisdictions surveyed in the Lesser Antilles, Ca ribbean, and Central and South America. In some areas, illegal take of sea turtles was recognized as a serious management challenge although the extent to which logge rhead turtles were taken was not determined. Fleming (2001) reported the illegal harvest of s ea turtles in 9 of 10 Caribbean countries surveyed although the level of exploitation of loggerh eads was thought to be low as a result of the low overall abundance of loggerheads in the areas surveyed.

Oil and Gas Activities

Several activities associated with offshore oi l and gas production, including oil spills, water quality (operational discharge), seismic surveys, explosive platform removal, platform lighting, and noise from drillships and production activities, are known to impact loggerheads. Currently, there are 3,443 federally regulated offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico dedicated to natural gas and oil production. Additional state-regulated platforms are located in state waters (Texas and Louisiana). There are currently no active leases off the Atlantic coast.

Operational discharge of produced waters, drill m uds, and drill cuttings are routinely discharged in marine waters as a result of petroleum pr oduction activities (MMS 200 0). Loggerheads may bioaccumulate heavy metals found in drill m uds resulting in debili tation or death. Oil exploration and development on live bottom ar eas may disrupt foraging grounds by smothering benthic organisms with sediments and dril ling muds (Coston-Clements and Hoss 1983).

The explosive removal of offshore oil and gas platforms is known to have impacts on loggerheads ranging from capillary damage, disori entation, loss of motor control, and mortality (National Research Council 1996, Viada et al . 2008). Klima et al . (1988) examined the effects of underwater explosions on sea turtles and found fi ve of eight turtles exposed to explosions at distances varying between 229 m and 915 m were rendered unc onscious. Loggerheads found

closer to detonation sites woul d likely suffer fatal injuries. From 1987 to 2006, NMFS observers reported only one loggerhead mortality and three injured/stunned loggerheads during removal of approximately 1,700 offshore oil structures in the Gulf of Mexico (Gregg Gitschlag, NMFS, personal communication, 2007). Th e small number of sea turtles observed during platform removal may be a result of the inability of observe rs stationed at the surf ace to assess the impacts of explosions on submerged sea turtles.

Petroleum seismographic cannons produce intense noise at both high and low frequencies and have the potential to harm sea turtles. Dr illships and production facilities produce sound at varying frequencies and intensit ies that may influence turtle behavior (MMS 2000). Although sea turtles can hear low frequenc y sounds, they are generally consid ered to have an insensitive ear. The minimum sound turtles can hear (hearin g threshold) is about 132 to 140 decibels (Ridgway et al . 1969, Bartol et al . 1999). Information on their behavioral response to theseI-53 decibel levels is limited. Captive loggerhead tur tles exposed to brief, a udio-frequency vibrations initially showed startle responses of slight head retraction and lim b extension (Lenhardt et al

. 1983). Sound-induced swimming has been obser ved for captive loggerheads (O'Hara and Wilcox 1990; Moein et al . 1994a, 1994b; Lenhardt 1994); some loggerheads exposed to lowfrequency sound responded by swimming toward the surface at the onset of the sound, presumably to lessen the effects of the transmissions (Lenhardt 1994).

The impacts of offshore lighted oil producti on platforms on loggerheads are unknown. Lighted platforms may attract hatchlings, making them mo re susceptible to predation (de Silva 1982). Neritic juveniles and adults may be attracted by high prey concentratio ns around the structures, making them more susceptible to ingestion of petroleum products.

For a discussion of the physiol ogical effects of oil on loggerheads, see Oil Pollution in this

section.

Research and Conservation Management Activities

Research and conservation management activi ties involving loggerhea d turtles are many and varied throughout their U.S. range . Activities include directed ca pture in marine habitats to obtain information about life stage, health status, diet, reproductiv e status, etc. These activities are carefully regulated under the ESA, which re quires that all activities affecting loggerhead turtles, including those of a research and conservation management nature, be formally authorized. NMFS has established permitting require ments to ensure that proposed research and conservation activities are necessary for recovery , carried out by appropria tely trained persons, non-duplicative, the least manipulat ive possible, and carried out in such a way to minimize chances of mortality. The vast majority of authorized take for research and conservation management is non-lethal take. Annually, a low level of lethal take is authorized by both agencies for research and conservation purposes, pr imarily to cover the very low level of lethal take that may occur when using certain capture techniques (e.g., large mesh gillnets, trawls) and to cover lethal take that may occur during bycatch reduction experi ments in commercial fisheries. Other countries (e.g., The Bahamas, Mexico) within the Northwest Atlantic have established permitting processes for research and conservation management activities to minimize negative impacts to loggerheads.

Power Generation Activities

The entrainment and entrapment of loggerheads in saltwater cooling inta ke systems of coastal power plants has been documented in New Jers ey, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas (Eggers 1989; National Research Council 1990a; Carolin a Power and Light Company 2003; FPL and Quantum Resources, Inc. 2005; Pr ogress Energy Florida, Inc. 2003) . Average annual incidental capture rates for most coastal pl ants from which captures have b een reported amount to several turtles per plant per year. One notable exception is the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant located on Hutchinson Island, Florida. During the first 15 years of operation ( 1977-1991), an average of 128 loggerheads per year was captured in the intake canal with a mortality rate of 6.4%. During 1991-2005, loggerhead captures more than doubled (a verage of 308 per year), while mortality rates decreased to 0.3% per year (FPL and Quantum Resources, Inc. 2005).I-54 In recent years, alternative energy sources (i .e., wind, wave, tidal, current) have received widespread global attention. Nu merous projects are under consid eration in state and Federal waters off most states, and a growing number are operating as pilots or test facilities. Based on preliminary plans and state mandates for rene wable energy portfolios, dozens of wind or hydrokinetic projects representi ng many hundreds of individual tu rbines could be operating by 2010. Wind power, generated by enormous windmills sited in neritic habitats, is cause for concern with regard to the effects of cons truction, artificia l lighting, noise, and potential ecosystem alterations on loggerheads. The conve rsion of wave or tidal energy into power is cause for concern when these projects are located in loggerhead habitats, especially adjacent to nesting beaches. Each of these f acilities is likely to be tethered to the seafloor and connected via

benthic cables to the shore.

Vessel Strikes

Propeller and collision injuries from boats and ships are common in sea turtles. From 1997 to 2005, 14.9% of all stranded loggerh eads in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were documented as having sustained some type of propeller or collision injuries although it is not known what proportion of these injuri es were post or ante-mortem. The incidence of propeller wounds has risen from approximately 10% in th e late 1980s to a record high of 20.5% in 2004 (NMFS, unpublished data). Propeller wounds are greatest in southeas t Florida (Palm Beach through Miami-Dade County); during some years, as many as 60% of the loggerhead strandings found in these areas had propeller wounds (FFWCC, unpublished data).

Human Presence

Human presence, especially in neritic habitats, ca n disturb both juvenile and adult loggerheads. The ever-growing human population in coastal areas and the corresponding increase in recreational boating, fishing, and divi ng can result in behavioral di sturbances to resting, foraging, and migrating loggerheads. Continuous, intense boat traffic in neritic habitats may result in abandonment of previously used foraging or res ting areas, and intense di ver/snorkeler activity may result in displacement of loggerheads fr om preferred resting or foraging areas.

Military Activities

Military maneuvers involving explosives and/ or low frequency sonar may potentially harm loggerheads in all life stages, but information on the scope and extent of the impacts is not well known. Although sea turtles can hear low frequenc y sounds, they are generally considered to

have an insensitive ear. The minimum sound turtle s can hear (hearing threshold) is about 132 to 140 decibels (Ridgway et al . 1969, Bartol et al . 1999). Information on their behavioral response

to these decibel levels is limite d. Captive loggerhead turtles expos ed to brief, audio-frequency vibrations initially showed st artle responses of slight head retraction and limb extension (Lenhardt et al . 1983). Sound-induced swimming has been observed for captive loggerheads (O'Hara and Wilcox 1990; Moein et al . 1994a, 1994b; Lenhardt 1994); some loggerheads exposed to low-frequency sound responded by swimmi ng toward the surface at the onset of the sound, presumably to lessen the effects of the transmissions (Lenhardt 1994).I-55 Salvage Operations

Efforts to salvage valuable artifacts from ship wrecks commonly entail extensive excavation of the sea floor. Because shipwreck sites are fr equently located at re ef and other hardbottom habitats, these excavations have the potential to detrimentally a ffect foraging and other habitats used by loggerheads. Excavation by salvers often entails redirect ed boat-prop wash to blow out

sand and bottom materials in orde r to expose artifacts. This ty pe of excavation may damage reefs, destroy benthic organisms, and increase lo cal turbidity that may damage adjacent habitats.

C ONSTRUCTION A ND D EVELOPMENT

Dredging

Periodic dredging of sediments from navigationa l channels is necessary to provide for the passage of large commercial, military, and re creational vessels. In addition, sand mining (dredging) for beach renourishment occurs along th e Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The negative impacts of dredging include destru ction or degradation of habitat and incidental mortality of sea

turtles. Channelization of ins hore and nearshore habitat and the subsequent disposal of dredged material in the marine environment can destroy or disrupt resting or foraging grounds (including grass beds and coral reefs) and may affect nestin g distribution by altering p hysical features in the marine environment (Hopkins and Murphy 1980).

Capture and mortality of sea turtles by hopper dr edges was identified as a problem in the late 1970s. During a 3-month period in 1980, dredging operations in the Port Canaveral, Florida, ship channel were responsible for killing at least 71 sea turtles (N ational Research Council 1990a). To minimize mortality associ ated with hopper dredging, Dickerson et al . (1995) conducted a study to determine the seasonal abundance of sea turt les in southeast U.S. ship channels. Loggerheads were rarely capture d when water temperatures fell below 16 o C. Subsequently, dredging activities in the southeast U.S. Atlantic were restricted to winter months

when turtles are less abundant. Several other me thods have been employed to reduce incidental capture and mortality of loggerh eads in hopper dredges. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers funded research to develop a plow-like deflector designed to push or move turtles away from the suction of the draghead (Nelson and Shafer 1996), but this is not always effective under certain conditions. In addition, shrimp tr awlers have been employed to cap ture and relocate sea turtles prior to or during dredging operations. Relocatio n may be only partially effective because some turtles may return while dredging operations ar e still underway, and some turtles may escape capture and remain in the dredging area. Most of the loggerheads taken during dredging operations are juveniles. Observations during dredging projects in Te xas and Florida suggest that sea turtles may be capture d and killed during pipeline or cutterhead dredging operations (NMFS, unpublished data). However, interactio ns between slow moving cutterhead dredges and sea turtles are thought to be rare. Clamshell dredges have not been implicated in the incidental

take of sea turtles.I-56 Channel and Bridge Blasting

Using explosives to remove ex isting bridge or pili ng structures and to create or deepen navigation channels can result in injury or death of loggerhead turtles inhabiting the area (Klima

et al . 1988; Barbara Schroeder, NMFS, persona l communication, 2005). Effects of the explosion(s), depending upon proximity of the turt le to the explosive source(s), can include immediate lethal injuries, seriou s injuries leading to delayed mo rtality, or reduced fitness (e.g., inability to avoid predators, inability to properl y feed). The frequency of blasting to create or deepen channels is low, averaging one to two acti ons annually in the Atla ntic and Gulf. The use of explosives to remove bridges occurs more fre quently, but at a low level of approximately five actions annually in the Atlantic and Gulf.

Marina and Dock Development

Developing marinas and private or commercial do cks in inshore waters can negatively impact turtles through destruction or degradation of foraging habitat. Sanger and Holland (2002) found that docks were not a major source of environm ental contamination in South Carolina; however,

dock construction was associated with suburban development, which represented a major source of environmental degradation to tidal creeks and associated marsh habitats. Dock proliferation may also result in increased boat and vessel tra ffic and higher propeller and collision related mortality. Fueling facilities at marinas can result in the discharge of oil, gas, and sewage into

sensitive estuarine habitats.

Offshore Breakwaters

The presence of breakwaters has the potential to attract and concentrate predatory fishes and provide perching spots for predatory birds, re sulting in higher proba bilities of hatchling predation as hatchlings begin th eir offshore migration. Hatchling predation in nearshore waters is variable and is observed to be considerably higher near submerged stru ctures such as reefs (Witherington and Salmon 1992, Gyuris 1994, Wyne ken and Salmon 1996). There are many documented occurrences of nearshore predators capt ured with hatchlings found in their digestive tracts (Stancyk 1982). During hatchling predatio n studies in Broward County, Florida, it was documented that predatory fish species targeted sea turtle hatchlings and learned where to concentrate foraging e fforts (Glenn 1998, Wyneken et al . 1998).

E COSYSTEM A LTERATIONS

Trophic Changes from Fishery Harvest

Anthropogenic disruptions of natu ral ecological interactions have been difficult to discern and

few studies have been focused on the effects of these disruptions on loggerheads. Youngkin (2001) analyzed gut contents from hundreds of loggerheads stranded in Georgia over a 20-year period. His findings point to the probability of major effects on loggerhead diet from activities such as shrimp trawling and dredging. Lutcav age and Musick (1985) f ound that horseshoe crabs strongly dominated the diet of loggerheads in Chesapeake Bay in 1980-1981. Subsequently, fishermen began to harvest horseshoe crabs, prim arily for use as bait in the eel and whelk potI-57 fisheries, using several gear types. Atlantic coast horseshoe crab landi ngs increased by an order of magnitude (0.5 to 6.0 million pounds) between 1980 and 1997, and in 1998 the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission implemented a horseshoe crab fishery management plan to curtail catches (ASMFC 1998). The decline in horseshoe cr ab availability has appa rently caused a diet shift in juvenile loggerheads, fr om predominantly horseshoe crab s in the early to mid-1980s to

blue crabs in the late 1980s a nd early 1990s, to mostly finfish in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Seney 2003, Seney and Musick 2007). These data suggest that turtles are foraging in greater numbers in or around fishing g ears and on discarded bycatch (S eney 2003). Studies on the effects of fishing activities on loggerhead prey and foraging ecology are urgently needed to assess the magnitude of this threat and to provide information for addressing it.

Trophic Changes from Bent hic Habitat Alteration

Benthic habitat alteration by mobile fishing gear, especially traw ls and dredges, constitutes a globally significant physical distur bance to the marine environment and has significant effects on marine biodiversity (Watling and Norse 1998). Mobile fishing gear has been shown to result in short and long-term changes in benthic comm unity composition, including species groups on which loggerheads forage (Gordon et al . 1998). The National Res earch Council (1994) found

that habitat alteration by fishing activities is perhaps th e least understood of the important environmental effects of fishing. The effects of benthic habitat alte ration on loggerhead prey abundance and distribution, and the effects of th ese potential changes on loggerhead populations,

have not been determined but are of concern.

Aquaculture

Aquaculture netting, particularly large mesh sizes, may entangle and drown sea turtles. The larger the mesh size, the greater the probability of entanglement (although even very small mesh can entangle a turtle, often wra pping around the nail on the rear or fo reflippers). The more slack in the net, the greater the probability of entanglem ent. Such entanglement can result in a minor injury, or it can develop into a life-threatening co ndition (Moore and Wieting 2000). Studies

have shown that sea turtle hatc hlings (certain species in certa in areas) migrate offshore after hatching and become associated (and depe ndent upon) floating rafts of seaweed (e.g., Sargassum ) and other flotsam. Net pens and associ ated aquaculture structures, depending on their siting, may “collect” seaweed rafts or interfere with their natural passive movements and, therefore, may entangle, capture, or disrupt mi gratory movements of pos t-hatchling or pelagicstage sea turtles.

Anthropogenic lighting has been well documented to misorient hatchlin g turtles during their transit from nest to sea (see the section on Lighting Pollution under H.1. Pollution) and has also

been documented to misorient hatchl ings after their entry into the sea. Studies have also shown that nesting female turtles can be deterred from nesting and/or misoriented at the nesting beach by artificial lights. Artificial lighting at aquaculture facilities , depending on their siting, may misorient hatchlings and/or adult females in the proximity of nesting beaches. No studies have

been conducted on the effects of ar tificial lighting offshore of nes ting beaches, but such studies must be a component of any thor ough investigation into the impacts of aquaculture on sea turtles.I-58 The location of aquaculture facilities should ta ke into consideration proximity of nesting beaches, foraging habitat, and migratory pathways of sea turtles. Additional research will be needed as aquaculture sites are selected or consid ered. Vessel strikes are a significant threat to sea turtles in certain areas of high vessel traffic. Increases in vessel traffic that result from aquaculture operations must be ev aluated with respect to effect s on resident or migratory sea turtle populations. Documentation and characterization of the eff ects of aquaculture on disease, predation, and alteration of beha vior of sea turtles are needed.

Eutrophication

Eutrophication is a condition in aquatic ecosy stems where high nutrient concentrations can stimulate harmful algal blooms. Human activ ities can greatly accelerate eutrophication by increasing the rate at which nutrients and orga nic substances enter a quatic ecosystems from surrounding watersheds. Agricultur al runoff, urban runoff, leak ing septic systems, sewage discharges, and similar sources ca n increase the flow of nutrients and organic substances into aquatic systems. Eutrophicati on caused by excessive nutrient po llution in coastal waters can affect sea turtles both directly a nd indirectly (Milton and Lutz 2003).

Algal blooms cloud the water and block sunlight , causing underwater seagrasses to die. Secondly, when algae die and decompose, oxygen is used up. This is a concern because dissolved oxygen in the water is essential to most organisms living in the water, including fish and crabs, which are prey items for loggerheads. The effects of larg e-scale eutrophication on resident sea turtle populations currently are unknown because of the lack of in-water population

studies in affected area s (Milton and Lutz 2003).

P OLLUTION

Marine Debris Entanglement

Loggerheads have been found entangled in a wide variety of materials, including steel and monofilament line, synthetic and natural rope, pl astic onion sacks, and di scarded plastic netting materials (Balazs 1985; Plotkin and Amos 1988; NMFS, unpublished data). From 1997 to 2005, 1.6% of stranded loggerheads found on Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico beaches were entangled in fishing gear. Monofilament line appears to be the principal sour ce of entanglement for loggerheads in U.S. waters (0.9%; 1997-2005 av erage), followed by pot/trap line (0.4%; 1997- 2005 average) and fishing net (0.3%; 1997-2005 averag e). Less than 1% of stranded sea turtles in 2005 were found entangled in other marine debris (NMFS, unpublished data). From 1991 through 2005, the annual percent oc currence of entanglement for Florida sea turtle strandings ranged from 2.8 to 7.6% (mean=4.7%, SD=1.18%) (FFWCC, unpublished data). Records from Florida indicate that some entanglements resu lt from netting and monofilament line that has

accumulated on both artificial and natural reefs. These areas are often heavily fished, resulting in snagging of hooks and discarding of lines. Turtles foraging a nd/or resting in these areas can become entangled and drown (FFWCC, unpublished da ta). The alignment of persistent marine debris along convergences, rips, and driftlines , and the concentration of young sea turtles along these fronts, increases the lik elihood of entanglement at this life history stage (Carr 1987, Witherington 2002).I-59 Marine Debris Ingestion

Sea turtles have been found to ingest a wide vari ety of debris items, su ch as plastic bags, raw plastic pellets, plastic and styrofoam pieces, tar balls, and balloons. In a review of available information on debris ingestion, Balazs (1985) reported that tar balls were the second most prevalent type of debris ingested by sea turtles. Effects of debr is ingestion can include direct obstruction of the gut, absorption of toxic byproducts, and reduced absorption of nutrients across the gut wall (Balazs 1985). Studi es conducted by Lutz (1990) reve aled that both loggerhead and green turtles actively ingested small pieces of latex and plastic sheeti ng. Physiological data indicated a possible interference in energy metabo lism or gut function, even at low levels of ingestion. Persistence of the mate rial in the gut lasted from a few days to 4 months (Lutz 1990).

Sublethal effects of debris i ngestion have an unknown, but poten tially great, negative effect on the demography of sea turtles (Bjorndal et al . 1994).

Convergence lines, including Sargassum rafts, constitute an important habitat for neonate and juvenile loggerheads (Witherington 2002). Conve rgence at these habitats sweeps together neonate sea turtles with the floating substrates they forage among, but these same forces also concentrate buoyant petroleum, plastics, and othe r anthropogenic debris. Neonate loggerheads ingest this debris at a high fr equency and incur mortality from its effects. Witherington and Hirama (2006) reported that of 83 post-hatchli ng loggerheads stranded in east Florida, 83.1% had ingested plastics an d 33.7% had ingested tar.

Oil Pollution

The deleterious effects of o il pollution on sea turtles have been well documented (Lutcavage et
al . 1997). Exposure to petroleum products can be fatal to all lifestages of loggerheads (Vargo et
al . 1986). Vargo et al . (1986) reported that sea turtles would be at subs tantial risk if they encountered an oil spill or larg e amounts of tar in the environm ent. Turtles in oil slicks experience prolonged physical contact with floati ng oil. This contact can cause significant changes in respiration, diving pa tterns, energy metabolism, and blood chemistry. For example, physiological observations have shown that sea tu rtles exposed to petrol eum products may suffer esophageal impactions and lesions, inflammatory dermatitis, ventilatory disturbance, salt gland dysfunction or failure, red blood cell disturbances, immune res ponse, and digestive disorders (Vargo et al . 1986, Lutz and Lutcavage 1989, Lutcavage et al . 1995, Orós et al . 2004). The turtle salt glands appear partic ularly sensitive to oil polluti on. Prolonged salt gland failure

interferes with water balance and ion regulation and may be fatal (Lutcavage et al . 1997). Annually about 1% of all sea turt le strandings along the U.S. eas t coast have been associated with oil, but higher rate s of 3 to 6% have been observed in South Florida and Texas (Teas 1994,

Rabalais and Rabalais 1 980, Plotkin and Amos 1990).

Chemical Pollution

Pollution sources other than oil that may affect sea turtles include persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Long-lived carni vorous species, such as loggerheads, would tend to bioaccumulate these compounds (Rybitski et al . 1995, Lutcavage et al . 1997). However,I-60 organochlorine concentrations found in sea turtle s have been much lower than those found in marine mammals and birds (George 1997), probably due to the much lower metabolic rates of sea turtles. The impacts of these compounds ha ve been shown to have deleterious effects on loggerheads (Keller et al . 2004, 2006). Keller et al . (2004) found that widespread and persistent organochlorine contaminants, such as polychlorin ated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides, may be affecting the health of loggerheads even though s ea turtles accumulate lo wer concentrations of organochlorine contaminants compared with other wildlife. Keller et al . (2004) found significant correlations for a wide variety of biological functions, suggesti ng, for example, changes in the immune system, possible liver damage, and po ssible alterations in protein and carbohydrate regulation. However, the authors cautioned that the correlations sugge st, but do not prove, a

cause and effect link. Researchers have also collected baseline information on heavy metal contamination in loggerhead populations at severa l locations throughout the southeast U.S. (Day

et al . 2005, 2007).

Organic contaminants, such as perfluorinated compounds (Keller et al . 2005, Peden-Adams et al

. in press) and brominated flame retardants (Carlson et al . in press), have been measured in loggerheads. Perfluorinated contaminants were correlated with several health parameters, including plasma chemistries a nd immune function (Peden-Adams et al . in press). Loggerheads also may be affected by other compounds, including pharmaceuticals.

Noise Pollution

Noise pollution from a number of sources including shipping and military activities may have negative non-lethal effects (e.g., alteration of migration routes , avoidance of foraging areas) on neritic loggerheads. Samuel et al . (2005) recorded underwater s ound in the Peconic Bay Estuary system in Long Island Sound, New York, during a period that coincided with the sea turtle activity season and suggested that continued exposure to high levels of noise and any increase

could affect sea turtle behavior and ecology. No estimates on th e extent of this threat are

available. For a discussion of the effects of noi se pollution resulting from oil and gas activities,

see Oil and Gas Activities in this section.

Thermal Pollution

Coastal power plants use estuarine or ocean water as a cooling source and result in the discharge

of heated water to nearshore ha bitats. Alteration of natural temperature regimes within the discharge area can lower dissolved oxygen conten t and alter habitats by altering the composition of species, including loggerhead prey items. L oggerheads may avoid or be attracted to these heated waters, depending on ambient water temperatures in surrounding areas.

Desalinization Plant Pollution

Little is known about the potenti al impacts of desalinization plan t discharges on sea turtles and their habitats. At a minimum, discharges shoul d be placed to ensure that effluent does not directly impact seagrass beds, live coral r eef, or other important sea turtle habitats.I-61 S

PECIES I NTERACTIONS

Predation

Large sharks may prey upon neritic st age loggerheads. Tiger sharks ( Galeocerdo cuvieri ) and bull sharks ( Carcharhinus leucas ) are the species most often re ported to contain sea turtle remains (Compagno 1984, Simpfendorfer et al . 2001, Witzell 1987). Predation by white sharks ( Carcharodon carcharias ) has also been reported (Fergusson et al . 2000). The magnitude of loggerhead mortality caused by sharks in the No rthwest Atlantic is unkn own. A study that took place in Western Australia showed that loggerheads incurred shar k-bite injuries at a greater frequency than green turtles (Heithaus et al . 2002).

Disease and Parasites

Loggerheads are affected by a variety of health problems, although relatively few diseases have been documented in wild populations. At least tw o bacterial diseases have been described in wild loggerhead populations , including bacterial en cephalitis and ulcerative

stomatitis/obstructive rhinitis /pneumonia (George 1997), and Bartonella was recently reported in wild loggerheads from No rth Carolina (Valentine et al . 2007). There are few reports of fungal infections in wild logge rhead populations. Homer et al . (2000) documented systemic fungal infections in stranded loggerheads in Florida. Both bacterial and fungal infections are common in captive sea turtles (Herbst and Jacobson 1995, George 1997).

Viral diseases have not been documented in free-ranging loggerheads, with the possible exception of sea turtle fibropapillomatosis, which may have a vira l etiology (Herbst and Jacobson 1995, George 1997). Although fibropapill omatosis reaches epidemic proportions in some wild green turtle populations, the prevalence of this di sease in most loggerhead populations is thought to be small. An exception is Florida Bay where approximately 9.5% of the loggerheads captured exhibit fibropapilloma-like external lesions (Barbara Schroeder, NMFS, personal communication, 2006).

A variety of endoparasites, in cluding trematodes, tapeworms, and nematodes have been described in loggerheads (Herbs t and Jacobson 1995). Heavy infe stations of endoparasites may

cause or contribute to debilitati on or mortality in sea turtles. Trematode eggs and adults were seen in a variety of tissues including the spinal cord and brain of debilitated loggerheads during an epizootic in South Florida during late 2000 and early 2001. These were implicated as a possible cause of th e epizootic (Jacobson et al . 2006).

Ectoparasites, including leeches and barnacles, may have debilitating effects on loggerheads. Large marine leech infestations may result in anemia and act as vectors for other diseaseproducing organisms (George 1997). Barnacles are generally considered innocuous although some burrowing species may penetrate the body cavity resulting in mo rtality (Herbst and Jacobson 1995).

Although many health problems have been descri bed in wild populations through the necropsy of stranded turtles, the significance of diseases on the ecology of wild l oggerhead populations isI-62 not known (Herbst and Jacobson 1995) . Several researchers have in itiated health assessments to study health problems in free-ranging turtle populations. Sampling methods for these assessments have included capturing sea turt les with modified shrimp nets (Segars et al . 2005), capturing turtles in commercial pound nets (Harms et al . 2006a, 2006b; Kelly et al . in press), and sampling adult females on nesting beaches (Deem et al . 2003). To date, these assessments have focused on establishing normal baseline blood chem istry values and conducting physical exams. As more assays become available, researchers hope to assess the prev alence of infectious diseases in wild loggerhead populations.

Harmful Algal Blooms

A red tide is a higher-than-normal concentration of microscopic algae. In Florida, the species

that causes most red tides is Karenia brevis , a type of microalgae known as a dinoflagellate (Florida Marine Research Institute 2003). Th is organism produces a toxin that has been documented as a mortality factor in birds and marine mammals and is a suspected mortality factor in sea turtles. During four red tide even ts along the west coast of Florida, sea turtle stranding trends indicated that these events were acting as an additional mortality factor (Redlow

et al . 2003). Sea turtles that washed ashore a live during these red tide events displayed symptoms that were consistent with acute br evitoxicosis (e.g., uncoordi nated and lethargic but otherwise robust and healthy in appearance) and completely rec overed within days of being

removed from the area of the red tide. The conc entration of brevitoxin in the livers of eight turtles, including one loggerhead, that were found dead during red tides ranged from 10-330 nanograms per gram. These concentrations were similar to the concentrations of brevitoxin found in Florida manatees ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ) that were determined to have died

from brevitoxicosis. Concentra tions of brevitoxin in the livers of two dead loggerheads that did not strand during red tides were less than 0.05 nanograms per gram (Redlow et al . 2003).

Although the organism that causes Florida’s red tide is found almost exclusively in the Gulf of Mexico, harmful algal blooms have been found of f the Atlantic coast of Florida, and a bloom

was detected off the coast of North Carolina in 1987. Scientists believe the Florida Current and

Gulf Stream Current carried Karenia brevis out of the Gulf of Mexic o, around south Florida, and up to the Carolina coast. Other types of microorganisms cause di fferent kinds of harmful algal blooms in other parts of the world as well (Florida Marine Res earch Institute 2003).

O THER F ACTORS

Climate Change

Impacts from climate change, especially due to global warming, are likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC 2007a). The gl obal mean temperature has risen 0.76oC over the last 150 years, and the linear trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years (IPCC 2007a). There is a high confidence, base d on substantial new evidence, that observed changes in marine systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels, ocean acidification, and circulation. These changes include shifts in ranges and changes in alga l, plankton, and fish abundance (IPCC 2007b), which could affect loggerhead prey distribution and abundance.I-63 Natural Catastrophes

Storm events causing turbulence and currents duri ng the nesting season can wash post-hatchling turtles up on the beach with algae and flotsam (Carr and Meylan 1980). Post-hatchlings, or washback hatchlings, are turtles that have left ne sting beaches, spent weeks or months at sea, and

are then washed back onto the beach with seawee d during storm events. Storm systems may also

result in benthic habitat altera tions influencing the abundance and diversity of prey species for loggerheads. Similarly, prolonge d drought conditions may influence estuarine ecosystems and reduce the abundance of important food resources, such as blue crabs.

Cold Water

Loggerheads are susceptible to cold stunni ng, a phenomenon in which turtles become incapacitated as a resu lt of rapidly dropping water temperat ures (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989,

Morreale et al . 1992). As temperatures fall below 8-10 o C, turtles may lose their ability to swim and dive, often floating to the surface. It appears to be the rate of cooli ng that precipitates cold stunning rather than the water temperature itse lf (Milton and Lutz 2003) . Sea turtles that overwinter in inshore waters are most susceptibl e to cold stunning, because temperature changes are most rapid in shallow wate r (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989).

H.3. O CEANIC Z ONE

R ESOURCE U SE (F ISHERIES )

A major threat to the survival of loggerheads du ring the oceanic stage is the risk of incidental capture in commercial fisheries. Indirect take in fisheries, whether it is the high seas driftnets, longlines, or other fisheries, is a very serious problem for juvenile turtles (National Research Council 1990a, Wetherall et al . 1993, Balazs and Pooley 1994, Witzell 1999, Bolten et al . 2000).

Gillnet (Dri ft) Fisheries

Prior to the United Nations General Assembly ( UNGA) resolution prohibit ing large-scale highseas driftnet fishing, bycatch of oceanic juvenile turtles was significant and well documented, at least in the Pacific (Wetherall et al . 1993). UNGA Resolution 44/225, adopted in 1990, called

for a moratorium on the use of driftnet fishi ng gear on the high seas by June 30, 1992. This Resolution was supplanted by UNGA Resolution 46/215, which delayed the effective date of the moratorium until December 31, 1992. As of December 2007, the UNGA global moratorium on large-scale high seas driftnet fishing has been in effect for 15 years. International implementation of the moratorium in the world's oceans and enclosed/semi-enclosed seas continues to be generally succe ssful, although problem areas remain in the North Pacific Ocean

and the Mediterranean Sea.I-64 Longline Fisheries

Incidental take of oceanic-stage loggerheads in swordfish pelagic longline fisheries has recently

received a lot of attention (Balazs and Pooley 1994; Bolten et al . 1994, 2000; Aguilar et al . 1995;

Laurent et al . 1998; Long and Schroeder 2004; Watson et al . 2005). The mean size CCL (± standard deviation) for loggerhead s captured in the swordfish fi shery in the Azores during an experiment conducted in 2000 was 49.8 ± 6.2 cm CCL (n = 224; ACCSTR, unpublished data), which is significantly larger (p<0.001, Kolmogor ov-Smirnov test, ks = 0.6528) than the mean of the overall oceanic-stage population, 34.5 ± 12.6 cm CCL (n = 1692, Bolten 2003). The swordfish longline fishery affects the largest si ze classes of loggerheads in the oceanic stage (Bolten 2003). Earlier studies in Azorean waters documenting sw ordfish longline captures show similar size classes impacted by that fishery (Bolten et al . 1994, Ferreira et al . 2001). There are no estimates of mortality of tur tles caught and released in the swordfish fishery in the Azores. The demographic consequences re lative to population recovery of the increased mortality of these size classes have been discussed (Crouse et al . 1987; see also Heppell et al . 2003b and Chaloupka 2003).

Similar size classes of loggerhead s are impacted by longline fisher ies in other regions. In the western Mediterranean, the mean size of loggerheads caught in drifting longline fisheries was 47.4 ± 10.4 cm CCL (n = 62) and 45.9 ± 7.5 cm CCL (n = 53) in the eastern Mediterranean (Laurent et al . 1998). Witzell (1999) reported a mean size of 55.9 ± 6.5 cm CCL (n = 98) for loggerheads caught in the longlin e fishery from the Northwest Atlantic, primarily the Grand Banks, Newfoundland, Canada. More recently, Watson et al . (2005) reported a similar size for loggerheads caught during a longl ine bycatch reduction experime nt conducted in the Northwest Atlantic (range = 32.4-68.0 cm SC L, mean 56.8 cm SCL, n = 93).

Results from satellite telemetry with satellite-linked time-depth recorders have demonstrated the potential negative impacts of longline hooking on dive behavior and movement patterns of oceanic juveniles. Following release, hooked turt les have significantly reduced diving behavior (e.g., shallower dive depths) and th eir movements appear to be influenced to a greater extent by ocean currents (i.e., the turtles are less active swimmers and drift with the current) (ACCSTR, unpublished data).

Numerous other fisheries impact oceanic-stage loggerhead populations, and new ones continue to emerge. For example, the fishery for black scabbard ( Aphanopus carbo ) in Madeira has significant bycatch of oceanic-s tage loggerheads (Dellinger and Encarnacao 2000). This fishery is currently under investigation for development in the Azores.

R ESOURCE U SE (N ON -F ISHERIES )

Legal Harvest and Illegal Harvest

Directed take of loggerheads in the oceanic z one is for both food and the souvenir trade in polished shells or whole stuffed turtles. The once-popular souvenir trade in Madeira, Portugal, combined with harvest for meat, accounted for between 1,000 and 4,000 loggerhead deaths annually (Brongersma 1982). Turtle harvest is now illegal in Madeir a, but still exists in otherI-65 regions. The extent of legal and illegal take of loggerheads needs to be quantified (e.g., Fleming 2001, Nada 2001).

Vessel Strikes

Increased tourism into sensitiv e sea turtle habitats (e.g., whal e watching and sport/recreational fishing) may increase the frequency of boat collis ions. There are currently no data available to

evaluate this threat.

Oil and Gas Activities

Oil and gas activities can affect oceanic loggerheads. For a discussion of the effects of oil and gas activities, see the se ction on Oil and Gas Activit ies under H.2. Neritic Zone.

Research and Conservation Management Activities

For a discussion of the effects of research and management activities, see the section on Research and Management Activities under H.2. Neritic Zone.

Military Activities

For a discussion of the effects of military activities on the marine environment, see the section on Military Activities under H.2. Neritic Zone.

E COSYSTEM A LTERATIONS

Trophic Changes from Fishery Ha rvest and Habitat Alteration

Oceanic ecosystems are changing as a result of ove rfishing and pollution. Selective, and usually intense, harvest of species in fisheries will result in changes to the suite of species interactions in this ecosystem (e.g., predator-p rey interactions, trophic dynamics and food webs; see Bjorndal 2003). Changes in trophic dynamics may have a ma jor impact on sea turtles; however, data are lacking to quantify these impacts. Changes to trophi c interactions may affect availability of prey for loggerheads, and loggerheads may become prey to a new suite of pr edators following foodweb alterations. Decreasing food resources for l oggerheads could result in sublethal effects in the form of decreased growth rates and reproductive output (Bjo rndal 2003). Such sublethal

effects will be difficult to discern because our kn owledge of rates of food intake and rates of growth is poor (Bjorndal 2003). Similar changes to trophic dy namics in this ecosystem can

occur from the toxic effects of pollution.I-66 S

PECIES I NTERACTIONS

Predation

Oceanic-stage loggerheads are prey ed upon by sharks, killer whales ( Orcinus orca ), and probably any large carnivorous fish or mammals in this habita t (Bjorndal 2003). There are no estimates of predation of l oggerheads in this life stage.

Disease

There are no definitive reports of sea turtle fi bropapilloma disease for oceanic-stage loggerheads.

P OLLUTION

Oil and Other Chemical Pollution

Toxic effects of pollution (e.g., oil, gas, hea vy metals) can have direct effects on turtles (Lutcavage et al . 1997) or can alter the habitat by aff ecting trophic dynamics. For a discussion of the effects of oil pollution, see the section on Oil Pollution under H.2. Neritic Zone. For a discussion of the effects of chemical pollution, see the section on Chemical Pollution under H.2.

Neritic Zone.

Noise Pollution

Noise pollution from a number of sources, including shipping and military activities, may have negative non-lethal effects (e.g., alteration of migration routes , avoidance of foraging areas) on oceanic loggerheads. No estimates on the extent of this threat are available. For a discussion of the effects of noise pollution resu lting from oil and gas activities, see the section on Oil and Gas

Activities under H.2. Neritic Zone.

Marine Debris Ingestion and Entanglement

The lethal and sublethal effects of debris ingestion and entanglement are also major concerns (Balazs 1985, Carr 1987, McCauley and Bjorndal 1999, Witherington 2002). The open ocean is full of debris, and little loggerheads frequently i ngest plastics, tar, styr ofoam, and monofilament (Carr 1987, Witherington 2002). This ingestion, as well as entanglement, can be lethal. The

sublethal effects from marine debris ingestion may also have severe consequences, but are difficult to quantify. During laboratory feeding tr ials, post-hatchling loggerheads were not able to adjust their intakes to counter nutrient dilute diets similar to what turtles would experience when ingesting debris (McCaule y and Bjorndal 1999). However, th e authors suggest that with increasing size, turtles may be better able to adjust their intakes.I-67 O THER F ACTORS

Climate Change

For a discussion of the effects of climate change on the marine environment, see the section on Climate Change under H.2. Neritic Zone.

Natural Catastrophes

Hurricanes and other major storm events can ha ve significant short-te rm effects on trophic dynamics (see the section on Trophic Changes fr om Fishery Harvest and Habitat Alteration under H.3. Ecosystems Alterations).

Cold Water

Oceanic-stage juvenile loggerhead s can be carried by currents into waters with temperatures below their lethal minimum (Hays and Marsh 1997) resulting in mortality. Cold water can also result in sub-lethal effects (Schwartz 1978).



### I. M AJOR 

### C ONSERVATION 

### E FFORTS

The following section summarizes, primarily fo r the U.S., the major conservation efforts

intended to reduce or remove thr eats to the loggerhead. These efforts have been conducted by Federal, state, and local agencies, private orga nizations, academia, and individuals. This section

is not intended to be an exhaustive list of every conservation action undertaken.

I.1. T ERRESTRIAL Z ONE (N ESTING B EACH )

In the southeast U.S., nest and beach habitat protection efforts are underway for most of the significant nesting areas, and pr ogress has been made in reducing mortality from human-related impacts on the nesting beach.

Efforts to Acquire Nesting Habitat

The Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located in Brevard and Indian River counties, Florida, represents the United States’ most si gnificant land acquisition effort to protect the loggerhead. The acquisition plan for the refuge set a goal for purchase of 15.0 km (9.3 miles) of beach within a 32.7-km (20.3-mile) stretch wher e nesting densities of ten exceed 600 nests per km (1,000 nests per mile). The establishment of the Archie Carr refuge was made possible by a multi-agency land acquisition effort. Partners in this effort include the FWS, FDEP, Brevard County, Indian River County, Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Conservation Fund, and The Nature Conservancy. Over 60% of the availa ble beachfront acquisitions for the Refuge have been completed. FWS has 14 additional refuges in the Southeast wher e loggerheads regularly nest and are provided protection. Numerous coastal national seas hores, military installations, and state parks in the Southeast also provi de protection for loggerheads on their lands.I-68 Efforts to Minimize Effects of Beach Nourishment

During ESA section 7 consultations for beach no urishment projects, FWS places conditions on projects to minimize impacts to sea turtles. Minimization measur es include nest relocation to non-project areas when nourishment is conducted dur ing the nesting season, use of beach quality sand, sand compaction and escarpment monitoring and remediation, and management of project lighting.

Efforts to Reduce Light Pollution on Nesting Beaches

Effects of light pollution on sea turtles are most extensive in Florida due to dense coastal development. FFWCC advertises the Stat e of Florida's Model Lighting Ordinance [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle] as an example for local governments to follow. As of January 2008, there were 19 counties and 57 munici palities with lighting ordinances [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Lighting/Light_Ordinan ce.htm]. Enforcement of mandatory lighting ordinances has increased, and Fl orida counties with the highest loggerhead nesting (Brevard through Palm Beach) appear to have the best comp liance. In addition, FFWCC, working in close coordination with FWS, has developed a sea tur tle lighting certificati on program that involves conducting workshops to educate all interested partie s about the effects of li ghting on sea turtles, the best lighting options to use near sea turtle nesting beaches, and the wide variety of light fixtures and bulbs available to manage lighti ng on their properties without negatively impacting

sea turtles.

A significant number of beaches outside of Florid a have lighting ordinances designed to reduce the effects of artificial lighting on sea turtles. All developed beaches in South Carolina and Georgia have lighting ordinances with the excep tion of Horry County, South Carolina (excluding Waites Island). In North Carolina, five muni cipalities have adopted lighting ordinances to protect sea turtles.

Efforts to Elucidate Effects of Barriers to Sea Turtle Nesting

During 2001 and 2002, FFWCC sampled stretches of b each in Florida to measure the extent of barriers (e.g., armoring, sand fences , recreational beach equipment, etc.) to sea turtle nesting (Witherington et al . 2003). Total surveyed coastline among four regions of Fl orida (northeast, southeast, northwest, and southwest) was 321.8 km and made up 24.5% of Florida’s coastline. In an assessment summed for all regions, barrie rs occupied 18.0% of the total surveyed beach length. The region with the greatest extent of barriers was southeast Florida, followed by southwest, northwest, and northeas t Florida. Seawalls were the most common barrier in all but the northwest region, where sand fences were mo st common. South Florida had 3.5 times the

linear extent of seawalls on No rth Florida beaches. Barriers w ith a high impediment to nesting made up the majority, and most high-impediment barriers also had high permanency. Although

the assessment did not include structures that we re hidden from view by sand or other structures, it does provide a baseline to study spatial and tem poral changes in nesting habitat suitability.I-69 Efforts to Reduce Nest Predation

The most longstanding beach management program has been to reduce the destruction of nests by natural and introduced predator s. Most major nesting beache s in the southeast U.S. employ some type of lethal (trapping, hunting) or nonlethal (screen, cage) control of mammalian predators to reduce nest loss. In 2002, over 90% of known loggerhead nests in North Carolina and Georgia were protected with a wire or plastic screen or cage (GDNR, unpublished data; NCWRC, unpublished data). In Florida and South Carolina, scr eens or cages were employed on 47% and 57% of nests, respectively (FFWCC, unpublished data; SCDNR, unpublished data). Predator removal (trapping, hun ting) was used to reduce fera l hog, raccoon, and fox depredation on approximately 10% of beaches in North Carolin a, South Carolina, and Florida. Predator control efforts are also underway in Virginia an d Alabama. In Georgia, 42% of nest protection projects used trapping and hunting to reduce feral hog populations. Th roughout the southeast U.S., lethal methods were more comm only employed on undeveloped beaches where mammalian depredation is high. Ov erall, nest protection activities have substantially reduced loggerhead nest depredations, a lthough the magnitude of the re duction has not been quantified.

Efforts to Reduce Effects of Beac h Cleaning on Nesting Beaches

Beach cleaning is an activity most common in sout hern Florida; 16 urban counties have received beach-cleaning permits from FDEP. FDEP and FFWCC have set beach cleaning permit conditions pursuant to Rule 62B- 33.005(11) of the Florida Administ rative Code that restrict the timing and nature of beach cleaning. Permit cond itions include limiting beach cleaning activities to daylight hours only, limiting clean ing activities to the average hi gh tide mark or debris line and seaward in some areas, ensuring a daily sea tu rtle nesting survey has been completed before cleaning activities are conducted, marking nests fo r avoidance, using vehicles with a maximum tire pressure of 10 p.s.i. and a rake or cleaning a pparatus that limits penetration into the surface of the beach to a maximum of 2 inches, removing accumulated debris from the beach immediately after cleaning has been performed, and avoiding a ll native, salt tolerant dune vegetation by a minimum of 10 feet.

Efforts to Reduce Effects of Beach Vehicular Driving

Beach driving is prohibited on the majority of ne sting beaches in the southeast U.S.; however,

there are some areas where beach driving still occurs, such as Volusia County, Florida. In 1996, Volusia County developed a habitat conservatio n plan (HCP) to minimize and mitigate the impacts of County-regulated driving on 57.3 km ( 35.6 miles) of beaches. A HCP is a statutory component of an incidental take permit appli cation under section 10 of the ESA. The Volusia County HCP limits the potential for sea turtle -vehicle interactions through four basic mechanisms: (1) public access is limited to day light hours, and public safety vehicles that operate at night must follow speci fic guidelines; (2) publ ic driving is limited primarily to those

areas where nest densities are lo west; (3) in those areas where public driving is permitted, all driving and parking must occur outside a marked Conservation Zone near the dune, where the majority of nests are typically deposited; and (4) all nests are conspicuously marked so they can be avoided. Mitigation measures to offset unavoidable take have included development and implementation of a beach lighting management plan and rehabilitation of stranded sea turtles.I-70 St. Johns County, Florida, also developed an HCP to address beach driving issues affecting sea

turtles and received an inci dental take permit in 2006.

Efforts to Eradicate Exotic Plants on Nesting Beaches

Numerous efforts have been undertaken in Florid a to remove exotic plants, such as Australian pine trees ( Casuarina equisetifolia ) and Brazilian pepper trees ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), from sea turtle nesting beaches. For example, on Loggerhead Key, Dry Tortugas National Park, the National Park Service has eliminated Australian pi nes from the island in an effort to restore and enhance sea turtle nesting habitat. Similar effort s have been undertaken at St. Lucie State Park, Hobe Sound NWR, and the Archie Carr NWR, as well as others. In North and South Carolina,

the Carolina Beach Vitex Task Force was esta blished to document and eradicate beach vitex ( Vitex rotundifolia ) from loggerhead nesting beaches.

Efforts to Standardize and Improve Nest ing Surveys and Hatchling Production

Assessments

Florida, Georgia, and the Carolin as have established sea turtle conservation guidelines in an attempt to standardize nesting surveys and hatchling production assessments. Annual training workshops also are conducted to reinforce sta ndardized methods for marking and inventorying nests to measure hatching success.

I.2. N ERITIC Z ONE

Managing threats to sea turtles in the water lags behind efforts on the beach due to limited access to turtles, lack of information on habitat use by different life histor y stages, and cost. Therefore, most efforts to preserve marine and estu arine habitats are regulatory in nature.

Efforts to Reduce Bycatch in Commercial Fisheries

Mortality resulting from commercial fisheries oper ations, both domestically and in international waters, ranks among the most significant threats to the species. A variety of gears is used in commercial fisheries, including gillnets, trawls, hook and line (e.g., longlines ), seines, dredges, and various types of pots/traps. Among these, gillnets, longlines, and trawl gear collectively

result in tens of thousands of loggerhead deaths annually throughout their range in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (see for example, Lewison et al . 2004; NMFS 2002a, 2004b).

Considerable effort has been expended since the 1980s to document and address these serious mortality factors. NMFS has implemented obs erver programs in many federally managed and some state managed fisheries to collect turtle bycatch data. The mo st effective observer programs have been implemented in the longline fishery, nearshore gillnet fisheries, and trawl fisheries operating in the U.S. territorial s eas and EEZ. Along with academic partners, NMFS has been evaluating alternative methods of observi ng fisheries, especially those fisheries that employ small vessels, where it is impractical or unsafe to carry observers. NMFS has successfully deployed observers on alternative platform vessels and observed haulbacks or directly observed stationa ry nets to document turtle bycatch. Efforts are also underway to useI-71 acoustic technologies to visualize stationary gear in the water co lumn and to determine whether turtles are present as bycatch (e.g., side scan sonar).

Efforts to reduce bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in fishing operations have focused on several areas. NMFS, working with industry and other partners, has reduced bycatch by developing technological solutions to prevent capture or to allow turtles to escape without harm (e.g., TEDs), by implementing time and area closures to prevent interactions from occurring (e.g., prohibitions on gillnet fishing along the mid- Atlantic coast during the critical time of northward migration of loggerheads), and/or by modifying gear (e.g., requirements to reduce mesh size in the leaders of pound nets to preven t entanglement, circle hooks in the pelagic longline fishery).

NMFS recently adopted one of the most significant conservation actions -- a coastwide strategy to reduce bycatch of sea turtles in state and Federal fisheries in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. This approach will enable NMFS to look comprehensively at turtle bycatch in various fisheries on a gear-type basis. In other words, NMFS will evaluate turtle bycatch across gear types, such as gillnet or trawl, as opposed to a fishery-by-fishery basis, such as monkfish gillnet

or flounder trawl. This will allow for a more co mprehensive and ordered approach to address the most problematic gear and develop coastwide solu tions for reducing bycatch inshore, nearshore,

and offshore.

Trawl Fisheries : The development and implementation of TEDs in the shrimp trawl fishery is arguably the most significant c onservation accomplishment in the marine environment since loggerheads were listed under the ESA. In the southeast U.S. and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in shrimp and flounder trawls for over a decade. NMFS has implemented various improvements in the design and function of TEDs to improve turtle exclusion and/or shrimp retention. Most notably, in 2003, NMFS implemented new requirements for TEDs in the shrimp trawl fishery to ensure that large l oggerheads could escape th rough TED openings. An evaluation of turtle strandings by Epperly and Teas (2002) clear ly demonstrated that approved TED openings were not large enough to ex clude large loggerheads. Despite these improvements, TEDs are not requir ed in all trawl fish eries, and significant loggerhead mortality

still occurs in some trawl fisheries. In addi tion, enforcement of TED regulations is limited by available funding, and illegal or improperly installed TEDs are common in some areas.

Gillnet Fisheries : Gillnets of various mesh sizes are us ed extensively to harvest fish in the

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Gillnets can be anchored or drif ting, and are fished at varying depths and configurations depending on the target species. All size classes of loggerheads in coastal waters are prone to entang lement in gillnets, and, generally, the larger the mesh size the more likely that turtles will become entangled. State resource agencies and NMFS have been addressing this issue on several fronts. In the southeast U.S., gillnets are prohibited in the state waters of South Carolina, Georgia, Flor ida, and Texas and are restricted to fishing for pompano and mullet in saltwater areas of Louisi ana. While these prohibitions were enacted primarily to recover fish stocks and prevent bycatch of various speci es in addition to turtles, they have contributed to loggerhead recovery. Reducing bycatch of loggerheads in the remaining state and federally regulated gilln et fisheries of the U.S. Atlan tic and Gulf of Mexico has not been fully accomplished. NMFS has addressed the issue for several federally managed fisheries,I-72 such as the large-mesh gillnet fishery (primar ily for monkfish) along the Atlantic coast, where gillnets larger than 8-inch stretched mesh ar e now regulated in North Carolina and Virginia through rolling closures timed to match the nor thward migration of loggerheads along the midAtlantic coast in late spring and early summer. The state of North Carolina, working with NMFS through the ESA section 10 process, has been maki ng significant progress in reducing bycatch of loggerheads in gillnet fisheries operating in Pamlico Sound. The large mesh driftnet fishery for

sharks off the Atlantic coast of Florida a nd Georgia remains a concern, despite observer requirements and the implementation of temporar y emergency regulations when turtle bycatch

has been documented.

Longline Fisheries : Observer programs have documented si gnificant bycatch of loggerheads in the U.S. longline fishery operating in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexic o. In recent years, NMFS has dedicated significant funding and effort to address this bycatch issue. In partnership with academia and industry, NMFS has funded and conducted field experiments in the northwest Atlantic Ocean to develop gear modifications th at eliminate or significantly reduce loggerhead bycatch. The experiments found that using large circle hooks in comb ination with finfish bait, as opposed to using “J” hooks and squid bait, significantly reduce logge rhead bycatch. NMFS required the use of circle hooks fleet wide and circle hooks in combination with whole finfish bait in the Northeast Distant area (NMFS 2004a, 69 FR 40734). In addition, NMFS is conducting research on the sensory biology of logge rheads to examine if sight, smell, and sound may be used to reduce by catch (Swimmer and Wang 2007).

The incidental capture and mortal ity of loggerheads by internationa l longline fleets operating in

the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea is of great concern. NMFS is focusing attention to recognize and address the problem on a multi-lateral level. For example, NMFS is collaborating with foreign governme nts to conduct similar research to that undertaken in the U.S. fleet. The U.S. is also working through Regiona l Fisheries Management Organizations, such as

the International Commission for the Conservati on of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), to encourage member nations to adopt gear modifications (e.g., large circle hooks) that have been shown to significantly reduce l oggerhead bycatch.

Pound Net Fisheries : Pound nets are used in the mid-Atlantic and No rth Carolina to capture a variety of finfish. Loggerheads can become enta ngled in or impinged on the mesh leaders that funnel fish toward the pound, where turtles may also become entrapped. Entanglement in the large mesh leaders often leads to death, especially in areas of strong currents. NMFS has promulgated regulations restri cting the use of pound net leader s in certain areas of the Chesapeake Bay and regulations to require a modified pound net le ader to minimize loggerhead bycatch (NMFS 2006b, 71 FR 36024).

Pot/Trap Fisheries : NMFS is working with industry to better understand th e interaction of loggerheads with pot and trap fi sheries along the mid-A tlantic and northeast U.S. coast. While a solution has not yet been identified, gear expe rts are focusing on devel oping a technical solution to reduce bycatch in pot/trap fisheries. NMFS has established a Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network to respond to reports of entangled turtles.I-73 Efforts to Reduce the Effects of Dredging

Dredging activities to deepen or widen navigation channels and ha rbors, or to provide sand for artificial beach nourishment activities, have been demonstrated to capture and kill loggerheads. Under the provisions of section 7 of the ES A, the COE has implemented monitoring and conservation actions to reduce or eliminate bycatch of turtles. Seasonal restrictions to prevent the use of hopper dredges in certain areas wher e turtles are abundant have been implemented through regulation in the southeast U.S. With few exceptions, deflector devices are required on hopper dredges at all times south of Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico to help prevent turtles from being taken during hopper dredging activities and observers are also required to monitor whether turtles are being taken in certain times and areas, depe nding on turtle abundance. In certain areas and at certain times, turtles are captured by trawl and relocated out of dredging

areas.

Efforts to Conduct In-water Monitoring

NMFS convened a workshop to evaluate methods fo r assessing abundance and trends in in-water populations using mark-recapture, capture-effort , and transect methodologies (Bjorndal and Bolten 2000). Workshop participants devel oped recommendations for selection of study populations, experimental design, and analysis. Trends in ne ritic foraging ground populations must be integrated over a large geographic area in order to forecast trends successfully in nesting populations (Bjorndal et al . 2005).

SCDNR initiated a large-scale 4-year study in 20 00 designed to document species diversity and provide an index of abundance of sea turtles in the coastal waters of South Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida (Maier et al . 2004). During spring and su mmer (May-August), sea turtles were captured using shrimp trawlers with large- mesh nets (8-inch stretch) from Georgetown, South Carolina, to St. Augustine, Florida. Samp ling was conducted in waters ranging from 15 to 40 feet in depth. This study has yielded valu able information on the species composition, life history, and habitat use of juven ile and adult loggerheads in the coastal waters of the southeast

U.S. The sea turtle abundance index estab lished during this study pr ovides a baseline for assessing future population trends. Eaton et al . (2008) provide a comprehensive overview of historical and current research and monitoring projects concerning the oc currence, distribution, abundance, and representation of lif e stages of sea turtles in Flor ida waters. They identified 25

active and 17 inactive in-water sea turtle research projects in Florida, with the majority taking place on the Atlantic coast. Studies are also underway in North Carolina waters to gather information on trends in abundance, survival es timates, sex ratios, h ealth status, population structure, and behavi or (Avens 2003; Bass et al . 2004; Braun-McNeill et al . 2007a, 2007b; Epperly et al . 2007; Stamper et al . 2005). In-water studies in Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound have also provided important information on habitat use and behavior of loggerheads in these habitats (Byles 1988, Morre ale and Standora 1998, Mansfield 2006).

In addition to in-water monitoring for population trend analyses, significa nt efforts have been made to better understand loggerhead movements. Using satellite telemetry, a number of studies have been completed on juvenile and adult logg erheads in the Northwest Atlantic that have provided information on neritic and oceanic foragi ng habitat use, seasonal migrations, and maleI-74 and female reproductive migra tions (Dodd and Byles 2003, Hawkes et al . 2007, HopkinsMurphy et al . 2003, McClellan and Read 2007, Schroeder et al . 2003).

Efforts to Coordinate a Stranding Network

Since 1980, NMFS, in close cooperation and with co astal states in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, has coordinated a regional effort to document sea turtle mortality. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) documents dead or injured sea turtles along the U.S. coast from Maine to Texas (Shaver and Teas 19 99). Currently, 26 of the 44 statistical zones receive systematic surveys. Each stranding is identified to species, measured, and assessed for obvious wounds, injuries, or abnormalities. Da ta are recorded on standardized forms and

submitted to the STSSN coordinator at NMFS. Stranding summaries are available on the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center web page [h ttp://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/seaturtleSTSSN.jsp]. Analysis of stranding data has been important in assessing regulations designed to protect sea turtles from fishery-related mortality. For example, a recent analysis of sea turtle stranding data suggested that the minimum TED openings were too small to a llow large juvenile and adult loggerheads to escape from shrimp nets (E pperly and Teas 2002), which prompted NMFS to revise TED regulations to incl ude larger minimum TED openings.

Efforts to Rehabilitate and Release Stranded Turtles

There are approximately 25 rehabili tation facilities along th e Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts that take in sick or injured s ea turtles on a regular basis and rele ase healthy turtles back into the wild. Several hundred live loggerheads are brought to these fac ilities through the STSSN annually.

Efforts to Reduce the Effects of Military Activities

Consultation under section 7 of the ESA is the primary avenue for evaluating potential adverse effects of military activities on loggerheads, and for developing alternatives and solutions to minimize these effects. NMFS and FWS consult with the Department of Defense on military activities, including training exercises near nestin g beaches, shipshock testing of submarines in migration and foraging habitats, and bombing tr aining exercises in resting, migration, and foraging habitats. Efforts to minimize the effect s of these activities have focused on adjusting timing to minimize encounters with loggerheads and/ or adjusting locations of activities to reduce overlap with sea turtle habitats.

Efforts to Reduce the Effects of Oil and Gas Activities

Oil and gas exploration and produc tion activities have been docu mented to adversely affect loggerheads, either through dire ct effects (e.g., explosive remova l of aging oil platforms) or indirectly through degradation of marine habitats (e.g., oil spi lls). MMS, the Federal agency responsible for regulating oil a nd gas activities, regularly co nsults with NMFS (through ESA section 7) on the effects of these actions on sea turtles. The most significant conservation accomplishment in this arena is the implementati on of required monitoring programs prior to allI-75 oil and gas platform removals to reduce the likelihood that turtles will be in the vicinity when the

detonation occurs.

Efforts to Reduce Vessel Strikes

The seriousness of the threat caused by vessel strike s to loggerheads in the Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico cannot be overstated. This growing problem is particularly difficult to address. In some cases, NMFS, through section 7 of the ESA, has worked with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) in an attempt to reduce the probability of vessel st rikes during permitted offshore race events. Most races now require a protected species watch pr ogram including observers to monitor for sea turtles in the area. Continuous aerial surveys ar e usually required 1 hour prior to and throughout the event or practice sessions. If sea turtles ar e located within the designated race area, the event is postponed. However, most vessel strikes occur outside of these venues and the growing number of licensed vessels, especially inshore and nearshore, exacerbates the conflict. Slow speed zones, implemented for manatee protection, may provide some benefits to turtles, although this has not been quantified.

Efforts to Conduct Health Assessments

Researchers have conducted health assessments of loggerheads in several locations in the

southeast U.S. Jacobson et al . (unpublished data) present, in an online database [http://accstr.ufl.edu/blood_chem.htm], plasma bi ochemical and hematocrit reference intervals

for sea turtles in Florida. Maier et al . (2004) conducted general phys ical exams and assessed the blood chemistry of 946 loggerheads captured in standardized trawls from 2000-2003 in the coastal waters of South Carolina, Geor gia, and northeast Florida. Stamper et al . (2005) assessed epibiota and blood chemistry of resident and migratory loggerheads captured in pound nets in North Carolina. Researchers and managers have also evaluated epizootic events such as the mass stranding of loggerheads with clinical signs of a neurological disorder in south Florida during 2000 (Jacobson et al . 2006) and the stranding events in Northeast Florida and Georgia in 2004 and 2006 (Norton et al . in press).

In addition, researchers have collected baseline information on pesticide and heavy metal contamination in loggerhead populations at severa l locations throughout the southeast U.S. Until recently, the majority of studies have focused on contaminant levels in turtle eggs (Pugh and Becker 2001). However, several ongoing studi es are examining pesticide and heavy metal contamination in benthic juveniles and adults . For example, SCDNR has documented mercury contamination in loggerheads caught during standard ized sea turtle abundan ce surveys in coastal waters of South Carolina, Georgia, and north Florida (Day et al . 2005). Keller et al . (2004) documented polychlorinated biphenyl and orga nochlorine pesticide levels in juvenile loggerheads in coastal North Caro lina. Further research suggeste d that organochlorine pesticide exposure may suppress imm une function (Keller et al . 2006). Results from these research efforts are critical for assessing current and future impacts of environmental contamination on loggerhead populations.I-76 I.3. O CEANIC Z ONE

Efforts to Reduce Bycatch in Commercial Fisheries

Driftnet Fisheries : In 1991, the United Nations banned the use of large-scale high seas driftnets over 2.5 km long. Prior to the U.N. driftnet ban, these nets were of enormous proportions reaching lengths of 40 to 60 km. The U.S. supported this ban and continues to support efforts to ensure compliance. NMFS and the internationa l conservation community are actively working with ICCAT to adopt mandatory measures to minimize loggerhead bycatch in swordfish and tuna fisheries operating in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Longline Fisheries : For a discussion of longline fisher ies, refer to the Neritic section.

Efforts to Reduce Marine Debris

The MARPOL Convention (Internat ional Convention for the Preven tion of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978) is the main international conve ntion that addresses prevention of pollution (including o il, chemicals, harmful substan ces in packaged form, sewage, and garbage) of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.

I.4. O THER

Efforts to Increase Public Education and Awareness

Public Turtle Walks - guided, interpretive sea turtle nesting-beach tours guided by statepermitted organizations. The purpose of turtle walk s is to provide the public with opportunities to see a nesting loggerhead and to learn about the biology of sea turtles and about threats to their survival. On its website, FFWCC ha s guidelines for Florida turtle walks [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Guidelines/Mari neTurtleGuidelines.ht m (see Section 7 -- Educational Activities)] and contact information for permitted organizations that conduct turtle walks [http://myfwc.com/se aturtle/Education/Sea_Tu rtle_Watches_List.htm].

Websites - links to numerous websites with sea turtle information fo r the general public are listed at seaturtle.org [http://www.seaturtle.org/links].

Sea Grant Teacher Training Program - a teaching exercise to instruct children (K-12) about loggerhead demographics and mortality has been developed and made available at national marine educators training sessions and on the VIMS Sea Grant Website “The Bridge” [http://www.vims.edu/bridge].

Efforts to Improve Communication and Access to Information

CTURTLE - a listserv discussion network for sea turt le biology and conservation managed by the ACCSTR [http://accstr.u fl.edu/cturtle.html].I-77 Marine Turtle Newsletter - a quarterly publication that is distributed free of charge [http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn]. The Marine Turtle Newsletter aims to provide a forum for exchange of information about all aspects of ma rine turtle biology and conservation, and to alert interested people to particular threats to marine turtles.

International Sea Turtle Society - an organization that convenes annual symposia to promote the exchange of information that advances th e global knowledge of sea turtle biology and conservation [http://www.seaturtle.org/ists].

Chelonian Conservation and Biology - an international journal of tu rtle and tortoise research that publishes papers on the conservati on and biology of sea turtles [http://www.chelonian.org /crf-publications/ccb].

Seaturtle

. org - a website that provides a wealth of sea turtle information, including links to

numerous additional websites with sea turtle information [http://www. seaturtle.org/links].

Sea Turtle Online Bibliography - a website managed by the ACCSTR that includes references on all aspects of sea turtle biology, conservation, and management [http://accstr.ufl.edu/biblio.html]. Citations are from recognized bibliographic sources as well as “grey literature.”

Bibliography of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle - a bibliography developed and maintained by C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ natsci/herpetology/caretta/Caretta.htm].

Online Publications - full-text documents, including the Pr oceedings from the Annual Symposia on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, are av ailable on the NMFS O ffice of Protected Resources website [http://www.nmfs.noaa .gov/pr/species/turtle s/publications.htm].

Efforts to Address Resea rch and Management Needs

Significant advances in our understanding of loggerhead biology and ecology have occurred since the publication of the 1991 re covery plan for Atlantic logge rheads. These advances have greatly improved conservation and management st rategies. Advances in our knowledge span topics including anatomy and physiology, age to maturity and survival, incubation environment and egg development, temperatur e-dependent sex determination, se x ratios, nest site selection and nesting activity/patterns, hatchling emergence and orient ation, reproductive strategies, population structure, foraging eco logy and habitat use, movement, and principal threats.

Advances in these various fiel ds are detailed in other sour ces (e.g., Bolten and Witherington 2003, Lutz and Musick 1997, Lutz et al . 2003).

Efforts to Address International Needs

International Agreements : Several international agreements have been developed that provide legal protection for sea turtles. The following are the main instruments, and Hykle (2002) has reviewed their advantages and disadvantages.I-78  Convention on Biological Diversity (190 Parties; in force since 1993) - an international treaty that focuses on “the conservation of biologi cal diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources . . .”

 Convention on the Conservation of European W ildlife and Natural Habitats (45 European and African States and the European Union; in force since 1982; also known as the Bern Convention) - designed “to cons erve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, especially those species and habitats whose c onservation requires the cooperation of several States, and to promote such co-operation.”

 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Sp ecies of Wild Animals (101 member states as of January 2007; also known as the Bonn Conven tion) - an internationa l treaty that focuses on the conservation of migrator y species and their habitats.

 Convention on International Trade in Endange red Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (169 Parties; in force since 1975) - de signed to regulate international trade in a wide range of wild animals and plants.

 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (21 Parties; in force since 1986; also known as the Cartagena Convention) with its Protocol Concerning Specially Protecte d Areas and Wildlife (SPA W) (12 Parties; in force since 2000) - designed to encourage Partie s “to take all appropriate measures to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as we ll as the habitat of de pleted, threatened or endangered species, in the Convention area.” The SPAW Protocol provides specifically for protection of marine turtles.

 Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (13 Parties; in force since 2001) - an independe nt, regional treaty that focuse s on the protection of marine turtles and their habitats. The treaty is ope n to all nations in North, Central, and South America, and the Caribbean.

 Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (in force since 1999, under the Bar celona Convention for th e Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution) - has gene ral provisions to prot ect the Mediterranean marine environment, including s ea turtles and their habitats.

Technology Transfer : The U.S. has undertaken significant e fforts to transfer sea turtle bycatch reduction technologies to foreign na tions using similar gear and fishing in areas where sea turtles are present. Most notable is the TED technology transfer prog ram, administered by NMFS. Workshops and hands-on training onboard comme rcial vessels have been conducted throughout the world where shrimp fishing occurs. More recently, efforts have also focused on reducing bycatch and mortality of loggerh eads in global longline fisheries. These efforts include information dissemination and training on the us e of circle hooks, re lease protocols, and

dehookers.I-79 Capacity Building : Federal and state biologists, as well as biologists from academia, the private sector, and the conservation comm unity, have undertaken efforts to build management, research, and enforcement capacity in other nations with in the range of the Atlantic loggerhead. Workshops and manuals on topics such as opera ting stranding and salvage networks, conducting necropsies, establishing nesti ng beach surveys, and conducting enforcement operations have been developed and conducted in the region. These opportunities provide excellent venues for galvanizing support and capacity for conservatio n actions both within and outside foreign governments. A good example of capacity build ing was a 1999 regional meeting titled “Marine

Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region - A Dialogue for Effective Regional Management” held in Santo Do mingo, Dominican Republic. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a better understanding of regional sea turtle management needs and foster greater cooperation and collaboration to ward sea turtle recovery am ong Wider Caribbean governments (Eckert and Abreu Grobois 2001).

Improved Communication : Improved communication is criti cal for addressing international conservation and management needs. See the section on Efforts to Improve Communication and

Access to Information under I.4 Other for descri ptions of currently available resources for improved international communication.I-80II-1 

### PART II. RECOVERY STRATEGY

This Recovery Strategy section presents and ju stifies the recommended r ecovery program for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead based on the information presented in the Background section. This section provides a conc ise summary of the species’ status and the recommended recovery approach.



### A. O VERVIEW

Loggerheads have a complex life history that spans te rrestrial, neritic, and oceanic habitats (see Part I). In addition, loggerheads have slow gr owth rates and are long lived with late sexual maturity – traits requiring high annual juvenile survival. Thes e life history complexities, both geographic and demographic, provide both cons traints and opportunitie s for recovery that necessitate a diverse and comp rehensive recovery strategy.

The life history and basic biology of the loggerhead we re reviewed in Part I. As pointed out in a number of sections, there are several significant data deficiencies with respect to our knowledge of loggerhead basic biology, demography, distribu tions, and movements. To comprehensively conserve and recover loggerhead tu rtles in the Atlantic, these data gaps need to be addressed.

From the beginning of standardized surveys in 1989 until 1998, the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, the largest nesting assemblage in the Atla ntic by an order of magnitude, had a significant

increase in the number of nests. Ho wever, from 1998 through 2007, Witherington et al . (2009) reported a decrease of 39.9% in annual nest counts . In 2008, a slight increase in nest counts was reported, but this did not alter the declining trend (Figure 5). This dramatic change in status for the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit is a seri ous concern and requires immediate attention to determine the cause(s) of this change and the actions needed to reve rse it. The Northern Recovery Unit has been declini ng at a rate of 1.3% annually si nce standardized surveys were implemented in 1983. The Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit has shown a significant declining trend of 6.8% annually since index nest ing beach surveys were initiated in 1997. No

statistical trends in nesting abundance can be determined for the Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit because of the lack of long-term data. Similarly, statistically valid analys es of long-term nesting

trends for the entire Greater Caribbean Recove ry Unit are not available because there are few long-term standardized nesting surveys repres entative of the region. Additionally, changing survey effort at monitored beaches and scatte red and low-level nesti ng by loggerheads at many locations currently precludes comprehensive analyses.

A quantitative analysis of threats to Atlantic loggerhead populati ons is presented in Appendix 1. Bycatch in commercial fisheries (particularly longline, bottom trawl, and gillnet fisheries) is the most significant anthropoge nic threat to the conservation of A tlantic loggerhead populations. A comprehensive set of recovery actions has been developed to address the problem of bycatch. Other significant threats to Atlantic loggerhead populations include light pollution on nesting beaches; coastal development, which leads to coastal armoring and other erosion control measures that impact nesting habitat; and nest predation. Recovery actio ns that address these

threats are identified later in this section.II-2 In Part II of the Recovery Plan, we present the geographic and geneti c basis for designating recovery units for the Northwes t Atlantic loggerhead population. Recovery goals and objectives are discussed and demographic and th reats-based recovery criteria ar e identified. In Part III, we present an implementation schedule for recovery.



### B. R ECOVERY 

### U NITS

Recovery units are subunits of th e listed species that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the species. Recovery units are individually necessary to conserve genetic robustness, demographic robustn ess, important life history stages, or some other feature necessary for long-term sustainability of the species. Establishing recovery units is a useful management tool for species occurr ing across wide ranges with multiple populations, varying ecological pressures, or di fferent threats in different parts of their range. Recovery units are primarily delineated on a biol ogical basis; however, boundaries may be modified to reflect differing management regimes. Recovery units are not necessarily se lf-sustaining vi able units on their own, but instead need to be collectively recovered to ensure recovery of the entire listed entity.

The loggerhead sea turtle is listed worldwide at the species level. Therefore, the entire species is the listed entity. However, in this recovery plan, we have identified recovery units for the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population. At this time, the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead population is only a “potential” distinct populati on segment (DPS) and cannot be considered for delisting separately from the listed entity (i.e., the entire species) until it meets both the recovery criteria for each recovery unit and has comple ted a formal DPS evaluation and designation, which would involve a proposed rulemaking, pu blic review and comment, and a final rulemaking. (In 1996, FWS and NMFS published a joint policy defining the phrase “distinct population segment” (FWS and NMFS 1996, 61 FR 4722) . Three elements are considered in a decision regarding the listing, delis ting, or reclassification of a DP S as endangered or threatened

under the ESA: discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remai nder of the species, significance of the population segm ent to the species, and cons ervation status. In early 2008, NMFS established a Loggerhead Biological Review Team to assess the loggerhead population structure globally to determine whether DPSs exist and, if so, to assess the status of each DPS. The Loggerhead Biological Review Team will re view and synthesize information, render expert opinion, and prepare a written report (status revi ew) by mid-2009. With this in mind, we have identified recovery units for the Northwes t Atlantic loggerhead population as follows.

Five nesting subpopulations of loggerheads in th e Northwest Atlantic have been previously identified based on mtDNA hapl otype frequencies (Encalada et al . 1998, Pearce 2001). However, recent increases in sample sizes and more complete sampling of rookeries along the Atlantic coast of Florida (i.e., Canaveral Na tional Seashore (n=263), Archie Carr NWR (n=351), Juno Beach beaches (n=97), and Broward County beaches (n=48)) now suggest that there is continuous spatial variation for each of the two primary haplotypes (Figure 9; ACCSTR, unpublished data). Analyses using these new data indicate that there is no genetic difference between loggerheads nesting on adjacent beaches al ong the Florida Peninsula (north to south: Volusia County beaches, Canaveral National Seas hore, Archie Carr NWR, Juno Beach beaches, Broward County beaches, and Dry Tortugas). This la ck of genetic structure makes it difficult toII-3 designate specific boundaries for the subpopulations based on ge netic differences alone. Therefore, we used a combina tion of geographic dist ribution of nesting de nsities, geographic separation, and geopolitical boundari es, in addition to genetic differences, to reassess the designation of subpopulations within the U.S. to iden tify recovery units for use in this recovery plan.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900

km South of Cape Hatteras, NCProportion

Figure 9. The frequency of haplotypes CC-A1 (ope n circles) and CC-A2 (open squares) are plotted for each of the seven nesting locations (n orth to south: NRU, Volusia County beaches, Canaveral National Seashore, Archie Carr NWR, Juno Beach beaches, Broward County beaches, and Dry Tortugas). Haplotypes CC-A1 and CC-A2 are the most frequent haplotypes, and combined vary from 88 to 100% for each nesting beach (ACCSTR, unpublished data).

Our reassessment involved examining loggerhead ne sting densities along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts to define peaks and gaps in nesti ng. We qualitatively identified five nesting peaks based on both nesting density and geographic separati on (Figure 10). The five nesting peaks are: 1) Cape Romain, South Carolina; 2) southeas t Florida (Brevard C ounty through Palm Beach County); 3) Dry Tortugas, Florid a; 4) Sarasota County, Florida; and 5) St. Joseph Peninsula (Gulf County), Florida. In addition to being ge ographically separated, nesting females from each of these five areas are genetic ally distinct based on mtDNA ha plotype frequencies (when the neighboring nesting beaches from Brevard County through Palm Beach County are combined), with the exception of females nesting at southe ast Florida, which are indistinguishable from those at Sarasota County (s outhwest Florida) (Encalada et al . 1998; Pearce 2001; ACCSTR, unpublished data). Therefore, we designated four recovery units within the U.S. loggerheadII-4 nesting range based on a combination of geogr aphic distribution of nesting densities and geographic separation in addition to genetic differences. The bounda ries of these four recovery units were delineated based on geographic isol ation and geopolitical boundaries (Figure 11).

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

km from Chesapeake BayNests/km

Cape Romain, SC Southeast Florida (Cape Canaveral-Juno Beach)

Dry Tortugas, FL

Southwest Florida

Florida Panhandle

Figure 10. Mean loggerhead nesting densities from s outhern Virginia to the U.S.-Mexico border (1999-2003).II-5 Figure 11. Location of the four identif ied recovery units in the U.S. (NRU = Northern Recovery Unit, PFRU = Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, DTRU = Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit, NGMRU = Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit).

The first four recovery units represent nesting assemblages in the southeast U.S. The fifth recovery unit is composed of all nesting a ssemblages of loggerhead s within the Greater Caribbean, outside the U.S.

Northern Recovery Unit : The Northern Recovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia bo rder through southern Virginia (the northern extent of the nesting range). Because we could not precisely define the southern boundary based on genetics, we selected the Flor ida-Georgia border as the southe rn boundary of this recovery

unit.

Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit : The Peninsular Florida R ecovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west coast of Florid a, excluding the islands west of Key West, Florida. Pinellas County, Florida, was selected as the northern Gu lf coast boundary of this recovery unit because the Big Bend area between Pinellas and Franklin counties is largely composed of salt marsh that separates this recovery unit from the No rthern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit. RECOVERY UNIT

NRU

PFRU

DTRU

NGMRUII-6 Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit : The Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches throughout the islands located west of Key West, Florida, because these islands are geographically separated from other recovery units.

Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit : The Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest Gulf coast of Florida through Texas (the western ex tent of U.S. nesting range). Franklin County, Florida, was selected as the eastern boundary of this recovery unit because the Big Bend area between Franklin and Pinellas counties is largel y composed of salt marsh that separates this recovery unit from the Peninsular Florida Recove ry Unit. The Texas-Mexico border was chosen as the western boundary of this recovery unit.

Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit : The Greater Caribbean Rec overy Unit is composed of loggerheads originating from all other nesti ng assemblages within the Greater Caribbean (Mexico through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles).



### C. R ECOVERY 

### G OAL

The goal of this revised recovery plan is to en sure that each recovery unit meets its Recovery Criteria alleviating threats to the species so that protections unde r the ESA are no longer

necessary.



### D. R ECOVERY 

### O BJECTIVES

The Recovery Goal can be subdivided into di screte component objectiv es that, collectively, describe the conditions necessary for achieving the R ecovery Goal. It is a ppropriate to identify Recovery Objectives in terms of demographic para meters, reduction or elimination of threats to the species (the five listing fact ors), and any other particular vul nerability or biological needs inherent to the species. The objectiv es of this recovery plan are to:

1. Ensure that the number of nests in each rec overy unit is increasing and that this increase corresponds to an increase in th e number of nesting females.

2. Ensure the in-water abundance of juveniles in both neritic an d oceanic habitats is increasing and is increasing at a grea ter rate than strandings of similar age classes. 3. Manage sufficient nesting beach ha bitat to ensure successful nesting. 4. Manage sufficient feeding, migrat ory, and internesting marine ha bitats to ensure successful growth and reproduction. 5. Eliminate legal harvest. 6. Implement scientifically based nest management plans. 7. Minimize nest predation. 8. Recognize and respond to mass/unusual morta lity or disease events appropriately. 9. Develop and implement local, state, Federal, and international legislation to ensure longterm protection of loggerheads and thei r terrestrial and marine habitats. 10. Minimize bycatch in domestic and interna tional commercial and artisanal fisheries. 11. Minimize trophic changes from fish ery harvest and ha bitat alteration.

12. Minimize marine debris i ngestion and entanglement. 13. Minimize vessel strike mortality.II-7 

### E. R ECOVERY 

### C RITERIA

Section 4(f) of the ESA directs the Secretarie s of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce to develop and implemen t recovery plans. These plans must contain, to the maximum extent practicable, objective, m easurable Recovery Criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Recovery Criteria can be viewed as targ ets, or values, by which progress toward achievement of Recovery Objectives can be measured. Recovery Criteria may include such things as population numbers and sizes, mana gement or elimination of threats by specific mechanisms, and specific habitat conditions. As a result, there is a need to frame Recovery

Criteria in terms of bot h population parameters (Demographic Recovery Criteria, Section E.1.) and the five listing factors (Listing Factor Recove ry Criteria, Section E.2.). The nesting beach Demographic Recovery Criteria (E .1.1) are specific to recovery units. The remaining Criteria cannot be delineated by recovery un it because individuals in the r ecovery units mix in the marine environment; therefore, these Criteria are applicable to all recovery units. Recovery criteria must be met for all recovery units.

E.1. D EMOGRAPHIC R ECOVERY C RITERIA

The Demographic Criteria evaluate trends and nu mbers of nests and nesting females, trends in abundance on foraging grounds, and trends in strandings. In devel oping the Demographic Criteria for nests and nesting fe males, pre-listing nesting populat ion data were not used as a baseline either because they were not availabl e or because uncertainties existed with data collection methodologies. However, post-listing nesting population data, which were available and sufficient to establish a baseline, were us ed to establish Demographic Criteria. The Demographic Criteria for nests and nesting females were based on a time frame of one generation for U.S. loggerheads -- defined as 50 y ears – selected as a biologically meaningful time period over which to assess recovery. One ge neration is estimated as age to maturity (34 years) plus one half of reproductive life sp an (12.5 years based on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, tag return data showing 25- year returns) (Pianka 1974, Dahlen et al . 2000). The resulting value (46.5 years) was rounded to 50 ye ars to account for imprecision in the age to maturity estimate and a likely underestimate of reproductive lifespan (from tag loss and anthropogenic mortality). To be considered for delisting, each recovery unit will have recovered to a viable level (see footnotes) and each recovery unit will have increased for at least one generation. The rate of increase used for each recovery unit was dependent upon the level of vulnerability of each recovery unit. The minimu m statistical level of de tection (based on annual variability in nest counts over a generation time of 50 years) of 1% per year was used for the

least vulnerable rec overy unit (Peninsular Florida). A highe r rate of increase of 3% per year 1
was used for the most vulnerable recovery units (D ry Tortugas and Northern Gulf of Mexico). A rate of increase of 2% per year was used for a moderately vulnerable recovery unit (Northern).

Sufficient data do not exist to develop detaile d, stochastic life-history models for Northwest Atlantic loggerheads. Therefore, the Demogra phic Criteria for nests and nesting females were assessed using diffusion approximation analysis (Holmes 2001, 2004). This method was used because it can be applied to the sort of nesting co unts that are available for sea turtle populations. This approach allowed quantitative population vi ability analysis based on a time series of nestII-8 counts to estimate the probability of crossing ex tinction thresholds. This method was used to examine the population viability of the Northern a nd Peninsular Florida Recovery Units. This method was not applied to the Dry Tortugas and Nort hern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Units due to

a limited time series of nest counts for both of these recovery units.

A fundamental problem with restricting population trend analyses to nesting beach surveys is that they are unlikely to reflect changes in the entire popul ation. This is because of the long time lag to maturity and the relatively small proportion of females that are reproducing for the first time on a nesting beach, at least in populations with high adult surv ival rates. A decrease in oceanic juvenile or neritic juve nile survival rates may be mask ed by the natural variability in nesting female numbers and the slow response of adult abundance to chan ges in recruitment to the adult population (Chaloupka a nd Limpus 2001). In light of this, two additional Demographic Criteria were developed to ensure a more re presentative measure of population status was achieved. The first of these additional Demogr aphic Criteria assesses trends in abundance on foraging grounds, and the other assess es age-specific trends in strand ings relative to age-specific trends in abundance on foraging gro unds. These latter two demogra phic criteria are not specific to recovery units because proge ny from the various recovery units mix on the foraging grounds. As a result, in-water trends were not developed for th e individual recovery units.

1. Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Females

a. Northern Recovery Unit (a 2% annual rate of incr ease was used to develop the Demographic Criteria because this recove ry unit is between 1,000 and 10,000 nests per year, currently declining, and moderately vulnerable to extin ction from stochastic events)

(1) There is statistical confidence (95%) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 2% or greater resulting in a total annual number of nests of 14,000 or greater for this recovery unit (approximate distribution of nests is NC=14% [2,000], SC=66% [9,200], and GA=20% [2,800]) 2

.

(2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

b. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (a 1% minimal detectable annual rate of increase was used to develop the demographic criteria becau se this recovery unit is greater than 10,000 nests per year and determined least vulnera ble to extinction from stochastic events)

(1) There is statistical confidence (95%) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is statistically detectable (1%) resulting in a total annual number of nests of 106,100 or gr eater for this recovery unit 3

.

(2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).II-9 c. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit(a 3% annual rate of incr ease was used to develop the demographic criteria because this recovery unit is less than 1, 000 nests per year and highly vulnerable to extincti on from stochastic events)

(1) There is statistical confidence (95%) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 3% or greater resulting in a total annual number of nests of 1,100 or greater for this recovery unit 4

.

(2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

d. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (a 3% annual rate of increase was used to develop the demographic criter ia because this recovery uni t is less than 1,000 nests per year and highly vulnerable to extinction from stochastic events)

(1) There is statistical confidence (95%) th at the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 3% or greater resulting in a total annual number of nests of 4,000 or greater for this recovery unit (approxi mate distribution of nests (2002-2007) is FL= 92% [3,700] and AL=8% [300]) 5

.

(2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

e. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit

(1) The total annual number of nests at a mi nimum of three nesting assemblages, each averaging greater than 100 nests annu ally (e.g., Yucatán, Mexico; Cay Sal Bank, The Bahamas), has increased over a generation time of 50 years.

(2) This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval).

2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds

A network of index in-water sites, both oceanic and neritic, distributed across the foraging range is established and monitoring is impl emented to measure abundance. There is statistical confidence (9 5%) that a composite es timate of relative abundance from these sites is increasing for at least one generation.II-10 3. Trends in Strandings Relative to In-water Abundance

Stranding trends are not increasi ng at a rate greater than the trends in in-water relative abundance for similar age classes for at least one generation.II-11 Footnotes to Explain Methods Used to Determine Demographic Criteria :

1 A statistically significant rate of annual increase was approximately 3% over a 9-year period (1989- 1998) at a set of index beaches within the PFRU (Witherington et al . 2009).

2 Power analysis indicates that 2% exceeds the mini mum detectable annual increase (see Table 5(b), 1983- 2008; CV=0.28), alpha=0.05, beta=0.10, duration in years=50, two-tailed significance test, exponential rate of change (TRENDS software per Gerrodette 1993). The target of 14,037 nests per year (rounded to 14,000) is based on a 2% annual increase over 50 year s from a baseline of 5,215 nests per year (1989- 2008 average total nests per year for the NRU). Diffusion approximation analysis indicates that this rate of increase and resulting number of nests would resu lt in the NRU having a less than 1% chance of extinction over 100 years. The recovery criterion rate of increase shall be calculated based on annual nest counts from nesting beaches that meet standa rdized daily survey criteria, see Table 5.

3 Power analysis indicates that the minimum detectab le annual increase is approximately 1% (see Table 6(b), 1989-2008; CV=0.22), alpha=0.05, beta=0.10, duration in years=50, two-tailed significance test, exponential rate of change (TRENDS software per Gerr odette 1993). The target of 106,100 nests per year (no rounding needed) is based on a 1% annual incr ease over 50 years from a baseline of 64,513 nests per year (1989-2007 average total nests per year for the PFRU). Diffusion approximation analysis indicates that this rate of increase and resulting number of n ests would result in the PFRU having a less than 1% chance of extinction over 100 years. The recovery criterion rate of increase shall be calculated based on standardized annual nest counts from index nesting beaches, see Table 6.

4 For recovery units that do not exceed 1,000 nests annually, the maximum possible rate of increase (3%, see Footnote 1) observed on Florida index beaches was a dopted to minimize the risk of extinction due to stochastic events. Power analysis indicates that 3% exceeds the minimum detectable annual increase (see Table 7(b), 1995-2004; CV=0.21), alpha=0.05, beta=0 .10, duration in years=50, two-tailed significance test, exponential rate of change (TRENDS software per Gerrodette 1993). The average number of nests per year for 1995-2004 is 246 and a 3% annual increase results in a total of 1,074 nests (rounded to 1,100) for this recovery unit. The recovery criterion rate of increase is to be calculated based on annual nest counts from index nesting beaches, see Table 7. Diffu sion approximation analysis was not calculated due

to a limited data series.

5 For recovery units that do not exceed 1,000 nests annually, the maximum possible rate of increase (3%, see Footnote 1) observed on Florida index beaches was a dopted to minimize the risk of extinction due to stochastic events. Power analysis indicates that 3% exceeds the minimum detectable annual increase (see Table 8(b), 1997-2008; CV=0.28), alpha=0.05, beta=0 .10, duration in years=50, two-tailed significance test, exponential rate of change (TRENDS software per Gerrodette 1993). The average number of nests per year for 1995-2007 is 906 and a 3% annual increase results in a total of 3,973 nests (rounded to 4,000) for this recovery unit. The recovery criterion rate of increase is to be calculated based on annual nest counts from index nesting beaches, see Table 8. Diffu sion approximation analysis was not calculated due

to a limited data series.II-12 Table 5. Summary of data used to calculate No rthern Recovery Unit nest trends and the minimum detectable trend for recovery criteria.

5(a) Beaches used in the analysis. Standard ized daily surveys were conducted on all beaches

from 1983 to 2008.

Beach State Survey Length (km)

Hammocks Beach SP NC 6.4

Onslow Beach NC 11.3

Bald Head Island NC 14.5 Cape Island SC 13.0

Edisto Beach SP SC 2.3

Edisto Beach SC 7.6 Fripp Island SC 4.8

Pritchard's Island SC 4.0

Wassaw Island GA 10.7

Blackbeard Island GA 11.0

Little Cumberland Island GA 4.7II-13 5(b) Loggerhead annual nest totals from select ed beaches (see Table 5( a)) used to calculate population trend and coefficient of vari ation (CV) for th e power analysis.
Year Loggerhead Nests
1983 1,509
1984 2,247
1985 1,778
1986 2,430
1987 1,380
1988 1,729
1989 1,421
1990 2,466
1991 2,127
1992 1,844

1993 931
1994 2,207
1995 1,484
1996 1,969
1997 1,100
1998 1,812
1999 2,173
2000 1,475
2001 1,242
2002 1,543
2003 1,998

2004 549
2005 1,766
2006 1,940
2007 1,153
2008 1,854II-14 5(c) Loggerhead annual nest totals for all surv eyed beaches used to determine population size

and the baseline annual number of nests.

Year* North Carolina Georgia South Carolina Northern Recovery Unit

Nest Total
1989 457 717 2,623 3,797 1990 806 1,091 4,155 6,052 1991 931 1,213 3,542 5,686 1992 729 1,057 3,944 5,730 1993 485 475 2,093 3,053 1994 1,021 1,380 5,280 7,681 1995 662 1,036 2,905 4,603 1996 776 1,116 3,807 5,699 1997 568 816 2,238 3,622 1998 847 1,069 4,335 6,251 1999 1,140 1,406 5,050 7,596 2000 757 1,073 3,387 5,217 2001 659 851 2,808 4,318 2002 694 1,034 2,660 4,388 2003 863 1,504 3,728 6,095 2004 344 367 1,093 1,804 2005 647 1,200 4,233 6,080 2006 794 1,396 3,679 5,869 2007 532 689 2,558 3,779 2008 832 1,644 4,500 6,976 14,544 21,134 68,618 Average=5,215 * Complete surveys were available for a limited sample of years.II-15 Table 6. Summary of data used to calculate Penins ular Florida Recovery Unit nest trends and the minimum detectable trend for recovery criteria.

6(a) Core index nesting beaches within the Peni nsular Florida Recovery Unit. Surveys on these

beaches have been established to have consiste nt and uniform effort among years, have been monitored since 1989, and are suitable for the asse ssment of temporal trends in nesting.

Beach County Survey Length

(km) Notes

Fort Clinch SP Nassau 3.68

Amelia Island Nassau 20.80

Little Talbot Island SP Duval 8.00

Atlantic-Jax Beach Duval 12.80

Guana River SP St. Johns 6.72

Ft. Matanzas NM St. Johns 7.68

Canaveral NS Volusia/Brevard 38.00

Merritt Island NWR Brevard 9.92

Canaveral AF Station Brevard 21.00

Patrick AF Base Brevard 7.04 South Brevard County Brevard 40.50

Sebastian Inlet SRA Brevard/Indian River 4.80

Wabasso Beach Indian River 8.00

Ft. Pierce Inlet SRA St. Lucie 9.60

Hutchinson Island St. Lucie/Martin 36.90

St. Lucie Inlet SP Martin 4.30

Hobe Sound NWR Martin 5.60 Jupiter Island Martin 12.00 Juno Beach Palm Beach 8.40 excludes zones J&K (10&11)

Boca Raton Palm Beach 8.00

J.D. MacArthur SP Palm Beach 2.88 John U. Lloyd SRA Broward 3.36 excludes zone E (5)

Miami Beaches Dade 20.00

Sanibel Island Lee 5.60 Wiggins Pass SRA Collier 6.40 Keewaydin Island Collier 6.88II-16 6(b) Loggerhead annual nest totals from select ed beaches (=core index nesting beaches, see Table 6(a)) used to calculate popu lation trend and coefficient of va riation for the power analysis. Year Loggerhead Nests
1989 39,083 1990 50,266 1991 52,802 1992 47,567 1993 41,808 1994 51,168 1995 57,843 1996 52,811 1997 43,156 1998 59,918 1999 56,471 2000 56,277 2001 45,941 2002 38,101 2003 40,726 2004 29,547 2005 34,310 2006 31,329 2007 28,073 2008 38,643II-17 6(c) Loggerhead annual nest totals for all surv eyed beaches used to determine population size

and the baseline annual number of nests. Survey effort was not constant among years. Year Loggerhead Nests
1989 49,297 1990 66,452 1991 68,318 1992 64,574 1993 55,200 1994 70,887 1995 79,546 1996 75,528 1997 63,914 1998 84,560 1999 79,487 2000 83,036 2001 68,610 2002 62,190 2003 62,408 2004 46,259 2005 51,831 2006 49,141 2007 44,512 Average=64,513II-18 Table 7. Summary of data used to calculate the Dr y Tortugas Recovery Unit nest trends and the minimum detectable trend for recovery criteria.

7(a) Beaches used in the analysis. Surveys on these beaches have consistent and uniform effort among years, have been monitored since 1995, and are suitable for the assessment of temporal trends in nesting. Beach length is reported for 20 04 (the latest year during which all islands were surveyed).

Beach County Survey Length (km) East Key Monroe 0.6 Loggerhead Key Monroe 2.4 Miscellaneous Keys Monroe 3.2

7(b) Loggerhead annual nest totals from select ed beaches (see Table 7( a)) used to calculate population trend and coefficient of variation for the power analysis and to determine population

size and the baseline annual number of nests. Survey effort was not constant among years. Year Loggerhead Nests

1995 340

1996 249

1997 258

1998 249

1999 292

2000 242

2001 213

2002 *

2003 208

2004 159

2005 *

2006 *

2007 * Average=246

* Incomplete surveys were conducted during these years; therefore, an annual nest total could

not be calculated.II-19 Table 8. Summary of data used to calculate the No rthern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit nest

trends and the minimum detectable trend for recovery criteria.

8(a) Beaches used in the analysis. Surveys on these beaches have consistent and uniform effort between years, have been monitored since 1997, a nd are suitable for the assessment of temporal trends in nesting.

Beach County Survey Length (km)

Santa Rosa Island Walton 19.3 Panama City Bay 28.2 St. Joseph Peninsula SP Gulf 14.5

8(b) Loggerhead annual nest totals from select ed beaches (see Table 8( a)) used to calculate population trend and coefficient of variation for the power analysis. Year Loggerhead Nests

1997 166

1998 149

1999 235

2000 181

2001 143

2002 149

2003 95

2004 114

2005 120

2006 111

2007 99

2008 143II-20 8(c) Loggerhead annual nest totals for all surv eyed beaches used to determine population size

and the baseline annual number of nests. Survey effort was not constant among years. Year Loggerhead Nests

1995 928

1996 891 1997 1,133 1998 1,187 1999 1,285 2000 1,118

2001 857

2002 754 *

2003 894 *

2004 805 *

2005 657 *

2006 668 *

2007 605 * Average=906

* Years with nest counts made for Alabama beach es. All other years are represented by Florida only.II-21 E.2. L ISTING F ACTOR R ECOVERY C RITERIA

1. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modifica tion, or Curtailment of a Species Habitat or Range

a. Terrestrial (1) Beach armoring, shoreline stabilization struct ures, and all other barriers to nesting are categorized and inventoried for ar eas under U.S. jurisdiction. A peerreviewed strategy is developed and implement ed to ensure that the percentage of nesting beach free of barriers to nesting is stable or increasing relative to baseline

levels. (2) Beach sand placement projects conducted in areas under U.S. jurisdiction are in compliance with state and FWS criteri a and are conducted in a manner that accommodates loggerhead needs and does not degrade or eliminate nesting

habitat. (3) At least 1,581 km of loggerhead nesting beaches and adjacent uplands (current amount as identified in Appendix 4) under U.S. jurisdiction are maintained within conservation lands in public (Federal, stat e, or local) or private (NGO and private conservation lands) ownership that are ma naged in a manner compatible with sea turtle nesting. (4) A peer-reviewed model is developed that de scribes the effects of sea level rise on loggerhead nesting beaches, and steps have been taken to mitigate such effects. (5) Nesting beaches outside U.S. jurisdicti on are managed for compatibility with loggerhead nesting.

b. Marine (estuarine, neritic, and oceanic) A peer-reviewed, comprehensive strategy is developed and implemented to identify, prioritize, and protect marine habitats (e.g., feeding, migrat ory, inter-nesting) important to loggerheads.

2. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational , Scientific, or Educational Purposes

a. Legal harvest (both commercial and subsis tence) in the Caribbean, Atlantic, and Mediterranean is identified and quantified. A strategy is developed and implemented to eliminate legal harvest th rough internationa l agreements.

b. A scientifically based nest management plan outlining strategies for protecting nests (under U.S. jurisdiction) from natural and manmade impacts is developed and implemented.

3. Disease or Predation

a. Ecologically sound predator control program s are implemented to ensure that the annual rate of mammalian predation on nests (under U.S. jurisdiction) is 10% or below within each recovery unit based on standardized surveys 1

. b. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed to recognize, respond to, and investigate mass/unusual mortality or disease events.

4. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

a. Light management plans, which meet mini mum standards identified in the Florida Model Lighting Ordinance (F lorida Administrative C ode 62B-55), are developed,II-22 fully implemented, and effectively en forced on nesting beaches under U.S. jurisdiction. Annual percenta ge of total nests with hatchlings disoriented or misoriented by artificial lighting does not exceed 10% based on standardized

surveys 2

. b. Specific and comprehensive Federal le gislation is developed, promulgated, implemented, and enforced to ensure long- term (including post-delisting) protection of loggerheads and their terr estrial and marine habitats, including protection from fishery interactions.

c. State and local legislatio n is developed and/or maintained, promulgated, implemented, and enforced to ensure long- term (including post-delisting) protection of loggerheads and their terr estrial and marine habitats, including protection from fishery interactions.

d. Foreign nations with signif icant loggerhead foraging or migratory habitat have implemented national legislation and have acceded to international and multi-lateral agreements to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and their habitats. Nations that have important foraging or migratory habitat include Canada, Mexico, Cuba, The Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, Nicar agua, Panama, Colombia, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, and Cape Verde Islands.

e. Nations that conduct activities affecting loggerheads in foraging or migratory habitats

in the North Atlantic Basin and the we stern Mediterranean have implemented national legislation and have acceded to international and multi-lateral agreements to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and their habitats th roughout the high seas and in foreign EEZs.

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

a. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to minimize fishery interactions and mortality for each domestic commercial fishing gear type that has loggerhead bycatch.

b. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed a nd fully implemented in cooperation with relevant nations to minimize fishery inte ractions and mortality of loggerheads in foreign EEZs and on the high seas.

c. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to quantify, monitor, and minimize effects of trophic changes on loggerheads (e.g., diet, growth rate, fecundity) from fishery harves ts and habitat alterations.

d. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to quantify, monitor,

and minimize the effects of marine debris ingestion and entanglement in U.S. territorial waters, the U.S. EEZ, foreign EEZs, and the high seas.

e. A peer-reviewed strategy is developed and fully implemented to minimize vessel strike mortality in U.S. territo rial waters and the U.S. EEZ.

Footnotes for Listing Factor Criteria :

1 A 10% rate has been achievable at beaches where pr edator control efforts have been made and where predation rates were formerly greater than 80% (Merritt Island NWR and Cana veral National Seashore; Witherington, unpublished data).

2 A 10% rate, excluding outliers, has been measured at developed beaches where light management efforts have been made (Witherington et al . 1996).II-23 

### F. R ECOVERY 

### P ROGRAM

This section describes the recovery actions neces sary to achieve the goal and objectives of the plan and the monitoring necessary to track the status of the sp ecies and the effectiveness of recovery actions. This section includes a R ecovery Action Outline, which lists the recovery actions without the accompanying descriptions. This section al so includes the Recovery Action Narrative, which describes the actions necessary to achieve full recovery of the species.

F.1. R ECOVERY A CTION O UTLINE

1. Determine demographic parameters, refine population genetic structure, and monitor distribution, abundance, and trends.

11. Monitor and refine population genetic structure.

111. Refine geographic boundaries of recovery units.

112. Monitor population genetic structure on foraging grounds.

113. Develop new techniques for refini ng population genetic structure.

12. Monitor nesting abundance and trends by recovery unit.

121. Maintain and/or adopt standardized cr iteria for on-the-ground nesting surveys.

122. Continue to monitor trends in ne sting and non-nesting emergences on

index/standardized beaches.

123. Incorporate index/standardized nesting survey protocols on additional beaches to fully represent recovery units.

124. Monitor annual nesting and non-ne sting emergences on non-index/nonstandardized beaches as extensively as possible.

125. Conduct periodic censuses of recovery un its to obtain total nest counts and geographic distribution of nesting.

13. Monitor in-water populati on abundance and trends.

131. Establish a network of index in-water st udy sites across the range of all habitats (neritic and oceanic) and develop samp ling protocols to estimate indices of

abundance and determine trends.

132. Evaluate, improve, maintain, and expand in-water surveys at index sites to

estimate indices of abundance and determine trends.

133. Develop sampling protocols for conducti ng large-scale in-water surveys to

estimate indices of abundance and determine trends.

134. Implement large-scale in-w ater surveys to estimate indices of abundance and

determine trends.

14. Determine geographic distribution patterns of in-water populations.

141. Develop and maintain a comprehensiv e GIS database of distribution and

abundance.

142. Determine migratory pathways for all life history stages.

15. Determine and monitor female repr oductive output by recovery unit.

151. Adopt standardized hatchling production assessment criteria.

152. Implement annual assessments of hatc hling production using standardized

criteria.

153. Determine and monitor clutch frequency.

154. Determine and monitor remigration interval.II-24 155. Determine female reproductive lifespan.

16. Determine and monitor demographic para meters at index in-water sites.

161. Develop sampling and data collection pr otocols for demographic parameters. 1611. Refine and develop techniques for determining sex ratios. 1612. Refine and develop aging techniques. 1613. Determine somatic growth rates a nd evaluate sources of variation. 1614. Determine age-specific survival probabilities. 1615. Determine age at sexual maturity for females. 1616. Determine age at sexual matu rity, reproductive frequency, and reproductive lifespan for males.

162. Implement sampling and data collection protocols at index in-water sites.

17. Maintain and improve the Sea Turt le Stranding and Salvage Network.

171. Maintain the Sea Turtle St randing and Salvage Network. 172. Implement improvements to the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.

18. Maintain and enhance centralized administra tion and coordination of tagging programs. 2. Assess, monitor, a nd protect habitats. 21. Ensure beach sand placement projects are conducted in a manner that accommodates loggerhead needs and does not degrad e or eliminate nesting habitat. 211. Conduct periodic reviews of existing st ate and FWS criteria for sand placement projects and modify as necessary. 212. Minimize the effects of beach and dune sand placement projects on loggerheads. 2121. Ensure all beach sand placement proj ects are in compliance with state

and FWS criteria. 2122. Establish protocols for removing sand that is determined to have not met sand suitability requirements. 2123. Evaluate the effects of dredging of nearshore ebb tidal shoals on adjacent nesting habitat. 213. Ensure sand compaction levels following beach sand placement do not hinder sea turtle nesting or hatchling productivity. 2131. Evaluate sand compaction levels on native beaches for all recovery units to determine thresholds for tilling. 2132. Investigate alternative methods for monitoring sand compaction. 2133. Implement tilling as a means of softening compacted beaches. 214. Implement escarpment leveling and/or profile adjustment on constructed

beaches as needed. 215. Ensure sediment grain size, composition, sorting, and color are compatible with

native beaches.

216. Ensure sediment sources do not contai n contaminants that impact sea turtle

nests.
2161. Conduct research on contaminant levels of sediment sources and their effects on loggerheads.

2162. Evaluate and revise, if necessar y, current Federal guidelines for

contaminant levels of sediment sour ces to ensure compatibility with loggerhead development.II-25 2163. Conduct statistically valid sampling of borrow sediments for contaminants (pre- and post-construc tion) and ensure sediment sources do not exceed existing Federal guidelines for contaminant levels. 217. Design and evaluate beach construction profiles to more closely mimic natural

beaches.

218. Re-establish natural dune st ructure and native vegeta tion during sand placement projects.

219. Monitor and assess the effects of b each and dune sand placement projects on loggerhead nesting. 2191. Monitor suitability of post-c onstruction beaches for nesting. 2192. Develop and maintain an inventory of beach and dune sand placement projects and periodically assess the cumulative effects of these projects on loggerhead nesting and hatchling production. 22. Minimize degradation of nesting habitat from barriers to nesting. 221. Categorize and inventory all beach armo ring, shoreline stabilization structures, and all other barriers to nesting to esta blish baseline levels and develop a GIS. 222. Ensure that the percentage of nesting beach free of any barriers to nesting is stable or increasing relative to baseline levels determined in 221. 2221. Convene an expert panel to devel op a strategy to stre ngthen and guide regulations to minimize the effects of coastal armoring on loggerheads and to ensure that the percentage of nesting beach free of any barriers to nesting is stable or increasing relative to baseline levels determined in

221. 2222. Modify existing regulations or promulgate new regulations to implement the strategy developed in 2221. 2223. Ensure regulations governing plac ement and design of new coastal buildings and infrastructure eliminate any future need for coastal armoring. 2224. Require removal of failed or ine ffective erosion c ontrol structures. 2225. Prohibit recreational equipment on nesting beaches at night.

2226. Evaluate the effectiveness of dune crossovers for protecting dunes and strengthen existing regulations or promulgate new regulations to

minimize effects from dune crossovers.

2227. Evaluate the effectiveness of sa nd fences for building beaches and strengthen existing regulations or promulgate new regulations for sand

fence construction. 2228. Ensure regulations pertaining to barriers to nestin g are enforced. 23. Maintain and acquire nesting beaches and adja cent uplands to be he ld in public trust. 231. Maintain at least the current length and quality of protected nesting beach. 232. Acquire additional parcels of nesting beach and adjacent uplands or otherwise ensure long-term protection. 2321. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the boundaries of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Florida.II-26 2322. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) on Hutchinson Island, Florid a, and develop a plan to ensure long-term protection. 2323. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the nesting range of the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit and develop a plan to ensure long-term protection.

2324. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the nesting range of the Northern Recovery Unit and develop a plan to ensu re long-term protection.

2325. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the nesting range of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit and develop a plan to ensure long-term protection. 2326. Acquire storm-damaged nesting b eachfront and upland properties on loggerhead nesting beaches.

24. Minimize the effects of climat e change on loggerhead habitats. 241. Develop a model that describes the ef fects of sea level rise on loggerhead nesting beaches. 242. Implement measures and develop agr eements to reduce atmospheric greenhouse

gasses. 25. Minimize effects of light pollution on hatchlings and nesting females. 251. Develop, fully implement, and effectively enforce light management plans to address direct and indirect (e.g., sky gl ow, uplighting) arti ficial lighting on nesting beaches. 2511. Implement and enforce lighting ordinances on lands under local government jurisdiction.

2512. Implement and enforce lighting management plans on all lands under state and Federal jurisdiction. 252. Evaluate the extent of hatchling di sorientation on nesti ng beaches based on standardized surveys.

253. Prosecute individuals or entities responsible for nesting female or hatchling

disorientation under the E ndangered Species Act or appropriate state laws.

26. Conduct other activities to improve the quality of nesting habitat.

261. Encourage the manual removal of manmade beach debris through regular coastal cleanup programs.

262. Remove exotic vegetation harmful to l oggerheads on and adjacent to nesting

beaches.

27. Inventory and protect neritic ha bitats used by loggerheads.

271. Assess, categorize, and map neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

272. Assess human activities a nd their effects on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

2721. Assess the effects of bottom traw l and dredge fisheries on neritic habitats used by loggerheads. 2722. Assess the effects of eutrophicati on on neritic habitats used by loggerheads. 2723. Assess the effects of water management on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.II-27 2724. Assess the effects of oil and gas pr oduction activities on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

2725. Assess the effects of channel dred ging on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

2726. Assess the effects of salvage opera tions on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

2727. Assess the effects of other human ac tivities on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

273. Develop and implement a strategy to prot ect and monitor neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

28. Inventory and protect oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

281. Assess, categorize, and map oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

282. Assess human activities a nd their effects on ocea nic habitats used by loggerheads.

2821. Assess the effects of oil and gas acti vities on oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

2822. Assess the effects of ma rine debris on oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

2823. Assess the effects of other polluta nts on oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

283. Develop and implement a strategy to prot ect and monitor ocea nic habitats used by loggerheads.

29. Develop and maintain a comprehensive GIS da tabase of neritic and oceanic habitats (used by loggerheads) and human activ ities that impact these habitats.

3. Prevent overutilization for commercial , scientific, or e ducational purposes. 31. Work with foreign nations to quantify and eliminate commercial and subsistence

harvest. 32. Educate local communities in foreign nations on the benefits of sea turtle ecotourism as

an alternative to harvest.

33. Develop and implement guidelines for public tu rtle walks that minimize disturbance to loggerheads.

34. Minimize take of wild tu rtles for captive display. 4. Assess and manage disease and predation.

41. Reduce nest predation.

411. Reduce the annual rate of mammalian pred ation to at or below 10% of nests within each recovery unit using ecologi cally sound predator control programs.

412. Control fire ants on and adjacen t to loggerhead nesting beaches.

42. Develop diagnostic health assessment prot ocols and establish baselines for wild populations.

421. Develop a condition index to allow rapi d evaluation of physiological status.

422. Develop protocols for collecting, ha ndling, and analyzing baseline blood chemistry parameters from wild loggerheads.

423. Establish representative ba seline blood chemistry parameters by sex, size class, season, and location.

424. Establish representative ba seline toxicological para meters by sex, size class, season, and habitat.II-28 425. Establish representative baseline levels of parasitic infection in wild turtles. 426. Establish representative baseline levels of bacterial, fungal, and viral infections

in wild turtles.

43. Develop and implement a program to monitor lo ggerhead health at representative index

in-water sites and index/sta ndardized nesting beaches.

44. Evaluate the effects of harmful algal blooms on loggerhead health.

45. Investigate the lethal and sublethal role of contaminants.

46. Develop and implement protocols for handli ng turtles to limit transfer of disease.

47. Ensure the use of best practices in th e rehabilitati on, captive holding, transportation, and release of loggerheads.

471. Develop and/or finalize protocols for the proper care and maintenance of loggerheads held in captivity.

472. Develop protocols for transport a nd release of captive loggerheads.

473. Develop a manual for the assessment and treatment of loggerhead diseases and injuries.

474. Develop and maintain a list of veterina rians qualified to diagnose and treat health problems in loggerheads.

48. Develop a strategy to recognize, respond to, and investigate mass strandings, disease episodes, or unusual mortality events. 5. Ensure adequacy of regulatory mechanisms. 51. Develop, implement, and enforce regulat ory mechanisms to protect loggerheads and

their habitats in the U.S. 511. Develop and implement Federal regulati ons to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and their habitats post-delisting.

512. Ensure full and active enforcement of Federal regulations designed to protect loggerheads. 513. Develop and/or maintain, implement, a nd enforce state and local legislation to protect loggerheads and their habitats. 52. Ensure adequacy of regulato ry mechanisms to protect logge rheads and their habitats in foreign nations. 521. Assist foreign countries in devel oping national regulations to protect loggerheads and their habitats. 522. Assist foreign countries with enforcem ent of national regulations to protect loggerheads. 53. Encourage development of and participation in multi-national agreements that facilitate conservation of loggerheads and their habitats. 531. Encourage non-signatory nations of the western hemisphere to accede to the

Inter-American Convention for the C onservation and Protection of Marine

Turtles. 532. Encourage non-signatory nations to a ccede to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Envir onment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartegena Convention), specifically the Protocol Concerning Specially

Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean (SPAW Protocol). 533. Ensure the U.S. becomes a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory Species.II-29 6. Minimize other causes of disturbance, harassment, injur y, and mortality.

61. Minimize impacts to sea tur tles on nesting beaches.

611. Eliminate nest management techniques that are not scientifically based.

6111. Evaluate the effects of nest mana gement activities on nest productivity, hatchling fitness, and sex ratios and develop scien tifically based standardized protocols for nest management.

6112. Implement scientifically based st andardized protocols for nest

management. 6113. Use the least manipulative method to protect nests.

6114. Discontinue the use of hatcheries as a nest management technique. 612. Minimize and control vehicular traffic on nesting beaches.

6121. Prohibit nighttime driving on beaches during the loggerhead nesting

season. 6122. Ensure that the linear kilometers of nesting beach where vehicular traffic is permitted does not increase above 2006 levels.

6123. Manage daytime driving to minimize impacts to loggerheads.

613. Strengthen existing regulati ons or promulgate new regulations to manage mechanical beach cleaning on nesting beaches. 614. Minimize harassment of nesting females and hatchlings.

6141. Evaluate the extent and effects of harassment of nesting females and hatchlings and develop management recommendations.

6142. Conduct public education campaigns to minimize harassment of nesting females and hatchlings.

6143. Increase the number of interpretive turtle walks to meet demand and minimize overall disturbance to nesting females and hatchlings.

6144. Enforce laws to minimize harassment of nesting females and hatchlings. 615. Develop and enforce guidelines for special events on the beach to minimize impacts on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

616. Minimize the impacts of military activities on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

617. Ensure oil spills affecting nesting beaches do not impact nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

6171. Conduct a risk management assessmen t of oil spill e ffects on nesting

beaches.

6172. Ensure that oil spill response plan s exist and adequately protect all nesting beaches.

618. Minimize the impacts of coastal constr uction activities on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

6181. Conduct all non-emergency coastal c onstruction activit ies outside the main portion of the nesting season to eliminate impacts on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

6182. Strengthen existing regulations or promulgate new regulations to minimize impacts from emergency construction activ ities during the nesting season on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.II-30 6183. Develop and implement ordinances to eliminate the effects of stormwater outfalls and swimming pool drainage on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

619. Ensure that law enforcement activities eliminate poaching of eggs and nesting

females.

62. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic fisheries us ing a gear-based strategy.

621. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic commercial gillnet fisheries.

6211. Describe and characterize domestic commercial gillnet fisheries.

6212. Integrate information gathered in 6211 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

6213. Implement observer programs to dete rmine bycatch levels and identify key characteristics of domestic commer cial gillnet fisheries that affect bycatch levels.

6214. Implement measures to minimize bycatch in large mesh gillnet

fisheries.

6215. Implement measures to minimize bycat ch in other gillnet fisheries as appropriate.

622. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic shrimp trawl fisheries.

6221. Describe and characterize domestic commercial and recreational shrimp

trawl fisheries.

6222. Integrate information gathered in 6221 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

6223. Increase observer coverage to a stat istically robust leve l to adequately monitor bycatch levels in the domes tic commercial shrimp fishery and modify TED regulations if necessary.

6224. Promulgate regulations to require TED s in all trynets in the domestic commercial shrimp fishery.

6225. Continue efforts to educate domestic commercial shrimp fishers on the proper installation and use of larger-opening TEDs.

6226. Investigate the physiological effects of multiple captures and exclusions of loggerheads in domestic commercial shrimp trawls equipped with

TEDs.

6227. Monitor and reduce effort in the domestic commercial shrimp trawl fishery to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

6228. Investigate turtle exclusion rates for soft TEDs under field conditions using videography.

6229. Implement statistically valid obser ver programs to determine bycatch

levels in domestic commercial skimmer trawl fisheries and require TEDs if necessary.

623. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in dome stic commercial non-shrimp trawl

fisheries.

6231. Describe and characterize domes tic commercial non-shrimp trawl

fisheries.

6232. Integrate information gathered in 6231 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).II-31 6233. Implement statistically valid obser ver programs to determine bycatch levels in domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisheries.

6234. Implement seasonal large-opening TED regulations for domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisherie s operating from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, north to Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

6235. Promulgate regulations to require TEDs in domestic commercial flynet

trawl fisheries.

6236. Promulgate regulations to require large-opening TEDs in all domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisherie s south of Cape Hatteras, North

Carolina. 624. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domes tic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

6241. Describe and characterize domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

6242. Integrate information gathered in 6241 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

6243. Maintain and/or increase observer coverage to a statistically robust level to adequately monitor bycatch levels in domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

6244. Continue to conduct focused expe riments on domestic commercial longline gear and fishing practices to minimize loggerhead interactions and secondarily to minimize post-interaction mortality.

6245. Investigate the effectiveness of time-area closures to minimize loggerhead interactions in domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

6246. Promulgate regulations to implemen t proven measures that minimize loggerhead interactions with commer cial pelagic and demersal longline

fisheries.

6247. Develop and implement effective ap proaches to enforcing longline regulations in U.S. territorial wa ters, the U.S. EEZ, and on the high

seas. 6248. Promote the use of safe handling practices and careful release tools in domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries. 625. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic commercial and recreational pot/trap

fisheries.

6251. Describe and characterize pot/trap fisheries.

6252. Integrate information gathered in 6251 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

6253. Develop gear modifications to preven t entanglement of loggerheads in pot/trap lines.

6254. Promulgate regulations to incor porate modifications to whelk pot bridles to prevent loggerhead entanglement.

6255. Promulgate appropriate regulations to reduce incidental capture of loggerheads in pots/traps.

6256. Require identification on pot/trap gear.

626. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic commercial dredge fisheries.II-32 6261. Describe and characterize domestic commercial dredge fisheries.

6262. Integrate information gathered in 6261 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

6263. Evaluate the effectiveness of gear modifications developed to reduce loggerhead bycatch in the domestic commercial scallop dredge fishery.

6264. Promulgate regulations that reduce loggerhead bycatch and mortality in the domestic commercial scallop dredge fishery.

6265. Investigate bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in commercial whelk dredge fisheries.

6266. Investigate bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in commercial surf clam dredge fisheries.

627. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in othe r domestic commercial fisheries.

6271. Describe and characterize other domestic commercial fisheries. 6272. Integrate information gathered in 6271 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29). 6273. Investigate bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in other domestic commercial fisheries and implement bycatch reduction measures as

necessary. 6274. Ensure that no increase in effo rt over 2003 levels occurs in the Sargassum fishery to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

628. Enforce domestic commercial fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

63. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in foreign commercial fisheries.

631. Disseminate results of bycatch reduction experiments and transfer demonstrated bycatch reduction technol ogies to foreign nations.

632. Encourage and assist foreign nations in collecting data on loggerhead bycatch via observer programs for commercial fisheries where bycatch levels are

undocumented.

633. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead by catch in commercia l pelagic longline

fisheries.

634. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycat ch in commercial trawl fisheries.

635. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycat ch in commercial gillnet fisheries.

636. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycat ch in other commercial fisheries. 637. Develop economic incentives to reduce fi shery interactions and mortality of loggerheads in foreign high seas fisheries. 638. Encourage ICCAT, Canada, Mexico, a nd the European Union to implement standards for collecting loggerhead bycat ch information and requirements to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

64. Develop and implement a strategy to assess, monitor, and minimize effects of trophic changes on loggerheads from fi shing and habitat alteration.

641. Assess loggerhead diets and food web linka ges in neritic and oceanic habitats.

642. Assess and minimize effects of commercial harvest of loggerhead prey species.II-33 643. Assess effects of habitat alteration from commercial fisheries on distribution and abundance of loggerhead prey species.

65. Develop and implement a strategy to minimize the effects of marine debris ingestion and entanglement.

651. Determine frequency of marine debr is ingestion and entanglement by loggerheads in neritic and oceanic habitats.

652. Evaluate the sublethal effects of mari ne debris ingestion and entanglement on loggerheads.

653. Enforce the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

654. Explore feasibility and pr ovide incentives to redu ce the amount of abandoned recreational and commercial fishing g ear that causes logge rhead injury and mortality.

655. Explore feasibility and pr ovide incentives to reduce the amount of non-fisheries

related marine debris that causes loggerhead injury and mortality.

656. Maintain or implement marine debris cleanup programs in coastal waters.

66. Develop and implement a strate gy to reduce vess el strikes.

661. Develop a comprehensive GIS database to assess vessel interactions with loggerheads.

662. Develop and implement a strategy to reduce vessel interactions with loggerheads.

67. Monitor and minimize mortality from channel dredging activities.

671. Assess effects of new technologies for channel dredge equipment on loggerhead

captures.
672. Incorporate effective channel dredge equipment modifications into future operations.

673. Maintain current requirements for cha nnel dredging activities in the southeast

U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and evaluate whether additional measures are required to minimize loggerhead mortality.

674. Implement regional requirements for cha nnel dredging activities north of North Carolina to minimize loggerhead mortality. 7. Facilitate recovery throu gh public awareness, education, and information transfer.

71. Develop and distribute educational materials.

711. Develop a video about the impacts of beachfront lighting on loggerheads and ways to minimize impacts.

712. Maintain websites with comprehensive information about loggerheads.

713. Develop an educational curriculum for st udents and the public about loggerhead demography and ecological roles.

714. Use computer gaming technologies to engage young people in sea turtle

conservation.

72. Facilitate international scientific communication and information sharing.

73. Ensure facilities permitted to hold and disp lay captive loggerheads have appropriate informational displays.

74. Ensure standard criteria and recommendations for sea turtle nesting interpretive walks

are followed.

75. Develop guidelines for and encourage interpretive daytime turtle walks.II-34 76. Place educational signs at public access point s on nesting beaches and points of access

to the marine environment.

77. Conduct a contingent valuation study to m easure the economic value of sea turtle

related ecotourism.II-35 F.2. R ECOVERY A CTION N ARRATIVE

1. Determine demographic parameters, refine population genetic structure, and monitor distribution, abundance, and trends.

11. Monitor and refine population genetic structure.

111. Refine geographic boundaries of recovery units.

Current research on genetic markers in loggerheads that nest in the southeast U.S. suggests four distinct nesting asse mblages based on analysis of haplotypes from mtDNA. The geographic boundaries of U.S. recovery units may need to be refined in order to correctly appl y population status a ssessments, threats assessments, and recovery actions. Ge netic analyses, including continuous spatial sampling of nesting females, ar e needed to fully describe spatial population structure throughout the loggerhead ’s Atlantic nesting range and to identify recovery unit boundaries base d on breakpoints in nesting occurrence and nesting female relatedness. To fully describe nesting female relatedness, additional analyses are needed usin g the non-coding regions of the mtDNA genome and more precise analyses of nuclear DNA using microsatellite techniques.

112. Monitor population genetic structure on foraging grounds.

To effectively manage sea turtle populat ions and determine the efficacy of nest protection activities, we need to determine the origin of juvenile and subadult turtles. Such knowledge could be crit ical if progeny from specific nesting beaches exhibit different behavior, movements, or foraging ranges than turtles from other beaches. Such differences could result in high mortality in some nesting populations and low mort ality rates in other populations.

113. Develop new techniques for refini ng population genetic structure.

Rapidly evolving techniques for analyz ing genetic data provide increasing resolution of population structure. Anal ysis of nuclear DNA (microsatellites), representing both male and female contri butions to date, s uggests that males from particular subpopulation units mate with females from other subpopulation units producing a homogeneous population at the nuclear DNA level. Genetic analyses of paternity have also shown that females mate with multiple males (eggs in an individual nest have one to three fathers). It is not yet known how many males contribute to the ne sting within a rookery. It is possible that future genetic analyses will reveal even mo re detailed population structure.

12. Monitor nesting abundance and trends by recovery unit.

Nesting surveys are undertake n on the majority of loggerh ead nesting beaches in the U.S. and on the major loggerhead nesting beaches in Mexico. However, in the past,II-36 beach coverage from year to year varied, as did the frequency of surveys, experience and training of surveyors, a nd data reporting. Consequentl y, nesting survey data did not represent regionwide nesting population tr ends. Survey data should be derived

from observations of tracks and other nest ing signs left on beaches by sea turtles. Species identifications and determinations of nesting or non-nesting emergences should

be based on evaluations of feat ures of tracks and nests (e.g., track configuration, size of the body pit) as described by Pritchard et al . (1983) and Schroeder and Murphy (1999).

121. Maintain and/or adopt standardized cr iteria for on-the-ground nesting surveys.

Standardized nesting survey criteria, such as those developed by the FFWCC [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Guidelines/Ma rineTurtleGuidelines.htm], should be maintained and/or adopted across all r ecovery units to gather a long-term (approaching a generation time of 50 years) database on nesting activity that can be used as an index of nesting populati on trends representing each recovery unit over the entire nesting range in the Northwest Atlantic.

122. Continue to monitor trends in nesting and non-nesting emergences on

index/standardized beaches.

Daily surveys of specific beach areas ar e necessary to identify, enumerate, and evaluate nesting ac tivities. In addition to monitoring population trends, researches and managers can determin e the ratio of nests to non-nesting emergences (i.e., aborted nesting atte mpts) between years and beaches to evaluate changes in nesting success. Th is information can then be used by managers to assess the effects of hu man activities (e.g., co astal construction, beach renourishment) on turtles and their nests and identify areas where increased conservation efforts may be needed.

To minimize variation that results fr om sampling error, ensure that index beaches continue to represent a broa d geographic range, that daily surveys represent all nesting during the index pe riod, and that annual training workshops

are conducted to ensure sta ndardization and consistency.

123. Incorporate index/standardized nesti ng survey protocols on additional beaches to fully represent recovery units.

Additional beaches should be surveyed in accordance with index/standardized nesting survey protocols to fully represen t the four recovery units located in the southeast U.S. including Bon Secour NW R, Alabama; Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida; Cape Romain NWR, S outh Island, Kiawah Island, and Hilton Head, South Carolina; and Cape LookoutNational Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Onslow Beach, and Bald Head Island, North Carolina. Outside of the U.S., additional beaches should be surveyed to fully represent the Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit.II-37 124. Monitor annual nesting and non- nesting emergences on non-index/nonstandardized beaches as extensively as possible.

Although nesting surveys on non-index/non- standardized beaches may be too

inconsistent to allow an accurate trend assessment, these surveys can provide a more complete assessment of nestin g range and seasonality than the spatial/temporal subsample of inde x beaches and index season. When conducted extensively, these surveys can provide a near census of loggerhead nesting that is valuable as an estima te of total abundance. Although they are variable in occurrence, non-index/non-st andardized beach surveys ensure that nesting data for management decisions ar e not only limited to the smaller subset

of index beaches.

125. Conduct periodic censuses of recovery un its to obtain total nest counts and geographic distribution of nesting.

Periodic censuses (once every 5 years) of nesting throughout the range for each recovery unit are needed to obtain total nest counts and to detect changes in geographic distribution. These surv eys should encompass the complete geographic range and the entire nesting season (April 15 to September 15). To completely represent geographic range, daily surveys are needed on beaches where recent surveys have never been undertaken or are rarely undertaken due to difficult access (e.g., Chandeleur Isla nds, Louisiana; Ten Thousand Islands NWR and Cape Sable, Florida; Wolf Island, Pine Island, and Little Tybee Island, Georgia; Myrtle Beach, Bay Poin t Island, Little Capers Island, Otter Island, and Cedar Island, South Carolin a; Masonboro Island, North Carolina; and representative beaches in the GCRU (e.g., Cay Sal Bank, The Bahamas).

13. Monitor in-water populati on abundance and trends.

131. Establish a network of index in-water st udy sites across the range of all habitats (neritic and oceanic) and develop samp ling protocols to estimate indices of

abundance and determine trends.

A network of index in-water study sites representing all loggerhead life stages

across neritic and oceanic habitats is needed to monitor population trends. While sampling methods (e.g., tangle nets , hand capture, trawl capture) do not have to be standardized among studies, consistent sampling protocols within studies need to be developed. Additiona lly, a repository must be identified to maintain annual survey data such that comprehensive trend analyses can be conducted across the range of the species.II-38 132. Evaluate, improve, maintain, and expand in-water surveys at index sites to

estimate indices of abundance and determine trends.

Approximately 15 to 20 in-water sites ar e currently sampled, at varying effort levels, to collect information on loggerh eads. An evaluati on of these existing sampling sites is needed to determine th eir ability to contribute to long-term population trend analyses. As necessar y, efforts should be undertaken to improve and/or expand these sampling effort s to ensure that resulting data will

contribute to the overall e ffort of population monitoring. The maintenance of these sampling programs over the long-t erm is critical to their success.

133. Develop sampling protocols for conducti ng large-scale in-water surveys to

estimate indices of abundance and determine trends.

Large-scale surveys to estimate loggerhead abundance and to monitor population trends are needed in conjunc tion with smaller-scale index site monitoring. An evaluation of large-scal e survey techniques for sea turtles (e.g., aerial, shipboard, etc.) should be conduc ted, perhaps through a workshop forum, to thoroughly assess the feasibility, cost, and likelihood of success of the different techniques. Specific sampli ng protocols and sampling regimes should be developed to ensure success.

134. Implement large-scale in-w ater surveys to estimate indices of abundance and

determine trends.

Large-scale surveys to estimate loggerhead abundance and to monitor population trends should be implemen ted in a timely manner following the development of sampling protocols. Regul ar evaluations of the effectiveness of these survey techniques and the applicab ility of results to monitoring recovery

should be conducted. As with smaller s cale index surveys, maintaining these sampling programs over the long-term is critical to their success.

14. Determine geographic distribution patterns of in-water populations.

141. Develop and maintain a comprehensiv e GIS database of distribution and

abundance.

The use of spatial analysis tools is an extremely valuable and ultimately cost effective way of identifying distributi on patterns and incorporating this information into conservation strategi es and actions. A comprehensive GIS database, incorporating a ll available information on loggerhead distribution and abundance should be developed, maintaine d, and made available to facilitate effective management decisions. Linked to action 29.II-39 142. Determine migratory pathways for all life history stages.

Tag recapture data provide point-to-point information on movements of loggerheads away from nesting beaches, from foraging areas to nesting beaches, or from one foraging area to another. More recent satellite tagging technologies provide higher resolution location info rmation on movements of loggerheads in marine habitats, at both large and small scales. The effective integration and analysis of turtle movement data with oceanographic data in a GIS format is critical to understanding and predicti ng movements and habitat use. These technologies, when fully exploited, will ultimately result in more effective and targeted conservation strategies and actions.

15. Determine and monitor female repr oductive output by recovery unit.

To understand sea turtle nest productivity, it is necessary to determine the number of eggs laid, the number of eggs that succe ssfully hatch (hatching success), and the number of hatchlings that successfully emerge from nests (emerging success). Monitoring changes in these numbers over time will allow for decisions to be made on management actions that may be needed to address problems.

Knowing the remigration inte rval (interval between nest ing seasons) and the clutch frequency (number of clutches laid by an individual in a nestin g season) of females

allows us to assess the status of a nesti ng population by allowing us to estimate the total number of mature females in a population. To convert the number of nesting females per year to the total number of repro ductively active females in a population, the average remigration interval and clutch frequency must be known.

151. Adopt standardized hatchling production assessment criteria.

The FFWCC guidelines for Hatching Success Evaluations (Nest Inventories) [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle/Guidelines/Ma rineTurtleGuidelines.htm] provide a good method for ensuring nest productivity data are collected in a manner that will allow assessments of hatching and emerging success that can be compared to other beaches and to other nesting seasons.

152. Implement annual assessments of hatc hling production using standardized

criteria.

Hatching and emerging success on nesting beaches should be evaluated on all nests or on a random and representative sample of nests. The evaluation of hatching success involves excavating and inventorying a nest after the hatchlings have left it (or should have left it) to determine the fate of each egg. Selecting a sufficient number of represen tative sample nests will allow accurate assessments of nest productivity. An in sufficient number of sample nests or a sample of nests that is poorly repr esentative, no matter how numerous, will yield potentially misleading informati on about hatching and emerging success.II-40 153. Determine and monitor clutch frequency.

If the number of nesting emergences va ries significantly among years, this could reflect changes in the number of ne sting females, clutch frequency, or both. Therefore, it is essential that cl utch frequency be regularly monitored. Saturation tagging programs (programs that attempt to place identification tags on every nesting turtle) have proven to be valuable in measuring clutch frequency. However, logistical limita tions of saturation tagging programs are not likely to allow unbiased estimates of clutch frequency (measured by nests per nesting season). Recent advances in satellite telemetry (e.g., GPS-linked satellite tags) may allow the developmen t of reproductive histories of individual

turtles so that a mean and variance ca n be calculated for clutch frequency.

154. Determine and monitor remigration interval.

A variety of techniques (e.g., satell ite telemetry, laparoscopy, saturation tagging) should be evaluated to determine which technique(s) is best suited to ascertain and monitor remigration intervals. The most effective technique(s) should be implemented on a representative sample of nesting beaches.

155. Determine female reproductive lifespan.

Reproductive lifespan is the number of years over which individuals remain reproductively active and can be estimate d as the difference between age at sexual maturity and maximum age, if re productive senescence does not occur. Maximum age can be estimated from population models that include annual survival estimates. Reproductive lifespan can also be estimated from long-term tagging studies of reproductive females if corrections for tag loss, resighting probabilities, and lack of site fixity can be incorporated.

16. Determine and monitor demographic para meters at index in-water sites.

Monitoring population trends a nd developing indices of abun dance at in-water sites provides information on whether populations are stable, increasing, or declining, but does not provide information on the causes behind these observed population trends. Monitoring demographic parameters at in -water sites can provide information on potential causes for changes in population trends and may provide early warning signals of impending population declines. Conc urrent with a large- scale index in-water sampling program aimed at monitoring population trends, data on demographic parameters that can be monitored over th e long-term and compared among index sites

should be collected.II-41 161. Develop sampling and data collection pr otocols for demographic parameters.

1611. Refine and develop techniques for determining sex ratios.

Because sea turtles have environm entally determined sex ratios, changes in geographic ranges of l oggerheads or climate may skew sex ratios sufficiently to affect demogr aphy. We need to better understand and monitor this demographic para meter across all recovery units. Techniques using blood hormone levels or laparoscopy allow researchers to determine the sex of live immature turtles, so distribution by sex can be determined from in-wat er surveys. Sex ratios may also be determined from necropsies of stranded turtles.

1612. Refine and develop aging techniques.

Aging techniques for loggerhead sea turtles are improving, but we need

to continue to refine and devel op this technology. Age/size keys will allow large data sets on size structures of loggerhead aggregations to be converted into age structures. Size in formation has been useful to track size-biased sources of mortality or changes in population size structure, but models based on age structure may be even more valuable.

1613. Determine somatic growth rates a nd evaluate sources of variation.

Somatic growth rates have dire ct effects on other demographic parameters such as survival, duratio n in life-stage, and age at sexual maturity. Somatic growth rates can be used as an index of habitat quality and population health. Severa l techniques have been used to determine somatic growth rates in loggerheads, and most studies have suffered from small sample size. St udies are needed that (1) compare techniques, (2) are based on large samp le sizes, and (3) explicitly model the effects of biological and envi ronmental covariates on somatic growth.

1614. Determine age-specific survival probabilities.

Age/stage-specific survival probabili ties are key parameters for models predicting population growth rates and recovery of sea turtles. Determining survival rates for all life stages and for all recovery units is

critical.

1615. Determine age at sexual maturity for females.

All species of sea turtles exhibit late maturity. Initial estimates of age at sexual maturity for female loggerheads from the southeast U.S. were around 20 years, but recent estim ates exceed 30 years based onII-42 modeling efforts. Additional resear ch is needed to refine current estimates of age at sexual maturity. Age at maturity is a key feature of demographic models, and our understanding of this parameter and how it may differ across recovery units is critical. Long-term population growth rates and responses to pert urbations are strongly influenced by age at sexual maturity.

1616. Determine age at sexual matu rity, reproductive frequency, and reproductive lifespan for males.

Relative to female loggerheads, su rvival and reproductive activity of males are poorly studied, largely b ecause males are less accessible. Because global warming may resu lt in lowered production of male hatchlings and males may provide ge netic exchange between different subpopulations, greater effort is need ed to collect data on demographic parameters for male loggerheads.

162. Implement sampling and data collection protocols at index in-water sites.

Standardized protocols (see action 161) should be implemented at index inwater sites and a repository should be es tablished and maintained such that demographic parameter data from identif ied index sites can be comprehensively archived, analyzed, and used to gauge recovery status, evaluate management actions, and develop additional conservation strategies.

17. Maintain and improve the Sea Turt le Stranding and Salvage Network.

The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) was established in 1980 to collect information on and document strandings of sea turtles along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The network encompasse s the coastal areas of the 18-state region from Maine through Texas, and includes por tions of the U.S. Caribbean. Data are compiled through the efforts of network participants who document sea turtle strandings in their respectiv e areas and contribute those da ta to the centralized STSSN database. Stranding survey data are less comprehensive outside the U.S.

171. Maintain the Sea Turtle St randing and Salvage Network.

Most accessible U.S. beaches in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are surveyed for stranded sea turtles by volunteer or contract personnel. Through the STSSN, stranding data are archived and summar ized by the SEFSC. These data provide information relative to at-sea mortality and can be a cost effective means of evaluating the effectiveness of reco very actions, including regulatory requirements. These data also prov ide basic biological information on sea turtles and are useful in determining ot her sources of mortality. The expansion of stranding surveys in the GCRU would provide additional data on at-sea mortality for this region.II-43 172. Implement improvements to the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.

Improvements to the STSSN are needed for improving data submission, timeliness of data availability, data a ccess, response to large-scale stranding events, and assessing causes of deat h. Understanding and measuring (where possible) stranding survey effort is importa nt to ensure that stranding trends are not influenced by changes in survey e ffort. Efforts should be undertaken to incorporate near real-time data re porting through on-lin e data entry and uploading high quality digital photographs of strandings. Map utility tools should be investigated and employed on-line to ensure accurate location assignment for stranding locations. Impr ovements in time to data availability

and data access are needed to ensure ra pid and appropriate response to unusual stranding events and to gauge th e success of management actions.

18. Maintain and enhance centralized administra tion and coordination of tagging programs.

A database exists to archive fli pper tag series used by researchers [http://accstr.ufl.edu/taginv.html], although not all researchers have provided their tag series. Maintenance and expansion of this database should be supported. A similar

database needs to be maintained for PIT tags. Compatability issues among PIT tag readers and PIT tags need to be considered and addressed, in add ition to standardized placement of PIT tags on turtles.

In addition to the tag series database, a centr alized turtle tagging database, including all tagging data, would substantially benefit loggerhead management and should be pursued. Major challenges to establishing such a database include the reluctance of individuals to provide their data, appropriate protection ag ainst unethical use of data, and support for the demanding curatori al work that would be required.

2. Assess, monitor, a nd protect habitats.

21. Ensure beach sand placement projects are conducted in a manner that accommodates loggerhead needs and does not degrad e or eliminate nesting habitat.

Beach sand placement projects (e.g., beach nourishment, beach restoration, inlet sand bypassing) in the U.S. may increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the placed sediment is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape, color, composition, et c.) with naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment remediation measures are incorporated into the project. In addition, a constructed beach that is designed and engineered to mimic a natura l beach system may be temporarily more stable than the eroding one it replac es, thereby benefiting sea turtles.II-44 211. Conduct periodic reviews of existing st ate and FWS criteria for sand placement projects and modify as necessary.

State resource agencies and FWS curre ntly review proposed sand placement projects for potential impacts on sea turtles. Terms and conditions are subsequently incorporated into state a nd U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits to ensure impacts are minimized. A panel composed of sea turtle biologists and coastal biologists and engi neers should be formed to review existing terms and conditions and ensure they are adequate and feasible.

212. Minimize the effects of beach and dune sand placement projects on loggerheads.

2121. Ensure all beach sand placement proj ects are in compliance with state

and FWS criteria.

All beach sand placement projects should be conducted in compliance with state and FWS requirements to minimize incidental take of sea turtles during and following beach sand placement projects. These requirements address protection of ne sts laid within the project area, sand quality (e.g., coloration, grain size distribution), compaction and escarpment monitoring and remediation, placement and nighttime storage of construction equi pment, and project lighting.

2122. Establish protocols for removing sand that is determined to have not met sand suitability requirements.

Protocols should be established for the removal of any fill material that

is determined to not meet state and FWS sand quality requirements. This should include protocols for cea sing the placement of any material determined to be unsuitable during the construction phase, as well as removing any material determined to be unsuitable post-construction.

2123. Evaluate the effects of dredging of nearshore ebb tidal shoals on adjacent nesting habitat.

Dredging of nearshore ebb tidal shoals should be evaluated to determine the impacts on adjacent logg erhead nesting habitat, including nesting habitat that occurs updrift of the shoals.

213. Ensure sand compaction levels following beach sand placement do not hinder sea turtle nesting or hatchling productivity.

Beach sand placement may result in changes in sediment composition, sand density, beach shear resist ance, sand grain size, and sand grain shape. These changes could result in adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior,II-45 hatching success, and emerging success. Studies have shown that beach sand compaction following nourishment projects may be persistent. Therefore, multi-year sand compaction monitoring should be required for all nourishment and dune building projects.

2131. Evaluate sand compaction levels on native beaches for all recovery units to determine thresholds for tilling.

Impacts on sea turtles can be minimized by using suitable sand and by tilling the beach after nourishment if the sand becomes compacted. Tilling a nourished be ach may reduce sand compaction to levels comparable to unnourished beaches. In order to determine thresholds that trigger the need for tilli ng, sand compaction levels should be evaluated on a representative numbe r of native beaches (i.e., beaches that have never had sand placement on them) within all recovery units. Evaluation of sand compaction should include the entire beach profile.

2132. Investigate alternative methods for monitoring sand compaction.

Cone penetrometers are the sta ndard means of measuring sand compaction on sea turtle nesting be aches. Many investigators have experienced problems with inconsis tent and non-repeatable results when measuring beach compaction w ith cone penetrometers. Other tools for measuring beach compacti on are available; however, their applicability in assessing the suitability of a beach for turtle nesting is

still unknown.

2133. Implement tilling as a means of softening compacted beaches.

Tilling a nourished beac h with a root rake can reduce sand compaction to levels comparable to unnourished beaches. However, researchers have found that tilled beaches may become compacted again over time. Therefore, multi-year beach compaction monitoring should be conducted and, if necessary, tilling shoul d be undertaken to ensure that project impacts on sea turtles ar e minimized. Tilling should be conducted to a minimum depth of 36 inches. Tilling is usually conducted by using heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers), preferably with the rake being pulled behind the heavy equipment to minimize compaction during tilling.

214. Implement escarpment leveling and/or profile adjustment on constructed

beaches as needed.

On constructed beaches, steep escarpments may develop along the water line interface as the beach adjusts from the construction profile to a more natural beach profile. These escarpments can hamper or prevent access of femaleII-46 turtles to suitable nesting sites. Le veling escarpments prio r to or during (if deemed appropriate) the nesting season should be conducted to minimize this impact. On some constructed beac hes that experience extreme scarping, additional efforts may be required to contour the entire profile to create a lower, more gently sloped berm.

215. Ensure sediment grain size, composition, sorting, and color are compatible with

native beaches.

Guidelines should be followed to ensu re sand grain size, composition, sorting, and color of sediments used in sand pl acement projects are suitable for turtle nesting. To provide the most suitable se diment for nesting sea turtles, the sand grain shape, size, and mineral content, as well as the sorting and color of the nourished sediments, must resemble the na tural beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be cri tical to one or more successful sea turtle nesting seasons.

216. Ensure sediment sources do not contai n contaminants that impact sea turtle

nests.

Chemical residues in sea turtle eggs ha ve been recognized as both a regional and global concern. Researchers have id entified elevated concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, polychlor inated biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and a variet y of metals and trace elements in unhatched sea turtle eggs from the Fl orida Panhandle. However, it was

uncertain if these contaminants contri buted to embryonic mortality of unhatched eggs or if these contaminants otherwise affected turtle hatching success. It was

also undetermined if the elevated contamin ant levels were the result of maternal transfer or exposure at the nesting site.

2161. Conduct research on contaminant levels of sediment sources and their effects on loggerheads.

Although coarse borrow sediment is not conducive to adherence by contaminants, plankton and othe r organic materials can hold contaminants and are likely presen t in the borrow sediments, which could negatively affect sea turtle nests. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1998) testing manual for the evaluation of dredged materials for discharge in waters of the U.S. provides a tiered approach that should be followed for determining what contaminants might be present dependent on the borrow source. In addition, EPA has tight controls on inlet material testing and ocean disposal testi ng, and the Clean Water Act sectionII-47 404(b)(1) guidelines at 40 CFR 230.60 should be followed when considering testing.

2162. Evaluate and revise, if necessar y, current Federal guidelines for

contaminant levels of sediment sour ces to ensure compatibility with loggerhead development.

Core samples of potential borrow se diments are required to be taken and analyzed for compatibility prior to placement on nesting beaches. In addition to looking at the compatib ility of these sediments to sand on native beaches in an area, contaminant (both organic and inorganic)

levels should also be evaluated.

2163. Conduct statistically valid sampling of borrow sediments for contaminants (pre- and post-construc tion) and ensure sediment sources do not exceed existing Federal guidelines for contaminant levels.

Studies are needed to better define the relationship of environmental contaminants on constructed beaches and reproductive success in sea

turtles.

217. Design and evaluate beach construction profiles to more closely mimic natural

beaches.

Traditionally constructed beaches tend to be wide and flat, whereas heavily

nested natural beaches are often relati vely narrow and steeply sloped. Reduced nesting and increased nest loss to eros ion typically reduce hatchling production

on constructed beaches relative to na tural beaches. Research should be conducted to determine the aspects of beaches that make them good nesting habitat and, to the greatest extent practic able, alternative construction templates should be designed, built, and monitored to mimic those conditions.

218. Re-establish natural dune st ructure and native vegeta tion during sand placement projects.

Beach nourishment projects should incl ude dune restoration, and appropriate native salt-resistant dune vegetation should be established on the restored dunes. This will enhance beach stability and nesting habitat and require less frequent sand placement activities.II-48 219. Monitor and assess the effects of b each and dune sand placement projects on loggerhead nesting.

2191. Monitor suitability of post-c onstruction beaches for nesting.

Post-construction monitoring of sediment quality, profile equilibration, and effectiveness of tilling and esca rpment leveling, as well as nesting, hatching, and emerging success, should be conducted to (1) ensure projects meet design specifications, (2) determine the effectiveness of remediation measures, and (3) ensu re projects are not having a significant negative impact on sea turtles.

2192. Develop and maintain an inventory of beach and dune sand placement projects and periodically assess the cumulative effects of these projects on loggerhead nesting and hatchling production.

A comprehensive inventory of beach and dune sand placement projects is needed to measure population e ffects. These findings should be used, as appropriate, to modify exis ting state and FWS criteria for these projects (see action 211).

22. Minimize degradation of nesting habitat from barriers to nesting.

221. Categorize and inventory all beach armo ring, shoreline stabilization structures, and all other barriers to nesting to esta blish baseline levels and develop a GIS.

Despite the importance of beach habitat qua lity to sea turtle nesting, there has been no inventory of potential barriers to nesting on any sign ificant stretch of

beach in the southeast U.S. Southeast U.S. beaches should be inventoried for potential barriers to sea turtle nesting to obtain a complete catalog of anthropogenic structures on nesting beaches. A technique should be developed to allow for rapid, repeated inventories that could measure changes in beach habitat

over time.

222. Ensure that the percentage of nesting beach free of any barriers to nesting is stable or increasing relative to baseline levels determined in 221.

Coastal development, coupled with cr itical beach erosion, has led to the placement of structures such as armori ng (e.g., seawalls, revetments, etc.), sand fences, and other erosion control structur es to protect upland property. These structures, in addition to other hard anthropogenic features that range from recreational equipment (e.g., beach furnitu re, catamarans) to actual buildings, are often barriers to nesting females a nd have already destroyed or degraded many miles of nesting habitat.II-49 2221. Convene an expert panel to devel op a strategy to stre ngthen and guide regulations to minimize the effects of coastal armoring on loggerheads and to ensure that the percentage of nesting beach free of any barriers to nesting is stable or increasing relative to baseline levels determined in

221.

An expert panel should be convened to assess the effects of coastal armoring on sea turtles and develop a strategy to minimize any negative effects. At a minimum, considera tion should be given to the placement and types of armoring, prohibition of armoring, gap closure, removal of existing armoring structures, options for eliminating the need for or reducing the impacts of armoring, a nd emergency situations/exceptions.

2222. Modify existing regulations or promulgate new regulations to implement the strategy developed in 2221.

State regulations prohibi ting or discouraging some forms of coastal armoring now exist in Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina. State resource agencies should review existing state regulations related to coastal armoring and other barr iers to nesting and modify or promulgate new regulations as appr opriate to implement the strategy developed by the expert panel from 2221.

2223. Ensure regulations governing plac ement and design of new coastal buildings and infrastructure eliminate any future need for coastal armoring.

State resource agencies should review existing state regulations related to placement and design of new coastal structures (e.g., design elevations, pile foundations, heights of structural members of habitable structures) and modify or promulgate new regulations as appropriate to reduce the potential for damage due to storm tides and waves and thus reduce the need for coastal armoring.

2224. Require removal of failed or ine ffective erosion c ontrol structures.

Failed erosion control structures, su ch as uncovered geotextile bags or tubes and fragmented concrete or wooden structures, degrade nesting

habitat and deter nestin g activities. State re source agencies should ensure failed or ineffective structures are removed from nesting

beaches.

2225. Prohibit recreational equipment on nesting beaches at night.

Sea turtles prefer to nest on the mid to upper beach, protecting their nests from repeated and prolonged high tides. Recreational equipmentII-50 (e.g., beach furniture, umbrellas, marine craft, tents) that are left on the beach at night can prevent nesting turtles from reaching the mid to upper beach. Therefore, at night, all recreational equipment should be completely removed from the beach by hand and stored behind the primary dune. Regulations should be developed and enforced to ensure these types of impediments to ne sting are managed or eliminated.

2226. Evaluate the effectiveness of dune crossovers for protecting dunes and strengthen existing regulations or promulgate new regulations to

minimize effects from dune crossovers.

State resource agencies should evaluate the effectiveness of the variety of dune crossover options in protecting dunes and dune vegetation and for their propensity to block sea turtle access to nesting sites and entrap nesting females. States should modi fy or promulgate new regulations as appropriate based on the results of this evaluati on. Consideration should be given to reducing the numbe r of crossovers associated with

individual residences by requiring crossover sharing. State resource agencies should also require that new crossovers be constructed in a

manner that will minimize interactio ns with nesting turtles (e.g., monopole construction, stopping short of the beach itself, roped corridors).

2227. Evaluate the effectiveness of sand fences for building beaches and strengthen existing regulations or promulgate new regulations for sand

fence construction.

Research is needed to determin e how the negative effects of sand

fences on sea turtles can be mini mized. Research should include

assessments of sand fence effectiven ess and alternative techniques such as degradable fencing, hay bale s, and planting native pioneering vegetation. Regulations should be modified or new regulations promulgated as appropriate based on the results of this research. In Florida, South Carolina, and North Ca rolina standard requirements for

sand fence construction have been es tablished to minimize impacts to sea turtles, and state resource agencies should ensure these requirements are enforced. Simila r regulations should be developed

and enforced in other states wh ere they do not currently exist.

2228. Ensure regulations pertaining to barriers to nestin g are enforced.

Illegal coastal armoring occurs, and in some cases no effective action is

taken to ensure the material is re moved and the habitat restored. In addition, coastal armoring structures sometimes fail and break apart, which results in the presence of debris on the beach. The same holds true for other barriers, such as stai rways and ramps that have been builtII-51 on the beach to allow human access. State resource agencies and local governments with coastal permitting responsibilities should frequently

monitor beaches and maintain strict enforcement when violations are

observed and ensure all debris and structural material from failed

structures is removed from the nesting beach area and properly deposited offsite.

23. Maintain and acquire nesting beaches and adja cent uplands to be he ld in public trust.

Maintenance of sea turtle recovery units is dependent on securing and protecting sufficient stretches of nesting beaches. B eachfront development invariably generates human demands for coastal armoring to protect private property. Upland development also results in artificial lighting behind nesting beaches. Nighttime human activities on beaches can also deter nesting females. Resident and visitor use of developed and developing nesting beaches can adversely a ffect nesting sea turtles, incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings. For these reasons , nesting beaches should be acquired and protected to ensure long-term availab ility of suitable beaches for nesting.

231. Maintain at least the current length and quality of protected nesting beach.

As of 2007, 1,581 km of nesti ng beach in the U.S. we re identified as being within conservation lands in public (F ederal, state, or local government) ownership and privately owned conserva tion lands (e.g., non-profit conservation foundations) (Appendix 4). Most of these lands are generally managed in a way

that benefits sea turtle conservati on. Public lands that have lighted development, armoring, or other profound th reats to sea turtle nesting have not been included. In compiling the list of conservation lands, human visitation was not considered a profound threat to sea tu rtle nesting. Therefore, public lands designated for human recreation have been included. At a minimum, the amount of nesting beach in such protected status should be maintained.

232. Acquire additional parcels of nesting beach and adjacent uplands or otherwise ensure long-term protection.

Important nesting beaches and adjacent upland buffers should be acquired through fee title acquisition. Conservati on easements and development rights should be acquired on properties where f ee title acquisition is not possible.

2321. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the boundaries of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, Florida.

About 60% of the available beachfront acquisitions for the Archie Carr NWR have been completed. Approximately 9.2 km (5.7 miles) (of which approximately 8.0 km (5.0 m iles) are within the original acquisition boundary) have been acqui red and about 1.9 km (1.2 miles)II-52 remain undeveloped and are awaiting purchase. The remaining lands have been purchased for private development and are no longer available. Escalating coastal develo pment in Brevard and Indian River counties threatens the remaining pa rcels identified for acquisition. Ongoing development continues to fragment the remaining habitat, and a narrow window of opportunity is le ft to acquire the last remaining lands required for the Refuge.

Efforts should also be made to acquire beachfront properties adjacent to the Refuge boundaries, including bo th undeveloped and developed parcels, as well as coastal strand, scrub, and maritime hammocks to the west of the Refuge, which would not only protect some of the most fragile and endangered natural upland communities in Florida and the nation, but also protect the nesting beaches from arti ficial lighting encroachments and other human impacts.

2322. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) on Hutchinson Island, Florid a, and develop a plan to ensure long-term protection.

Approximately 10% of loggerhead nesting in the U.S. occurs along this 37-km (22.9-mile) beach. Development is degrading nesting habitat and public use is greatly disturbing nesting activities. Threats should be evaluated and appropriate meas ures taken, including acquisition, to ensure long-term protection. FWS has already identified 3.2 km (2.0 miles) within this stretch of beach for inclusion as part of the Hobe Sound NWR; however, funding has not been allocated for this acquisition. High priority should be given to acqu iring this parcel and other undeveloped and develope d parcels on Hutchinson Island.

2323. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the nesting range of the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit and develop a plan to ensure long-term protection.

Other nesting beaches that contribute to the historic nesting distribution of the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit should be acquired to ensure permanent protection.

2324. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the nesting range of the Northern Recovery Unit and develop a plan to ensu re long-term protection.

Other nesting beaches that contribute to the historic nesting distribution of the Northern Recovery Unit shoul d be acquired to ensure permanent protection. Examples include pr operties on Bald Head Island andII-53 Sunset Beach, North Carolina; Bay Poin t, South Carolina; and Little St. Simons, Georgia.

2325. Acquire additional beachfront and upland properties (undeveloped and developed) within the nesting range of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit and develop a plan to ensure long-term protection.

Other nesting beaches that contribute to the historic nesting distribution

of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit should be acquired to ensure permanent protection. Exam ples include the area from Little Lagoon Pass west to the end of the Fo rt Morgan Peninsula in Alabama, and properties adjacent to the St. Jo seph Peninsula State Park in Gulf County, Florida.

2326. Acquire storm-damaged nesting b eachfront and upland properties on loggerhead nesting beaches.

In the U.S., the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program that takes a percentage of Federal money spent on recovering from a disa ster, like a hurricane or tropical storm, and uses it for projects that reduce future risk. By law, FEMA

can contribute 15 or 20% of a disaster 's cost to this grant program. How this money is used is determin ed by the state where the disaster occurs. States may use the mone y for the acquisition of property, usually referred to as buyouts. Although buyout projects are 75% funded by FEMA, they are administered by state and local

communities. State and local comm unities should work together to identify coastal areas where buyouts ar e most appropriate, acquire title to these properties, and set them asid e as sea turtle conservation areas.

24. Minimize the effects of climat e change on loggerhead habitats.

241. Develop a model that describes the ef fects of sea level rise on loggerhead nesting beaches.

Research has identified sea level rise as one of the most important potential impacts of global climate change. The be st available science indicates that by 2100 South Florida seas will be approximately 20 inches higher than they were in 1990 (IPCC 2001). An increase of this magnitude would dras tically alter the coastline, changing the extent, quality, and location of sandy beaches available for loggerhead nesting. In the short term , even small changes in sea level could be expected to exacerbate beach eros ion and increase artificial beach/dune alterations meant to protect coastal properties.II-54 A model is needed to describe the po tential effects of sea level rise on loggerhead nesting beaches. An exampl e of such a model might be a three dimensional GIS model describing mean high water locations relative to permanent manmade structures such as buildings and roadways. An important prediction of the model would be short-te rm effects on the erosion classification

of beaches. Erosion classifications predicted would be defined by beach changes that would bring about needs for beach nourishment, dune reconstruction, and coastal armoring. An ultimate goal of the model would be to predict the extent, suitability, and locations of loggerhead nesting beaches during the coming 2 to 3 loggerhead ge neration lengths (90 to 135 years).

242. Implement measures and develop agr eements to reduce atmospheric greenhouse

gasses.

Greenhouse gasses are a contributing factor to climate change, which can be expected to alter sea turtle nesting habitat (see action 241). Reduction of greenhouse gasses will require extensive domestic and international efforts. Cooperative efforts should be directed toward developing technologies that reduce carbon emissions. International ag reements will likely be necessary to achieve this goal.

25. Minimize effects of light pollution on hatchlings and nesting females.

251. Develop, fully implement, and effectively enforce light management plans to address direct and indirect (e.g., sky gl ow, uplighting) arti ficial lighting on nesting beaches.

2511. Implement and enforce lighting ordinances on lands under local government jurisdiction.

Where lighting ordinances have been adopted and adequately enforced, hatchling disorientation has been ma naged at acceptable levels. All coastal counties and communities with nesting beaches should adopt and fully enforce ordinances from March through October in Brevard through Broward counties, Florida, and from May through October

elsewhere. The State of Flor ida's Model Lighting Ordinance [http://myfwc.com/seaturtle] should be used as a template for developing new or revising existing lighting ordinances. In addition, Port Authorities should develop a nd enforce lighting management plans

to ensure their direct and indirect lighting does not impact nesting and hatchling turtles on nearby beaches.II-55 2512. Implement and enforce lighting management plans on all lands under state and Federal jurisdiction.

Light management plans should be implemented and enforced on all state and Federal properties where th e potential for lighting impacts to nesting and hatchling sea turtles exists.

252. Evaluate the extent of hatchling di sorientation on nesti ng beaches based on standardized surveys.

Many lighting ordinance requirements do not become effective until 11 p.m., whereas over 30% of hatchling emergence o ccurs prior to this time. Hatchling disorientation problems should be evalua ted on all beaches to ensure lighting management efforts are successful in eliminating sea turtle disorientation events. Standardized surveys for disori entation events should be developed or refined, comprehensively implemented, a nd findings should be used to identify problem areas where light manageme nt efforts should be targeted.

253. Prosecute individuals or entities responsible for nesting female or hatchling

disorientation under the E ndangered Species Act or appropriate state laws.

Law enforcement efforts should be focu sed where lighting or dinances are not being implemented or adequately enfor ced and where flagrant and repeated

violations are not corrected.

26. Conduct other activities to improve the quality of nesting habitat.

261. Encourage the manual removal of manmade beach debris through regular coastal cleanup programs.

Local governments and other responsible entities should organize individuals to participate in regular coastal clea nup programs, such as the Ocean Conservancy’s International Ocean Cl eanup and others organized locally.

262. Remove exotic vegetation harmful to l oggerheads on and adjacent to nesting

beaches.

Removal of exotic vegetation that is ongoing at the St. Lucie Inlet State Park, Hobe Sound NWR, and Dry Tortugas Nationa l Park in Florida should continue. Other important nesting beaches where e xotic vegetation is degrading nesting

habitat should be identified and natural vegetation shoul d be restored. In North and South Carolina, the efforts of the Carolina Beach Vitex Task Force, which

was established to document and eradicat e beach vitex from loggerhead nesting beaches, should be continued.II-56 27. Inventory and protect neritic ha bitats used by loggerheads.

Loggerheads are distributed throughout the ne ritic habitat of the continental shelf including nearshore, inshore, and estuarine waters of th e Atlantic, Greater Caribbean,

and Gulf of Mexico. Wh ere the continenta l shelf does not exist (e.g., Greater Caribbean), the neritic habitat includes th e marine environment to water depths less than 200 m. Loggerheads are opportunistic fo ragers that frequently feed around coral reefs, rocky places, and boat wrecks, and of ten enter bays, lagoons, and estuaries. Little information on habitat preference of specif ic age/size/sex classes is available. To effectively protect the species, habitat rese arch should be conducted. A comprehensive strategy to identify habitat preference and us e needs to be developed and implemented. Habitats requiring protection need to be id entified and prioritized with respect to urgency of needing protection, and then appr opriate action taken to ensure protection.

271. Assess, categorize, and map neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Review and collate existing data and ga ther additional data where necessary to locate and describe the type, quantity, and quality of available habitats throughout the neritic range. There have been a number of Federal and state initiatives to map habitat types in the marine environment. These databases need to be synthesized and integrated with respect to what is known about loggerhead habitat use (see action 29).

Existing data need to be identified and synthesized using GIS based habitat maps. New initiatives to ev aluate habitat use need to be supported to identify neritic habitat use by loggerheads (e.g., seasonal foraging locations, developmental and reproductive corridors, inter-nesting, courtship and mating).

272. Assess human activities a nd their effects on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Coastal development and associated cha nges in land utilization have led to severe degradation of habitat through c ontamination and/or loss of food sources in estuarine and marine waters. Declines in water quality resulting from industrial pollution, channel dr edging and maintenance, harbor activities, farm runoff, and sewage disposal have re ndered large water bodies marginally habitable. Appropriate minimum water quality standards sh ould be researched, established, and enforced. Land use d ecisions and associated construction projects also should be carefully considered by regulatory and permitting agencies.

2721. Assess the effects of bottom traw l and dredge fisheries on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Bottom tending fishing gears can be de structive to a wide variety of habitats. Coral reefs, other live bot tom habitats, and seagrass beds areII-57 particularly vulnerable to destruction from these types of fishing gears. The potential loss of habitat from these activities should be evaluated and appropriate actions taken to en sure long-term pr otection of reefs and other habitats important to loggerheads.

2722. Assess the effects of eutrophicati on on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Excessive nutrient pollution in coas tal waters can degrade loggerhead foraging habitats. The presence of harmful algal blooms and associated biotoxins may influence distribution and abundance of food resources. An assessment of the effects of eutrophication on loggerhead foraging

habitat should be conducted.

2723. Assess the effects of water management on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

The timing, volume, and quality of fr eshwater inputs to coastal systems may have profound effects on loggerhead foraging habitats. Associated changes (e.g., salinity, nutrients, tu rbidity) may affect the distribution and abundance of loggerhead prey.

2724. Assess the effects of oil and gas pr oduction activities on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Oil exploration and development may disrupt the availability of food resources by smothering benthic orga nisms with sediments and drilling muds. Some sediments may contain heavy metals or other

contaminants. The distribution and magnitude of oil production-related impacts and their effects on loggerh ead populations should be assessed.

2725. Assess the effects of channel dred ging on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Channel dredging projects may have greater impacts on habitat than the

obvious mechanical destruction of th e channel bottom. Channelization can alter natural current patterns, disrupt sediment transport, and suspended materials from dredgi ng may severely damage adjacent corals and seagrasses. Additionally, disposal of dredged materials in offshore disposal sites usually sm others existing flora and fauna. Regulatory agencies should caref ully consider the potential environmental consequences before permitting any new channel dredging projects or designating new offshore disposal sites.II-58 2726. Assess the effects of salvage opera tions on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Efforts to salvage valuable artifacts from shipwrecks commonly entail extensive excavation of the sea floor. This type of excavation may damage reefs, destroy benthic organi sms, and increase local turbidity that may damage adjacent habitat. Efforts are needed to evaluate the effects of salvage operati ons on loggerhead habitats.

2727. Assess the effects of other human ac tivities on neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

A host of other human activities, both direct and indirect, may affect neritic habitats that loggerheads use. Damage to seagrass, coral reef,

and hardbottom habitats results from propeller and anchor damage. The widespread harvest of sand fr om neritic habitats for beach nourishment projects significantly alte rs large areas of neritic habitat and may damage adjacent habitats and their benthic organisms. Artificial reef placement has not been evaluated sufficiently to determine the effects of these programs on loggerheads. Upland and beachfront development and infrastructure can increase freshwater runoff, increase contaminant loads in such runoff, and alter nearshore

habitats. The direct a nd indirect effects of these human activities on

neritic habitats must be evaluated to understand their potential effects on loggerhead recovery.

273. Develop and implement a strategy to prot ect and monitor neritic habitats used by loggerheads.

Long-term protection of neritic habitats , extensively used by loggerheads, is essential to an effective recovery pr ogram for this species. A strategy for evaluating and prioritizing habitats requi ring protection is needed. Integrating this task with efforts to map sea turtle distribution and movements in a GIS environment will be necessary. Key threats affecting the various habitats should be identified and prioritized as to their actual/potential effects on loggerhead recovery and conservation. Changes to existing or development of new local, state, or national legislation and/or regulations should be considered and implemented, as necessary to ensure the long-term heal th, viability, and protection of these essential neritic habita ts. Marine protected areas should be explored as one of the tools to protect neritic habitats.

28. Inventory and protect oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

The oceanic habitat is the vast open ocean environment where bottom depths exceed

200 m. This habitat is char acterized by bathymetric feat ures (e.g., seamounts, banks) and dynamic oceanographic processes (e.g., fronts, convergence zones, eddies). TheII-59 oceanic stage is primarily pelagic and o ccupies the upper 100 m of this habitat, although occasionally may be benthic in areas of seamounts and shallow banks.

281. Assess, categorize, and map oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

Review and collate existing data and gath er additional data where necessary to locate and describe the type, quantity, and quality of available habitats throughout the oceanic range. There have been a number of international and global initiatives to map sea turtle distri butions in the marine environment based on telemetry research and fisheries bycatch studies. These databases need to be synthesized and integrated with resp ect to current knowle dge of loggerhead habitat use (see action 29).

Existing data need to be identified and synthesized using GIS based habitat maps. New initiatives to ev aluate habitat use need to be supported to identify oceanic habitat use by loggerheads (e.g., juvenile foraging and developmental locations, adult foraging locations, se asonal distributions, migratory and reproductive corridors).

282. Assess human activities a nd their effects on ocea nic habitats used by loggerheads.

Oceanic habitats important to logger heads can be affected and severely degraded by human activities (e.g., oil and gas exploration and transportation, marine debris, marine pollution, toxic wa stes). These environmental stressors

can cause habitat alterations that ar e both structural and functional and frequently result in food web alterations and trophic shifts. Human activities

that affect oceanic habitats extensivel y used by loggerheads should be carefully regulated by both national a nd international authorities.

2821. Assess the effects of oil and gas acti vities on oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

Oil and gas activities may negatively impact sea turtle oceanic habitats primarily during exploration, product ion, and transport phases. Of particular concern are impacts of oil spills, disposal of toxic materials,

and increased vessel traffic. Areas in which sea turtle distribution and

seasonal use of marine habitats ove rlap with oil and gas development should be identified. MMS, appropria te international conventions, and the oil and gas industry should ensure that impacts to sea turtles are adequately addressed during planning of oil and gas development and that known sources of pollution and toxi c waste disposal are eliminated. Additional precautions are needed to prevent oil spills. A team, with expertise in sea turtles, should be established to respond to oil spills.II-60 2822. Assess the effects of ma rine debris on oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

Marine debris accumulates in oceanic habitats and can interfere with foraging activities of sea turtles. Qu antities and types of marine debris should be monitored in oceanic habitats. Sources of the debris (e.g., onshore, military ships, cruise vesse ls, cargo ships) should be identified where possible so that appropriate agencies can be encouraged to address the problem. MARPOL a nd other conventions addressing marine debris should be strictly enforced.

2823. Assess the effects of other polluta nts on oceanic habitats used by loggerheads.

A wide range of chemical pollutants from vessels, pipelines, terrestrial run-off, and airborne pollutants can affect oceanic habitats through changes in water quality or food availa bility. Research is needed to

assess the risks from these chemi cals. Areas in which loggerhead oceanic habitats overlap with areas at high risk of toxic spills should be identified. Contingency plans shoul d be developed to clean up toxic

areas.

283. Develop and implement a strategy to prot ect and monitor ocea nic habitats used by loggerheads.

Long-term protection of oceanic habita ts extensively used by loggerheads is essential to an effective recovery pr ogram for this species. A strategy for evaluating and prioritizing habitats requi ring protection is needed. Integrating this task with efforts to map sea turtle distribution and movements in a GIS environment will be necessary. Key threats affecting the various habitats should be identified and prioritized as to their actual/potential effects on loggerhead recovery and conservation. Development of international agreements and designation of marine prot ected areas should be considered and implemented, as necessary, to ensure the long-term health, viability, and protection of these esse ntial oceanic habitats.

29. Develop and maintain a comprehensive GIS da tabase of neritic and oceanic habitats (used by loggerheads) and human activ ities that impact these habitats.

Based on the comprehensive GIS database of the distribution and abundance of loggerheads (see action 141), habitat requi rements for loggerheads should be defined and a GIS database of all potential habitats should be developed. All human activities that can negatively impact these habitats shou ld be included in the database so that maps of these activities can be overlaid on potential loggerhea d habitats. These

activities would include fisher ies that degrade loggerhead habitat (e.g., bottom trawls), point sources of pollution (e.g., oi l rigs), and shipping lanes.II-61 3. Prevent overutilization for commercial , scientific, or e ducational purposes.

Although the potential for overutilization of l oggerheads for scientific and educational purposes is probably minimal, controls are neces sary to insure that overutilization does not occur. However, legal harvest of loggerheads outside of U.S. waters remains substantial and continues to present a threat to the species (see Appendix 3).

31. Work with foreign nations to quantify and eliminate commercial and subsistence

harvest.

The extent of legal harvest (commercial and subsistence) of loggerheads in the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Mediterranean needs to be qua ntified. Efforts should be undertaken to eliminate legal harvest through internationa l agreements, bilateral efforts, capacity building, and education.

32. Educate local communities in foreign nations on the benefits of sea turtle ecotourism as

an alternative to harvest.

Environmentally responsible ecotourism has been used by local communities to support sea turtle conservation activities, change hum an behavior to reduce threats from human activities, and provide economi c benefits that filter throughout the community. In addition to the economic gains from the ecotourism activity itself (e.g., through donations for being taken out to see nesting sea turtles by a trained biologist), the local community as a whole has th e potential to benefit econom ically through increased use of local businesses (e.g., hotels, shops, re staurants) by ecotourists. Efforts should

continue to educate local communities in fo reign nations on the potential benefits of environmentally responsible sea turtle ecotourism.

33. Develop and implement guidelines for public tu rtle walks that minimize disturbance to loggerheads.

Human disturbance of female loggerheads atte mpting to nest has been shown to cause turtles to shift nesting loca tions, delay egg deposition, and choose poor nesting sites. Organized, permitted loggerhead walks provide a unique opportunity for the public to view nesting loggerheads in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of impacts and

raises their awareness about threats to s ea turtle survival. In areas where human disturbance of nesting sea tur tles is a concern, state resour ce agencies should encourage the establishment of organized, permitte d loggerhead walks and develop new or maintain existing turtle walk guidelines fo r permittees conducting walks. This should help reduce the number of unsupervised indivi duals that go out on the beach at night to observe and inadvertently harass turtles.II-62 34. Minimize take of wild tu rtles for captive display.

The number of healthy wild loggerheads taken into captivity for educational display should be minimized by encouraging the di splay of non-releasable loggerheads and temporary loans of turtles from other captive facilities.

4. Assess and manage disease and predation.

41. Reduce nest predation.

411. Reduce the annual rate of mammalian pred ation to at or below 10% of nests within each recovery unit using ecologi cally sound predator control programs.

Both nonlethal and lethal predator cont rol methods (e.g., nest screening, nest caging, humane trapping and removal) s hould be explored to determine which methods are the most ecologically sound and will work best for the target predators and the beach habitat under consideration. Individual problem animals can be targeted and removed without negatively affecting the local populations of native species. Populations of feral hogs should be eliminated if possible. All control measures should be implemented in accordance with ecologically sound and humane practices a nd applicable Federa l and state laws. The mammalian predation rate target of 10% or below should be evaluated on all nests or on a random and repres entative sample of nests based on standardized or index surveys.

412. Control fire ants on and adjacen t to loggerhead nesting beaches.

The red fire ant is native to Brazil and arrived in the U.S. in the 1940s. It now

occurs in 10 U.S. states/territories where sea turtles nest and has been documented as a predator on sea turtle e ggs and hatchlings. More recently, the

red fire ant has moved into Mexico. Given the widespread distribution and continuing expansion of fire ants in coasta l areas, their impact on sea turtle nests and hatchlings merits greater attention. Monitoring the impacts of fire ants on

sea turtles should be undertaken to de termine the extent of the problem. Impacts should be reduced using eco logically sound methods (e.g., use of ecologically appropriate ba its) to control fire ant populations. In addition, efforts should be made to educate the pub lic about the proper disposal of fish carcasses and other garbage that can promote fire ant infestation. Proper disposal would include off- beach burial and composting.

42. Develop diagnostic health assessment prot ocols and establish baselines for wild populations.

Standardized health assessment tools are needed to monitor the health of wild sea turtle populations. Once such tools are establishe d, loggerhead populations could best beII-63 monitored at a network of neritic and o ceanic sampling sites that represents the geographic range as well as oceanic and neritic loggerhead life history stages.

421. Develop a condition index to allow rapi d evaluation of physiological status.

A rapid method of estimating the phys iological status/c ondition of wild loggerheads is needed. Methods by whic h this may be done include traditional mass/length condition indices, visual estimat es of fat reserves in the axillary areas, and epibiotic load.

422. Develop protocols for collecting, ha ndling, and analyzing baseline blood chemistry parameters from wild loggerheads.

Blood is a very fragile tissue and must be handled in a careful and consistent manner. Strict, standard protocols fo r collecting, handling, and analyzing blood chemical parameters must be develope d. These standards are necessary for assessing and comparing life-stage, ge ographic, and seasonal differences in

blood chemistries. Researchers must report how blood was collected and handled prior to analysis.

423. Establish representative ba seline blood chemistry parameters by sex, size class, season, and location.

Baseline blood chemistry parameters can be used to assess the physiological status of loggerhead populations. Howe ver, to be able to use blood chemistry parameters, representative baselines need to be established for each life stage (oceanic vs. neritic), size class, se x, and season. Changes in habitat, temperature, and diet, as well as se x of the individual, may affect blood biochemical parameters.

424. Establish representative ba seline toxicological para meters by sex, size class, season, and habitat.

Known toxins, such as heavy metals and halogenated hydrocarbons, should be monitored in loggerhead tissues particular ly in habitats where such pollutants have been identified as po tential threats. In addi tion, representative tissue samples, particularly of live turtles a nd gonads, should be archived for future analysis for formerly unrecognized toxins. Such tissues could be collected from fresh dead strandings or through la paroscopic biopsy on live turtles.

425. Establish representative baseline levels of parasitic infection in wild turtles.

Baseline levels of parasitic infections , including both external and major internal parasites, should be establishe d. Principal external parasites include barnacles and leeches. Whereas external parasites can be observed on livingII-64 and dead stranded turtles, de tection of internal parasites (principally diagenean trematodes) requires necropsy of fresh dead animals.

426. Establish representative baseline levels of bacterial, fungal, and viral infections

in wild turtles.

Baseline levels of bacterial, fungal, and viral infections in natural populations of loggerheads should be established. Ca uses of mass die-offs can only be

evaluated if these baselines are availabl e. This information would also allow rapid assessment of health of wild populations and eval uation of potential disease hazards from releasing captive turtles into the wild.

43. Develop and implement a program to monitor lo ggerhead health at representative index

in-water sites and index/sta ndardized nesting beaches.

A protocol should be established to assess and monitor parasite loads, infectious agents, fibropapillomatosis, and other diseases in l oggerheads at index sites. In the case of fibropapillomatosis, the protocol will, by neces sity, be limited to external examination and will include identifying numbers, locati ons, and sizes of tumors. The protocol should be incorporated into index site monito ring plans. If tumors are identified in a population, the assessment should be expanded to include collections of tumor tissue or blood samples after consultation with a veterinarian. In th e case of other diseases, blood samples, swabs, and external examina tion should be used to detect parasites, microbial infection, and other disorders.

44. Evaluate the effects of harmful algal blooms on loggerhead health.

Toxic dinoflagellate blooms ha ve adverse effects at severa l levels of marine trophic systems and could have potentially lethal effects on loggerheads. Perhaps of even greater importance are insidi ous sublethal effects, which may be becoming more widespread because of more frequent algal bl ooms in the coastal zone associated with increased eutrophication. As a result, there is a need to be tter evaluate the effects of harmful algal blooms on loggerhead health.

45. Investigate the lethal and sublethal role of contaminants.

Organochlorine contaminants, pesticides, and heavy metals have all been detected in sea turtles and sea turtle eggs, but their effects on sea turtles are relatively unknown.

Researchers have also collected baseline information on heavy me tal contamination in loggerhead populations at several locations throughout the southeast U.S. Heavy

metals have been recorded in the tissues of stranded turtles and e ggs. Phthalate esters, which are used in the manufacture of plas tics and are known to cause mutations and cancer, have also been found in sea turtle eggs. Further stud ies are required to determine the precise causal relationships between these contaminants and health

effects in sea turtles.II-65 46. Develop and implement protocols for handli ng turtles to limit transfer of disease.

Protocols for handling sea turtle s should be developed so as to minimize the chance of transmitting diseases among captive animals a nd particularly from captive to wild

turtles.

47. Ensure the use of best practices in th e rehabilitati on, captive holding, transportation, and release of loggerheads.

471. Develop and/or finalize protocols for the proper care and maintenance of loggerheads held in captivity.

Loggerheads are maintained in captiv ity for rehabilitation, research, or educational display. Proper care will ensure that the maximum number of

rehabilitated turtles is returned to th e wild and that the minimum number is

removed from the wild for research or education purposes. Appropriate

research should be conducted to de velop and/or improve captive holding

criteria. Guidelines should be form alized that will serve as minimum requirements for sea turtles held in captivity in the U.S. These criteria should be published and required for any permit to hold sea turtles in captivity and should include appropriate annual inspec tions. Captive guidelines should include requirements relative to tank size, lighting, water quality, water quantity, foods and feeding, and veterinary care to ensure turtles are held in a

humane manner.

472. Develop protocols for transport a nd release of captive loggerheads.

Protocols should be developed for the tr ansporting and releasing turtles back

into the wild in a manner that minimizes risk to the wild population. Protocols for releasing captive loggerheads into the marine environment must strive to

ensure that disease transmission does not occur and that turtles are returned to the appropriate habitat. Objective crite ria should be developed to determine whether captive-raised or long-term exhibi t turtles are suitable for release into the wild (i.e., capable of performi ng normal foraging behavior and local movements or migrations), as well as to determine when rehabilitated turtles are sufficiently recovered to survive after rel ease. If a captive animal is deemed suitable for release, protocols should be developed to determine how the potential for disease transmission can be avoided. Release locations should be chosen to maximize survivorship and c onsideration should include both habitat

and seasonal factors.

473. Develop a manual for the assessment and treatment of loggerhead diseases and injuries.

Although some information is availabl e on sea turtle rehabilitation (e.g., Campbell 1996, George 1997, Herbst 1999, Walsh 1999, Whitaker and KrumII-66 1999), a more comprehensive manual on the diagnosis and treatment of disease problems associated with captive and wild sea turtles should be developed. This manual should include treatment for common injuries. This will improve rehabilitative success and captive care of research and display turtles.

474. Develop and maintain a list of veterina rians qualified to diagnose and treat health problems in loggerheads.

A national registry of veterinarians qua lified to diagnose a nd treat sea turtles

should be established and made availabl e on appropriate agency websites. The list should be updated annually.

48. Develop a strategy to recognize, respond to, and investigate mass strandings, disease episodes, or unusual mortality events.

A formalized strategy is needed to facilita te rapid response to and investigation of unusual mortality events (mass strandings, disease episodes, or other extraordinary stranding events). The response stra tegy should outline key elements including determination of an unusual stranding event, establishment of re gional rapid response teams, data and sample collection and an alysis protocols, budgetary needs, and interagency coordination procedures.

5. Ensure adequacy of regulatory mechanisms.

51. Develop, implement, and enforce regulat ory mechanisms to protect loggerheads and

their habitats in the U.S.

Loggerheads are exposed to and threatened by a plethora of anthropogenic activities. Impacts from these activities directly inju re and kill loggerheads, disrupt necessary behaviors, and alter terrestrial and marine habitat us ed by the species. Appropriate regulatory control is the most effective means of minimi zing the negative effects of these human activities. In order to promul gate and enforce effective regulations, the regulatory infrastructure must be in pl ace to provide for the implementation of conservation regulations.

511. Develop and implement Federal regulati ons to ensure long-term protection of loggerheads and their habitats post-delisting.

Loggerheads are long-lived, late maturi ng species with little capacity to withstand extraneous mortality beyond na tural levels. In addition, many of the

coastal and all beach nes ting habitats necessary fo r loggerhead survival are extremely vulnerable to anthropogeni c perturbations. Consequently, loggerheads and their key ha bitats should remain protec ted even after delisting in order to avoid rapi d population relapse.II-67 512. Ensure full and active enforcement of Federal regulations designed to protect loggerheads.

Adequate regulatory authority exists under the ESA to protect loggerheads; however, resources for both Federal and st ate enforcement are woefully lacking.

Law enforcement activities critical to the recovery of loggerhead populations include the enforcement of fishery a nd marine conservation regulations and criminal investigations of poaching a nd harassment. Currently, Federal and state agencies lack the resources and personnel necessary to ensure compliance with fishery regulations. In some cases , officers do not have sufficient training to interpret complex fishery regulations. Additional resources are necessary to ensure officers are properly trained a nd personnel are sufficiently numerous to ensure compliance with fishery regulations.

513. Develop and/or maintain, implement, a nd enforce state and local legislation to protect loggerheads and their habitats.

State and local governments should regulat e activities impacting sea turtles and their nesting habitat. For example, local lighting ordinances and coastal construction regulations should be deve loped and/or maintained to protect loggerheads.

52. Ensure adequacy of regulato ry mechanisms to protect logge rheads and their habitats in foreign nations.

There is compelling evidence that post-h atchling loggerheads from U.S. nesting beaches spend several years as juveniles in a transatlantic de velopmental stage. In the northeastern Atlantic (Madei ra, Azores, and Canary Islands), small juveniles are exploited for curios and food. Larger juveniles are common throughout The Bahamas where exploitation for food also is common. Populations in coastal waters of Cuba and Hispaniola undoubtedly include loggerheads originating from U.S. recovery units. Protecting loggerheads on U.S. nesting beaches and in U.S. waters, therefore, is not

sufficient alone to ensure the continued existence of loggerheads. Cooperative international agreements and programs shoul d be developed with the governments of The Bahamas, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Hai ti, Panama, Portugal, Spain, and other countries where loggerheads originating from U.S. ne sting populations occur.

521. Assist foreign countries in devel oping national regulations to protect loggerheads and their habitats.

Loggerheads are exposed to and threat ened by a plethora of anthropogenic activities. Impacts from these activities directly in jure and kill loggerheads, disrupt necessary behaviors, and alter terr estrial and marine habitat used by the species. Appropriate regulatory contro l is the most effective means of minimizing the negative effects of th ese human activities. In order toII-68 promulgate and enforce effective regulati ons, the regulatory infrastructure must be in place to provide for the impl ementation of conservation regulations.

522. Assist foreign countries with enforcem ent of national regulations to protect loggerheads.

A necessary and integral component of any regulatory action is the capacity to enforce such regulations. As appropriate , the U.S. should help foreign nations build capacity for enforcement of co nservation laws aimed at protecting loggerheads.

53. Encourage development of and participation in multi-national agreements that facilitate conservation of loggerheads and their habitats.

531. Encourage non-signatory nations of the western hemisphere to accede to the

Inter-American Convention for the C onservation and Protection of Marine

Turtles.

The IAC holds significant promise fo r facilitating the conservation of loggerheads in the western hemisphere. However, to be fully effective, all nations hosting populations of loggerhead s in the region must accede to the Convention. Of particular note are the non-signatory nations of Cuba and The Bahamas, which provide important foraging and migratory habitat for significant numbers of neri tic loggerheads. Efforts should be continued and strengthened to encourag e key non-signatory nations to accede to the IAC.

532. Encourage non-signatory nations to a ccede to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Envir onment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartegena Convention), specifically the Protocol Concerning Specially

Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean (SPAW Protocol).

Within the Wider Caribbean, the SPAW Protocol of the Cartagena Convention is an important diplomatic tool that can enhance loggerhead conservation and recovery in the region. The U.S. should expand its role in implementing the SPAW Protocol and explore opportunities to facilitate loggerhead recovery in the region through this avenue. Ke y non-signatory nations, notably The Bahamas, should be encouraged to ac cede to the Convention and relevant

Protocols.

533. Ensure the U.S. becomes a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory Species.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains treaty text specifically focused on conservation and management of living marine resources and protection of the marine envi ronment. The U.S. is not currently a party to the Convention. Acceding to the Convention would provide the U.S.II-69 with another multi-lateral instrument within which to facilitate recovery of the loggerhead across its range.

The U.S. is not currently a party to the Convention on Migratory Species, although the U.S. has signed two s ea turtle-specific Memoranda of Understanding negotiated under the auspi ces of the Convention. Acceding to Convention, and encouraging key nations within the range of the loggerhead to accede, could provide additional avenues fo r facilitating loggerhead recovery in

the international arena.

6. Minimize other causes of disturbance, harassment, injur y, and mortality.

61. Minimize impacts to sea tur tles on nesting beaches.

611. Eliminate nest management techniques that are not scientifically based.

A management plan that outlines appropriate strategies and standardized protocols for protecting nest s from both natural and ma nmade impacts is needed to ensure biologically sound mana gement practices are employed.

6111. Evaluate the effects of nest mana gement activities on nest productivity, hatchling fitness, and sex ratios and develop scien tifically based standardized protocols for nest management.

The effects of nest management act ivities (e.g., nest relocation, nest screening) and natural factor s (e.g., nest washovers) on nest productivity, hatchling fitness, and sex ratios should be evaluated. Tidal inundation can diminish hatching success depending on frequency, duration, and developmenta l stage of embryos. The extent to which eggs can tolerate tidal inun dation should be better measured to enable development of guidelines for nest management relative to tidal threats. Similarly, the impacts of nest relocation under varying

scenarios should be evaluated to determine whether nest relocation might be an appropriate management tool. Resource agencies should support research to evaluate the imp acts of nest management activities and natural factors on nests and hatchlings.

The effects of nest screening a nd caging on hatchling navigation and homing behavior should be evaluated as well. Irwin et al . (2004) found that galvanized wire mesh cages m easurably alter the inclination angle and intensity of the magnetic field beneath them, but that the magnitude of field distortions decreased with distance below the cage. One hypothesis is that hatchlings imprin t on magnetic features of the natal beach and use them as cues in homing to their natal beaches as adults. If such magnetic imprinting occurs, then the use of wire screens and cages poses a potential risk of disrupting magnetic navigation.II-70 Based on the findings of resear ch, recommendations for nest management should be developed.

6112. Implement scientifically based st andardized protocols for nest

management.

Implement the recommendations for nest management developed under

6111.

6113. Use the least manipulative method to protect nests.

Until such time as a management plan for protecting nests is developed, the least manipulative method should be employed to protect nests.

Because the incubation environment greatly influences the developing embryo, nest relocation can involve the transfer of eggs from an appropriate environment to an inap propriate one. As a general rule, nests should only be relo cated if they are low enough on the beach to be washed daily by tides or if they ar e situated in well documented highrisk areas that routinely experien ce serious erosion and egg loss (e.g., nests laid near river mouths or beneath eroding sea walls).

Natural events, like storms, that accelerate beach erosion and accretion can sometimes reduce hatching succe ss in existing nests. While damage from storm events can be se vere, it is difficult to predict the precise areas where the storm is most likely to inflict damage. Because of the negative effects of reloca ting eggs and the unpredictability of storm events, nests should not be moved out of areas threatened by

storms.

Nests should not be relocated in areas where heavy foot traffic, lighting problems, or beach cleaning are a con cern. Foot traffic generally is not a problem for nests, but depending on the nesting substrate, pedestrian

traffic over nests near the time of emergence can cause the nests to collapse and result in hatchling mort ality. Therefore, in areas where foot traffic is heavy, nests can be marked so pedestrians can avoid

them. If a nest is made near a li ght that may misorient the hatchlings, efforts should focus on getting the lig ht turned off or shielded (if protection is necessary, the nest s hould be caged). If nests are deposited on beaches that are peri odically raked with mechanical equipment, beach raking should be discontinued or the nests should be marked clearly so they can be avoided by the beach cleaners.II-71 6114. Discontinue the use of hatcheries as a nest management technique.

Relocation of sea turtle nests to ha tcheries located higher on the beach was once a common practice throughout the southeast U.S. to mitigate the effects of naturally occurring ev ents, such as erosion and vegetation encroachment, predation, and a variet y of human-induced factors. In some areas, the extent and type of co astal development have resulted in significant light pollution problems. As a result, a few hatcheries are still used to protect hatchlings from disorientation. However, relocating nests into hatcheries concentrates eg gs in an area and makes them more susceptible to catastrophic events and predation from both land and marine predators. Therefore, in ar eas where hatcheries are still being used to protect nests and hatchli ngs from light pollution, management

efforts should be shifted to elimin ate the lighting problems and phase

out the use of hatcheries. At Ca pe Romain NWR in South Carolina, hatcheries are being used as a last re sort in response to severe erosion. In this case, the conservation bene fits (i.e., embryo survivorship) are believed to outweigh the potential conservation risks (e.g., hatchling predation). Given these circumstance s, the use of hatcheries at Cape Romain NWR is currently considered appropriate until sufficient

habitat for successful incubation is available. Continued use of hatcheries on the refuge should be based on periodic quantitative assessments of their effectiveness as a management tool.

612. Minimize and control vehicular traffic on nesting beaches.

Driving exists on some Florida, Georgi a, North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas beaches, including National Seashores. The effects of vehicular traffic on nesting activities should be evaluated, and a plan should be developed to minimize the effects of beach driving on nesting beaches.

6121. Prohibit nighttime driving on beaches during the loggerhead nesting

season.

Vehicles on the beach have the great est potential to come into contact with nesting females and emerging hatc hlings at night. In areas where beach driving is still allowed, nighttime vehicle use should be limited to essential vehicles (e.g., emergency or permitted research vehicles) only.

When essential vehicles are allowe d on the beach at night during the sea turtle nesting season, their poten tial for harming turtles should be minimized by driving at speeds of 5 miles per hour or less (except when higher speeds are necessary for la w enforcement, human safety, or medical emergencies), and by driving seaward of the wrack or debris line or just above it during high tide conditions. In addition, regardless of the time of year, vehicles or equipment driven or used on the beach should be equal to or less than 10 pou nds per square inch (psi) based onII-72 ground loading characteristics (e.g., all terrain vehicles) to minimize the potential for sand compaction.

6122. Ensure that the linear kilometers of nesting beach where vehicular traffic is permitted does not increase above 2006 levels.

In the U.S., public vehicular traffic is still permitted on beaches in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas. Efforts should be made to ensure that the linear extent of beach driving does not increase above 2006 levels (see below and in Sectio n H.1. – Beach Vehicular Driving).

In North Carolina, public driving is allowed on the entire stretch of beach running north of the Town of Corolla to the Virginia state line (including the Currituck NWR a nd the Currituck Banks National Estuarine Research Reserve) due to th e presence of beach homes in that

area and the lack of roads to access them. Driving is also allowed on Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore,

and Fort Fisher State Recreation Area.

In Georgia, as a result of beach driving concerns on Cumberland Island

National Seashore and other barrie rs islands, the GDNR adopted a regulation that only authorizes b each driving by individuals who are engaged in bona fide educational acti vities or scientific research, are a legal resident on the island, are i nvolved in beach maintenance or security, and/or own or have an intere st in real property on the island in question.

In 1985, the Florida Legislature severe ly restricted vehicular driving on Florida’s beaches, except that which is necessary for cleanup, repair, or public safety. However, this legislation allowed an exception for six counties to continue allowing vehicu lar access on coastal beaches due to the availability of less than 50% of its peak user demand for offbeach parking. The counties affected by this exception were Volusia, St. Johns, Duval, Gulf, Nassau, and Fl agler counties, as well as limited vehicular access on Walton County beaches for boat launching. However, Flagler County passed an ordinance in 2004 that now bans public beach driving.

In Texas, driving occurs on nearly the entire Texas coast (as per the Texas Open Beaches Act). However, a highly developed section of

South Padre Island is closed to be ach driving, and closed beaches at Padre Island National Seashore, Sa n Jose Island, Matagorda Island, and Matagorda Peninsula (south of th e Colorado River) are only open to driving by agency personnel, land ow ners, and/or approved individuals (such as researchers).II-73 Public and/or mission-related driv ing is also authorized on a few military installations (e.g., Naval Station Mayport, Tyndall Air Force Base, and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida; Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in North Carolina).

6123. Manage daytime driving to minimize impacts to loggerheads.

In addition to prohibiting nighttime dr iving of non-esse ntial vehicles on the beach, other measures should be implemented to minimize the potential for impacts to sea tur tles. Examples of minimization measures include the designation an d enforcement of no-driving zones in areas where the greatest concentr ation of nests are typically located (e.g., conservation zones near the dunes), monitoring and marking of all sea turtle nests for avoidance, and developing and implementing a vehicle rut removal program seawar d of nests during periods when hatchlings are expected to emerge.

613. Strengthen existing regulati ons or promulgate new regulations to manage mechanical beach cleaning on nesting beaches.

Special protective measures should be required during the nesting season to ensure that mechanized beach cleaning equipment does not harm sea turtles or sea turtle nests. In higher density nes ting areas where marking every nest is not feasible, non-mechanical me thods of cleaning, such as hand raking, should be employed. To protect nests, the follow ing conditions should be required for beach cleaning activities: (1) cleanin g should only occur seaward of the high tide line and only during daylight hours, (2) cleaning should only occur after an authorized sea turtle permit holder has surv eyed the beach for nests, (3) all nests within 3.1 m (10 feet) of the high tide lin e should be marked by the sea turtle permit holder, (4) only equi pment with less than 10-psi tire pressure should operate on the beach, (5) cleaning equipment should not penetrate more than 5.1 cm (2 inches) into the beach surface, (6) all material collected should be removed from the beach, and (7) cleaning equipment should stay at least 3.1 m (10 feet) from salt- tolerant vegetation.

The wrack line runs the length of the beach and marks the place where the tide reaches its highest point. Material in the wrack is an important component of beach stabilization and dune building. It acts in much the same way as a sand fence -- it slows wind velocity and causes sand to be deposited. When sand is blown over the wrack line by the wind, it falls out of the air and begins to

accumulate around the wrack line. Effort s should be undertaken to educate the public about the benefits of allowing wr ack material to remain on the beach.II-74 614. Minimize harassment of nesting females and hatchlings.

Resident and visitor use of nesting b eaches can adversely affect nesting sea turtles, incubating egg clutches, and ha tchlings. Intenti onal and unintentional disturbance and harassment of nesting fe males and hatchlings is an increasing problem on many beaches. Problem areas where repeated incidents of turtle harassment have been reported should be identified, and law enforcement

efforts should be focused there.

6141. Evaluate the extent and effects of harassment of nesting females and hatchlings and develop management recommendations.

The most serious threat caused by human presence on the beach is the disturbance of nesting females and hatchlings. This disturbance can cause turtles to abort nesting attempts, shift their nesting beaches, and select poor nesting sites. Campfires and flashlight use by pedestrians on nesting beaches at night can disorient hatchlings and deter nesting

females. Efforts should be undertaken to determine the extent of these impacts on sea turtles, and protocol s should be developed to minimize

their effects.

6142. Conduct public education campaigns to minimize harassment of nesting females and hatchlings.

Resident and visitor use of nesting beaches can adversely affect nesting sea turtles and hatchlings. The mo st serious threat caused by human presence on the beach is the dist urbance of nesting females. Disturbance of nesting females can cause them to leave the beach without finishing nesting and thus de lay egg laying, shift their nesting beaches, and select poor nesting sites. Hatchlings rely on a store of energy and nutrients within their re tained yolk sac to make their way

from the nest to their offshore develo pmental habitat. Any delays they encounter on the beach by pedestrians may impair their ability to migrate offshore. Beachgoers should be informed through presentations and educational materi als about the potential impacts to sea turtles from pedestrians on the beach and how to avoid frightening or disorientating any nesting and ha tchling turtles en countered. In addition, signage at access points to the beach is recommended to

further inform residents and visi tors about proper nesting beach etiquette.

6143. Increase the number of interpretive turtle walks to meet demand and minimize overall disturbance to nesting females and hatchlings.

In the U.S., numerous state-perm itted organizations conduct organized turtle walks to allow the public to vi ew the nesting process. ThousandsII-75 of coastal visitors and local resi dents attend these organized turtle watches each year; however, thousands more are turned away due to

the limited number of walks ava ilable. As a result, numerous unsupervised individuals who were una ble to get into a turtle walk often try to find turtles by them selves and inadvertently end up harassing them. Interpretive turtle walks also are a mechanism for garnering support for sea turtle conservation through education and should be expanded to accommodate the high public demand for participation.

6144. Enforce laws to minimize harassment of nesting females and hatchlings.

Intentional and uninten tional disturbance and harassment of nesting turtles and hatchlings is an in creasing problem on many beaches.

Problem areas should be identified and law enforcement efforts should

be focused in these areas to dete r harassment of nesting turtles and hatchlings.

615. Develop and enforce guidelines for special events on the beach to minimize impacts on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

A wide variety of special events (e.g. , volleyball tournament s, concerts) take place on the beach. Some of these events considerably increase the number of people and equipment in a given area. Ma ny events are scheduled outside of the sea turtle nesting period, but some do occur during the nesting season. State resource agencies and local government s should develop and enforce guidelines for special events that will occur during the nesting season to ensure there will

be no direct or indirect impacts on nesting turtles, nests, and emerging hatchlings.

616. Minimize the impacts of military activities on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

Several military bases in the southeast U.S. (e.g., Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Naval Station Mayport, Cape Ca naveral Air Force Station, Patrick Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, Eglin Air Force Base) have sea turtle nesting beaches. Activities on or near these beaches include a variety of military training activities, rocket launches, etc. During ESA section 7 consultations with the military on activit ies that may affect sea turtles, FWS should ensure the inclusion of appropria te reasonable and prudent measures to minimize incidental take of nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.II-76 617. Ensure oil spills affecting nesting beaches do not impact nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

Oil spills in the vicinity of nesting beaches just prior to or during the sea turtle nesting season could place nesting fe males, incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings at significant risk. A risk assessment and response plans are needed to ensure sea turtles are pr otected from nearshore spills.

6171. Conduct a risk management assessmen t of oil spill e ffects on nesting

beaches.

A risk assessment of oil spill effects on sea turtle nesting beaches should be undertaken. The objectiv es of the risk assessment should focus on providing an independent asse ssment of the overall risks of oil pollution to nesting beaches, iden tifying key locations at risk, and determining the main causes of these risks. Spill scenarios should be modeled for ships in transit, ships in port waters, ships at berth, transfer operations at sea and at berth, and all offshore facilities. The risk

model should be used to calculate risks based on historical accident

rates from around the world. Based on the results of the risk assessment, recommendations should be made to protect key nesting beaches (e.g., by ensuring that oil ship traffic does not travel near these nesting beaches during the nest ing season if appropriate).

6172. Ensure that oil spill response plan s exist and adequately protect all nesting beaches.

A response plan should be devel oped and implemented to ensure appropriate actions are taken to minimize the likelihood of nesting females, hatchlings, and eggs coming into contact with oil when a spill occurs on or near a nesting beach. This plan should include recommendations, such as those mentioned in Oil and Sea Turtles: Biology, Planning, and Response (Shigenaka 2003), that address response considerations for nests that have been deposited on the beach prior to the oil spill, hatchlings em erging from nests in areas where oil is present on the beach and/or in the adjacent offshore area, and females attempting to emerge onto the oiled beach to nest.

618. Minimize the impacts of coastal constr uction activities on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

A variety of coastal cons truction activities (e.g., c onstruction, repair, and maintenance of upland structures and dune crossovers; instal lation of utility cables; installation and repair of public in frastructure such as coastal highways and emergency evacuation routes; dune re storation; and vehi cular traffic and lighting associated with any of these ac tivities) may affect sea turtles. TheseII-77 activities may alter nesting habitat a nd harm nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

6181. Conduct all non-emergency coastal c onstruction activit ies outside the main portion of the nesting season to eliminate impacts on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

Direct impacts to sea turtles from non-emergency construction activities (e.g., dune crossovers, gr oins, etc.) should be avoided by conducting these activities outside of the main portion of the nesting season. The main portion of the logg erhead nesting season is from May 1 to October 31 (other sea turtle species may broaden this nesting period).

6182. Strengthen existing regulations or promulgate new regulations to minimize impacts from emergency construction activ ities during the nesting season on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

Guidelines to minimize impacts from emergency construction activities that are allowed to take place du ring the nesting season should be developed and implemented by the state and local governments. Guidelines should include requirement s such as (1) conduct sea turtle nesting surveys and mark all detect ed nests for avoidance; (2) conduct work from the upland portion of the property if practi cable; (3) ensure heavy equipment (e.g., tracked or wheeled motorized machinery, such as bobcats, bulldozers, front-end load ers, etc.) is not operated on the beach if a reasonable upland altern ative exists; (4) ensure heavy equipment that must be operated on th e beach accesses the site as close to the construction site as possible and that a marked path, no wider than 15.3 m (50.0 ft) and running perpendicular to the beach from the dune to the high tide line, is used fo r beach access; (5) ensure that once on the beach equipment is only moved to and from the construction site along the wetted portion of the beach (i.e., below the previous high tide line); and (6) ensure that heavy equi pment or construction materials are not stored on the nesting beach.

6183. Develop and implement ordinances to eliminate the effects of stormwater outfalls and swimming pool drainage on nesting females, nests, and hatchlings.

Stormwater runoff on nesting beaches is believed to be widespread in coastal communities; however, a comprehensive inventory of

stormwater outfalls has not been compiled. Coastal communities

should assess this threat and devel op and implement actions to address the problem on sea turtle nesting beaches.II-78 619. Ensure that law enforcement activities eliminate poaching of eggs and nesting

females.

Although not a significant cause of ne st loss in the U.S., poaching is occasionally a local problem. In other countries where loggerheads from Northwest Atlantic recovery units occur, illegal take has been reported but not quantified. Problem areas should be id entified, and law enforcement efforts should be focused there to eliminate poaching.

62. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic fisheries us ing a gear-based strategy.

Loggerheads are incidentally captured in many domestic co mmercial fisheries. The principal fisheries known to incidentally capture turtles are those employing trawls, gillnets, longlines, pots/traps, pound nets, hook and line, dredges, and seines. Captures of loggerheads in domestic commercial fish eries number in the tens of thousands annually; a substantial number of these turtles die. Reduci ng bycatch in these fisheries will require an integrated approach includi ng measures such as gear modifications, changes to fishing practices, effort reduction, and time/area closures.

Current approaches to managing bycatch of loggerheads in domestic commercial fisheries have ranged from reasonably broad (e.g., TED requirements for shrimp trawls in the southeast U.S.) to fragmented and lo cal and often are target species-based (e.g., prohibitions of certain gillnets in limited areas of Pamlico Sound). However, even in the case of TED requirements, fi shers deploying the same or similar gear north of Cape Charles, Virginia, are not required to use TEDs, even though loggerheads are seasonally abundant there. A shift in approach to one that is primarily gear-based, and considers the effects of fishing gear on l oggerheads throughout their range, will focus bycatch reduction efforts where they are most needed and will result in more comprehensive and effective solutions.

621. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic commercial gillnet fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of all gillnet fisheries in domestic waters should be completed to identify fishing ar eas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing practices, loggerhead bycatch da ta, and relevant regulations.

6211. Describe and characterize domestic commercial gillnet fisheries.

The geographic and temporal distribu tion of gillnet fisheries should be documented along the U.S. Atlantic coas t, as well as in other countries where loggerheads from Northwest A tlantic recovery units occur. Details as to mesh sizes, target sp ecies, etc. shou ld be included.II-79 6212. Integrate information gathered in 6211 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating dome stic commercial gillnet fishery and turtle data should be develope d to assist in analyzing fishery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in this fishery.

6213. Implement observer programs to dete rmine bycatch levels and identify key characteristics of domestic commer cial gillnet fisheries that affect bycatch levels.

Direct and/or alternative plat form observer programs should be enhanced or developed, and impl emented through a prioritized approach, to measure bycatch in gilln et fisheries. Bycatch data should

be examined to determine characteri stics of gillnet gear and fishing practices that may contribute to increased bycatch levels.

6214. Implement measures to minimize bycatch in large mesh gillnet

fisheries.

Large mesh gillnets used in areas where sea turtles are abundant can result in high sea turtle bycatch. Rangewide restrictions, with temporal components if appropriate, should be implemented.

6215. Implement measures to minimize bycat ch in other gillnet fisheries as appropriate.

Appropriate actions should be taken to implement restrictions to reduce loggerhead bycatch in gillnet fish eries through gear modifications, time/area closures, and/or ch anges in fishing practices.

622. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic shrimp trawl fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of co mmercial shrimp trawl fisheries in domestic waters should be completed to identify fishing areas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing practices, lo ggerhead bycatch data, and relevant regulations.

6221. Describe and characterize domestic commercial and recreational shrimp

trawl fisheries.

A full characterization of distributio n, seasonality, and effort (trawl effort and number of vessels) woul d improve our understanding of the threats posed by the domestic commer cial and recreational shrimp trawlII-80 fishery. These data should be de veloped in a spatially referenced format to allow for integration into the GIS described in 6222.

6222. Integrate information gathered in 6221 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating domestic commercial and recreational shrimp trawl fishery distri bution, gear characteristics, effort data, turtle distribution and bycatch data, and oceanographic information should be developed and periodically updated to assist in analyzing shrimp fishery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in this fishery.

6223. Increase observer coverage to a stat istically robust leve l to adequately monitor bycatch levels in the domes tic commercial shrimp fishery and modify TED regulations if necessary.

To gauge success of conservati on measures that have been implemented, observer programs should be maintained to ensure statistically valid coverage across th e range of the domestic commercial shrimp trawl fishery. Loggerhead bycatch data collected through observer programs should be summar ized and reported quarterly to monitor bycatch levels and to ev aluate conservation measures. Comprehensive annual analyses of obse rver data are needed in a timely manner to ensure loggerhead bycatch is minimized.

6224. Promulgate regulations to require TED s in all trynets in the domestic commercial shrimp fishery.

Observer data indicate that loggerheads are regularly captured in trynets smaller than the minimum size required to have TEDs (greater than 12 ft headrope length). Tow time requirements for exempted trynets are not currently enforceable. Regulatio ns requiring TEDs in all trynets are needed to reduce loggerhead bycatch in this gear type.

6225. Continue efforts to educate domestic commercial shrimp fishers on the proper installation and use of larger-opening TEDs.

Continued outreach efforts to provide workshops and educational materials to the shrimp fishing community are needed to ensure that the required larger opening TEDs are co nstructed, installed, and used properly. Outreach efforts, in cluding conducting workshops and providing educational materials in multiple languages as needed in the southeast U.S., should be continued and enhanced.II-81 6226. Investigate the physiological effects of multiple captures and exclusions of loggerheads in domestic commercial shrimp trawls equipped with

TEDs.

Despite comprehensive TED regulat ions, serious concerns remain regarding the repeated capture and exclusion of individual loggerheads on densely fished shrimping grounds. The cumulative effects of repeated forced submergence wh ile navigating the trawl and TED

warrant focused evaluation. The physiological effects, measured through blood chemistry, should be evaluated under semi-controlled conditions in the wild. Videography should be employed to evaluate behavior and escapement rates of in dividuals repeatedly exposed to shrimp trawls under commercial conditions.

6227. Monitor and reduce effort in the domestic commercial shrimp trawl fishery to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

Despite the implementation of larg er TED openings, estimated bycatch of loggerheads in the southeast U.S. shrimp fishery remains extraordinarily high due to the en ormous total effort (assuming 97% turtle exclusion rate, which may be an overestimate). Overcapacity in the shrimp fishery should be addr essed through a limited entry permit system, effort reduction through time/a rea closures, or other approaches

that reduce total trawl hours.

6228. Investigate turtle exclusion rates for soft TEDs under field conditions using videography.

The primary method for testing the efficiency of TEDs is the NMFS Small Turtle TED Testing Protocol . NMFS personnel release captiveraised sea turtles in shrimp ne ts fitted with TEDs under controlled

conditions in the clear waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Divers film each

turtle as it is released into the ne t and record turtle escape times. Although the NMFS Small Turtle TE D Testing Protocol has been effective in identifying problems with some TED designs, there have been several criticisms of the prot ocol including: (1) captive raised turtles used for testing behave diffe rently than wild turtles, (2) the captive turtles used in testing are uniformly small in size and do not represent the range of sizes enc ountered by trawlers, and (3) TED designs are tested under ideal conditions with gear specialists adjusting nets for optimum performance. As a result of these concerns, NMFS, in cooperation with the Georgia Marine Extension Service, has developed an alternative method fo r TED testing. A net with two cameras attached at key locations on the net (trawl body and TED)

allows researchers to monitor the ne t while trawling for wild turtles. TED efficiency is monitored with video monitors on the boat. ThisII-82 method is known as the “wild turtle” testing protocol and eliminates

concerns over the behavior and size of captive turtles. Since 2002,

candidate TEDs and modifications to existing TEDs have been tested using both the small turtle and w ild turtle testing protocols.

The original soft TED design did no t pass the NMFS Small Turtle TED Testing Protocol because of high turtle capture rates. A modified soft TED design, known as the Parker Soft TED, subsequently passed the protocol and was certified as a NMFS approved TED design. The soft TED design has shown a history of problems during development, including inconsistent installation by net shops and documented deformation of the mesh ramp with re peated use. Stretching of the soft TED meshes form a bag that will trap and drown turtles. Because there

is continued concern that the mesh ra mp will stretch with repeated use, the efficiency of the Parker Soft TED should be further tested using the wild turtle testing protocol and the sm all turtle protocol with a net that

has been fished under commercial conditions over a period of time.

6229. Implement statistically valid obser ver programs to determine bycatch

levels in domestic commercial skimmer trawl fisheries and require TEDs if necessary.

The skimmer trawl fishery is suspected as having high interaction rates with loggerheads. Two areas are of particular concern, North Carolina and Louisiana. An observer progra m to estimate loggerhead bycatch in skimmer trawls should be developed and implemented. TEDs may be required based on this evaluation.

623. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in dome stic commercial non-shrimp trawl

fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of co mmercial non-shrimp trawl fisheries in domestic waters should be completed to identify fishing areas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing practices, lo ggerhead bycatch data, and relevant regulations.

6231. Describe and characterize domes tic commercial non-shrimp trawl

fisheries.

A full characterization of distribution, gear and fishing characteristics, seasonality, and effort (trawl effo rt and number of vessels) would improve our understanding of the threats posed by the domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fishery. These data should be developed in a spatially referenced format to allow for integration into the GIS

described in 6232.II-83 6232. Integrate information gathered in 6231 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fishery distribution and effort data, turtle distribution and bycatch data, and oceanographic informa tion should be developed and periodically updated to assist in analyzing fishery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in this gear type.

6233. Implement statistically valid obser ver programs to determine bycatch levels in domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisheries.

Observer programs should be mainta ined (or implemented if they do not exist) and improved to ensure st atistically valid coverage across the range of domestic non-shrimp trawl fisheries. Loggerhead bycatch data collected through observer progr ams should be summarized and reported in a timely manner to eval uate conservation measures that have been undertaken. Comprehens ive annual analyses of observer data are needed in a timely manner to ensure loggerhead bycatch is minimized in non-shrimp trawl fisheries.

6234. Implement seasonal large-opening TED regulations for domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisherie s operating from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, north to Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

There are ample data documenti ng the seasonal distribution of loggerheads north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (current northern extent of domestic requirements for TEDs) and demonstrating the overlap of loggerheads with non-shrimp trawl fishing effort. The neritic habitats between Cape Hatte ras, North Carolina, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, provide important seasonal migratory and foraging habitats for both juvenile and adul t loggerheads. To reduce bycatch, regulations should be promulgate d to require large-opening TEDs seasonally from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Cape Cod,

Massachusetts.

6235. Promulgate regulations to require TEDs in domestic commercial flynet

trawl fisheries.

The flynet trawl fishery operates primar ily in neritic waters off the midAtlantic coast, an area that provides important habitat for juvenile and adult loggerheads. Sea turtles ha ve been documented and are not uncommon as bycatch in this fishery. A flynet TED has been developed and tested in the fi shery, and regulations should be promulgated to require TED use to minimize loggerhead bycatch.II-84 6236. Promulgate regulations to require large-opening TEDs in all domestic commercial non-shrimp trawl fisherie s south of Cape Hatteras, North

Carolina.

There are ample data documenti ng the seasonal distribution of loggerheads south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and demonstrating the overlap of loggerheads with non-sh rimp trawl fishing effort in this area. The neritic habitats south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, provide critically important, year-round migratory and foraging habitats for both juvenile and adult loggerhe ads. To reduce loggerhead bycatch, regulations should be promulgated to require large-opening TEDs yearround in non-shrimp trawl fisheries operating south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, through Texas.

624. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domes tic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

6241. Describe and characterize domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of all U.S. longline fisheries should be completed to identify fishing areas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing practices, loggerhead bycatch data, and relevant regulations.

6242. Integrate information gathered in 6241 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating do mestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fishery distribution and effort data, turtle distribution and bycatch data, and oceanographic information should be developed and periodically updated to assist in analyzing fishery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in this gear type.

6243. Maintain and/or increase observer coverage to a statistically robust level to adequately monitor bycatch levels in domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

Observer programs should be maintain ed to ensure statistically valid coverage over the range of the surf ace and demersal longline fishery. Loggerhead bycatch data collected through observer programs should be summarized, reported, and reviewed quarterly to monitor bycatch levels, gauge success of conserva tion measures that have been implemented, and provide additional information on key characteristics of longline fisheries that aff ect loggerhead bycatch levels.II-85 6244. Continue to conduct focused expe riments on domestic commercial longline gear and fishing practices to minimize loggerhead interactions and secondarily to minimize post-interaction mortality.

Significant and important progress ha s been made in developing gear modifications that reduce loggerhea d bycatch in swordfish directed fisheries. The most promising resu lts are related to hook type and bait type. Reduction of daylight soak -time has also been shown to significantly reduce bycatch. Results s hould be field tested in the tuna directed fishery to ensure comparable bycatch reduction.

6245. Investigate the effectiveness of time-area closures to minimize loggerhead interactions in domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

Pelagic and demersal longline fi shery observer data, loggerhead distribution data, loggerhead moveme nt data, and fishery effort data should be fully analyzed in a GIS environment to evaluate the

effectiveness of time-area closures to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

6246. Promulgate regulations to implem ent proven measures that minimize loggerhead interactions with commer cial pelagic and demersal longline

fisheries.

Enforceable bycatch reduction measures, which include proven and specific gear modifications, time/area closures, and/or changes in fishing practices, should be impl emented by regulation. Regulations must be specific and enforceable.

6247. Develop and implement effective approaches to enforcing longline regulations in U.S. territorial wa ters, the U.S. EEZ, and on the high

seas.

Enforcement of regulations such as gear modifications, time-area closures, and safe handling practices ar e particularly difficult to enforce offshore and on the high seas. Ve ssel monitoring systems should be required on all vessels engaging in fisheries that operate under

time/area restrictions. NMFS Enfor cement and USCG must maintain an active role in the developmen t and promulgation of regulatory regimes to ensure that they are enfo rceable and that capacity exists to carry out such enforcement.II-86 6248. Promote the use of safe handling practices and careful release tools in domestic commercial pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

Proper handling of loggerheads capt ured in pelagic and demersal longline gear may increase their probab ility of survival after release. Sea turtle careful handling and rele ase protocols have been developed with the goal of minimi zing injuries and maximizing survival after release (Epperly et al . 2004). These protocol s should be promoted domestically and internationally.

625. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic commercial and recreational pot/trap

fisheries.

6251. Describe and characterize pot/trap fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of all pot/trap fisheries in domestic waters should be completed to iden tify fishing areas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing practices, lo ggerhead bycatch data, and relevant regulations.

6252. Integrate information gathered in 6251 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating po t/trap fishery distribution and effort data, gear and fishing char acteristics, turtle distribution and bycatch data, and oceanographic info rmation should be developed and periodically updated to assist in analyzing fishery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in this gear type.

6253. Develop gear modifications to preven t entanglement of loggerheads in pot/trap lines.

Modifications to pot/trap gear should be explored and tested to reduce loggerhead bycatch (e.g., stiffened li nes, weighted line to eliminate extra line on the surface, and weighted groundlines to connect pots/traps).

6254. Promulgate regulations to incor porate modifications to whelk pot bridles to prevent loggerhead entanglement.

NMFS has initiated research to char acterize loggerhead interactions with whelk pot bridles and to deve lop gear modifications that will prevent entanglement of loggerheads . Research conducted to date should be fully analyzed and expa nded as appropriate to developII-87 bycatch solutions. Regulations requiring appropriate gear modifications in the whelk pot fishery should be promulgated.

6255. Promulgate appropriate regulations to reduce incidental capture of loggerheads in pots/traps.

Successful gear modifications resulting from 6253 should be implemented by regulation.

6256. Require identification on pot/trap gear.

Marking of pot/trap gear that allo ws owner identification will create

incentives for fishers to remove a ll gear outside of fishing seasons thereby reducing the amount of abandoned gear in the water.

626. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in domestic commercial dredge fisheries.

6261. Describe and characterize domestic commercial dredge fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of a ll commercial dredge fisheries in domestic waters should be completed to identify fishing areas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing pract ices, loggerhead bycatch data, and relevant regulations.

6262. Integrate information gathered in 6261 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating dome stic commercial dredge fishery

distribution and effort data, gear and fishing characteristics, turtle distribution and bycatch data, and oceanographic information should be developed and periodically updated to assist in analyzing fishery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in this gear type.

6263. Evaluate the effectiveness of gear modifications developed to reduce loggerhead bycatch in the domestic commercial scallop dredge fishery.

Efforts to reduce bycatch in the commercial scallop dredge fishery operating in the mid-Atlantic have resulted in the development of a chain mat that appears to keep turtles from entering the dredge bag. However, this modification does not a ddress interactions with turtles on the bottom. Efforts are underway to develop a dredge with a modfied frame to reduce the probability of a turtle on the bottom going under the dredge frame. Additional controll ed testing and field testing using video technology is needed to ascert ain the actual effectiveness of theseII-88 modifications and whether they are sufficient to prevent entrapment, injury, or death.

6264. Promulgate regulations that reduce loggerhead bycatch and mortality in the domestic commercial scallop dredge fishery.

The commercial scallop dredge fi shery, operating off the mid- and northeast Atlantic coastline, inci dentally captures many loggerheads each year, and many of these turtles are killed or seriously injured by this heavy, bottom-tending gear. Enforceable bycatch reduction measures, which may include proven and specific gear modifications, time/area closures, and/or changes in fishing practices, should be implemented by regulation.

6265. Investigate bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in commercial whelk dredge fisheries.

A statistically valid observer pr ogram should be developed and implemented to monitor and estimate bycatch, injury, and mortality of loggerheads in the commercial whel k dredge fishery. The sampling program must be designed to pr ovide sufficient observer coverage across the range of the fishery durin g the seasons when loggerheads are known to inhabit the targeted fishing areas.

6266. Investigate bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in commercial surf clam dredge fisheries.

A statistically valid observer pr ogram should be developed and implemented to monitor and estimate bycatch, injury, and mortality of loggerheads in the commercial surf clam dredge fishery. The sampling program must be designed to pr ovide sufficient observer coverage across the range of the fishery durin g the seasons when loggerheads are known to inhabit the targeted fishing areas.

627. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in othe r domestic commercial fisheries.

6271. Describe and characterize other domestic commercial fisheries.

A comprehensive characterization of all other commercial fisheries that are likely to take loggerheads during their operations in domestic waters should be completed to iden tify fishing areas, effort, gear characteristics, fishing practices, lo ggerhead bycatch data, and relevant regulations.II-89 6272. Integrate information gathered in 6271 with turtle distribution data (linked to actions 141 and 29).

A comprehensive GIS integrating other domestic commercial fishery

distribution and effort data, turtle distributi on and bycatch data, and oceanographic information should be developed and periodically updated to assist in analyzing fi shery interactions and developing effective solutions to minimize bycatch of loggerheads in these

fisheries.

6273. Investigate bycatch and mortality of loggerheads in other domestic commercial fisheries and implement bycatch reduction measures as

necessary.

A statistically valid observer pr ogram should be developed and implemented to monitor and estimate bycatch, injury, and mortality of loggerheads in the other domestic commercial fisheries. The sampling program must be designed to pr ovide sufficient observer coverage across the range of the fishery durin g the seasons when loggerheads are known to inhabit the targeted fish ing areas. Appropriate bycatch

reduction measures should be identified and implemented.

6274. Ensure that no increase in effo rt over 2003 levels occurs in the Sargassum fishery to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

Sargassum harvest by surface trawling re moves habitat essential to post-hatchling loggerheads and has been documented to result in the bycatch of young loggerheads. The current Fishery Management Plan for pelagic Sargassum habitat contains a number of actions that limit how, when, where, and how much Sargassum may be harvested annually. NMFS must ensure that no additional effort is authorized in this fishery. Unregulated, the threat posed by this fishery is substantial since post-hatchlings depend on Sargassum communities for forage and

shelter.

628. Enforce domestic commercial fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

Without comprehensive at-sea and docksi de enforcement, regulations designed to reduce loggerhead bycatch will not be effective. For example, the 2003 larger opening TED regulations are expect ed to significantly reduce mortality of large immature and adult loggerheads that interact with the southeast U.S. shrimp trawl fishery. However, if TEDs ar e not installed or used properly, their effectiveness is significantly diminished and expected conservation gains will

not be realized.II-90 63. Minimize loggerhead bycatch in foreign commercial fisheries.

Work with foreign governments and internati onal fishery management organizations to reduce loggerhead bycatch in foreign commercia l fisheries (i.e., fore ign fleets fishing in their domestic waters and fishing on the high seas).

631. Disseminate results of bycatch reduction experiments and transfer demonstrated bycatch reduction technol ogies to foreign nations.

NMFS and U.S. Department of State (DOS) should continue to work together to inform relevant foreign fishing nations and international fishery organizations (e.g., ICCAT, FAO-COFI) of demonstrated loggerhead bycatch reduction solutions including, but not limited to, larger opening TEDs, modifications to longline gear, and restrictions to large mesh gillnets. Capacity building efforts should continue to be expanded to tran sfer developed technologies through organized fisherman-training workshops and dissemination of targeted educational materials (including videos) in appropriate languages. If necessary, the U.S. should explore the developmen t of economic incentiv es to encourage the adoption of bycatch reduction appr oaches by foreign nation fleets that interact with loggerheads.

632. Encourage and assist foreign nations in collecting data on loggerhead bycatch via observer programs for commercial fisheries where bycatch levels are

undocumented.

A number of existing, expanding, and/or developing foreign fisheries have the potential for high loggerhead bycatch and mortality. NMFS and DOS should work through all available avenues to en courage and assist foreign nations with implementing valid data collection progr ams to document loggerhead bycatch. Of high priority are the black scabbard hook and line fishery in Madeira and the Azores and the deep-sea crab pot fish eries of the northeastern Atlantic.

633. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead by catch in commercia l pelagic longline

fisheries.

NMFS and DOS should work via existi ng bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and forums to encourage foreign nations to reduce loggerhead bycatch in their domestic commercial pelagic longline fisheries. Where appropriate, incentives such as enhanced market access should be explored to provide strong incentives for reducing by catch. Significant efforts should be directed at improving enforcement capacity in foreign nations through workshops, training, and exchange programs.II-91 634. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycat ch in commercial trawl fisheries.

NMFS and DOS should work via existi ng bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and forums to encourage foreign nations to reduce loggerhead bycatch in their domestic commercial trawl fisheries. Where appropriate, incentives such as enhanced market access should be explored to provide strong incentives for bycatch reduction. Signifi cant efforts should be directed at improving enforcement capacity in fore ign nations through workshops, training, and exchange programs.

635. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycat ch in commercial gillnet fisheries.

NMFS and DOS should work via existi ng bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and forums to encourage foreign nations to reduce loggerhead bycatch in their domestic commercial gi llnet fisheries. Where appropriate, incentives such as enhanced market access should be explored to provide strong incentives for reducing bycatch. Signifi cant efforts should be directed at improving enforcement capacity in fore ign nations through workshops, training, and exchange programs.

636. Encourage and assist foreign nations to develop, implement, and enforce fishery regulations to minimize loggerhead bycat ch in other commercial fisheries.

NMFS and DOS should work via existi ng bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and forums to encourage foreign nations to reduce loggerhead bycatch in their other domestic commercial fisheries. Where appropriate, incentives such as enhanced market access should be explored to provide strong incentives for reducing bycatch. Signifi cant efforts should be directed at improving enforcement capacity in fore ign nations through workshops, training, and exchange programs.

637. Develop economic incentives to reduce fi shery interactions and mortality of loggerheads in foreign high seas fisheries.

The U.S. should work to develop positive economic incentives that will encourage foreign nations to minimize by catch of loggerheads on the high seas.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of tu rtle-safe, eco-labelin g should be carried

out to determine if such an effort would have a positive effect on minimizing bycatch in foreign fisheries that import product to the U.S. The U.S. should explore all other constructive avenues to provide incentives to foreign nations to minimize loggerhead bycatch.II-92 638. Encourage ICCAT, Canada, Mexico, a nd the European Union to implement standards for collecting loggerhead bycat ch information and requirements to minimize loggerhead bycatch.

NMFS and DOS should work to encourage ICCAT to fully incorporate loggerhead bycatch reduction in fisherie s within their purview as one of its primary objectives. ICCAT should implement binding turtle bycatch data

collection and annual re porting standards. NMFS and DOS should work together to advance binding adoption of demonstrated and specific loggerhead bycatch reduction techniques (including gear and fishing practice changes and time-area closures as appropriate) in fish eries prosecuted under the auspices of

ICCAT.

64. Develop and implement a strategy to assess, monitor, and minimize effects of trophic changes on loggerheads from fi shing and habitat alteration.

Fisheries may reduce the abundance of species important in loggerh ead diets and could potentially alter the trophic structure of ecosystem s upon which loggerheads depend. Habitat alteration from fishing gear may al so affect prey distribution and abundance.

641. Assess loggerhead diets and food web linka ges in neritic and oceanic habitats.

Loggerheads are able to ex ist on a wide variety of food items with ontogenetic and regional differences in diet. L oggerhead diets have been described from just a few coastal regions, and very li ttle information is available about

differences or similarities in diet at various life stages . Very little is known of the diet of oceanic juveniles. Studie s on loggerhead diet are challenging, and relating diet to food webs in neritic and oceanic habitats is complex. To effectively gather data and improve our knowledge in this area, it may be advantageous to convene an expert group to develop an action plan for moving forward effectively.

642. Assess and minimize effects of commercial harvest of loggerhead prey species.

In the U.S., fishery management plans (FMPs) drafted by regional Fishery Management Councils must undergo review in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. Management plans for state fisher ies developed by the Atlantic or Gulf

States Marine Fisherie s Commissions (ASMFC a nd GSMFC) also undergo review for protected species concer ns, albeit not a Federal section 7 consultation. To date, evaluation of these plans has focused on direct mortality of ESA-listed species but has not consider ed trophic or ecosystem effects from fishery harvest of loggerhead prey speci es. Both Federal and state fishery management plans should include a t horough evaluation of fishery induced trophic and ecosystem changes on loggerheads.II-93 Fishery induced diet shifts may be detr imental to loggerheads. Such shifts

should be evaluated and c onsideration should include relative nutritional value of prey items and energetic costs of prey capture. Where diets have shifted to fish, an evaluation should be made as to whether loggerheads are more vulnerable to being taken in fishing gear. In addition to fisher y capture of target prey species, which may affect l oggerheads, fishery bycatch may also potentially have trophic impacts on loggerheads.

643. Assess effects of habitat alteration from commercial fisheries on distribution and abundance of loggerhead prey species.

Alterations in the structure, functi on, and community composition of benthic habitats from bottom trawl and dredge fi sheries can have a major effect on the distribution of loggerhead turtles as a resu lt of changes in food/prey availability, habitat structure and function, and wate r quality. Bottom tending fishing gear can be destructive to a wide variety of habitats. Hard bottom habitats are particularly vulnerable to destruction from roller rig trawler gear because benthic fauna may be crushed by the wei ght of rollers and trawls. Seagrass, coral, sponge, and other live bottom habitats can also be destroyed or structurally and functiona lly altered by trawling gear . Anchoring vessels in sensitive habitats may also be destructive.

65. Develop and implement a strategy to minimize the effects of marine debris ingestion and entanglement.

Marine debris may originate from land or sea, primarily through careless disposal of non-biodegradable refuse. Suspected sources of these materials are large transport vessels pumping bilges and discarding garb age, commercial and recreational fishing vessels, oil and gas platforms, beachgoers, and cruise liners.

651. Determine frequency of marine debr is ingestion and entanglement by loggerheads in neritic and oceanic habitats.

Ingestion of marine debris and entang lement in discarded nets, monofilament lines, and ropes affects immature and a dult loggerheads. Young, oceanic-stage loggerheads are particularly vulnerable to ingestion of persistent materials. Studies should be expanded to catego rize and quantify the ingestion of and entanglement in marine debris by logg erheads inhabiting Atlantic and Gulf

waters.

652. Evaluate the sublethal effects of mari ne debris ingestion and entanglement on loggerheads.

Additional research is needed to evalua te the long-term effects of synthetic marine debris ingestion on sea turtles, particularly with re gard to early life stages. Sublethal consequences of ex posure to hydrocarbons and other toxicII-94 substances need to be investigated. The population dynamics of loggerheads are sensitive to survival and growth in the oceanic juvenile stage, and oceanic juveniles are often found in the same regi ons with aggregated synthetic debris. If these interactions significantly aff ect survival or growth, there could be substantial population-level effects. Research is al so needed on the sublethal effects of entanglement on sea turtles. Loggerheads have been found entangled in a wide variety of man-made mate rials and are commonly found with scars and marks from previous entanglement. Turtles that survive marine debris entanglement incidents may incur permanen t injuries, such as the loss of a flipper, which may re duce overall fitness.

653. Enforce the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).

The MARPOL Protocol (Internationa l Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978) is the main international convention covering the pr evention of pollution (including oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, and garbage) of the marine environment by ships from operat ional or accidental causes. As the 1973 Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention and en tered into force in October 1983 (for Annexes I and II). Annex V, which prohibits the dumping of all plastic wastes, including plastic packaging materials and fishing gear, from all ships at sea,

entered into force in December 1988. Not only did this mark the first effort in the U.S. law to address the problem of plastic debris in the oceans, but the

ratification of Annex V enabled the law to come into force internationally. As of January 1989, the Marine Plastic Pollu tion Research and Control Act makes it against the law to dump plastics at s ea and in all U.S. navigable waters.

Continued and increased efforts are needed to collect data a nd identify sources of marine debris, spearhead educatio nal activities, and vigorously enforce marine pollution laws to reduce marine debris throughout the world's oceans.

654. Explore feasibility and pr ovide incentives to redu ce the amount of abandoned recreational and commercial fishing g ear that causes logge rhead injury and mortality.

Efforts should be undertaken to explor e whether economic incentives could be developed that would function as a viable mechanism to encourage the return of recreational and commercial fishing gear to land. Implementation of requirements for marking gear with unique identifiers can provide incentives for recovery of gear if penalties for ab andoning gear are sufficient and enforced.II-95 655. Explore feasibility and pr ovide incentives to reduce the amount of non-fisheries

related marine debris that causes loggerhead injury and mortality.

Economic incentives should be developed that would encourage the return of non-fisheries synthetic debris (e.g., plastic food and beve rage containers, plastic bags, synthetic dunnage, cargo nets) for prope r disposal or recycling on land. If people perceive a benefit from an action, they are more likely to undertake it or support it. Industry support for reducing plastic trash and encouraging greater recycling rates could reduce the amount of synthetic litter reaching rivers, coasts, and oceans.

656. Maintain or implement marine debris cleanup programs in coastal waters.

Regularly scheduled cleanups of nears hore and inshore marine habitats to

remove and document debris should be continued, expanded, and/or implemented. The International Coas tal Cleanup, coordinated by the Ocean Conservancy, is an excellent example of such an event.

66. Develop and implement a strate gy to reduce vess el strikes.

In recent years, 15 to 20% of live and dead stranded loggerheads along the neritic

coastline of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico had sustained injuries as a result of vessel strikes. While some injuries ma y occur post mortem, the prevalence of sea turtles with boat related injuries coincident with areas of high vessel activity (including recreational and commercial vessels) suggest s a significant problem in some locations.

661. Develop a comprehensive GIS database to assess vessel interactions with loggerheads.

A comprehensive spatial assessment of loggerhead distribution, vessel strikerelated strandings, vessel activity, and vessel infrastructure (boat ramps, channels, ports) should be undertaken in a GIS environment to assist in the analysis of vessel intera ctions with loggerheads.

662. Develop and implement a strategy to reduce vessel interactions with loggerheads.

A working group consisting of relevant e xperts should be convened to draft a strategy (using the information resulting from the analysis conducted in action 661) to reduce vessel strike injury and mortality to loggerheads. Measures such as protected areas, no motor zones, or sp eed regulations should be considered for specific areas as appropriate. Th is strategy should be implemented as rapidly as possible to address this serious threat to loggerheads.II-96 67. Monitor and minimize mortality from channel dredging activities.

The COE is congressionally mandated to maintain U.S. navigational channels. To ensure that authorized channel depths ar e sustained, periodic dredging is required. Some types of dredges, particularly the hopper dredge, have been shown to take sea turtles and, on a cumulative basi s, this take is believed to be significant. Turtle mortality can be documented by screening the inflows/outflows on a hopper dredge, by observation aboard a clamshell dredge, or by observing the discha rge of a pipeline dredge. Presently, NMFS believes that few, if any, turtles are impacted by clamshell or pipeline dredges, but that the hopper dredge is a major problem. Therefore, observer coverage and appropriate scre ening on all hopper dredge operat ions should be required to document take and associated mortality.

671. Assess effects of new technologies for channel dredge equipment on loggerhead

captures.

Channel dredging operations have histor ically relied on dredge machinery (hydraulic, hopper, clamshell) to remove sediments from navigational channels. However, other types of machinery are often used. For instance, on some channel dredging projects, bed levelers are used to smooth out ruts in the channel bottom created by hopper dredging activity. The bed leveler is a large steel blade (50 ft by 6 ft) that is dr agged along the channel to smooth out the bottom. The bed leveler is generally lowered from a barge and pushed by a tug boat. Unusual stranding patterns (cru shed carapace) documented by STSSN cooperators in Georgia suggested the bed leveler may crush and kill sea turtles. Controlled experiments should be conduc ted to determine the effects of new technologies such as bed levelers on turt le populations prior to use in dredging operations.

672. Incorporate effective channel dredge equipment modifications into future operations.

Additional research, development, and improved performance are needed for the currently used deflector dragheads on hopper dredges. Efforts should focus on improving currently used equipment modifications to further reduce sea turtle capture. Protocols for evaluating potential modifications on turtle capture should be developed in conjuncti on with NMFS, COE, and industry.

673. Maintain current requirements for cha nnel dredging activities in the southeast

U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and evaluate whether additional measures are required to minimize loggerhead mortality.

Significant reductions in the capture of loggerheads during U.S. channel dredging operations have occurred over the past two decades. Reductions in capture have occurred primarily as a result of dredging windows and modifications to hopper dredge dragheads. However, despite these and otherII-97 requirements, capture and mortality of loggerheads in hopper dredging gear

continues to occur. Periodic eval uations of current dredging windows and operational requirements should be c onducted and additional or modified measures implemented that will further minimize loggerhead capture.

Evaluations of the effects of reloca tion trawling (relocati ng loggerheads away

from channels scheduled for or unde rgoing dredging) on individual turtles should be thoroughly investigated, es pecially during breeding periods.

674. Implement regional requirements for cha nnel dredging activities north of North Carolina to minimize loggerhead mortality.

Regional requirements applicable to all channel dredging activ ities in the Gulf

of Mexico and southeast U.S. Atlant ic (south of Virginia) have been implemented through ESA section 7 consultations. In contrast, channel dredging activities north of North Carolina are evaluated on a case-by-case basis

in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. Efforts should be undertaken to develop a regional consulta tion to consider all anticipated channel dredging operations in this region and their cumulative effects on loggerheads. Regionwide requirements to minimize l oggerhead capture and mortality in channel dredging operations north of No rth Carolina should be implemented through section 7 of the ESA.

7. Facilitate recovery throu gh public awareness, education, and information transfer.

Sea turtle conservation require s long-term public support over a large geographic area. The public must be factually informed of the issu es particularly when conservation measures conflict with human activities on the beach, such as coastal development and public use of nesting beaches. Public e ducation is the foundation upon which a long-term conservation program will succeed or fail.

71. Develop and distribute educational materials.

Educational materials on sea turtle ecology and conservation needs should be developed and distributed to the public.

711. Develop a video about the impacts of beachfront lighting on loggerheads and ways to minimize impacts.

A professionally produced video about th e impacts of beachfront lighting on sea

turtles and recommendations on how to minimize lighting while still meeting human safety needs would provide tremendous support and reinforcement of the many coastal lighting ordinances. A hi gh quality video that could be used during the nesting season should be developed.II-98 712. Maintain websites with comprehensive information about loggerheads.

Comprehensive information on sea turtle s should be made readily available on the Internet (e.g., websites maintain ed byseaturtle.org, ACCSTR, FFWCC, SCDNR, NMFS, FWS). NMFS, FWS, state resource agencies, and other agencies and organizations should provide support to ensure these web sites are maintained and updated regularly.

713. Develop an educational curriculum for st udents and the public about loggerhead demography and ecological roles.

An educational curriculum should be de veloped and distributed to schools for use in instructing childre n (K-12) about loggerhead demographics and their ecological roles. The curriculum shoul d include information on the important roles they fulfill in marine ecosystems, such as their role in controlling prey species and themselves providing food to larger predators. The curriculum should also explain the poten tial widespread effects of the disappearance of loggerheads in the open ocean and coastal ecosystems.

714. Use computer gaming technologies to engage young people in sea turtle

conservation.

Environmental education need s to tap into current tec hnologies to reach groups increasingly attracted to the computer gaming technologies. Computer games can be developed that are challenging, engaging, and educational. Graphics technologies also allow visualizati on of turtles movi ng through their development in various habitats from beaches to the open ocean to nearshore marine habitats. Games could vary fr om following a single turtle through its life history to “management” simulations that allow the gamer to try different management decisions to see if they ca n “save the loggerheads.” Given all the threats, gamers could achieve different levels in the game by meeting new challenges to loggerhead populations. Recent cartoons, movies, and documentaries clearly demonstrate that youth can be engaged by sea turtles as “charismatic megafauna” or as charismatic individuals.

72. Facilitate international scientific communication and information sharing.

Publications like the Marine Turtle Newsletter, as well as information sh ared through organizations like the International Sea Tu rtle Society and through list servers like CTURTLE, are sources of up-to-date informa tion on events occurring within the sea turtle community and are of vital importanc e in the recovery effort worldwide. Because most sea turtles are globally distributed and all are highly migratory, international availability of such sources of information ensures an open line of communication among scientists, conserva tionists, and policymakers in many countries. NMFS, FWS, state resource agenci es, and other agencies and organizations should provide support to en sure their continuation.II-99 73. Ensure facilities permitted to hold and disp lay captive loggerheads have appropriate informational displays.

Over 50 facilities in the U.S. are permitte d to hold sea turtles for rehabilitation, research, and public education. Many loggerh eads are on public display, which affords opportunities for public education. Displa y of accurate information on the basic biology and conservation issues should be a re quirement of all permitted facilities. All facilities should be inspected to ensure cap tive sea turtles are being displayed in a

manner that meets these criteria.

74. Ensure standard criteria and recommendations for sea turtle nesting interpretive walks

are followed.

In the U.S., sea turtle walks are popula r with the public and afford tremendous opportunities for public educat ion or, if poorly conducted, misinformation. State permitting agencies should develop or refine standards for permittees conducting both daytime and nighttime interpretive walks. These objective criteria should be used to

evaluate sea turtle walks to ensure they are professional, provide accurate biological information, convey an accurate conservati on message, and are a positive experience. Just as importantly, they s hould not cause unnecessary or significant disturbance to nesting turtles.

75. Develop guidelines for and encourage interpretive daytime turtle walks.

The establishment of daytime interpretive sea turtle walks shoul d be encouraged. Guidelines should be developed to ensure ne sts are not impacted during walks and that appropriate information on sea tu rtle conservation is shared.

76. Place educational signs at public access point s on nesting beaches and points of access

to the marine environment.

Public access points on nesting beaches provi de excellent opportunities to inform the public of necessary precautions for compatib le public use on the nesting beach and to develop public support through e ducational signs. Educationa l signs should be placed on nesting beaches as appropriate. Public acce ss points, such as marinas, jetties, piers, and boat launch ramps, also provide opportuni ties to educate fishers and other users of the marine environment about loggerhead conservation.

77. Conduct a contingent valuation study to m easure the economic value of sea turtle

related ecotourism.

A contingent valuation study should be conduc ted to estimate the economic value of loggerheads. Estimates are needed for th e public's perception of non-consumptive and intrinsic values of loggerheads. These va lues are appreciated by the public either intrinsically or through ecotour ism activities such as turtle walks and aquaria visits.II-100 Contingent valuation studies involve carefully designed surveys in which people are asked how much they would be willing to pa y for specific sea turtle related ecotourism

activities or for the assurance that sea turt les would continue to exist in functional abundance. Analysis of survey results will allow economic comparisons between the

values of sea turtles and other va lues measured in economic terms.III-1 

### PART III. RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION

Because loggerheads are highly migratory and use th e waters of more than one country in their lifetimes, conservation efforts for loggerhead pop ulations in one country may be hindered by

activities in another. Therefore, recovery of the Northwest Atlantic pop ulation of the loggerhead will involve multiple partners, international cooperation, and a diversity of approaches.

The Implementation Schedule that follows outlines actions and estimated costs for the recovery program for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead as set forth in this recovery plan. It is a guide for meeting the recovery goals outlined in this plan. This schedule indicates action priorities, action numbers, action descriptions, duration of actions, the parties responsible for actions (either funding or carryi ng out), and estimated costs. It is important to note that many of the actions include other species of sea turtles; therefore, the costs cont ribute to their recovery as well. Domestic parties with authority, responsibil ity, or expressed interest to implement a specific recovery action are identif ied in the Implementation Schedul e. The listing of a party in the Implementation Schedule does no t require the identified party to implement the action(s) or to secure funding for implementing the action(s). However, parties willing to participate will benefit by being able to show in their own budge t submittals that their funding request is for a recovery action that has been iden tified in an approved recovery plan and is therefore part of the

overall coordinated effort to r ecover the Northwest Atlantic popul ation of the loggerhead. Also, section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use thei r authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out program s for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

We estimate the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead p opulation will reach recovery in one to three generations (50 to 150 years, resp ectively). The lower estimate of one generation (50 years) assumes a rapid reversal of the current declining trends of the Northern, Peninsular Florida, and Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Units. Pr ojecting cost estimates out 50 to 150 years is problematic due to unpredictable economic fluctu ations. While we are comfortable estimating costs for the first 5 years of plan implementation, any projections beyond this date are likely to be imprecise and unrealistic. In the Implementation Schedule, we have identified total costs only for the first 5 years of plan implementation. To estimate total costs to the earliest potential time to recovery (50 years), we have simply multip lied the 5-year estimate by 10, recognizing that some unanticipated costs may not be accounted for and some costs may increase or decrease

over time.III-2 Following are definitions used in the Implementa tion Schedule. Agency abbreviations may be found in the List of Acronyms a nd Abbreviations at the beginning of this document (see Table of Contents for page number).

P RIORITY N UMBER

Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to pr event extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population/habitat quality or some other significant impacts short of extinction.

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for fu ll recovery of the species.

A CTION N UMBER AND A CTION

Recovery actions as numbered in Part II.F. of this plan.

A CTION D URATION AND C OST

Ongoing - A task that is currently being implem ented and will continue until action is no longer

necessary.

TBD - To be determined.III-3IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 111 Refine geographicboundaries of recoveryunits.4 FWS-ES,NMFSAcademia,ADCNR,FFWCC,GDNR,NCWRC,SCDNR350 100 100 100 502 112 Monitor populationgenetic structure onforaging grounds.Ongoing NMFS Academia,StateResourceAgencies1250 250 250 250 250 250 Linked to1623 113 Develop newtechniques for refiningpopulation geneticstructure.5 Academia FWS-ES,NMFS1000 200 200 200 200 2002 121 Maintain and/or adoptstandardized criteria foron-the-ground nestingsurveys.2 FWS-ES FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR40 20 20 Linked to122; 123;1511 122 Continue to monitortrends in nesting andnon-nestingemergences onindex/standardizedbeaches.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWS-ES/Refuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs,UCF, FPL3750 750 750 750 750 750 Linked to121; 123III-4IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 123 Incorporate index/standardized nestingsurvey protocols onadditional beaches tofully represent recoveryunits.2 FWS-ES FFWCC,SCDNR,NCWRC,FWSRefuges,NPS, DOD,NGOs20 10 10 Linked to121; 1223 124 Monitor annual nestingand non-nestingemergences on nonindex/non-standardizedbeaches as extensivelyas possible.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWS,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs1250 250 250 250 250 2502 125 Conduct periodiccensuses of recoveryunits to obtain total nestcounts and geographicdistribution of nesting.Ongoing FWS-ES ADCNR,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,NPS, FWSRefuges,Local Govts500 500 Linked to122, 1242 131 Establish a network ofindex in-water studysites across the range ofall habitats (neritic andoceanic) and developsampling protocols toestimate indices ofabundance anddetermine trends.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia110 50 50 10 Linked to133, 161III-5IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 132 Evaluate, improve,maintain, and expandin-water surveys atindex sites to estimateindices of abundanceand determine trends.Ongoing NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesAcademia,NGOs,NPS, FPL3750 750 750 750 750 7502 133 Develop samplingprotocols forconducting large-scalein-water surveys toestimate indices ofabundance anddetermine trends.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia55 25 25 5 Linked to131, 1341 134 Implement large-scalein-water surveys toestimate indices ofabundance anddetermine trends.Ongoing NMFS StateResourceAgencies,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Linked to1332 141 Develop and maintain acomprehensive GISdatabase of distributionand abundance.Ongoing NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesAcademia 500 100 100 100 100 100 Linked to292 142 Determine migratorypathways for all lifehistory stages.10 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesFWS-ES,Academia2500 500 500 500 500 5002 151 Adopt standardizedhatchling productionassessment criteria.3 FWS-ES FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR40 20 20 Linked to121III-6IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 152 Implement annualassessments ofhatchling productionusing standardizedcriteria.Ongoing FWS-ESFFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWSRefuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, FPL,DOD, LocalGovts,NGOs,UCF1000 200 200 200 200 2002 153 Determine and monitorclutch frequency.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRCAcademia,NMFS1000 200 200 200 200 200 Linked to1422 154 Determine and monitorremigration interval.Ongoing NMFSFFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRCFWS-ES,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Linked to122, 161,1623 155 Determine femalereproductive lifespan.Ongoing NMFS FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Linked to1712 1611 Refine and developtechniques fordetermining sex ratios.3 StateResourceAgencies,AcademiaNMFS 150 50 50 50 Linked to1313 1612 Refine and developaging techniques.5 NMFS,Academia250 50 50 50 50 50 Linked to1552 1613 Determine somaticgrowth rates andevaluate sources ofvariation.10 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-7IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 1614 Determine age-specificsurvival probabilities.5 NMFS FWS-ES,Academia,StateResourceAgencies250 50 50 50 50 50 Linked to132, 1622 1615 Determine age atsexual maturity forfemales.10 NMFS FWS-ES,StateResourceAgencies,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 1616 Determine age atsexual maturity,reproductive frequency,and reproductivelifespan for males.Ongoing NMFS Academia,StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Linked to132, 1622 162 Implement samplingand data collectionprotocols at index inwater sites.Ongoing NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia,NGOs, FPL1250 250 250 250 250 250 Linked to1321 171 Maintain the Sea TurtleStranding and SalvageNetwork.Ongoing NMFS,StateResourceAgencies,FWSRefuges,Aquaria,NPS, DOD,USCG,LocalGovts,NGOs,Academia,FPL2500 500 500 500 500 5002 172 Implementimprovements to theSea Turtle Strandingand Salvage Network.Ongoing NMFS,StateResourceAgencies1250 250 250 250 250 250III-8IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 18 Maintain and enhancecentralizedadministration andcoordination of taggingprograms.Ongoing NMFS,ACCSTR500 100 100 100 100 1003 211 Conduct periodicreviews of existingstate and FWS criteriafor sand placementprojects and modify asnecessary.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRCOE,FDEP,SCDHEC,ACDEM,NCDENR40 20 0 0 0 202 2121 Ensure all beach sandplacement projects arein compliance withstate and FWS criteria.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRCOE,FDEP,SCDHEC,ACDEM,NCDENR500 100 100 100 100 1003 2122 Establish protocols forremoving sand that isdetermined to have notmet sand suitabilityrequirements.3 COE,FDEP,SCDHEC,ACDEM,NCDENRFWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR75 25 25 253 2123 Evaluate the effects ofdredging of nearshoreebb tidal shoals onadjacent nestinghabitat.5 COE,FDEP,SCDHEC,ACDEM,NCDENRFWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR125 25 25 25 25 253 2131 Evaluate sandcompaction levels onnative beaches for allrecovery units todetermine thresholdsfor tilling.3 COE 150 50 50 503 2132 Investigate alternativemethods for monitoringsand compaction.3 COE 75 25 25 25III-9IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 2133 Implement tilling as ameans of softeningcompacted beaches.Ongoing COE SandPlacementProjectSponsorsTBD TBD TBDTBDTBDTBD2 214 Implement escarpmentleveling and/or profileadjustment onconstructed beaches asneeded.Ongoing COE SandPlacementProjectSponsorsTBD TBDTBDTBDTBDTBD2 215 Ensure sediment grainsize, composition,sorting, and color arecompatible with nativebeaches.Ongoing COE SandPlacementProjectSponsorsTBD TBDTBDTBDTBDTBD3 2161 Conduct research oncontaminant levels ofsediment sources andtheir effects onloggerheads.5 COE EPA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2162 Evaluate and revise, ifnecessary, currentFederal guidelines forcontaminant levels ofsediment sources toensure compatibilitywith loggerheaddevelopment.3 EPA COE, FWSES125 50 50 253 2163 Conduct statisticallyvalid sampling ofborrow sediments forcontaminants (pre- andpost-construction) andensure sedimentsources do not exceedexisting Federalguidelines forcontaminant levels.Ongoing COE SandPlacementProjectSponsors0 0 0 0 0 0 Costincluded insandplacementprojectbudgetsIII-10IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 217 Design and evaluatebeach constructionprofiles to more closelymimic natural beaches.Ongoing COE, FDEP SandPlacementProjectSponsors500 100 100 100 100 1002 218 Re-establish naturaldune structure andnative vegetationduring sand placementprojects.Ongoing COE SandPlacementProjectSponsorsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Costsdependenton extent ofsandplacementprojects3 2191 Monitor suitability ofpost-constructionbeaches for nesting.Ongoing COE Academia,SandPlacementProjectSponsorsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Costsdependenton extent ofsandplacementprojects3 2192 Develop and maintainan inventory of beachand dune sandplacement projects andperiodically assess thecumulative effects ofthese projects onloggerhead nesting andhatchling production.Ongoing COE FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEM170 50 50 10 10 50 Conductassessmentsofcumulativeeffectsevery 5years2 221 Categorize andinventory all beacharmoring, shorelinestabilization structures,and all other barriers tonesting to establishbaseline levels anddevelop a GIS.3 FWS-ES FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,FDEP,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEM600 200 200 200III-11IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 2221 Convene an expertpanel to develop astrategy to strengthenand guide regulationsto minimize the effectsof coastal armoring onloggerheads and toensure that thepercentage of nestingbeach free of anybarriers to nesting isstable or increasingrelative to baselinelevels determined in221.3 FWS-ES 125 50 50 251 2222 Modify existingregulations orpromulgate newregulations toimplement the strategydeveloped in 2221.5 FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWS-ES 210 50 50 50 50 10 Linked to22211 2223 Ensure regulationsgoverning placementand design of newcoastal buildings andinfrastructure eliminateany future need forcoastal armoring.5 FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWS-ES 250 50 50 50 50 50 Linked to22222 2224 Require removal offailed or ineffectiveerosion controlstructures.Ongoing FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWS-ES 500 100 100 100 100 100III-12IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 2225 Prohibit recreationalequipment on nestingbeaches at night.5 FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEM,Local GovtsFWS-ES,FFWCC250 50 50 50 50 503 2226 Evaluate theeffectiveness of dunecrossovers forprotecting dunes andstrengthen existingregulations orpromulgate newregulations to minimizeeffects from dunecrossovers.5 FDEP,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDHEC,SCDNR,NCDENR,NCWRC,ADEM,ADCNRFWS-ES,Academics250 50 50 50 50 503 2227 Evaluate theeffectiveness of sandfences for buildingbeaches and strengthenexisting regulations orpromulgate newregulations for sandfence construction.5 FDEP,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDHEC,SCDNR,NCDENR,NCWRC,ADEM,ADCNRFWS-ES,Academics250 50 50 50 50 501 2228 Ensure regulationspertaining to barriers tonesting are enforced.Ongoing FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEM,Local GovtsFWS-ES,FFWCC,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR1500 300 300 300 300 300III-13IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 231 Maintain at least thecurrent length andquality of protectednesting beach.Ongoing FWS-ES FWSRefuges,NPS, DOD,FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADCNR,LocalGovts,NGOs, FPL100 20 20 20 20 201 2321 Acquire additionalbeachfront and uplandproperties(undeveloped anddeveloped) within theboundaries of theArchie Carr NationalWildlife Refuge,Florida.Ongoing FWSRefuges,FDEP,BrevardCounty,IndianRiverCountyNGOs 50000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100001 2322 Acquire additionalbeachfront and uplandproperties(undeveloped anddeveloped) onHutchinson Island,Florida, and develop aplan to ensure longterm protection.Ongoing FWSRefuges,FDEP,St. LucieCountyNGOs 15000+ 15000 TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-14IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 2323 Acquire additionalbeachfront and uplandproperties(undeveloped anddeveloped) within thenesting range of thePeninsular FloridaRecovery Unit anddevelop a plan toensure long-termprotection.Ongoing FDEP,LocalGovts,FWSRefuges,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 2324 Acquire additionalbeachfront and uplandproperties(undeveloped anddeveloped) within thenesting range of theNorthern RecoveryUnit and develop a planto ensure long-termprotection.Ongoing GDNR,NCDENR,SCDNRFWSRefuges,NPS, LocalGovts,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 2325 Acquire additionalbeachfront and uplandproperties(undeveloped anddeveloped) within thenesting range of theNorthern Gulf ofMexico Recovery Unitand develop a plan toensure long-termprotection.Ongoing FWSRefuges,ADCNR,FDEPNPS, LocalGovts,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2326 Acquire stormdamaged nestingbeachfront and uplandproperties onloggerhead nestingbeaches.Ongoing FEMA,FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWSRefuges,LocalGovts,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-15IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 241 Develop a model thatdescribes the effects ofsea level rise onloggerhead nestingbeaches.4 NOAA,AcademiaFWS-ES,FDEP300 75 75 75 751 242 Implement measuresand developagreements to reduceatmosphericgreenhouse gasses.Ongoing EPA,DOE,DOSNOAA,FWS, StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 2511 Implement and enforcelighting ordinances onlands under localgovernmentjurisdiction.Ongoing LocalGovts, PortsAuthority2000 400 400 400 400 4002 2512 Implement and enforcelighting managementplans on all lands understate and Federaljurisdiction.Ongoing FWS-ES,NPS, DOD,FDEP,GDNR,SCDNR,NCDENR,ADCNR250 50 50 50 50 503 252 Evaluate the extent ofhatchling disorientationon nesting beachesbased on standardizedsurveys.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,NCWRC,SCDNR,ADCNRFWSRefuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs,UCF, FPL250 50 50 50 50 50III-16IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 253 Prosecute individualsor entities responsiblefor nesting female orhatchling disorientationunder the EndangeredSpecies Act orappropriate state laws.Ongoing FWS-LE,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR100 20 20 20 20 203 261 Encourage the manualremoval of manmadebeach debris throughregular coastal cleanupprograms.Ongoing NGOs FWS, NPS,DOD,FDEP,GDNR,SCDNR,NCDENR,ADCNR,Local Govts125 25 25 25 25 253 262 Remove exoticvegetation harmful tologgerheads on andadjacent to nestingbeaches.Ongoing FDEP,GDNR,SCDNR,NCDENR,ADCNRFWS-ES,NPS, DOD,FPL,NGOs,Local GovtsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 271 Assess, categorize, andmap neritic habitatsused by loggerheads.10 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesAcademia 500 100 100 100 100 1003 2721 Assess the effects ofbottom trawl anddredge fisheries onneritic habitats used byloggerheads.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesFMCs,Academia,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2722 Assess the effects ofeutrophication onneritic habitats used byloggerheads.10 EPA, StateResourceAgenciesAcademia,NGOs,Local GovtsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2723 Assess the effects ofwater management onneritic habitats used byloggerheads.10 EPA, StateResourceAgenciesAcademia,LocalGovts,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-17IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 2724 Assess the effects of oiland gas productionactivities on neritichabitats used byloggerheads.10 MMS TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2725 Assess the effects ofchannel dredging onneritic habitats used byloggerheads.10 COE TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2726 Assess the effects ofsalvage operations onneritic habitats used byloggerheads.10 COE, StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2727 Assess the effects ofother human activitieson neritic habitats usedby loggerheads.10 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesCOE, LocalGovtsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD1 273 Develop and implementa strategy to protect andmonitor neritic habitatsused by loggerheads.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesAcademia,NGOs450 100 100 100 100 502 281 Assess, categorize, andmap oceanic habitatsused by loggerheads.10 NMFS Academia 1000 200 200 200 200 2003 2821 Assess the effects of oiland gas activities onoceanic habitats usedby loggerheads.10 MMS,NMFSAcademia TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2822 Assess the effects ofmarine debris onoceanic habitats usedby loggerheads.10 NMFS,EPAAcademia TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 2823 Assess the effects ofother pollutants onoceanic habitats usedby loggerheads.10 NMFS,EPA, MMSAcademia TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-18IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 283 Develop and implementa strategy to protect andmonitor oceanichabitats used byloggerheads.5 NMFS,DOSAcademics,NGOs450 100 100 100 100 502 29 Develop and maintain acomprehensive GISdatabase of neritic andoceanic habitats (usedby loggerheads) andhuman activities thatimpact these habitats.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesAcademia 500 100 100 100 100 100 Linked to141, 271,2811 31 Work with foreignnations to quantify andeliminate commercialand subsistenceharvest.Ongoing NMFS,DOSAcademia,FWS-ES,NGOs250 50 50 50 50 503 32 Educate localcommunities in foreignnations on the benefitsof sea turtle ecotourismas an alternative toharvest.Ongoing NMFS,DOSFWS-ESNGOs,Academia1500 300 300 300 300 3003 33 Develop and implementguidelines for publicturtle walks thatminimize disturbanceto loggerheads.Ongoing FWS-ES FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR125 25 25252525Guidelinesdevelopedin 3 years3 34 Minimize take of wildturtles for captivedisplay.Ongoing FWS-ES NMFS,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR0 0 0 0 0 0III-19IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 411 Reduce the annual rateof mammalianpredation to at or below10% of nests withineach recovery unitusing ecologicallysound predator controlprograms.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWSRefuges,NPS, DOD,FDEP,NCDENR,LocalGovts,NGOs, FPL3150 630 630 630 630 6303 412 Control fire ants on andadjacent to loggerheadnesting beaches.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWSRefuges,NPS, DOD,FDEP,NCDENR,LocalGovts,NGOs, FPL125 25 252525253 421 Develop a conditionindex to allow rapidevaluation ofphysiological status.3 Academia NMFS,FWS-ES225 75 75 753 422 Develop protocols forcollecting, handling,and analyzing baselineblood chemistryparameters from wildloggerheads.3 Academia NMFS,FWS-ES,StateResourceAgencies125 50 50 253 423 Establish representativebaseline bloodchemistry parametersby sex, size class,season, and location.5 Academia NMFS,FWS-ES,StateResourceAgencies500 100 100 100 100 1003 424 Establish representativebaseline toxicologicalparameters by sex, sizeclass, season, andhabitat.10 NMFS,AcademiaNOS, FWSES, EPA,StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-20IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 425 Establish representativebaseline levels ofparasitic infection inwild turtles.10 Academia,NMFSFWS-ES,StateResourceAgencies375 75 757575753 426 Establish representativebaseline levels ofbacterial,fungal, andviral infections in wildturtles.10 Academia,NMFSFWS-ES,StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 43 Develop and implementa program to monitorloggerhead health atrepresentative indexin-water sites andindex/standardizednesting beaches.Ongoing NMFS,FWS-ES,StateResourceAgenciesAcademia TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 44 Evaluate the effects ofharmful algal bloomson loggerhead health.10 FFWCC,NMFS,NOSAcademia 500 100 100 100 100 1003 45 Investigate the lethaland sublethal role ofcontaminants.10 Academia,EPANOS,NMFS,FWS-ES,USGSNWHCTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 46 Develop and implementprotocols for handlingturtles to limit transferof disease.3 FWS-ES,NMFSAcademia,Aquaria,StateResourceAgencies125 50 50 253 471 Develop and/or finalizeprotocols for the propercare and maintenanceof loggerheads held incaptivity.3 FWS-ES,NMFSFFWCC,Aquaria,Academia,StateResourceAgencies125 50 50 25III-21IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 472 Develop protocols fortransport and release ofcaptive loggerheads.3 FWS-ES,NMFSFFWCC,Aquaria,Academia,StateResourceAgencies-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in4713 473 Develop a manual forthe assessment andtreatment of loggerheaddiseases and injuries.5 FWS-ES,NMFSFWS-ES,NMFS,Aquaria,Academia200 50 50 50 25 253 474 Develop and maintain alist of veterinariansqualified to diagnoseand treat healthproblems inloggerheads.3 StateResourceAgenciesFWS-ES,NMFS,Aquaria,Academia-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in4732 48 Develop a strategy torecognize, respond to,and investigate massstrandings, diseaseepisodes, or unusualmortality events.3 NMFS NMFS,FWS-ES/Refuges,NOS,Aquaria,Academia,StateResourceAgencies125 50 50 253 511 Develop and implementFederal regulations toensure long-termprotection ofloggerheads and theirhabitats post-delisting.10 NMFS,FWS-ESStateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD1 512 Ensure full and activeenforcement of Federalregulations designed toprotect loggerheads.Ongoing NMFS,FWS-ES,USCGStateResourceAgencies10000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000III-22IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 513 Develop and/ormaintain, implement,and enforce state andlocal legislation toprotect loggerheads andtheir habitats.Ongoing StateResourceAgencies,Local Govts5000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10001 521 Assist foreign countriesin developing nationalregulations to protectloggerheads and theirhabitats.10 FWS-ES,NMFS,DOSNGOs 1250 250 250 250 250 2501 522 Assist foreign countrieswith enforcement ofnational regulations toprotect loggerheads.Ongoing DOS FWS-ES,NMFS,USCG2500 500 500 500 500 5002 531 Encourage nonsignatory nations of thewestern hemisphere toaccede to the InterAmerican Conventionfor the Conservationand Protection ofMarine Turtles.Ongoing DOS FWS-ES,NMFS250 50 50 50 50 50III-23IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 532 Encourage nonsignatory nations toaccede to theConvention for theProtection andDevelopment of theMarine Environment ofthe Wider CaribbeanRegion (CartegenaConvention),specifically theProtocol ConcerningSpecially ProtectedAreas and Wildlife inthe Wider Caribbean(SPAW Protocol).Ongoing DOS FWS-ES,NMFS50 10 10 10 10 102 533 Ensure the U.S.becomes a party to theUnited NationsConvention on the Lawof the Sea and theConvention onMigratory Species.5 DOS NMFS,FWS-ES0 0 0 0 0 03 6111 Evaluate the effects ofnest managementactivities on nestproductivity, hatchlingfitness, and sex ratiosand developscientifically basedstandardized protocolsfor nest management.5 FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,FWS-ESAcademia,FWSRefuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs850 250 250 250 50 50III-24IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 6112 Implementscientifically basedstandardized protocolsfor nest management.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,FWS-ESFWSRefuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs,Academia250 50 50 50 50 503 6113 Use the leastmanipulative method toprotect nests.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,FWS-ESFWSRefuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs,Academia0 0 0 0 0 03 6114 Discontinue the use ofhatcheries as a nestmanagement technique.5 FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,FWS-ESFWSRefuges,FDEP,SCDPRT,NCDENR,NPS, DOD,LocalGovts,NGOs,Academia0 0 0 0 0 03 6121 Prohibit nighttimedriving on beachesduring the loggerheadnesting season.Ongoing FWS-ES,GDNR,LocalGovts, NPSFFWCC,FDEP,SCDNR,NCWRC,NCDENR,ADCNRTBD TBD TBDTBDTBDTBDIII-25IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 6122 Ensure that the linearkilometers of nestingbeach where vehiculartraffic is permitted doesnot increase above2006 levels.Ongoing FWS-ES,GDNR,NPS, LocalGovtsFFWCC,FDEP,SCDNR,NCWRC,NCDENR,ADCNR50 10 101010103 6123 Manage daytimedriving to minimizeimpacts to loggerheads.Ongoing FWS-ES,NPS,GDNR,Local GovtsFFWCC,FDEP,SCDNR,NCWRC,NCDENR,ADCNRTBD TBDTBDTBDTBDTBD3 613 Strengthen existingregulations orpromulgate newregulations to managemechanical beachcleaning on nestingbeaches.3 FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWS-ES,FFWCC,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,Local Govts60 25 25 103 6141 Evaluate the extent andeffects of harassment ofnesting females andhatchlings and developmanagementrecommendations.3 FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,Academia 300 100 100 1003 6142 Conduct publiceducation campaigns tominimize harassment ofnesting females andhatchlings.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,NGOsLocalGovts,NGOs500 100 100 100 100 100III-26IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 6143 Increase the number ofinterpretive turtle walksto meet demand andminimize overalldisturbance to nestingfemales and hatchlings.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,NGOsNPS,FDEP,NCDENR,Local Govts0 0 00003 6144 Enforce laws tominimize harassment ofnesting females andhatchlings.Ongoing FWS-LE,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRNPS, DOD,FDEP,NCDENR-- -- -- -- -- -- Costsincluded in512, 5133 615 Develop and enforceguidelines for specialevents on the beach tominimize impacts onnesting females, nests,and hatchlings.Ongoing FDEP,GDNR,ADEM,SCDHEC,Local GovtsFWS, NPS,FFWCC,SCDNR,NCWRC,NCDENR,ACDNR300 75 75 50 50 50 Guidelinesdevelopedin 3 years3 616 Minimize the impactsof military activities onnesting females, nests,and hatchlings.Ongoing DOD FWS-ES 125 25 25 25 25 253 6171 Conduct a riskmanagementassessment of oil spilleffects on nestingbeaches.5 NOAA,USCGMMS, EPA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 6172 Ensure that oil spillresponse plans existand adequately protectall nesting beaches.Ongoing USCG MMS,FWS-ES125 25 25 25 25 25III-27IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 6181 Conduct all nonemergency coastalconstruction activitiesoutside the mainportion of the nestingseason to eliminateimpacts on nestingfemales, nests, andhatchlings.Ongoing FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWS-ES,FFWCC,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,Local Govts0 0 0 0 0 03 6182 Strengthen existingregulations orpromulgate newregulations to minimizeimpacts fromemergency constructionactivities during thenesting season onnesting females, nests,and hatchlings.3 FDEP,GDNR,SCDHEC,NCDENR,ADEMFWS-ES,FFWCC,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,Local Govts60 25 25 103 6183 Develop and implementordinances to eliminatethe effects ofstormwater outfalls andswimming pooldrainage on nestingfemales, nests, andhatchlings.3 LocalGovts,FDEP60 25 25 103 619 Ensure that lawenforcement activitieseliminate poaching ofeggs and nestingfemales.Ongoing FWS-LE,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRNPS, DOD,FDEP,NCDENR-- -- -- -- -- -- Costsincluded in512, 5132 6211 Describe andcharacterize domesticcommercial gillnetfisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,ASMFC,GSMFC500 250 250III-28IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 6212 Integrate informationgathered in 6211 withturtle distribution data.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in1412 6213 Implement observerprograms to determinebycatch levels andidentify keycharacteristics ofdomestic commercialgillnet fisheries thataffect bycatch levels.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies2500 500 500 500 500 5001 6214 Implement measures tominimize bycatch inlarge mesh gillnetfisheries.3 NMFS,FMCs,StateResourceAgencies150 50 50 501 6215 Implement measures tominimize bycatch inother gillnet fisheries asappropriate.3 NMFS,FMCs,StateResourceAgencies150 50 50 503 6221 Describe andcharacterize domesticcommercial andrecreational shrimptrawl fisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,ASMFC,GSMFC-- -- -- Costincluded in62113 6222 Integrate informationgathered in 6221 withturtle distribution data.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in141III-29IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 6223 Increase observercoverage to astatistically robust levelto adequately monitorbycatch levels in thedomestic commercialshrimp fishery andmodify TEDregulations ifnecessary.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies5000 1000 1000 1000 1000 10002 6224 Promulgate regulationsto require TEDs in alltrynets in the domesticcommercial shrimpfishery.2 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies50 25 253 6225 Continue efforts toeducate domesticcommercial shrimpfishers on the properinstallation and use oflarger-opening TEDs.Ongoing NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Sea Grant500 100 100 100 100 1002 6226 Investigate thephysiological effects ofmultiple captures andexclusions ofloggerheads indomestic commercialshrimp trawls equippedwith TEDs.3 NMFS Academia,StateResourceAgencies750 250 250 2501 6227 Monitor and reduceeffort in the domesticcommercial shrimptrawl fishery tominimize loggerheadbycatch.5 NMFS SAFMC,GMFMC,StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-30IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 6228 Investigate turtleexclusion rates for softTEDs under fieldconditions usingvideography.3 NMFS 450 150 150 1502 6229 Implement statisticallyvalid observerprograms to determinebycatch levels indomestic commercialskimmer trawl fisheriesand require TEDs ifnecessary.2 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies600 300 3002 6231 Describe andcharacterize domesticcommercial non-shrimptrawl fisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,ASMFC,GSMFC-- -- -- Costincluded in62112 6232 Integrate informationgathered in 6231 withturtle distribution data.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in1412 6233 Implement statisticallyvalid observerprograms to determinebycatch levels indomestic commercialnon-shrimp trawlfisheries.4 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies2000 500 500 500 5001 6234 Implement seasonallarge-opening TEDregulations fordomestic commercialnon-shrimp trawlfisheries operating fromCape Hatteras, NorthCarolina, north to CapeCod, Massachusetts.3 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesMAFMC,NEFMC,150 50 50 50III-31IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 6235 Promulgate regulationsto require TEDs indomestic commercialflynet trawl fisheries.3 NMFS, ,StateResourceAgenciesSAFMC,GOMFMC150 50 50 501 6236 Promulgate regulationsto require largeopening TEDs in alldomestic commercialnon-shrimp trawlfisheries south of CapeHatteras, NorthCarolina.3 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesSAFMC,GOMFMC,150 50 50 502 6241 Describe andcharacterize domesticcommercial pelagic anddemersal longlinefisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies-- -- -- Costincluded in62112 6242 Integrate informationgathered in 6241 withturtle distribution data.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,Academia-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in1412 6243 Maintain and/orincrease observercoverage to astatistically robust levelto adequately monitorbycatch levels indomestic commercialpelagic and demersallongline fisheries.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies3000 1000 1000 1000III-32IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 6244 Continue to conductfocused experiments ondomestic commerciallongline gear andfishing practices tominimize loggerheadinteractions andsecondarily tominimize postinteraction mortality.5 NMFS Academia,FishingIndustry,NGOsTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD1 6245 Investigate theeffectiveness of timearea closures tominimize loggerheadinteractions in domesticcommercial pelagic anddemersal longlinefisheries.3 NMFS FMCs,Academia300 100 100 1001 6246 Promulgate regulationsto implement provenmeasures that minimizeloggerhead interactionswith commercialpelagic and demersallongline fisheries.3 NMFS FMCs 150 50 50 501 6247 Develop and implementeffective approaches toenforcing longlineregulations in U.S.territorial waters, theU.S. EEZ, and on thehigh seas.Ongoing NMFS,DOSFMCs,USCG1250 250 250 250 250 2503 6248 Promote the use of safehandling practices andcareful release tools indomestic commercialpelagic and demersallongline fisheries.Ongoing NMFS FMCs 250 50 50 50 50 50III-33IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 6251 Describe andcharacterize pot/trapfisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,ASMFC,GSMFC-- -- -- Costincluded in62112 6252 Integrate informationgathered in 6251 withturtle distribution data.2 NMFS,AcademiaStateResourceAgencies,-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in1412 6253 Develop gearmodifications toprevent entanglementof loggerheads inpot/trap lines.3 NMFS FishingIndustry750 250 250 2502 6254 Promulgate regulationsto incorporatemodifications to whelkpot bridles to preventloggerheadentanglement.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies125 50 50 252 6255 Promulgate appropriateregulations to reduceincidental capture ofloggerheads inpots/traps.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies125 50 50 253 6256 Require identificationon pot/trap gear.3 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesFMCs 125 50 50 252 6261 Describe andcharacterize domesticcommercial dredgefisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,ASMFC,GSMFC-- -- -- Costincluded in62112 6262 Integrate informationgathered in 6261 withturtle distribution data.2 NMFS,AcademiaStateResourceAgencies-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in141III-34IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 6263 Evaluate theeffectiveness of gearmodificationsdeveloped to reduceloggerhead bycatch inthe domesticcommercial scallopdredge fishery.2 NMFS FishingIndustry400 200 2002 6264 Promulgate regulationsthat reduce loggerheadbycatch and mortalityin the domesticcommercial scallopdredge fishery.2 NMFS 100 50 503 6265 Investigate bycatch andmortality ofloggerheads incommercial whelkdredge fisheries.3 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies750 250 250 2502 6266 Investigate bycatch andmortality ofloggerheads incommercial surf clamdredge fisheries.3 NMFS StateResourceAgencies300 100 100 1003 6271 Describe andcharacterize otherdomestic commercialfisheries.2 NMFS StateResourceAgencies,ASMFC,GSMFC-- -- -- Costincluded in62113 6272 Integrate informationgathered in 6271 withturtle distribution data.2 NMFS,AcademiaStateResourceAgencies-- -- -- -- Costsincluded in141III-35IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 6273 Investigate bycatch andmortality ofloggerheads in otherdomestic commercialfisheries and implementbycatch reductionmeasures as necessary.2 NMFS,AcademiaStateResourceAgencies750 0 0 250 250 2503 6274 Ensure that no increasein effort over 2003levels occurs in theSargassumfishery tominimize loggerheadbycatch.Ongoing NMFS SAFMC 0 0 0 0 0 01 628 Enforce domesticcommercial fisheryregulations to minimizeloggerhead bycatch.Ongoing NMFS,USCG,StateResourceAgencies-- -- -- -- -- -- Costsincluded in5122 631 Disseminate results ofbycatch reductionexperiments andtransfer demonstratedbycatch reductiontechnologies to foreignnations.Ongoing DOS,NMFSNGOs 1500 300 300 300 300 3002 632 Encourage and assistforeign nations incollecting data onloggerhead bycatch viaobserver programs forcommercial fisherieswhere bycatch levelsare undocumented.Ongoing DOS,NMFSNGOs 1250 250 250 250 250 250III-36IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 633 Encourage and assistforeign nations todevelop, implement,and enforce fisheryregulations to minimizeloggerhead bycatch incommercial pelagiclongline fisheries.Ongoing DOS,NMFSNGOs 1250 250 250 250 250 2501 634 Encourage and assistforeign nations todevelop, implement,and enforce fisheryregulations to minimizeloggerhead bycatch incommercial trawlfisheries.Ongoing DOS,NMFSNGOs 1250 250 250 250 250 2501 635 Encourage and assistforeign nations todevelop, implement,and enforce fisheryregulations to minimizeloggerhead bycatch incommercial gillnetfisheries.Ongoing DOS,NMFSNGOs 1250 250 250 250 250 2502 636 Encourage and assistforeign nations todevelop, implement,and enforce fisheryregulations to minimizeloggerhead bycatch inother commercialfisheries.Ongoing DOS,NMFSNGOs 1250 250 250 250 250 2502 637 Develop economicincentives to reducefishery interactions andmortality ofloggerheads in foreignhigh seas fisheries.Ongoing DOS,NMFSTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-37IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments1 638 Encourage ICCAT,Canada, Mexico, andthe European Union toimplement standardsfor collectingloggerhead bycatchinformation andrequirements tominimize loggerheadbycatch.5 DOS,NMFS0 0 0 0 0 03 641 Assess loggerhead dietsand food web linkagesin neritic and oceanichabitats.10 Academia NMFS,StateResourceAgencies,TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 642 Assess and minimizeeffects of commercialharvest of loggerheadprey species.10 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesFMCs,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 643 Assess effects ofhabitat alteration fromcommercial fisheries ondistribution andabundance ofloggerhead preyspecies.10 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesFMCs,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 651 Determine frequency ofmarine debris ingestionand entanglement byloggerheads in neriticand oceanic habitats.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies,Academia500 100 100 100 100 1002 652 Evaluate the sublethaleffects of marine debrisingestion andentanglement onloggerheads.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgencies,AcademiaTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDIII-38IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments2 653 Enforce theInternationalConvention for thePrevention of Pollutionfrom Ships(MARPOL).Ongoing USCG DOS TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 654 Explore feasibility andprovide incentives toreduce the amount ofabandoned recreationaland commercial fishinggear that causesloggerhead injury andmortality.Ongoing NMFS Academia,NGOs,USCG,StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 655 Explore feasibility andprovide incentives toreduce the amount ofnon-fisheries relatedmarine debris thatcauses loggerheadinjury and mortality.Ongoing NMFS Academia,NGOs,USCG,StateResourceAgenciesTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD3 656 Maintain or implementmarine debris cleanupprograms in coastalwaters.Ongoing StateResourceAgencies,Local GovtsNOAA,USCG,NGOs375 75 75 75 75 752 661 Develop acomprehensive GISdatabase to assessvessel interactions withloggerheads.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesUSCG,Academics,DOD250 50 50 50 50 50 Linked to1411 662 Develop and implementa strategy to reducevessel interactions withloggerheads.5 NMFS,StateResourceAgenciesDOD,USCG500 100 100 100 100 100III-39IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 671 Assess effects of newtechnologies forchannel dredgeequipment onloggerhead captures.3 COE NMFS TBD TBD TBD TBD2 672 Incorporate effectivechannel dredgeequipmentmodifications intofuture operations.Ongoing COE NMFS TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD2 673 Maintain currentrequirements forchannel dredgingactivities in thesoutheast U.S. Atlanticand Gulf of Mexico andevaluate whetheradditional measures arerequired to minimizeloggerhead mortality.Ongoing COE,NMFSStateResourceAgencies0 0 0 0 0 02 674 Implement regionalrequirements forchannel dredgingactivities north ofNorth Carolina tominimize loggerheadmortality.3 COE,NMFSStateResourceAgencies0 0 0 03 711 Develop a video aboutthe impacts ofbeachfront lighting onloggerheads and waysto minimize impacts.3 FWS-ES FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNR,NGOs150 50 50 50III-40IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 712 Maintain websites withcomprehensiveinformation aboutloggerheads.Ongoing FWS-ES,NMFS,StateResourceAgencies,Academia,NGOs500 100 100 100 100 1003 713 Develop an educationalcurriculum for studentsand the public aboutloggerheaddemography andecological roles.3 Academia,NGOsFWS-ES,NMFS,StateResourceAgencies225 75 75 753 714 Use computer gamingtechnologies to engageyoung people in seaturtle conservation.3 NGOs 150 50 50 503 72 Facilitate internationalscientificcommunication andinformation sharing.Ongoing FWS-ES,NMFS,Academia,NGOs250 50 50 50 50 503 73 Ensure facilitiespermitted to hold anddisplay captiveloggerheads haveappropriateinformational displays.Ongoing FWS-ES,FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRAquaria,NGOs0 0 0 0 0 03 74 Ensure standard criteriaand recommendationsfor sea turtle nestinginterpretive walks arefollowed.Ongoing FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWS-ES 0 0 0 0 0 03 75 Develop guidelines forand encourageinterpretive daytimeturtle walks.3 FFWCC,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,ADCNRFWS-ES 15 5 5 5III-41IMPLEMENTATIONSCHEDULERecovery Plan for the Northwest AtlanticPopulation of the Loggerhead Sea TurtleResponsible Party Cost Estimate by FY (by $1,000s)PriorityActionNumberAction DescriptionActionDuration(Years)Lead OthersTotal Cost($1000s)forFY1-FY5FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5Comments3 76 Place educational signsat public access pointson nesting beaches andpoints of access to themarine environment.Ongoing FWSRefuges,NPS,FFWCC,FDEP,GDNR,SCDNR,NCWRC,NCDENR,ADCNR,LocalGovts,NGOs125 25 25 25 25 252 77 Conduct a contingentvaluation study tomeasure the economicvalue of sea turtlerelated ecotourism.3 Academia FWS-ES,NMFS150 50 50 50III-42IV-1 

### PART IV. LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiologica l and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs. American Zoologist 20:575-583.

Ackerman, R.A. 1997. The nest environment a nd the embryonic development of sea turtles. Pages 83-106 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Ackerman, R.A., T. Rimkus, and R. Horton. 1991. The hydric structure and climate of natural and renourished sea turtle nesting beaches along the Atlantic coast of Florida. Unpublished report to Florida Department of Natural Resources. 61 pages.

Addison, D.S. and B. Morford. 1996. Sea turtle nesting activity on the Cay Sal Bank, Bahamas.

Bahamas Journal of Science 3:31-36.

Aguilar, R., J. Mas, and X. Pastor. 1995. Imp act of Spanish swordfish longline fisheries on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta population in the western Mediterranean. Pages 1-6 in Richardson, J.I. and T.H. Richardson (compilers ). Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Sea Turtle Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology a nd Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-SEFSC-361.

Amorocho, D. 2003. Monitoring ne sting loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the central

Caribbean coast of Colombia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:8-13.

Antonelis, G.A., J.D. Baker, T.C. Johanos, R.C. Braun, and A.L. Harting. 2006. Hawaiian monk seal ( Monachus schauinslandi ): status and conservation issues. Atoll Research

Bulletin 543:75-101.

Arianoutsou, M. 1988. Assessing the impacts of human activities on nesting of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta L.) on Zákynthos Island, Western Greece. Environmental Conservation 15(4):327-334.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for horseshoe crab. Fishery Manageme nt Report Number 32. 58 pages.

Austin, D.F. 1978. Exotic plants and their eff ects in southeastern Florida. Environmental Conservation 5(1):25-34.

Avens, L.I. 2003. Homing behavior, navigation, and orientation of juvenile sea turtles. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 127 pages.

Avens, L., J. Braun-McNeill, S. Epperly, and K.J. Lohmann. 2003. Site fidelity and homing behavior in juvenile l oggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Marine Biology 143:211-220.IV-2 Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 20 06. Potential effects of sea level rise on the

terrestrial habitats of enda ngered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species Research 2:21-30.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entangl ement and ingestion. Pages 387-429 i n Shomura, R.S. and H.O. Yoshida (edi tors). Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris , 26-29 November 1984, H onolulu, Hawaii. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS/SWFC-54.

Balazs, G.H. and S.G. Pooley. 1994. Research plan to assess marine turtle hooking mortality: results of an expert workshop held in Honolulu, Hawaii November 16-18, 1993. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM -NMFS-SWFSC-201. 166 pages.

Baldwin, R., G.R. Hughes, and R.I.T. Prince. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Indian Ocean. Pages 218-232 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (e ditors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Bartol, S.M., J. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. 1999. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ). Copeia 1999(3):836-840.

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 Pa mlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex. Pages 148-

149 in Epperly, S.P. and J. Braun (compilers). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Tec hnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415.

Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, and J. Braun-McNeill. 2004. Multi-year analys is of stock composition of a loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) foraging habitat usin g maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods. Conservation Genetics 5:783-796.

Basso, R. and M. Cocco. 1986. Il progetto nazion ale tartarughe marine. Thalassia Salentina

16:65-72.

Bellmund, S.A., J.A. Musick, R.C. Klinger, R.A. Byles, J.A. Keinath, and D.E. Barnard. 1987. Ecology of sea turtles in Virginia. Virginia In stitute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. 48 pages.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. Pages 199-231 i n Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). Th e Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Bjorndal, K.A. 2003. Roles of loggerhead s ea turtles in marine ecosystems. Pages 235-254 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.

Bjorndal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten (editors). 2000. Proceedings of a workshop on assessing

abundance and trends for in-water sea tu rtle populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445. 83 pages.IV-3 Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and M.Y. Chaloupka . 2005. Evaluating trends in abundance of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas , in the Greater Caribbean. Ecological Applications 15(1):304-314.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, T. Dellinger, C. De lgado, and H.R. Martins. 2003a. Compensatory growth in oceanic loggerhead sea turtles: re sponse to a stochastic environment. Ecology 84(5):1237-1249.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, B. Koike, B.A. Sc hroeder, D.J. Shaver, W.G. Teas, and W.N. Witzell. 2001. Somatic growth function for immature loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta

caretta , in southeastern U.S. waters . Fishery Bulletin 99(2):240-246.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and C.J. Lagueux. 1994. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile

sea turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28(3):154-158.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. 2000. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta : duration of pelagic stage. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 202:265-272.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. 2003b. Estimates of survival probabilities for oceanic-stage loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the North Atlantic. Fishery

Bulletin 101:732-736.

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nest ing at Melbourne Beach, Florida, I. Size, growth and reproductiv e biology. Biological Conservation 26:65-77.

Bolker, B., T. Okuyama, K. Bjorndal, and A. Bolten. 2003. Sea turtle stock estimation using genetic markers: accounting for sampling error of rare genotypes. Ecological Applications 13(3):763-775.

Bolker, B.M., T. Okuyama, K.A. Bjorndal, a nd A.B. Bolten. 2007. Incorporating multiple mixed stocks in mixed stock analysis: ‘m any-to-many’ analyses. Molecular Ecology

16:685-695.

Bolten, A.B. 2003. Active swimmers - passiv e drifters: the oceanic juvenile stage of loggerheads in the Atlantic system. Pages 63-78 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). 2003. Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. 319 pages.IV-4 Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, and H.R. Martins. 1994. Life history model for the loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) population in the Atla ntic: potential impacts of a longline fishery. Pages 48-55 in Balazs, G.H. and S.G. Pooley (editors ). Research Plan to Assess Marine Turtle Hooking Mortality: Re sults of an Expert Workshop Held in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 16-18, 1993. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-201.

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, H.R. Martins, T. Dellinger, M.J. Biscoito, S.E. Encalada, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Transatlantic developmental migrations of loggerhead sea turtles demonstrated by mtDNA sequence analysis . Ecological Applications 8(1):1-7.

Bolten, A.B., H.R. Martins, and K.A. Bjornda l (editors). 2000. Workshop to design an experiment to determine the effects of longline gear modification on sea tu rtle bycatch rates. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFS-OPR-19. 50 pages.

Bolten, A.B., H.R. Martins, K.A. Bjorndal, M. Cocco, and G. Gerosa. 1992. Caretta caretta (loggerhead) pelagic movement and growt h. Herpetological Review 23(4):116.

Bolten, A.B., H.R. Martins, K.A. Bjorndal, a nd J. Gordon. 1993. Size di stribution of pelagicstage loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the waters around the Azores and Madeira. Arquipelago Life and Mari ne Sciences 11A:49-54.

Bowen, B.W. 1995. Molecular genetic stud ies of marine turtles. Pages 585-587 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of S ea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Bowen, B.W. 2003. What is a loggerhead tur tle? The genetic perspective. Pages 7-27 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Bowen, B.W., A.L. Bass, S. Chow, M. Bostrom, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, T. Okuyama, B.M. Bolker, S. Epperly, E. LaCasella, D. Shav er, M. Dodd, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, J.A. Musick, M. Swingle, K. Rankin-Baransky, W. Teas, W. N. Witzell, and P.H. Dutton. 2004. Natal homing in juvenile loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Molecular Ecology 13:3797-3808.

Braun-McNeill, J., S.P. Epperly, L. Avens, a nd S. Sadove. 2002. A preliminary analysis of growth data of juvenile loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtles from North Carolina and New York, USA. Page 151 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on S ea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-477.

Braun-McNeill, J., S.P. Epperly, D.W. Owens, R.W. Patterson, and L.T. Evich. 2004. Predicting sex ratios of benthi c immature sea turtles - does te mperature make a difference? Pages 244-245 in Coyne, M.S. and R.D. Clark (compilers ). Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528.IV-5 Braun-McNeill, J., S.P. Epperly, D.W. Owens, L. Avens, E. Williams, and C.A. Harms. 2007a. Seasonal reliability of testerone radioimm unoassay (RIA) for predicting sex ratios of juvenile loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) turtles. Herpet ologica 63(3):275-284.

Braun-McNeill, J., C.R. Sasso, and L. Avens. 2007b. Estimates of realized survival for juvenile loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the United States. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2(2):100-105.

Bräutigam, A. and K.L. Eckert. 2006. Turning the tide: exploitation, trade and management of marine turtles in the Lesser Antilles, Centra l America, Colombia and Venezuela. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, Un ited Kingdom. 534 pages.

Brongersma, L.D. 1961. Notes upon some sea tu rtles. Zoologische Verhandelingen 51:1-45.

Brongersma, L.D. 1982. Marine turtles of the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Pages 407-416 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biol ogy and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Bruun, P. 1962. Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division 88(WW1):117-130.

Burke, V.J., E.A. Standora, and S.J. Morreale. 1993. Diet of juveni le Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtles from Long Isla nd, New York. Cope ia 1993(4):1176-1180.

Bustard, H.R. and P. Greenham. 1968. Physical and chemical factors affecting hatching success in the green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (L.). Ecology 49(2):269-276.

Byles, R.A. 1988. Behavior and ecology of sea turtles from Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 121

pages.

Byrd, J., S. Murphy, and A. Von Harten. 2005. Morphometric analysis of the northern subpopulation of Caretta caretta in South Carolina, USA. Ma rine Turtle Newsletter 107:1-

4.

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 ve rsus 1990-1993. Fishery Bulletin 94(2):237-

249.

Caldwell, D.K. 1962. Comments on the nesting be havior of Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles, based primarily on tagging returns. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 25(4):287-302.

Campbell, T.W. 1996. Sea Turtle Rehabilitation. Pages 427-436 in Mader, D.R. (editor). Reptile Medicine and Surgery. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia, PA.IV-6 Carlson, J. and I. Baremore. 2002. The directed shark gillnet fishery: right whale season, 2002.

National Marine Fisheries Se rvice SFD Contribution PCB-02/13. Panama City, Florida.

Carlson, J.K. and I.E. Baremore. 2003. The dire cted shark gillnet fish ery: catch and bycatch,

2003. National Marine Fisheries Service SFD Contribution PCB-03/07. Panama City,

Florida.

Carlson, J.K. and D.M. Bethea. 2006. The dire cted shark gillnet fish ery: catch and bycatch,

2005. National Marine Fisheries Service Pana ma City Laboratory Contribution 06-01. Panama City, Florida.

Carlson, J.K., D.M. Bethea, and I.E. Baremore. 2005. The directed shark gillnet fishery: catch and bycatch, 2004. National Marine Fisher ies Service SFD Contribution PCB-05-01. Panama City, Florida.

Carlson, B.K.R., J. Braun-McNeill, L. Avens, A. L. Segars, J.R. Kucklick, and J.M. Keller. In press. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and organochlorine contaminants in loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ): distribution among blood com ponents and temporal trends. In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation.

Carolina Power and Light Company. 2003. Bruns wick Steam Electric Plant 2002 sea turtle annual report. 4 pages.

Carr, A. 1962. Orientation problems in the high s eas travel and terrestrial movements of marine

turtles. American Scientist 50(3):358-374.

Carr, A. 1982. Notes on the behavioral ecology of sea turtles. Pages 19-26 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Tu rtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Carr, A. 1986. Rips, FADs, and little loggerheads. Bioscience 36:92-100.

Carr, A.F., Jr. 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival

outlook of sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B):352-356.

Carr, A. and A.B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passi ve migration of green turtle hatchlings in sargassum. Copeia 1980(2):366-368.

Carr, A. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrati ons of sea turtles, 4. The green turtle in

the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of the Ameri can Museum of Natural History 121(1):1-48.IV-7 Carreras, C., S. Pont, F. Maffucci, M. Pascual, A. Barceló, F. Bentivegna, L. Cardona, F. Alegre, M. SanFélix, G. Fernández, and A. Aguilar. 2006. Genetic structuring of immature loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the Mediterranean Sea reflects water circulation patterns. Marine Biology 149:1269-1279.

Carthy, R.R., A.M. Foley, and Y. Matsuzawa. 2003. Incubation environment of loggerhead turtle nests: effects on hatching success a nd hatchling characteristics. Pages 144-153 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Chaloupka, M. 2001. Historical trends, seasonality and spatial synchrony in green sea turtle egg production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279.

Chaloupka, M. 2003. Stochastic simulation mode ling of loggerhead population dynamics given exposure to competing mortality risks in the western South Pacific. Pages 274-294 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Chaloupka, M. and C. Limpus. 2001. Trends in th e abundance of sea turtles resident in southern

Great Barrier Reef waters. Biological Conservation 102:235-249.

Christens, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in l oggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology 24(4):400-402.

Clark, R.R. 1992. Beach conditions in Florida: a statewide inventory and identification of beach erosion problem areas in Florida. Beaches and Shores Technical and Design Memorandum 89-1, 4th Edition. Florida Department of Na tural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, Tallahassee, Florida. 208 pages.

Clark, J.A., J.M. Hoekstra, P.D. Boersma, and P. Kareiva. 2002. Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings a nd recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology 16(6):1510-1519.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. Sharks of the world. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Species Catalogue Volume 4. 655 pages.

Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding's turtles ( Emydoidea blandingii ): implications for conservation and management of long-lived organi sms. Conservation Biology 7(4):826-833.

Coston-Clements, L. and D.E. Hoss. 1983. Synopsis of data on the impact of habitat alteration

on sea turtles around the southeastern Un ited States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NWSSEFC-117. 57 pages.IV-8 Cox, J.H., H.F. Percival, and S.V. Colwell. 1994. Impact of vehicular traffic on beach habitat and wildlife at Cape San Blas, Florida. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Technical Report Number 50. 44 pages.

Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjorndal. 199 5. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles:

review and research initiatives . Restoration Ecology 3(2):95-104.

Crouse, D.T. 1999. The consequences of delaye d maturity in a human-dominated world. Pages

195-202 in Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals. American Fi sheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswe ll. 1987. A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implicatio ns for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423.

Crowder, L.B., D.T. Crouse, S.S. Heppell, and T.H. Martin. 1994. Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea tu rtle populations. Ecologi cal Applications 4:437-

445.

Crowder, L.B., S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and J.A. R oyle. 1995. Effects of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) on loggerhead sea turtle strandings with implicati ons for conservation. Copeia 1995(4):773-779.

Dahlen, M.K., R. Bell, J.I. Richardson, and T.H. Richardson. 2000. Beyond D-0004: Thirtyfour years of loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) research on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, 1964-1997. Pages 60-62 i n Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno-Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Eight eenth International Sea Turtle Symposium.

NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-436.

Daniel, R.S. and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea-appro ach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ). Journal of Comparative and P hysiological Psychol ogy 40(6):413-420.

Daniels, R.C., T.W. White, and K. K. Chapman. 1993. Sea-level rise: destruction of threatened and endangered species habitat in South Carolina. Envir onmental Management 17(3):373-

385.

Davis, G.E. and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhea d sea turtle nesting in Everglades National Park, Florida, U.S.A. Herpetologica 33:18-28.

Day, R.D., S.J. Christopher, P.R. Becker, and D. W. Whitaker. 2005. Monitoring mercury in the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta . Environmental Scie nce & Technology 39(2):437-

446.

Day, R.D., A.L. Segars, M.D. Arendt, A.M. L ee, and M.M. Peden-Adams. 2007. Relationship of blood mercury levels to health para meters in the loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ).

Environmental Health Pe rspectives 115(10):1421-1428.IV-9 Deem, S.L., L. Starr, T.M. Norton, and W.B. Ka resh. 2003. Sea turtle health assessment program in the Caribbean and Atlantic. Pages 65-66 in Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503.

Dellinger, T. and H. Encarnacao. 2000. Accident al capture of sea turtles by the fishing fleet based at Madeira Island, Portugal. Page 218 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (compilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Sympos ium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-443.

Dellinger, T. and C. Freitas. 2000. Moveme nts and diving behaviour of pelagic stage loggerhead sea turtles in the North Atlantic: preliminary re sults obtained through satellite telemetry. Pages 155-157 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (com pilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.

Delpech, Y.J. and J.J. Foote. 1998. Effects of three soil cement step-faced revetments on sea turtle nesting habit and hatch success on Casey Key, Florida. Pages 160-163 in Epperly, S.P. and J. Braun (compilers). Proceedi ngs of the Seventeenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1933. The loggerhead tur tles (Carettidae) of Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 18:61-72.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1939. The tetrapod rept iles of Ceylon. Volume 1. Testudinates and

crocodilians. Colombo Museum of Natural History Series, Colom bo, Ceylon. 412 pages.

de Silva, G.S. 1982. The status of sea turtle populations in east Malays ia and the South China Sea. Pages 327-337 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor) . Biology and Conservati on of Sea Turtles.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Dickerson, D.D., K.J. Reine, D.A. Nelson, and C. E. Dickerson. 1995. Assessment of sea turtle

abundance in six South Atlantic U.S. channels . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Miscellane ous Paper EL-95-5. 134 pages.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biolog ical data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta

caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(14). 110

pages.

Dodd, C.K., Jr., and R.A. Byles. 2003. Post-nesti ng movements and behavior of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) departing from east-central Flor ida nesting beaches. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(3):530-536.IV-10 Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 1999. Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) nesting in Georgia, 1999: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources unpublished report. 41 pages.

Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2000. Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) nesting in Georgia, 2000: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources unpublished report. 47 pages.

Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2001. Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) nesting in Georgia, 2001. Georgia Department of Natu ral Resources unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for grant E-5-1 “Coastal Endangered Species Management.” 46 pages.

Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2002. Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) nesting in Georgia, 2002. Georgia Department of Natu ral Resources unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for grant E-5-2 “Coastal Endangered Species Management.” 46 pages.

Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2003. Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) nesting in Georgia, 2003. Georgia Department of Natu ral Resources unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for grant E-5-3 “Coastal Endangered Species Management.” 46 pages.

Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2004. Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) nesting in Georgia, 2004. Georgia Department of Natu ral Resources unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for grant E-5-4 “Coastal Endangered Species Management.” 44 pages.

Dow, W., K. Eckert, M. Palmer, and P. Kramer. 2007. An atlas of sea turtle nesting habitat for the Wider Caribbean Region. The Wider Cari bbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network and The Nature Conservancy. WIDECAST Technical Report No. 6. Beaufort, North Carolina. 267 pages.

Dutton, P., D. McDonald, and R.H. Boulon. 1994. Tagging and nesting research on leatherback sea turtles ( Dermochelys coriacea ) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1994. Annual Report to the U.S. Fish and Wild life Service. October 1994. 28 pages.

Eaton, C., E. McMichael, B. Witherington, A. Fo ley, R. Hardy, and A. Meylan. 2008. In-water sea turtle monitoring and research in Fl orida: review and recommendations. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFS-OPR-38. 233 pages.

Eckert, K.L. and F.A. Abreu Grobois (editors). 2001. Proceedings of the Regional Meeting:

“Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: a Dialogue for Effective Regional Management.” Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IUCNMTSG, WWF, and UNEP-CEP. 154 pages.IV-11 Eckert, S.A. and H.R. Martins. 1989. Transatlantic travel by juvenile logg erhead turtle. Marine

Turtle Newsletter 45:15.

Eggers, J.M. 1989. Incidental cap ture of sea turtles at Salem Generating Station, Delaware Bay, New Jersey. Pages 221-223 i n Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1980. A continuation of base-lin e studies for environmentally monitoring space transportation systems (STS) at John F. Kenne dy Space Center. Volume 4: threatened and endangered species of the Kennedy Space Center. Pa rt 1: marine turtle studies. Final report to NASA, 1976-1979. 417 pages.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. Pages 122-139 in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medi na, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (editors). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.

Ehrhart, L.M. and R.G. Yoder. 1978. Marine turtles of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Pages 25-30 in Henderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings of the Florida and Interregiona l Conference on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research

Publications Number 33.

Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1987. Huma n and natural causes of ma rine turtle nest and hatchling mortality and their relationship to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting beach. Final Report, Project Number GFC-84-018. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program , Technical Report No. 1. Tallahassee, Florida. 141 pages.

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: geographic distribution, abundance, a nd population status. Pages 157-174 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington

D.C.

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 2007. Marine turtles of th e central region of the Indian River Lagoon system, Florida. Florida Scien tist 70(4):415-434.

Encalada, S.E., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, J.C. Zu rita, B. Schroeder, E. Possardt, C.J. Sears, and B.W. Bowen. 1998. Population st ructure 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.

Engstrom, T.N., P.A. Meylan, and A.B. Meylan. 2002. Origin of juvenile loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in a tropical developmental habitat in Caribbean Panamá. Animal

Conservation 5:125-133.IV-12 Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 2002. Turtle ex cluder devices-are the escape openings large enough? Fishery Bulletin 100(3):466-474.

Epperly, S., L. Avens, L. Garrison, T. Henw ood, W. Hoggard, J. Mitchell, J. Nance, J. Poffenberger, C. Sasso, E. Scott-Denton, and C. Yeung. 2002. Analysis of sea turtle bycatch in the commercial shrimp fisheries of the southeast U.S. waters and the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-490. 88 pages.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93:254.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995b. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conservation Biology 9:384-394.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun-McNeill, A.L. Bass, D. W. Owens, and R.M. Patterson. 2000. In-water population index surveys: North Carolina, U.S.A. Page 62 i n Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno-Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (c ompilers). Proceedi ngs of the Eighteenth International Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-436.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun-McNeill, and P.M. Richards . 2007. Trends in catch rates of sea turtles in North Carolina, USA. Endangered Species Research 3:283-293.

Epperly, S., L. Stokes, and S. Dick. 2004. Carefu l release protocols for s ea turtle release with minimal injury. NOAA Technical Me morandum NMFS-SEFSC-524. 42 pages.

Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1993. Sea tur tle protection program performed in support of velocity cap repairs, Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant. Applied Biology, Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida. 51 pages.

Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1999. Martin County beach nourishment project; sea turtle monitoring and studies; 1997 annual report and fi nal assessment. Ecological Associates, Jensen Beach, Florida. 96 pages + tables and figures.

Fergusson, I.K., L.J.V. Compagno, and M.A. Marks. 2000. Predation by white sharks

Carcharodon carcharias (Chondrichthyes: Lamnidae) upon ch elonians, with new records

from the Mediterranean Sea and a fi rst record of the ocean sunfish Mola mola (Osteichthyes: Molidae) as stomach contents. Environmen tal Biology of Fishes 58:447-453.

Ferreira, R.L., H.R. Martins, A.A. Da Silva, and A.B. Bolten. 2001. Impact of swordfish

fisheries on sea turtles in the Azores. Arquipelago 18A:75-79.

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea-level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology

19:482-491.IV-13 Fleming, E.H. 2001. Swimming Against the Tide : Recent Surveys of Exploitation, Trade, and Management of Marine Turtles in the Nort hern Caribbean. TRA FFIC North America. Washington, D.C. 161 pages.

Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of th e Interior. 1997. Damage assessment and restoration plan/environmental assessment for the August 10, 1993 Tampa Bay Oil Spill, Volume I - Ecological Injuries - Final. 91 pages.

Florida Marine Research Institute. 2003. What is red tide? Florida Ma rine Research Institute web page.

Florida Power and Light Company and Quantu m Resources, Inc. 2005. Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie Plant Annual Envi ronmental Operating Report, 2002. 57 pages.

Foley, A.M. 1998. The nesting eco logy of the loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) in the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. U npublished Ph.D. dissertation. Un iversity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 164 pages.

Foley, A.M., S.A. Peck, and G.R. Harman. 2006. Effects of sand charac teristics and inundation on the hatching success of loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) clutches on low-relief mangrove islands in Southwest Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 5(1):32-41.

Foley, A., B. Schroeder, and S. MacPherson. In press. Post-nesting mi grations and resident areas of Florida loggerheads. In Proceedings of the Twenty -fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservati on. NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Frazer, N.B. 1987. Preliminary estimates of su rvivorship for wild juvenile loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Journal of Herp etology 21(3):232-235.

Frazer, N.B. 1992. Sea turtle conservation and halfway technology. Conservation Biology

6:179-184.

Frazer, N.B. and J.I. Richardson. 1985. Annual variation in clutch size and frequency for loggerhead turtles, Caretta-caretta , nesting at Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA. Herpetologica 41(3):246-251.

Fretey, J. 2001. Biogeography and c onservation of marine tu rtles of the Atlantic coast of Africa. CMS Technical Series Publication No. 6, UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 429

pages.

Fritts, T.H. and M.A. McGehee. 1982. Effects of petroleum on the development and survival of marine turtle embryos. U.S. Fish and Wild life Service report FWS/OBS-82/37. 41 pages.IV-14 Fuller, J.E., K.L. Eckert, and J.I. Richardson. 1992. WIDECAST sea turtle recovery action plan for Antigua and Barbuda (Karen L. Eckert, Editor). CEP Technical Report No. 16. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica. 88 pages.

George, P.H. 1997. Health problems and diseases in turtles. Pages 363-385 i n Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Gerrodette, T. 1993. Trends: software for a power analysis of linear regression. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:515-516.

Gerrodette, T. and J. Brandon. 2000. Designing a monitoring program to detect trends. Pages

36-39 in Bjorndal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten (editors). Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing Abundance and Trends for In-water Sea Turtle Populations. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445.

Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisite d: the impact of climate change on sand nd nest temperatures at a hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) nesting beach. Global Change Biology 10:2036-2045.

Glenn, L. 1998. The consequences of human manipulation of the coastal environment on hatchling loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta , L.). Pages 58-59 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.

Godfrey, M.H. and N. Mrosovsky. 1997. Estimati ng the time between hatching of sea turtles and their emergence from the nest. Cheloni an Conservation and Bi ology 2(4):581-585.

Godley, B.J., A.C. Broderick, L.M. Campbell, S. Ranger, and P.B. Richardson. 2004. Overview of legislation pertinen t to marine turtle harvest. Pages 16-38 in An Assessment of the Status and Exploitation of Marine Turtles in the U.K. Overseas Territories in the Wider Caribbean. Final Project Report for the Department of th e Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Gordon, D.C., P. Schwinghamer, T.W. Rowell, J. Prena, K. Gilkinson, W.P. Vass, and D.L.

McKeown. 1998. Studies in eastern Canada on the impact of mobile fishing gear on benthic habitat and communities. Pages 63-67 in Dorsey, E.M., and J. Pederson (editors). Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England. Cons ervation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts.

Grazette, S., J.A. Horrocks, P.E. Phillip, and C.J. Isaac. 2007. An assessment of the marine turtle fishery in Grenada, We st Indies. Oryx 41(3):330-336.

Gross, M.G. 1972. Oceanography. A View of th e Earth. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.IV-15 Guada, H.J. and G. Sole Sempere. 2000. WIDE CAST plan de accion para la recuperacion de las tortugas marinas de Venezuel a (Alexis Suarez, Editora). Informe Technico del PAC No. 39. UNEP Caribbean Environment Program me. Kingston, Jamacia. 112 pages.

Gyuris, E. 1994. The rate of predation by fi shes on hatchlings of the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ). Coral Reefs 13(3):137-144.

Hailman, J.P. and A.M. Elowson. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead ( Caretta

caretta ). Herpetologica 48:1-30.

Hanson, J., T. Wibbels, and R.E. Martin. 1998. Pred icted female bias in sex ratios of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles from a Florida nesting beach. Ca nadian Journal of Zoology 76(10):1850-1861.

Harms, C., G. Lewbart, J. Beasley, A. Stam per, B. Chittick, and M. Trogdon. 2002. Clinical implications of hematology and plasma bioc hemistry values for loggerhead sea turtles undergoing rehabilitation. Pages 190-191 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Sympos ium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-477.

Harms, C.A., J. Braun-McNeill, T.R. Kelly, L. Avens, M.A. Stamper, N. Mihnovets, L. Goshe, A. Goodman, A.A. Hohn, and M.H. Godfrey. 2006a. Consistencies between years in seasonal variation of hematology and plasma bi ochemistry values of juvenile loggerhead turtles in North Carolina, USA. Page 57 in Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (compilers). Book of Abstracts of the Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. 376

pages.

Harms, C.A., A.N. Mihnovets, J. Braun-McNeill, T.R. Kelly, L. Avens, A. Goodman, L. Goshe, M.H. Godfrey, and A.A. Hohn. 2006b. Cloacal bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance patterns in juvenile loggerhead turtles in North Carolina, USA. Page 58 in Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (compilers). Book of Abstracts of the Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservati on. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. 376 pages.

Hatase, H., N. Takai, Y. Matsuzawa, W. Saka moto, K. Omuta, K. Goto, N. Arai, and T. Fujiwara. 2002. Size-related differences in f eeding habitat use of adult female loggerhead

turtles Caretta caretta around Japan determined by stable isotope analyses and satellite telemetry. Marine Ecology Progress Series 233:273-281.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2005. Status of nesting loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta at Bald Head Island (North Carolina, USA) after 24 years of intensive monitoring and c onservation. Oryx 39(1):65-72.IV-16 Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, L.-F. Lopez-Jurado, P. LopezSuarez, S.E. Merino, N. Varo-Cruz, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Phenotypically linked dichotomy in sea turtle foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. Current Biology 16:990-995.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Only some like it hot -- quantifying the enviro nmental niche of the loggerhead sea turtle. Diversity and

Distributions 13:447-457.

Hays, G.C. 2000. The implications of variable remigration intervals for the assessment of population size in marine turtles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206:221-227.

Hays, G.C. and R. Marsh. 1997. Estimating the ag e of juvenile loggerhea d sea turtles in the

North Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:40-46.

Hedges, M.E. 2007. Development and application of a multistate model to the northern subpopulation of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stat e University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 144 pages.

Heithaus, M.R., A. Frid, and L.M. Dill. 2002. Shar k-inflicted injury frequencies, escape ability, and habitat use of green and loggerh ead turtles. Marine Biology 140:229-236.

Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130:455-535.

Henwood, T.A. and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during commercial shrimp trawling. Fishery Bulletin 85(4):813-817.

Heppell, S.S. 1998. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Cope ia 1998(2):367-375.

Heppell, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, S.P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez, and N.B. Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size, and management impacts on Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):767-773.

Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, D.T. Crouse, S. P. Epperly, and N.B. Frazer. 2003b. Population models for Atlantic loggerheads: past , present, and future. Pages 255-273 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington

D.C.

Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, and T.R. Menzel. 1999. Life table analysis of long-lived marine species with implications for conservation and management. Pages 137-148 in Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.IV-17 Heppell, S.S., M.L. Snover, and L.B. Crowder. 2003a. Sea turtle population ecology. Pages

275-306 in Lutz, P.L., J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Herbst, L.H. 1999. Infectious diseas es of marine turtles. Pages 208-213 in Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Tu rtle Specialist Group

Publication Number 4.

Herbst, L.H. and E.R. Jacobson. 1995. Dis eases of marine turtles. Pages 593-596 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of S ea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) nesting and reproductive success at Sebas tian Inlet, Florida. Unpublishe d Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 138 pages.

Holmes, E.E. 2001. Estimating risks in declinin g populations with poor data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(9):5072-5077.

Holmes, E.E. 2004. Beyond theory to applicatio n and evaluation: diffusion approximations for population viability analysis. Ecol ogical Applications 14(4):1272-1293.

Homer, B.L., A. Foley, K.J. Fick, M.C. Lores, A.E. Redlow, and E.R. Jacobson. 2000. Legions, pathogens and toxins identified in 13 strande d marine turtles in Florida. Pages 117-118 i n Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno-Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Eighteenth Internationa l Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436.

Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South

Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department Completion Report. 97

pages.

Hopkins-Murphy, S.R., C.P. Hope, and M.E. H oyle. 1999. A history of research and management of the loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) on the South Carolina coast. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, Sout h Carolina. 72 pages.

Hopkins-Murphy, S.R., T.M. Murphy, C.P. Hope , J.W. Coker, and M.E. Hoyle. 2001. Population trends and nesting distri bution of the loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) in South Carolina 1980-1997. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Char leston, South Carolina. 41 pages.IV-18 Hopkins-Murphy, S.R., D.W. Owens, and T.M. Murphy. 2003. Ecology of immature loggerheads on foraging grounds and adults in internesting habitat in the Eastern United States. Pages 79-92 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witheringt on (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Horrocks, J.A. 1992. WIDECAST sea turtle r ecovery action plan for Barbados (Karen L. Eckert, Editor). CEP Technical Report No. 12. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica. 61 pages.

Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pe destrian track effects on the sea-approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation 8:158-

161.

Houghton, J.D.R. and G.C. Hays. 2001. Async hronous emergence by loggerhead turtle ( Caretta

caretta ) hatchlings. Naturw issenschaften 88:133-136.

Hughes, A.L. and E.A. Caine. 1994. The effect of beach features on hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Page 237 in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, March 1-5, 1994, H ilton Head, South Carolina. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati on, Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.

Hykle, D. 2002. The Convention on Migratory Species and other inte rnational instruments relevant to marine turtle conservation: pros an d cons. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 5:105-119.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report. In Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (editors). C limate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqui s, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Ca mbridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqui s, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: Climate Chan ge Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.IV-19 Irwin, W.P., A.J. Horner, and K.J. Lohmann. 2004. Magnetic field distortions produced by protective cages around sea turtle nests: unintended conse quences for orientation and navigation? Biological C onservation 118(1):117-120.

Jacobson, E., K. Bjorndal, A. Bolten, R. Herren, G. Harman, and L. Wood. Unpublished data. Establishing plasma biochemical and hemato crit reference intervals for sea turtles in Florida. [http://accstr.ufl.edu/blood_chem.htm].

Jacobson, E.R., B.L. Homer, B.A. Stacy, E.C. Grei ner, N.J. Szabo, C.L. Chrisman, F. Origgi, S. Coberley, A.M. Foley, J.H. Landsberg, L. Flewel ling, R.Y. Ewing, R. Moretti, S. Schaf, C. Rose, D.R. Mader, G.R. Harman, C.A. Mani re, N.S. Mettee, A.P. Mizisin, and G.D. Shelton. 2006. Neurological diseas e in wild loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta

. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 70:139-154.

Johnson, S.A., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 1996. Effects of organized turtle watches on loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) nesting behavior and hatchl ing production in Florida. Conservation Biology 10(2):570-577.

Kamezaki, N. and M. Matsui. 1997. A llometry in the loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta

. Chelonian Conservation a nd Biology 2(3):421-425.

Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M. Ishii, T. Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. K odama, Y. Kondo, I. Miyawaki, K. Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura, Y. Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H. Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T. Toji, M. Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, and I. Wakabayashi. 2003. Loggerhead turtles nes ting in Japan. Pages 210-217 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Tu rtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Kaufman, W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The Beach es are Moving: The Drowning of America’s

Shoreline. Anchor Pres s/Doubleday. Garden City, New York. 326 pages.

Keinath, J.A. 1993. Movements and behavior of w ild and head-started sea turtles. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. College of Willi am and Mary, Virginia. 206 pages.

Keller, J.M., J.R. Kucklick, M.A. Stamper, C. A. Harms, and P.D. McClellan-Green. 2004. Associations between organochl orine contaminant concentrations and clinical health parameters in loggerhead sea turtles from North Carolina, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(10):1074-1079.

Keller J.M., K. Kannan, S. Taniyasu, N. Yamash ita, R.D. Day, M.D. Arendt, A.L. Segars, and J.R. Kucklick. 2005. Perfluorinated compounds in the plasma of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles from the southeastern co ast of the U.S. Environmental Science and Technology 39:9101-9108.IV-20 Keller, J.M., P.D. McClellan-Green, J.R. Kuck lick, D.E. Keil, and M.M. Peden-Adams. 2006. Effects of organochlorine contaminants on logge rhead sea turtle imm unity: comparison of a correlative field study and in vitro experiments. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1):70-76.

Kelly, T.R., J. Braun-McNeill, L. Avens, M.H. Godfrey, A.A. Hohn, E. Greiner, and C.A. Harms. In press. Baseline health assessmen t of in-water juvenile loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in North Carolina. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva tion. NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of offshore petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Marine Fisheries Review 50(3):33-42.

Komar, P.D. 1983. Coastal erosi on in response to the construction of jetties and breakwaters. Pages 191-204 in Komar, P.D. (editor). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Kraemer, J.E. and S.H. Bennett. 1981. Utilization of posthatching yolk in loggerhead sea turtles

Caretta caretta . Copeia 1981(2):406-411.

Kraus, N.C. 1988. The effects of seawalls on th e beach: an extended literature review. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 4:1-28.

Kraus, N.C. and W.G. McDougal. 1996. The effect s of seawalls on the beach: part I, an updated

literature review. Journal of Coastal Research 12(3):691-701.

Kudo, H., A. Murakami, and S. Watanabe. 2003. Effects of sand hardness and human beach use on emergence success of loggerhead sea turtle s on Yakushima Island, Japan. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(3):695-696.

Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Fing er. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive success of sea turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Force Sta tion, Florida, 1985. Fina l report to the United

States Air Force. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Agreement Number 14-16-0009-1544, Research Work Order Number 25. 18 pages.

Lalli, C.M. and T.R. Parsons. 1997. Biological o ceanography: an introduction (second edition). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, Great Britain.

Laurent, L., J. Lescure, L. Excoffier, B. Bowen, M. Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L. Kornaraki, and G. Trabuchet. 1993. Ge netic studies of relationships between Mediterranean and Atlantic popu lations of loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta with a mitochondrial marker.] Comptes Rendus de l'Acad emie des Sciences (Paris), Sciences de la

Vie/Life Sciences 316:1233-1239.IV-21 Laurent, L., P. Casale, M.N. Bradai, B.J. Godl ey, G. Gerosa, A.C. Broderick, W. Schroth, B. Schierwater, A.M. Levy, D. Freggi, E.M. Abd El-Mawla, D.A. Hadoud, H.E. Gomati, M. Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L. Kornaraki, F. Demirayak, and C. Gautier. 1998.

Molecular resolution of marine turtle stock composition in fishery bycatch: a case study in

the Mediterranean. Mol ecular Ecology 7:1529-1542.

Lawler, J.J., S.P. Campbell, A.D. Guerry, M.B. Kolozsvary, R.J. O'Connor, and L.C.N. Seward. 2002. The scope and treatment of threats in e ndangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12(3):663-667.

Lenhardt, M.L. 1994. Seismic and very low freq uency induced behaviors in captive loggerhead marine turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Pages 238-241 in Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers). Proceed ings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.

Lenhardt, M.L., S. Bellmund, R.A. Byles, S.W. Ha rkins, and J.A. Musick. 1983. Marine turtle reception of bone-conducted sound. Journa l of Auditory Research 23(2):119-125.

Lewison, R.L., L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver. 2003. The impact of tur tle excluder devices and fisheries closures on loggerhead and Kemp's ridley strandings in the western Gulf of Mexico. Conservation Biology 17(4):1089-1097.

Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlin es on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7:221-231.

Limpus, C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search 2(10):385-387.

Limpus, C.J. and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead tu rtles in the equatorial and southern Pacific Ocean: a species in decline. Pages 199-209 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smith sonian Books, Washington D.C.

Limpus, C.J., V. Baker, and J.D. Miller. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs. Herpetologica 35(4):335-338.

Limpus, C.J., P. Reed, and J.D. Miller. 1983. Is lands and turtles: the influence of choice of nesting beach on sex ratio. Pages 397-402 in Baker, J.T., R.M. Carter, P.W. Sammarco, and K.P. Stark (editors). Proceedings of the In augural Great Barrier Re ef Conference, James Cook University Press, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

Lipcius, R.N. and W.T. Stockhausen. 2002. Concurrent decline of the spawning stock, recruitment, larval abundance, and size of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 226:45-61.IV-22 Lohmann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2003. Orient ation mechanisms of ha tchling loggerheads. Pages 44-62 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (e ditors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Lohmann, K.J., B.E. Witherington, C.M.F. Lo hmann, and M. Salmon. 1997. Orientation, navigation, and natal beach homing in sea turtles. Pages 107-135 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Long, K.J. and B.A. Schroeder (editors). 2004. Proceedings of the In ternational Technical Expert Workshop on Marine Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memora ndum NMFS-F/OPR-26. 189 pages.

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtle s in Virginia. Copeia 1985(2):449-456.

Lutcavage, M.E., P.L. Lutz, G.D. Bossart , and D.M. Hudson. 1995. Physiologic and clinicopathologic effects of crude oil on loggerhead sea turtles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:417-422.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, a nd P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. Pages 387-409 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Lutz, P.L. 1990. Studies on the ingestion of pl astic and latex by sea turtles. Pages 719-735 i n Shomura, R.S. and M.L. Godfrey (editors). Proceedings of the Second International

Conference on Marine Debris. NOAA Tec hnical Memorandum NOAA-TM-SWFSC-154.

Lutz, P.L. and M. Lutcavage. 1989. The effects of petroleum on sea turtles: applicability to Kemp’s ridley. Pages 52-54 i n Caillouet, C.W., Jr., and A.M. Landry, Jr. (compilers). Proceedings of the First International Sym posium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. TAMU-SG-89-105.

Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). 1997. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 432 pages.

Lutz, P.L., J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken (edito rs). 2003. The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 455 pages.

Maier, P.P, A.L. Segars, M.D. Arendt, J.D. Wh itaker, B.W. Stender, L. Parker, R. Vendetti, D.W. Owens, J. Quattro, and S.R. Murphy. 2004. Development of an index of sea turtle abundance based upon in-water sampling with trawl gear. Final project report to NMFS/NOAA, Grant Number NA07FL0499. 86 pages.

Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coast line on nesting and hatc hling sea turtles in southeastern Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. 100 pages.IV-23 Mansfield, K.L. 2006. Sources of mortality, moveme nts and behavior of sea turtles in Virginia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 343 pages.

Mansfield, K.L. and J.A. Musick. 2006. Northwes t Atlantic loggerheads: addressing data gaps

in sub-adult abundance es timates. Pages 304-305 in Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (compilers). Book of Abstr acts of the Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Interna tional Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. 376 pages.

Mansfield, K.L., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Pember ton. 2001. Characterization of the Chesapeake Bay pound net and whelk pot fisheries and their pote ntial interactions with marine sea turtle species. NMFS/NOAA Contract #: 43EANFO30131. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 66 pages.

Mansfield, K.L., E.E. Seney, M.A. Fagan, J.A. Mu sick, K.L. Frisch, and A.E. Knowles. 2002a.

An evaluation of interactions between sea turtles and pound ne t leaders in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Final Report submitted to the National

Marine Fisheries Service Fisheries Science Center/Northeast Region. Contract#: EA1330- 02-SE-0075. Virginia Institute of Marine Scie nce, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 118 pages.

Mansfield, K.L., E.E. Seney, and J.A. Musick. 2002b. An evaluation of sea turtle abundances,

mortalities and fisherie s interactions in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, 2001. Final Report. NMFS/NOAA Contract #: 43EANF110773. Virgin ia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Manzella, S.A., C.T. Fontaine, and B.A. Schroe der. 1988. Loggerhead sea turtle travels from Padre Island, Texas to the mouth of the Adriat ic Sea. Marine Turtle Newsletter 42:7.

Marcovaldi, M.A. and G.G. Marcovaldi. 1999. Marine turtles of Brazil: the history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biological Conservation 91:35-41.

Marcovaldi, M.A., H. Godfrey, and N. Mrosovsky . 1997. Estimating sex ratios of loggerhead turtles in Brazil from pivotal incubation dur ations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:755-

770.

Marcus, S.J. and C.G. Maley. 1987. Comparison of sand temperatures between a shaded and unshaded turtle nesting beach in south Florid a. (abstract) Seventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, February 1987, Wekiva Springs State Park, Florida.

Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentive gna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Camiñas, P. Casale, G. De Metrio, A. Demetropoulos, G. Gerosa, B.J. Godley, D.A. Haddoud, J. Houghton, L. Laurent, and B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead tu rtles in the Mediterranean Sea: present knowledge and conservation pe rspectives. Pages 175-198 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Tu rtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.IV-24 Martin, R.E. 1996. Storm impacts on loggerhead turtle reproductive success. Marine Turtle

Newsletter 73:10-12.

McCauley, S.J. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1999. Conser vation implications of dietary dilution from debris ingestion: sublethal e ffects in post-hatchling loggerhea d sea turtles. Conservation Biology 13(4):925-929.

McClellan, C.M. and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in logg erhead sea turtle life history. Biology Letters 3:592-594.

McFarlane, R.W. 1963. Disorien tation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting. Copiea 1:153.

McGehee, M.A. 1990. Effects of moisture on e ggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Herpetologica 46(3):251-258.

Mendonça, M.T. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activ ity, population size and structure of immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia 1982(1):161-

167.

Meylan, A. 1982. Estimation of populati on size in sea turtles. Pages 135-138 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Tu rtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Miller, J.D. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. Pages 51-81 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtle s. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Miller, J.D., C.J. Limpus, and M.H. Godfrey. 2003. Nest site selec tion, oviposition, eggs, development, hatching, and emergence of loggerhead turtles. Pages 125-143 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington

D.C.

Milton, S.L. and P.L. Lutz. 2003. Physiological a nd genetic responses to environmental stress. Pages 163-197 in Lutz, P.L., J.A. Musick, and J. W yneken (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Milton, S.L., S. Leone-Kabler, A.A. Schulman, and P.L. Lutz. 1994. Effects of Hurricane Andrew on sea turtle nesting beaches of Sout h Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3):974-981.

Minerals Management Service. 2000. Gulf of Mexico deepwater operations and activities -

environmental assessment. Minerals Ma nagement Service Publication MMS 2000-001.IV-25 Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, and M.L. Lenhardt. 19 94a. Auditory behavior of the loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ). Page 89 in Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Sym posium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.

Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M. Lenhardt, and R. George. 1994b. Evaluation of seismic sources for repelling s ea turtles from hopper dredges. Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer s Waterways Experiment Station. 33 pages.

Moncada Gavilán, F. 2001. Status and distribution of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta , in the Wider Caribbean Region. Pages 36-40 in Eckert, K.L. and F.A. Abreu Grobois (editors). Proceedings of the Regional Meeting: “Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: a Dialogue for Effective Regi onal Management.” Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IUCN -MTSG, WWF, and UNEP-CEP.

Moody, K. 1998. The effects of nest relocati on on hatching success and emergence success of the loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) in Florida. Pages 107-108 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of th e Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.

Moore, K. and D. Wieting (editors). 2000. Ma rine aquaculture, marine mammals, and marine

turtles interactions work shop. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-16. 64 pages.

Moran, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 19 99. Effects of the thermal environment on the temporal pattern of emergence of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta . Marine Ecology Progress Series 189:251-261.

Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1998. Early li fe stage ecology of sea turtles in northeastern

U.S. waters. NOAA Technical Me morandum NMFS-SEFSC-413. 49 pages.

Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 2005. Wester n North Atlantic waters : crucial developmental habitat for Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology

4:872-882.

Morreale, S.J., A.B. Meylan, S.S. Sadove, a nd E.A. Standora. 1992. Annual occurrence and winter mortality of marine turtles in New York waters. Journal of Herpetology 26:301.

Morreale, S.J., C.F. Smith, K. Durham, R.A. DiGiovanni, Jr., and A.A. Aguirre. 2005. Assessing health, status, and tre nds in northeastern sea turtle populations. Interim report - Sept. 2002 - Nov. 2004. Protected Resources Di vision, One Blackburn Dr ive, Gloucester,

Massachusetts.IV-26 Mortimer, J.A. 1989. Research needed for ma nagement of beach habitat. Pages 236-246 in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (editors). Proceedings of the Sec ond Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.

Mosier, A. 1998. The impact of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior at three beaches on the East Coast of Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 112 pages.

Mosier, A.E. and B.E. Witherington. 2002. Docu mented effects of coastal armoring structures on sea turtle nesting behavior. Pages 304-306 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-477.

Mrosovsky, N. 1968. Nocturnal emergence of hatchling sea turtles: control by thermal inhibition of activity. Nature 220(5174):1338-1339.

Mrosovsky, N. 1980. Thermal biology of sea turtles. American Zoologist 20:531-547.

Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temp eratures for loggerhead turtle s from northern and southern nesting beaches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:661-669.

Mrosovsky, N. 1994. Sex ratios of sea turtles. Journal of Experime ntal Zoology 270(1):16-27.

Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha. 1989. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and estimates from a five year study. Ca nadian Journal of Zoology 70:530-538.

Mrosovsky, N. and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperat ure dependence of sexual differentiation in sea turtles: implications fo r conservation practices. Bi ological Conservation 18:271-280.

Mrosovsky, N., C. Lavin, and M.H. Godfrey. 1995. Thermal effects of condominiums on a

turtle beach in Florida. Biological Conservation 74:151-156.

Murphy, T.M. 1985. Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead s ea turtles subject to disturbance on the beach. Paper Presented at the Fifth Annual Sea Turtle Research Workshop, February 13-16, 1985, Waverly, Georgia.

Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the southeast region. Unpublishe d report prepared for the National Marine

Fisheries Service.

Murray, K.T. 2004. Bycatch of sea turtle s in the mid-Atlan tic sea scallop ( Placopecten magellanicus ) dredge fishery during 2003. NMFS No rtheast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document 04-11.IV-27 Murray, K.T. 2005. Total bycatch estimate of loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the 2004 Atlantic sea scallop ( Placopecten magellanicus ) dredge fishery. NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center Reference Document 05-12.

Murray, K.T. 2006. Estimated average annua l bycatch of logger head sea turtles ( Caretta

caretta ) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otte r trawl gear, 1996-2004. NMFS Northeast

Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-19.

Murray, K.T. 2007. Estimated bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in U.S. midAtlantic scallop trawl gear , 2004-2005, and in scallop dre dge gear, 2005. NMFS Northeast

Science Center Reference Document 07-04.

Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. Pages 1-10 in Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived

Marine Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utiliz ation and migration in juvenile sea turtles. Pages 137-163 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors ). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Nada, M.A. 2001. Observations on the trade in s ea turtles at the fish market of Alexandria, Eqypt. Zoology in the Middle East 24:109-118.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1984. Recovery plan for marine turtles. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Sea turtle conserva tion; shrimp trawling requirements. Federal Register 52(124):24244-24262, June 29, 1987.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Sea turtle conserva tion; shrimp trawling requirements. Federal Register 57(234):57348-57358, December 4, 1992.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of th e pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and

leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce,

NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-455.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2002a. Biological opinion on shrimp trawling in the southeastern United States, under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regula tions and as managed by the Fishery Management Plans for shrimp in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida, December 2, 2002.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2002b. Sea turtle cons ervation; restric tions to fishing activities. Federal Register 67(232):71895-71900, December 3, 2002.IV-28 National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2003a. Biological op inion on the conti nued operation of Atlantic shark fisheries (commercial shark bot tom longline and drift gillnet fisheries and recreational shark fisheries) under the fishery management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks (HMS FMP) and the propo sed rule for draft amendment 1 to the HMS FMP, July 2003. National Marine Fisheries Se rvice, St. Petersburg, Florida, October 29,

2003.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2003b. Endangered and threatened wildlife; sea turtle conservation requirements. Federal Register 68(35):8456-8471, February 3, 2003.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004a. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Pelagic Longline Fishery. Federal Regi ster 69(128):40734-40758, July 6, 2004.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004b. Biological opinio n on the reinitiati on of consultation on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for highly migratory species . National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida, June 1, 2004.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Biological opini on on the continued authorization of reef fish fishing under the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) reef fish fishery management plan (RFFMP) and proposed amendment 23. National Marine Fisheries Serv ice, St. Petersburg, Florida, February 15, 2005.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006a. Biological opinio n on the continued authorization of snapper-grouper fishing in the U.S. South A tlantic Exclusive Econom ic Zone (EEZ) as managed under the snapper-gr ouper fishery management plan (SGFMP) of the South Atlantic Region, including amendment 13C to the SGFMP. Nationa l Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida, June 7, 2006.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2006b. Sea turtle cons ervation; modification to fishing activities. Federal Regi ster 71(121):36024-36033, June 23, 2006.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2007. Estimated take s of protected species in the commercial directed shark bottom longlin e fishery 2006. NMFS Southeast Fisheries

Science Center Contribution PRD- 07/08-05, November 2007. 15 pages.

National Marine Fisherie s Service. 2008a. Biological op inion on the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan [Consultati on No. F/NER/2007/00973]. National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester , Massachusetts, March 14, 2008.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008b. Estimated takes of sea turtles in the bottom longline portion of the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery July 2006 through 2007 based on observer

data. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Contribution PRD-07/08-15, September 2008. 21 pages.IV-29 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ). National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati on and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Final damage assessment and restoration plan/envir onmental assessment for the Fort Lauderdale mystery oil spill - Fort Lauderdale, Flor ida and vicinity. 83 pages.

National Research Council. 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 148 pages.

National Research Council. 1989. Measuri ng and Understanding Coastal Processes for Engineering Purposes. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 119 pages.

National Research Council. 1990a. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Ca uses and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pages.

National Research Council. 1990b. Managing Coastal Erosion. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 182 pages.

National Research Council. 1994. Improving the Management of U.S. Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 62 pages.

National Research Council. 1995. Beach N ourishment and Protection. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 334 pages.

National Research Council. 1996. An Asse ssment of Techniques for Removing Offshore Structures. National Academy Pre ss, Washington, D.C. 76 pages.

National Research Council. 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 136 pages.

Nelson, D.A. and B. Blihovde. 1998. Nesting sea turtle response to beach scarps. Page 113 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixt eenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Me morandum NMFS-SEFSC412.

Nelson, D.A. and D.J. Shafer. 1996. Effectiven ess of a sea turtle-d eflecting hopper dredge draghead in Port Canaveral Entrance Channel, Florida. Miscellaneous Paper D-96-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stat ion, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 44 pages.

Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck, and J. Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. Technical Report EL- 87-15, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vi cksburg, Mississippi. 56 pages + appendix.IV-30 Nelson, K., R. Trindell, B. Witherington, and B. Morford. 2002. An analysis of reported

disorientation events in the St ate of Florida. Pages 323-324 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Tw entieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology

and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477.

Norton, T.M., J.M. Keller, M. Peden-Adams, R.D. Day, N. Stedman, A. Segars, E. Greiner, C. Harms, M. Frick, M. Dodd, B. Schroeder, W. Teas, T. Sheridan, B. Hecker, and E. Jacobson. In press. Debilitated loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) syndrome along the

southeastern US coast: inciden ce, pathogenesis and monitoring. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Symposium on S ea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

O’Hara, J. and J.R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoida nce responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta

, to low frequency sound. Copeia 1990(2):564-567.

Okuyama, T. and B.M. Bolker. 2005. Combining genetic and ecological da ta to estimate sea turtle origins. Ecologi cal Applications 15:315-325.

Orós, J., P. Calabuig, and S. Déniz. 2004. Dige stive pathology of sea turtles stranded in the Canary Islands between 1993 and 2001. Veterinary Record 155:169-174.

Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, T.J. Boardman, a nd M.D. Ashen. 1981. Possible adaptive value of water exchange in flexib le-shelled eggs of turt les. Science 213:471-473.

Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and W.H.N. Gutz ke. 1985. Influence of hydration of the environment on eggs and embryos of the terrestrial turtle Terrapene ornata . Physiological Zoology 58(5):564-575.

Parkinson, R.W., L. Lucas, and J.P. Magron. 1 999. Physical attributes of nesting beaches: marine turtle monitoring program. Sebastian Inlet Tax District Report. I ndiatlantic, Florida. June 16, 1999. 31 pages.

Parmenter, C.J. 1980. Incubation of the eggs of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas , in Torres Strait, Australia: the effect of movement on hatchability. Australian Wildlife Research

7:487-491.

Pearce, A.F. 2001. Contrasting populati on structure of the loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 71 pages.

Peden-Adams, M.M., K. Kannan, A.M. Lee, J.G. EuDaly, S. Taniyasu, N. Yamashita, J.R. Kucklick, M.D. Arendt, P.P. Maier, A.L. Segars, J.D. Whitaker, and J.M. Keller. In press.

Perfluorinated contaminants measured in sea tu rtle blood correlate to modulations in plasma chemistry values and immune function measurements. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.IV-31 Peters, A. and K.J.F. Verhoeven, 1994. Impact of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Journal of Herpetology 28(1):112-114.

Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings, Eretmochelys imbricata , by stadium lights. Copeia 1976(4):824.

Pianka, E.R. 1974. Evolutionary Ecol ogy. New York.Harper and Row. 336pp.

Pilkey, Jr., O.H., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal, and B.L. Gruver. 1984. Living with the East Florida S hore. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. 55 pages.

Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris by sea turtles stranded along the south Texas coast. Pages 79-82 i n Schroeder, B.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214.

Plotkin, P. and A.F. Amos. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Pages 736-743 i n Shomura, R.S. and M.L. Godfrey (editors). Proceedings of the Second International C onference on Marine Debris. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NOAA-TM-SWFSC-154.

Plotkin, P.T. and J.R. Spotila. 2002. Post -nesting migrations of loggerhead turtles Caretta

caretta from Georgia, USA: conservation imp lications for a genetically distinct subpopulation. Oryx 36(4):396-399.

Plotkin, P.T., M.K. Wicksten, and A.F. Amos. 1993. Feeding ecology of the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta , in the northwestern Gulf of Me xico. Marine Biology 115(1):1-15.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1979. Encyclopedia of turtles. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune, New Jersey. 895 pages.

Pritchard, P.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The tu rtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Contributions to Herpetolology, Number 2.

Pritchard, P., P. Bacon, F. Berry, A. Carr, J. Fl etemeyer, R. Gallagher, S. Hopkins, R. Lankford, R. Marquez, L. Ogren, W. Pringle, Jr., H. Re ichart, and R. Witham. 1983. Manual of sea turtle research and conservation techniques, second edition. Cent er for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 126 pages.

Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 2003. Crysta l River Energy Complex 2002 annual sea turtle report. 5 pages.IV-32 Provancha, J.A. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. Sea tu rtle nesting trends at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with fact ors influencing nest site selection. Pages 33-44 in Witzell, W.N. (editor). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles: Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florid a Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical Report

NMFS-53.

Pugh, R.S. and P.R. Becker. 2001. Sea turtle contaminants: a review with annotated bibliography. National Institute of Standards and Technology NISTIR 6700.

Rabalais, S.C. and N.N. Rabalais. 1980. The occu rrence of sea turtles on the south Texas coast.

Contributions in Marine Science 23:123-129.

Rankin-Baransky, K., C.J. Williams, A.L. Bass, B.W. Bowen, and J.R. Spotila. 2001. Origin of loggerhead turtles stranded in the northeastern United States as dete rmined by mitochondrial DNA analysis. Journal of Herpetology 35(4):638-646.

Reardon, R. and K. Mansfield. 1997. Annual report-1997 season: Dry Tortugas National Park sea turtle monitoring program, Monroe County, Florida. National Park Service unpublished report. 37 pages.

Redlow, T., A. Foley, and K. Singel. 2003. Sea turt le mortality associated with red tide events in Florida. Page 272 in Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503.

Reich, K.J., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, and B. E. Witherington. 2007. Do some loggerheads nesting in Florida have an oceanic foragi ng strategy? An assessment based on stable isotopes. Page 32 in Mast, R.B., B.J. Hutchinson, a nd A.H. Hutchinson (compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-567.

Reichart, H.A. and J. Fretey. 1993. WIDECAST sea turtle recovery action plan for Suriname (Karen L. Eckert, Editor). CEP Technical Report No. 2. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica. 65 pages.

Reina, R.D., P.A. Mayor, J.R. Spotila, R. Pied ra, and F.V. Paladino. 2002. Nesting ecology of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea , at Parque Nacional Ma rino Las Baulas, Costa Rica: 1988-1989 to 1999-2000. Copeia 2002(3):653-664.

Richards, P.M. 2007. Estimated takes of protec ted species in the commercial directed shark bottom longline fishery 2003, 2004, 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast

Fisheries Science Center Contributio n PRD-06/07-08, June 2007. 21 pages.IV-33 Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdesche l, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration patterns of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) nesting on Little Cumberland Island and Cumberland Island, Georgia. Pages 39-44 in Henderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings of the Florida and Interregional Confer ence on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research Publications

Number 33.

Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin, and J.H. Anderson. 1969. Hearing in the giant sea turtle, Chelonia mydas . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 64(3):884-890.

Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead , ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. Pages

189-195 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Routa, R.A. 1968. Sea turtle nest survey of Hutc hinson Island, Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 30(4):287-294.

Royle, J.A. 2000. Estimation of the TED effect in Georgia strandings data. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland. 11 pages.

Ruckdeschel, C.A. and C.R. Shoop. 1988. Gut c ontents of loggerheads: findings, problems and new questions. Pages 97-98 i n Schroeder, B.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-214.

Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment

on Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle ) nesting. Restorati on Ecology 9(3):304-310.

Rybitski, M.J., R.C. Hale, and J.A. Musick. 1995. Distribution of orga nochlorine pollutants in Atlantic sea turtles. Copeia 1995(2):379-390.

Ryder, C.E. 1993. The effect of beach re nourishment on sea turtles nesting and hatching

success at Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area , East-Central, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Instit ute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 109 pages.

Salmon, M., J. Wyneken, E. Fritz, and M. Lucas. 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour 122 (1-2):56-77.

Samuel, Y., S.J. Morreale, C.W. Clark, C.H. Greene, and M.E. Richmond. 2005. Underwater, low-frequency noise in a coasta l sea turtle habitat. Journa l of the Acoustical Society of America 117(3):1465-1472.IV-34 Sanger, D.M. and A.F. Holland. 2002. Evaluation of impacts of dock structures on South

Carolina estuarine environments. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute Technical Report 99. 82 pages.

Sasso, C.R. and S.P. Epperly. 2007. Survival of pelagic juvenile loggerh ead turtles in the open

ocean. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(6):1830-1835.

Sasso, C.R., J. Braun-McNeill, L. Avens, and S.P. Epperly. 2006. Effects of transients on estimating survival and population growth in ju venile loggerhead turtles. Marine Ecology Progress Series 324:287-292.

Sasso, C.R., J. Braun-McNeill, L. Avens, and S.P. Epperly. 2007. Summer abundance estimates

of Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtles) in Core S ound, NC. Southeastern Naturalist 6(2):365-369.

Schmelz, G.W. and R.R. Mezich. 1988. A prelim inary investigation of the potential impact of Australian pines on the nesting activities of the loggerhead tu rtle. Pages 63-66 in Schroeder, B.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Eight h Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-214.

Schroeder, B.A. 1981. Predation and nest su ccess in two species of marine turtles ( Caretta

caretta and Chelonia mydas ) at Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist 44(1):35.

Schroeder, B.A. and A.E. Mosi er. 2000. Between a rock and a hard place: coastal armoring and marine turtle nesting habitat in Florida. Pages 290-292 in Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. BriseñoDueñas, R. Márquez, and L. Sarti (compilers ). Proceedings of the Eighteenth Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Me morandum NMFS-SEFSC436.

Schroeder, B. and S. Murphy. 1999. Population surveys (ground and aerial) on nesting beaches. Pages 45-55 in Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abre u-Grobois, and M. D onnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication Number 4.

Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, and D.A. Ba gley. 2003. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. Pages 114-124 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington

D.C.

Schwartz, F.J. 1978. Behavioral and tolerance responses to cold water temperatures by three species of sea turtles (Reptilia, Chelon iidae) in North Carolina. Pages 16-18 in Henderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings of the Florida and Interregional Conference on Sea Turtles.

Florida Marine Research Publications Number 33.

Schwartz, F.J. 1988. Aggregation of young hatchling sea turtles in Sargassum off North

Carolina. Marine Turt le Newsletter 42:9-10.IV-35 Scott, J.A. 2006. Use of satellite telemetry to determine ecology and management of loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) during the nesting season in Ge orgia. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Geor gia, Athens, Georgia. 165 pages.

Segars, A., D. Whitaker, M. Arendt, S. Mur phy, and B. Stender. 2005. Analyses of blood chemistry in loggerheads and Kemp's ridley tu rtles during Year 1 of SCDNR index study off SE USA. Pages 318-319 in Coyne, M.S. and R.D. Clark (compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Sea Tu rtle Biology and C onservation. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528.

Seney, E.E. 2003. Historical di et analysis of loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) and Kemp’s ridley ( Lepidochelys kempi ) sea turtles in Virginia. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 123 pages.

Seney, E.E. and J.A. Musick. 2007. Historical diet analysis of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta

caretta ) in Virginia. Copeia 2007(2):478-489.

Shaver, D.J. and W.G. Teas. 1999. Stra nding and salvage networks. Pages 152-155 in Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, a nd M. Donnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4.

Shigenaka, G. (editor). 2003. Oil and Sea Tu rtles: Biology, Planning, an d Response. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administ ration, NOAA’s National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration. 111 pages.

Shoop, C.R., C.A. Ruckdeschel, an d R.D. Kenney. 1999. Long-term trends in size of stranded juvenile loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Chelonian Conser vation and Biology 3(3):501-504.

Simpfendorfer, C.A., A.B. Goodreid, and R.B. McAuley. 2001. Size, sex and geographic variation in the diet of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier , from Western Australia waters. Environmental Biology of Fishes 61:37-46.

Snover, M.L. 2002. Growth and ontogeny of s ea turtles using skeletochronology: Methods, validation and application to conservation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham, Nort h Carolina. 144 pages.

Snover, M.L., A.A. Hohn, and S.A. Macko. 2000. Detecting the precise time at settlement from pelagic to benthic habitats in the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta . Page 174 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (compilers). Proceedi ngs of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.IV-36 Sobel, D. 2002. A photographic documentation of aborted nesting at tempts due to lounge chairs. Page 311 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservati on. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477.

Solow, A.R. 2001. A comment on two models of th e remigration interval in marine turtles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 209:371-372.

Solow, A.R., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 2002. Annual variation in nesting numbers of marine turtles: the effect of sea surface temperature on re-migration intervals. Ecology

Letters 5:742-746.

Spotila, J.R., P.T. Plotkin, and J.A. Keinath. 19 97. In water population surv ey of sea turtles in Delaware Bay. Final Report to the National Ma rine Fisheries Service Office of Protected

Resources for Work Conducted under C ontract #43AANF600211 and NMFS Permit No. 1007. 21 pages.

Stamper, M.A., C. Harms, S.P. Epperly, J. Braun-McNeill, L. Avens, and M.K. Stoskopf. 2005. Relationship between barnacle epibiotic load a nd hematologic parameters in loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ), a comparison between migrator y and residential animals in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 36(4):635-641.

Stancyk, S.E. 1982. Non-human predators of s ea turtles and their c ontrol. Pages 139-152 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biol ogy and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle

Caretta caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon predation by transplantation. Biological Conservation 18:289-298.

Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead turtle reproduction: a seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 14(3):1000-1013.

Stewart, K.R. and J. Wyneken. 2004. Predation risk to loggerhead hatchlings at a high-density nesting beach in Southeast Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 74(2):325-335.

Swimmer, Y. and J.H. Wang. 2007. 2006 Sea Tu rtle and Pelagic Fish Sensory Physiology Workshop, September 12-13, 2006. U.S. Depa rtment of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-12. 45 pages.

Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs. 1990. Beach response to the presence of a seawall. A comparison of field observations. Shore and Beach 58(2):11-28.IV-37 Talbert, O.R., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, a nd J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a r ookery in transition. Copeia 1980(4):709-718.

Teas, W.G. 1994. 1993 annual report of the sea tu rtle stranding and salvage network: Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States, January – December 1993. NOAA/NMFS, Miami Laboratory contribution nu mber MIA-94/95-12, Miami, Florida. 46 pages.

Titus, J.G. and V.K. Narayanan. 1995. The proba bility of sea level rise . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 230-R-95-008. 184 pages.

Tiwari, M., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, and A. Moumni. 2002. Morocco and western Sahara: sites of an early neritic stage in th e life history of loggerheads? Page 9 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-477.

Trindell, R., D. Arnold, K. Moody, and B. Morf ord. 1998. Post-construction marine turtle nesting monitoring results on nourished beaches. Pages 77-92 in Tait, L.S. (compiler). Proceedings of the 1998 Annual National C onference on Beach Preservation Technology.

Florida Shore & Beach Preservation A ssociation, Tallahassee, Florida.

Turtle Expert Working Group. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtle populations in th e Western North Atlantic.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409. 66 pages.

Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444. 115 pages.

U.N. General Assembly, 46 th Session. Resolution 46/215 Large- scale pelagic drift-net fishing and its impact on the living marine resources of the world’s ocenas and seas.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in wate rs of the U.S. - testing manual. EPA-823-B98-004, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Ma rine Fisheries Service. 1978. Listing and protecting loggerhead sea turtles as “threatened species” a nd populations of green and olive ridley sea turtles as threatened species or “endangered species.” Federal Register 43(146):32800-32811, July 28, 1978.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Se rvice. 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate populat ion segments under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 61 (26):4722-4725, February 7, 1996.IV-38 Valentine, K.H., C.A. Harms, M.B. Cadenas, A. J. Birkenheuer, H.S. Marr, J. Braun-McNeill, R.G. Maggi, and E.B. Breitschwerdt. 2007. Bartonella DNA in loggerhead sea turtles. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13(6):949-950.

Van Houtan, K.S. and O.L. Bass. 2007. Stormy ocean s are associated with declines in sea turtle hatching. Current Biology 17(15):R590-R591.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. Van Vleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. Study of the effects of oil on marine turtles: final report. OCS Study MMS 86-0070. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexi co OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. 3 volumes, 360 pages.

Viada, S.T., R.M. Hammer, R. Racca, D. Ha nnay, M.J. Thompson, B.J. Balcom, and N.W. Phillips. 2008. Review of potential impacts to sea turtles from underwater explosive

removal of offshore structures. Environm ental Impact Assessment Review 28:267-285.

Walsh, M. 1999. Rehabilitation of sea turtles. Pages 202-207 in Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques for

the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication

Number 4.

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: a comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology 12(6):1180-1197.

Watson, J.W., S.P. Epperly, A.K. Shah, and D.G. Foster. 2005. Fishing methods to reduce sea turtle mortality associated with pelagic l onglines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:965-981.

Wetherall, J.A., G.H. Balazs, R.A. Tokunaga, and M.Y.Y. Yong. 1993. Bycatch of marine turtles in North Pacific high-se as driftnet fisheries and impacts on the stocks. Pages 519-538

in Ito, J., W. Shaw, and R.L. Burgner (edito rs). Symposium on Bi ology, Distribution, and Stock Assessment of Species Caugh t in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries in the North Pacific

Ocean. International North Pacific Fish eries Commission Bulletin Number 53 (III), Vancouver, Canada.

Whitaker, B.R. and H. Krum. 1999. Medical mana gement of sea turtles in aquaria. Pages 217-

231 in Fowler, M.E. and R.E. Miller (editors). Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine: Current Therapy (4 th edition). W.B. Saunders Co. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural ca uses of marine turtle clutch and hatchling mortality and their relationshi p to hatchling production on an important Florida nesting beach. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Cent ral Florida, Orlando, Florida. 141 pages.

Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral response s of nesting sea turtle s to artificial lighting. Herpetologica 48(1):31-39.IV-39 Witherington, B.E. 1995. Observations of hatch ling loggerhead turtles dur ing the first few days of the lost year(s). Pages 154-157 in Richardson, J.I. and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Sea Tu rtle Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and

Conservation. NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361.

Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of phot opollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals. Pages 303-328 in Clemmons, J.R. and R. Buchholz (editors). Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Witherington, B.E. 1999. Reducing thre ats to nesting habitat. Pages 179-183 in Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. D onnelly (editors). Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Tu rtle Specialist Group

Publication No. 4.

Witherington, B.E. 2002. Ecology of neona te loggerhead turtles inhabiting lines of downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 140:843-853.

Witherington, B.E. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. In fluences of artificial lighting on the seaward

orientation of hatchli ng loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Biological Conservation

55:139-149.

Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of marine turtles in the Indian River Lagoon system, Florida. Copeia 1989:696.

Witherington, B.E. and S. Hirama. 2006. Pelagi c plastic packs little loggerheads. Pages 137-

138 in Pilcher, N.J. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536.

Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving lightpollution problems on sea turtle nesting beach es. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2. 73 pages.

Witherington, B.E. and M. Salmon. 1992. Preda tion on loggerhead turtle hatchlings after entering the sea. Journal of Herpetology 26(2):226-228.

Witherington, B., K. Bjorndal, and A. Bolten. 19 94. An evaluation of the use of dune structure

to reduce effects of artificia l lighting on hatchling sea tu rtle sea-finding and offshore orientation. Unpublished Final Report to the U.S. Air Force, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and the Florida Cooperativ e Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida, under Research Work Order 75. 38 pages.

Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of nocturnal emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings fr om natural nests. Copeia 1990(4):1165-1168.IV-40 Witherington, B., C. Crady, and L. Bolen. 1996. A “hatchling orientation index” for assessing orientation disruption from ar tificial lighting. Pages 344-347 in Keinath, J.A., D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. Bell (compilers). Pr oceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on the Biology and Conservation of Sea Tu rtles. NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-387.

Witherington, B., S. Hirama, and A. Mosier. 2003. Effects of beach armoring structures on marine turtle nesting. A Final Project Report to the US Fish a nd Wildlife Service. 26 pages.

Witherington, B., L. Lucas, and C. Koeppel. 200 5. Nesting sea turtles re spond to the effects of ocean inlets. Pages 355-356 i n Coyne, M.S. and R.D. Clark (compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Sea Tu rtle Biology and C onservation. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528.

Witherington, B., S. Hirama, and A. Mosier. 2006. Changes to armoring and other barriers to sea turtle nesting following severe hurricane s striking Florida beaches. A Final Project Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pages.

Witherington, B., P. Kubilis, B. Brost, and A. Meylan. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle popu lation. Ecological Applications 19:30-54.

Witzell, W.N. 1987. Selective predation on la rge cheloniid sea turtles by tiger sharks ( Galeocerdo cuvier ). Japanese Journal of Herpetology 12(1):22-29.

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the we stern North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fishery Bulletin 97(1):200-211.

Witzell, W.N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ): suggested changes to the life history model. Herp etological Review 33(4):266-269.

Wood, D.W. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity, and slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 2000(1):119-128.

Wyneken, J. and M. Salmon. 1992. Frenzy and postfrenzy swimming activity in loggerhead, green and leatherback hatchling sea turtles. Copeia 1992(2):478-484.

Wyneken J. and M. Salmon. 1996. Aquatic predation, fish densities, and pot ential threats to sea turtle hatchlings from open-beach hatcheries : final report. Technical Report 96-04, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.

Wyneken, J., L. DeCarlo, L. Glenn, M. Salmon, D. Davidson, S. Weege, and L. Fisher. 1998. On the consequences of timing, location and fish for hatchlings leaving open beach hatcheries. Pages 58-59 in Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservati on. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.IV-41 Youngkin, D.A. 2001. A long-term dietary an alysis of loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) based on strandings from Cumberland Island, Ge orgia. Unpublished Master of Science

thesis. Florida Atlantic Universit y, Boca Raton, Florida. 65 pages.

Zug, G.R., G.H. Balazs, and J.A. Wetherall. 19 95. Growth in juvenile loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) in the North Pacific pelagic habitat. Copeia 1995(2):484-487.

Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Torres, C. Calderón, L. Gómez, J.C. Alvarado, and R. Villavicencio. 2003. Nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Pages 125-127 in Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and C onservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum

NMFS-SEFSC-503.IV-42V-1 

### PART V. APPENDICESV-2V-3 

### A PPENDIX 

### 1: L OGGERHEAD 

### T HREATS 

### A NALYSIS

A comprehensive assessment of reco very plans indicated that the an alysis of threats has received insufficient attention (Clark et al . 2002) and that this lack of knowledge regarding the nature of threats facing a species is likely to contribu te to the failure of recovery plans (Lawler et al

. 2002). Based on these assessments, the Loggerhead Recovery Team undertook a detailed analysis of threats to assist in prioritizing recovery actions. The following steps describe the process used to identify, categorize, quantify, a nd prioritize threats to the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead. Th e annotated threats tables ar e posted on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Recovery Plan website [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/r ecovery/plans.htm#turtles].

(1) Threats affecting loggerheads are often specific to life stages and the habitats in which they occur. The Team identified and evalua ted eight life stages (see Figure 8) in the threats analysis: egg, hatchling, hatchling sw im frenzy and transiti onal stage, juvenile oceanic stage, juvenile neritic stage, adult oc eanic stage, adult neritic stage, and nesting

female.

(2) The three ecosystems inhabited by loggerhead s (terrestrial, neritic , and oceanic) were

then associated with the life stages occurring in those ecosystems as the first step in developing the threats anal ysis matrix as shown:



### Lifestage Ecosystem
Nesting female Terrestrial Zone Egg Terrestrial Zone Hatchling stage Terrestrial Zone Hatchling swim frenzy, transitional stage Neritic Zone

Juvenile stage Oceanic Zone

Adult stage Oceanic Zone Juvenile stage Neritic Zone

Adult stage Neritic Zone

(3) All identified threats to the Northwest Atlantic population of the l oggerhead sea turtle were grouped into 7 categories (see Table A1-1): fisheries bycatch, resource use [nonfisheries], construction and development, ecosystem alterations, pollution, species interactions, and other factors.

(4) To facilitate quantifying and presenting the threats affecting the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle, the th ree elements (life stage, ecosystem, and specific categories of threats) were combined in to a matrix using MS Excel (Table A1-2). A separate worksheet was developed for each of the 7 threat categories (see Table A1-1) with each specific threat within the threat categories identified as a separate column.V-4 (5) Annual mortality for each life stage/ecosystem for each specific threat was estimated as a “category” of mortality using a color-coded log 10 scale (Table A1-3). The log midpoint for that color-coded category wa s used for calculations of the annual mortality (see #9 and #10 below) to be consistent with the l ogarithmic scale of categories of mortality. When quantitative data were not available, the Team assigned a category of mortality

based on best available information. The < COMMENT > feature of Excel was used to document the data source, calculations, and justification for each estimate of mortality presented in each cell of the matrix. The annotated threat s tables with < COMMENT > fields are posted on the NMFS Office of Pr otected Resources Recovery Plan website [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/r ecovery/plans.htm#turtles].

The Team identified a number of threats wh ere mortality has been documented or is likely to occur. However, for these threats, da ta are insufficient at th is time to allow for an estimation of mortality. For these threat s where mortality is known but not quantified, the cell is shaded gray and assigned a value of 1 (= annual mortality of 1 individual in that category) so that these potentially impor tant threats would appear in the summary

tables.

(6) For each threat category, the total annual mortality for each life stage/ecosystem for all specific threats within that threat category was calculated by summing across the row (see column “Sum” in Table A1-4). To co mpare annual mortality among life stages, the annual mortality for each life stage was adjust ed by the reproductive value of each life stage. This adjustment is necessary becau se some individuals in a population are more

“valuable” than others in terms of the number of offspring they are expected to produce. An individual’s potential for contributing offspring to future generations is its reproductive value (RV, Table A1-5). The re productive values were developed using a stage-based demographic model (see #7 below) for the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle population (Table A1-6; M. S nover, unpublished data). The reproductive

values were converted to “r elative reproductive values” ba sed on the reproductive value of a nesting female, which is 1 (Table A1-5). The summed annual mortality for each life stage/ecosystem for all specific threats with in a threat category was adjusted by the relative reproductive value for each life stage in the column “Total Estimated Adjusted Annual Mortality (number of adult females)” (see Table A1-4).

Several assumptions were made in calculati ng the relative reproductive values and need to be recognized when interpreting the resu lts of this threats analysis. Table A1-6 suggests that there is a knife-edge ontogeneti c change from the oceanic juvenile stage to the neritic juvenile stage. In reality, th is ontogenetic change occurs over ages 7-12 (Bjorndal et al . 2000, 2003a). In addition, the neriti c juvenile stage spans years 8-33, which combines small and large juveniles into this single life stage and results in an overestimate of adjusted mortality for th reats affecting small juveniles and an underestimate of adjusted mortality fo r threats affecting large juveniles.

(7) The stage-based demographic model that was used to develop the reproductive values had the following parameters:V-5 We assumed 34 years to first reproduction, a total of 7 years in the oceanic stage (Bjorndal et al . 2000), with the first year identified as hatc hlings. For surv ival rates we followed NMFS (2001) with adult annual surviv al rate = 0.812, neri tic juvenile annual survival rate = 0.893, and oceanic juvenile a nnual survival rate was adjusted to 0.725 to

result in λ = 0.98. For the first year survival rate, we used the smallest value reported for potential oceanic annual survival rates fo r small, similar-sized Kemp’s ridleys, 0.25 (Heppell et al . 2005). Fecundity values were 4.1 ne sts per year, 115 eggs per nest, and a 0.50 sex ratio (NMFS 2001). NMFS (2001) used a nest survival rate of 0.675 which is the value from Wassaw Island, Georgia. As this beach is monitored and protected, we assumed a lower value would be more representa tive of the entire nesting region and used the value of 0.50. An age-based matrix m odel was used that cycled adult females between breeding and nonbreeding years (NMFS 2001, Heppell et al . 2003b). The matrix differed slightly from those of NMFS (2001) and Heppell et al . (2003b) in that we did not incorporate first year su rvival into the fecundity (i.e ., we used a post-breed rather than a pre-breed model).

(8) The threats tables for each of the threats categories are presented on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Recovery Plan website [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans .htm#turtles; also see Appendix 2].

(9) Two types of summary tables were develope d. First, a summary table was developed by combining the row totals for the specific th reats within a threat category adjusted for relative reproductive values (step #6 above), for each of the 7 threat categories (Table A1-7). Values are not pres ented in this summary table, only categories of annual estimates of mortality based on the color-coded log scale. Summary Table A1-7 presents the relative importance of each threat category by life stage/ecosystem.

(10) A second summary table was developed to present the annual mortality for each specific threat within a threat category summed for all life stages/ecosystems and adjusted for relative reproductive values for each lif e stage/ecosystem (Table A1-8).

(11) The summary tables allowed the Recovery T eam to evaluate the relative importance of each threat category by life stage/ecosystem a nd by specific threat. The Recovery Team used these summary tables to identify and prioritize recovery actions (see Recovery Narrative and Implementation Schedule).

(12) In addition to prioritizing recovery actions , the summary tables identify gaps in our knowledge (gray-shaded cells) where further re search is needed. Although these grayshaded cells could not be quantified, they may represent significant threats to the recovery of the Northwes t Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle.

(13) Sublethal effects have been identified for certa in threats and life stages and are identified by stippling in the appropriate cells of the threats tables. These sublethal effects are likely to affect individual fitness (e.g., redu ced somatic growth, egg production, hatchling production, nesting range, foraging range).V-6 Table A1-1. Threat categories and description.

Category Threat Description

Bottom trawl Includes bottom trawl fisheries for blue crab, flounder, genera l finfish, scallop, shrimp, whelk, and the North Carolina flynet fishery for weakfish Top/midwater trawl Includes trawls for sargassum and cannonball jellyfish Dredge Includes dredge fisheries for scallops

and whelks Pelagic longline Includes longline fisheries for shark, swordfish, tuna, and wahoo Demersal longline Includes longline fisheries for black

scabbard and shark Demersal, large mesh gillnet Includes gillnet fisheries for black drum, dogfish, monkfish, shark, and southern

flounder Demersal, small mesh gillnet Includes gillnet fisheries for general

finfish Drift gillnet Includes drift gillnet fisheries for shark, swordfish, and tuna

Pound nets and weirs Pot/trap fisheries Includes pot fisheries for blue crab, lobster, stone crab, and whelk

Haul seine

Channel net Purse seine Includes purse seines for menhaden and

tuna

Other hook and line (recreational) Fisheries Bycatch

Other hook and line (commercial) Includes commercial hook and line fisheries for snapper/grouper, Gulf reef fish, king and Spanish mackerel, and

sharksV-7 Table A1-1. Threat categories a nd description, continued.

Category Threat Description Legal harvest Illegal harvest Oil and gas activities

Vessel strikes Beach cleaning Human presence

Recreational beach equipment Beach vehicular driving Power generating activities

Conservation/research

activities Includes harassment of nesting females and hatchlings, handling of eggs, etc. Military activities Resource Use (non-fisheries)

Salvage Operations Beach sand placement Includes beach nourishment, beach restoration, and inlet sand bypassing Beach armoring Includes bulkheads, seawalls, soil retaining walls, rock revetments, sandbags, and geotextile tubes

Other shoreline stabilizations Incl udes groins, jetties, mesh groins (nets), and offshore breakwaters

Sand fences Dredging

Stormwater outfalls Coastal construction Refers to buildings on the coast Channel blasting Construction and Development

(Although light pollution is

associated with

construction and development, that threat is captured

under the

“Pollution” category.)

Bridge blasting Trophic changes from fishing Refers to trophic changes from fishingrelated activities (e .g., bottom trawling) Trophic changes from

benthic habitat alteration Beach erosion (washouts)

and accretion Aquaculture Ecosystem

Alterations

EutrophicationV-8 Table A1-1. Threat categories a nd description, continued.

Category Threat Description Marine debris ingestion Marine debris entanglement in derelict fishing gear Marine debris entanglement in non-fishing gear Beach debris Includes large items that can impede or trap hatchlings and/or nesting females Oil pollution Light pollution Noise pollution Thermal pollution Includes thermal pollution from power plants Pollution

Chemical pollution

Predation Disease and parasites Harmful algal blooms Predation by exotic species Species Interactions

Exotic dune and beach vegetation Climate change Natural catastrophes

Cold water Other Factors

Other (egg stage only) Includes root damage, disease events, infertile eggs, relocation mortality, and

inundationV-9 Table A1-2. Threats matrix.



### Life Stage Ecosystem Threats

Nesting female Terrestrial

Zone

Egg Terrestrial

Zone

Hatchling stage Terrestrial

Zone

Hatchling swim frenzy, transitional stage Neritic Zone

Juvenile stage Oceanic Zone

Adult stage Oceanic Zone

Juvenile stage Neritic Zone

Adult stage Neritic ZoneV-10 Table A1-3. Key used to assign estimated annual mortality to each threat category.



### Estimated Annual Mortality Color

Code Value

No evidence of mortality, based on best available

information

Sub-lethal effects occur at this stage and may result in

reduced fitness (e.g., reduced somatic growth rates, reduced hatchling production, reduced prey abundance, reduced quality of nesting and/or foraging habitats)

> 0 Mortality has been documented or is likely to occur; however, data are insufficient to estimate mortality 

### 1

1-10 

### 3

11-100 

### 30

101-1000 

### 300

1001-10,000 

### 3,000

10,001-100,000 

### 30,000

100,001-1,000,000 

### 300,000 

## KEYV-11Table A1-4.Estimated annual mortality calculations.LIFE STAGE ECOSYSTEMTRAWL(BOTTOM)TRAWL (TOP/MID- WATER)DREDGEFISHERIESLONGLINE(PELAGIC)LONGLINE(DEMER-SAL)GILLNET(DEMER-SAL,LG. MESH)GILLNET(DEMER-SAL,SM. MESH)GILLNET(DRIFT)POUND NETSAND WEIRSPOT/TRAPFISHERIESHAUL SEINES CHANNEL NET PURSE SEINEOTHER HOOK& LINE(RECREA-TIONAL)OTHER HOOK& LINE (COMM-ERCIAL)SUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATEDADJUSTED ANNUALMORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone0 1.000 0EggTerrestrial Zone0 0.004 0Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone0 0.004 0Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone 11 0.004 0Juvenile stageOceanic Zone 30,0001 130,002 0.029 870Adult stageOceanic Zone1 12 0.789 2Juvenile stage Neritic Zone30,0001 300 1 3,000 3,000 300 30 30 30 1 1 1 30 30 36,755 0.235 8637Adult stage Neritic Zone3,0001 30 1 300 300 30 3 3 30 1 1 1 3 3 3,707 0.789 29259417 1 94 872 942 942 94 10 9 31 1 1 1 9 9Table A2-1. Results of threats analyses for threat category FISHERIES BYCATCH.TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)V-12 Table A1-5. Reproductive values and relative reproductive values.



### Lifestage Ecosystem Reproductive

Values Relative Reproductive

Values

Nesting female Terrestrial Zone 

# 253.1 1.000

Egg Terrestrial Zone 

# 1 0.004

Hatchling stage Terrestrial Zone 

# 1 0.004

Hatchling swim frenzy, transitional stage Neritic Zone 

# 1 0.004

Juvenile stage Oceanic Zone 

# 7.3 0.029

Adult stage Oceanic Zone 

# 199.8 0.789

Juvenile stage Neritic Zone 

# 59.6 0.235

Adult stage Neritic Zone 

# 199.8 0.789V-13 Table A1-6. Calculations for reproductive values.

Lifestage Age Stable Age

Distribution St a bl e A ge Distribution, eliminating eggs/hatchlings
stage Reproductive Values (RV) Weighted

mean of

RV for each stage Eggs/Hatchlings 1 0.439 1 1

2 0.112 0.199207793 3.915 7.3287694

3 0.083 0.147627204 5.294

4 0.061 0.108497102 7.16

5 0.045 0.080038846 9.683

6 0.034 0.060473794 13.095

7 0.025 0.044466025 17.71

8 0.018 0.032015538 23.95 59.565532

9 0.017 0.030236897 26.223

10 0.015 0.026679615 28.712

11 0.014 0.024900974 31.438

12 0.013 0.023122333 34.422

13 0.012 0.021343692 37.689

14 0.011 0.019565051 41.267

15 0.009709 0.017268826 45.184

16 0.008868 0.015772988 49.473

17 0.008099 0.014405214 54.169

18 0.007397 0.013156608 59.311

19 0.006756 0.012016499 64.941

20 0.00617 0.010974215 71.105

21 0.005635 0.010022642 77.854

22 0.005146 0.009152887 85.244

23 0.0047 0.008359613 93.336

24 0.004293 0.007635706 102.195

25 0.003921 0.006974051 111.896

26 0.003581 0.006369313 122.517

27 0.00327 0.005816156 134.146

28 0.002987 0.005312801 146.88

29 0.002728 0.004852133 160.822

30 0.002491 0.004430595 176.087

31 0.002275 0.004046408 192.801

32 0.002078 0.003696016 211.102

33 0.001898 0.003375861 231.14 Breeding Adults 34 0.003851 0.006849547 253.081 253.081 Non-Breeding Adults 35 0.006374 0.011337058 167.563 167.563

Adults 199.771 Oceanic Juveniles

Neritic JuvenilesV-14Table A1-7.Annual mortality for each lifestage/ecosystem for each threat category adjustedby relative reproductive equivalents(does not include sub-lethal effects, see individual threats tables in Appendix 2). Numeric values are notpresented in this summarytable, only categories of annual estimates of mortality based on thecolor-coded log scale (Table A1-3).LIFE STAGE ECOSYSTEMFISHERIES BYCATCHRESOURCE USE (NON-FISHERIES)CONSTRUCTION ANDDEVELOPMENTECOSYSTEMALTERATIONSPOLLUTIONSPECIESINTERACTIONSOTHER FACTORSNesting femaleTerrestrial ZoneEggTerrestrial ZoneHatchling stageTerrestrial ZoneSwim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic ZoneJuvenile stageOceanic ZoneAdult stageOceanic ZoneJuvenile stage Neritic ZoneAdult stage Neritic ZoneCATEGORIES OF THREATSTable A2-8. Annual mortality for each lifestage/ecosystem for each threat category adjusted by relative reproductive equivalents(does not include sub-lethal effects, see individual worksheets).V-15Table A1-8.Annual mortality for each threat within a threat categorysummed for all lifestages/ecosystems and adjusted for relativereproductive values for each lifestage/ecosystem (does not include sub-lethal effects, see individual threats tables in Appendix 2).Numeric values are not presented in this summary table, onlycategories of annual estimates of mortality based on the color-coded logscale (Table A1-3).THREATCATEGORYOther FactorsClimate changeNaturalcatastrophesCold waterOther (egg stageonly)SpeciesInteractionsPredation by nativespeciesDisease andparasitesHarmful algalbloomsPredation by exoticspeciesExotic dune andbeach vegetationEcosystemAlterationsTrophic changesfrom fisheryharvestTrophic changesfrom benthichabitat alterationBeach erosion(washouts) andaccretionAquaculture EutrophicationPollutionMarine debrisingestionMarine debrisentanglement inderelict fishinggearMarine debrisentanglement innon-fishing gearBeach debris Oil pollution Light pollution Noise pollution Thermal pollution Chemical pollutionConstructionandDevelopmentBeach sandplacementBeach armoringOther shorelinestabilizationsSand fences Dredging Stormwater outfallsCoastalconstructionChannel blasting Bridge blastingResource Use(non-fisheries)Legal harvest Illegal harvestOil and gasactivitiesVessel strikes Beach cleaning Human presenceRecreational beachequipmentBeach vehiculardrivingPower plantentrainmentConservation/research activitiesMilitary activities Salvage operationsFisheriesBycatchTrawl (bottom)Trawl (top/midwater)Dredge fisheries Longline (pelagic)Longline(demersal)Gillnet (demersal,lg. mesh)Gillnet (demersal,sm. mesh)Gillnet (drift)Pound nets andweirsPot/trap fisheries Haul seines Channel net Purse seineOther hook & line(recreational)Other hook & line(commercial)Table A2-9. Annual mortality for each threat within a threat category summed for all lifestages/ecosystems and adjusted for RRV for each lifestage/ecosystem (does not include sub-lethal effects, seeindividual worksheets).SPECIFIC THREAT WITHIN A THREAT CATEGORYV-16V-17APPENDIX2:THREATSTABLESThe following seven tables are the result ofthe loggerhead threats analysis described in Appendix 1. Please consult the excelfileposted on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Recovery Plan website [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm#turtles]to access detailed information used to derive the estimated annual mortality.LIFE STAGE ECOSYSTEMTRAWL(BOTTOM)TRAWL (TOP/MID- WATER)DREDGEFISHERIESLONGLINE(PELAGIC)LONGLINE(DEMER-SAL)GILLNET(DEMER-SAL,LG. MESH)GILLNET(DEMER-SAL,SM. MESH)GILLNET(DRIFT)POUND NETSAND WEIRSPOT/TRAPFISHERIESHAUL SEINES CHANNEL NET PURSE SEINEOTHER HOOK& LINE(RECREA-TIONAL)OTHER HOOK& LINE (COMM-ERCIAL)SUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATEDADJUSTED ANNUALMORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone0 1.000 0EggTerrestrial Zone0 0.004 0Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone0 0.004 0Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone 11 0.004 0Juvenile stageOceanic Zone 30,0001 130,002 0.029 870Adult stageOceanic Zone1 12 0.789 2Juvenile stage Neritic Zone30,0001 300 1 3,000 3,000 300 30 30 30 1 1 1 30 30 36,755 0.235 8637Adult stage Neritic Zone3,0001 30 1 300 300 30 3 3 30 1 1 1 3 3 3,707 0.789 29259417 1 94 872 942 942 94 10 9 31 1 1 1 9 9Table A2-1. Results of threats analyses for threat category FISHERIES BYCATCH.TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)V-18Life Stage EcosystemLEGALHARVESTILLEGALHARVESTOIL AND GASACTIVITIESVESSELSTRIKESBEACHCLEANINGHUMANPRESENCERECREA-TIONAL BEACHEQUIPMENTBEACHVEHICULARDRIVINGPOWER GENER-ATINGACTIVITIESCONSER-VATION/RESEARCHACTIVITIESMILITARYACTIVITIESSALVAGEOPERATIONSSUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATEDADJUSTED ANNUALMORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone3 1 4 1.000 4EggTerrestrial Zone3,000 1 1 1 300 1 3,304 0.004 13Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0.004 0Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone1 1 0.004 0Juvenile stageOceanic Zone30 30 1 162 0.029 2Adult stageOceanic Zone1 12 0.789 2Juvenile stage Neritic Zone 3,000 300 30 3003 3 1 3,637 0.235 855Adult stage Neritic Zone 300 30 3 3003 3 1 640 0.789 505943 107 10 308 0 0 0 3 3 4 2 0Table A2-2. Results of threats analyses for threat category RESOURCE USE (NON-FISHERIES).TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)V-19Life Stage EcosystemBEACH SANDPLACEMENTBEACHARMORINGOTHERSHORELINESTABILIZ- ATIONSSAND FENCES DREDGINGSTORM- WATEROUTFALLSCOASTALCONSTRUCTIONCHANNELBLASTINGBRIDGEBLASTINGSUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone1 3 1 1 6 1.000 6EggTerrestrial Zone3,00030,0001 1 3,000 36,002 0.004 144Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone3,000 1 1 1 1 3,004 0.004 12Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone 11 0.004 0Juvenile stageOceanic Zone0 0.029 0Adult stageOceanic Zone0 0.789 0Juvenile stage Neritic Zone3030 0.235 7Adult stage Neritic Zone33 0.789 225 123 1 0 9 0 13 0 0Table A2-3. Results of threats analyses forthreat category CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)V-20Life Stage EcosystemTROPHICCHANGES FROMFISHERYHARVESTTROPHICCHANGES FROMBENTHICHABITATALTERATIONBEACH EROSION(WASHOUTS)AND ACCRETIONAQUA-CULTUREEUTROPHI-CATIONSUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone0 1.000 0EggTerrestrial Zone 300,000300,000 0.004 1,200Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone0 0.004 0Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone0 0.004 0Juvenile stageOceanic Zone0 0.029 0Adult stageOceanic Zone0 0.789 0Juvenile stage Neritic Zone0 0.235 0Adult stage Neritic Zone0 0.789 00 0 1,200 0 0TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Table A2-4. Results of threats analyses for threat category ECOSYSTEM ALTERATIONS.V-21Life Stage EcosystemMARINEDEBRISINGESTIONMARINEDEBRISENTANGLEMENT INDERELICTFISHING GEARMARINEDEBRISENTANGLEMENT IN NONFISHING GEARBEACH DEBRISOILPOLLUTIONLIGHTPOLLUTIONNOISEPOLLUTIONTHERMALPOLLUTIONCHEMICALPOLLUTIONSUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone3 3 1.000 3EggTerrestrial Zone1 1 2 0.004 0Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone1 1300,000300,002 0.004 1200Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone30,0001 130,0001 1 60,004 0.004 240Juvenile stageOceanic Zone1 1 1 1 1 5 0.029 0Adult stageOceanic Zone1 1 1 1 1 5 0.789 4Juvenile stage Neritic Zone 1 300 30 30 1 362 0.235 85Adult stage Neritic Zone 1 30 30 3 1 65 0.789 51122 95 32 0 130 1203 0 0 2TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Table A2-5. Results of threats analyses for threat category POLLUTION.V-22Life Stage EcosystemPREDATION BYNATIVE SPECIESDISEASE ANDPARASITESHARMFUL ALGALBLOOMSPREDATION BYEXOTIC SPECIESEXOTIC DUNEAND BEACHVEGETATIONSUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone0 1.000 0EggTerrestrial Zone 300,000see comment30,0001 330,001 0.004 1320Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone3,000 1 1 3,002 0.004 12Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone300,000300,000 0.004 1200Juvenile stageOceanic Zone1 1 2 0.029 0Adult stageOceanic Zone1 1 2 0.789 2Juvenile stage Neritic Zone 1 1 30 32 0.235 8Adult stage Neritic Zone 1 1 30 32 0.789 252414 0 31 120 0TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Table A2-6. Results of threats analyses for threat category SPECIES INTERACTIONS.V-23Life Stage EcosystemCLIMATE CHANGENATURAL CATAS-TROPHESCOLD WATEROTHER (EGGSTAGE ONLY)SUM RRVTOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Nesting femaleTerrestrial Zone0 1.000 0EggTerrestrial Zone1 see comment300,000300,001 0.004 1200Hatchling stageTerrestrial Zone1 1 2 0.004 0Swim frenzy,transitional stageNeritic Zone 1 1 2 0.004 0Juvenile stageOceanic Zone1 1 0.029 0Adult stageOceanic Zone0 0.789 0Juvenile stage Neritic Zone 30 30 0.235 7Adult stage Neritic Zone0 0.789 00 0 7 1200TOTAL ESTIMATED ADJUSTEDANNUAL MORTALITY(# OF ADULT FEMALES)Table A2-7. Results of threats analyses for threat category OTHER FACTORS.V-24V-25APPENDIX3:LEGALHARVESTTABLELegal Harvest of Loggerheads in the Greater Caribbean Islands, Mexico and Central America,South America, and the Eastern Atlantic Islands.Greater Caribbean IslandsCountry/TerritoryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationAnguilla(UnitedKingdom)No1No1Fisheries Protection Act, RevisedStatutes of Anguilla, Chapter F-40Bräutigam and Eckert2006, Godleyet al. 2004Antigua &BarbudaYes No Sep 1-Apr 30>73 kg(160 lb.)1990 Fishery Regulations,promulgated under the authority of theFisheries Act (1983), Section 21Bräutigam and Eckert2006, Fulleret al. 1992Aruba(Netherlands)No NoNests/Eggs are protected by theMarine Environment Ordinance(Marien Milieuverordening ArubaA.B. 1980 Nr. 18); Turtles areprotected under thislaw by Decree No.51 of 1987Bräutigam and Eckert2006The Bahamas Yes2No Aug 1-Mar 31≥76 cm(30 in)backlengthFisheries Resources Regulations, 3March 1986, Part IV, Sections 29-33Fleming 2001Barbados No NoFisheries (Management) Regulationsof 1998, promulgated under theauthority of the Fisheries Act (1993)Horrockset al. 19921Harvest is prohibited until 2021.2Harvest quota is 1,200 kg per year.V-26Country/TerritoryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationBermuda No No Protected Species Act 2003Bonaire(NetherlandsAntilles)No NoMarine Environment Ordinance(Verordening Marien Milieu A.B.1991 Nr. 8), Article 14Bräutigam and Eckert2006British VirginIslands (UnitedKingdom)Yes No Dec 1-Mar 31≥9 kg(20 lb)The Turtles Ordinance 1959 asamended in 1986, Fisheries Act 1997Fleming 2001, Godleyetal. 2004CaymanIslands (UnitedKingdom)Yes No Nov 1-Mar 31≤60 cmMarine Conservation Law 1978, TheMarine Conservation (TurtleProtection) (Amendment) 2007Fleming 2001, Godleyetal. 2004Cuba No NoMinistry of Fishing Industries (MIP)Resolution 9 (2008)Curacao(NetherlandsAntilles)No NoEilandsbesluit beschermingzeeschildpadden (A.B. 1996 Nr.8),promulgated under the authority of theReef Management Ordinance (A.B.1976 nr. 48)Bräutigam and Eckert2006Dominica Yes No Oct 1-May 31≥20 lbForestry and Wildlife Act, Ch 60:02,Act 12 of 1990, Section 21Bräutigam and Eckert2006DominicanRepublicNo No Decree No. 34-96, 1996 Fleming 2001Grenada Yes No Sep 1-Apr 30≥25 lbFisheries Amendment Regulations1996 SRO24 Section 16(5) andFisheries Amendment Regulation 2001SRO2 Section 17Bräutigam and Eckert2006, Grazetteet al. 2007Guadeloupe(France)No NoArrêté ministériel du 14 Octobre 2005fixant la liste des tortues marinesprotégées sur le territoire national etBräutigam and Eckert2006; Karen Eckert,WIDECAST, personalV-27Country/TerritoryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation Citationles modalités de leur protection communication, 2008Haiti Yes No Oct 1-Apr 30Fisheries Law 27, Oct. 1978, Article97Fleming 2001Jamaica No NoWildlife Protection Act (145),amended 1991Fleming 2001Martinique(France)No NoArrêté ministériel du 14 Octobre 2005fixant la liste des tortues marinesprotégées sur le territoire national etles modalités de leur protectionBräutigam and Eckert2006; Karen Eckert,WIDECAST, personalcommunication, 2008Montserrat(UnitedKingdom)Yes Yes Oct 1-Apr 1≥20 lb(9.07kg)Laws of Montserrat 1962, Chapter 112 Godleyet al. 2004Puerto Rico(United States)No No Endangered Species Act (1973) Fleming 2001Saba(NetherlandsAntilles)No No2001 Nature Conservation Ordinance(Landsverordening grondslagennatuurbeheer en bescherming)Bräutigam and Eckert2006St. Eustatius(NetherlandsAntilles)No No2001 Nature Conservation Ordinance(Landsverordening grondslagennatuurbeheer en bescherming)Bräutigam and Eckert2006St. Kitts &NevisYes No Mar 1-Sep 30>72.6 kg(160 lb)1995 Fishery Regulations (Art.19)promulgated under the authority of theFisheries Act (No.4) of 1984Bräutigam and Eckert2006St. Lucia Yes No Oct 2-Feb 27>35 kg(75 lb)Fisheries Regulations (1994),promulgated under the authority of theFisheries Act (1986)Bräutigam and Eckert2006St. Maarten(NetherlandsNo No2001 Nature Conservation Ordinance(Landsverordening grondslagenBräutigam and Eckert2006V-28Country/TerritoryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationAntilles) natuurbeheer en bescherming)St. Vincent &GrenadinesYes No Aug 1-Feb 28>72 kg(160 lb)1987 Fisheries Regulations (Part VI),promulgated under the authority of theFisheries Act (1986)Bräutigam and Eckert2006Tobago/TrinidadYes No Oct 1-Feb 28The Conservation of Wildlife Act(Chapter 67:01) and Fisheries Act(Chapter 67:51)Bräutigam and Eckert2006Turks andCaicos (UnitedKingdom)Yes No Year-round≥9 kg(20 lb)Fisheries Protection Ordinance 1995 Fleming 2001U.S. VirginIslands (UnitedStates)No No Endangered Species Act (1973) Fleming 2001Mexico and Central AmericaCountryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationBelize No NoSection 13 of the Fisheries Act,Chapter 210 of the Substantive Laws ofBelize Revised Edition 2003 StatutoryInstrument No. 66 0f 2002Bräutigam and Eckert2006Costa Rica No NoDecreto No 8325 Ley de Protección,Conservación y Recuperación de lasPoblaciones de Tortugas Marinas(2002)Bräutigam and Eckert2006V-29CountryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationGuatemala No NoLey General de Pesca y AcuiculturaDecreto No 80 (2002)Bräutigam and Eckert2006Honduras No NoLey General del Ambiente Decreto No104-93 ( 8 June 1993)Bräutigam and Eckert2006Mexico No NoAcuerdo por el que se Establece Vedapara las Especies y Subspecies deTortuga Marina en aguas deJurisdiccion Federal del Golfo deMexico y Mar Caribe, asi como las delOceano Pacifico, Incluyendo el Golfode California (31 May 1990)Fleming 2001Nicaragua No No2005 Ley de Pesca y AcuiculturaNo489Bräutigam and Eckert2006Panama No NoWildlife Law (Ley de Vida SilvestreNo. 24), 1995 and Environment Law(Ley General de Ambiente No. 41),1998Bräutigam and Eckert2006V-30South AmericaCountryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationBrazil No No Order n. 5 (31 January 1986)Marcovaldi andMarcovaldi 1999Colombia No NoResolucion No. 002879 de 21 Noviembre1995Bräutigam and Eckert2006French Guiana(France)No NoArrêté ministériel du 14 Octobre 2005fixant la liste des tortues marinesprotégées sur le territoire national et lesmodalités de leur protectionKaren Eckert,WIDECAST, personalcommunication, 2008;Jack Frazier,SmithsonianInstitution, personalcommunication, 2005Guyana Yes NoEggs are protected under FisheiresRegulations 1973 Section 4.21, andturtles are harvested by permit underSection 33, Chapter 71.098Jack Frazier,SmithsonianInstitution, personalcommunication, 2005Suriname No NoGame law of 1954; GovernmentPublication of Suriname No. 25.Resolution 104, October 1970Reichart and Fretey1993Venezuela No No1979 Resolution to the 1970 Ley deProtección a la Fauna Silvestre (GacetaOficial No 29.289)Guada and SoleSempere 2000V-31Eastern Atlantic IslandsCountryLegalTurtleHarvestLegalEggHarvestSeasonSizeLimitSource Legislation CitationAzoresNoNoThe conservation of loggerhead turtles isruled by ratification of the Convention onMigratory Species (11/1/1983)Fretey 2001; M. Santosand Helen Martins,University of theAzores, personalcommunications, 2006Canary IslandsNoNoLey 4/1989 (27/03/1989) sobreProteccion de los Espacious Naturales yla Flora y Fauna Silvestres; Loi 12/1994du 19 Decembre 1994 sur les Espacesnaturaels des Canaries; Decreto 161/97de Delegaciones en Materia de MedioAmbiente a lod Cabildos InsularesFretey 2001Cape VerdeNoDecretee Law 7/2002 from December 30Official Bulletin 37Lucy Hawkes,University of Exeter inCornwall, personalcommunication, 2006MadeiraNoNoDecreto Legislativo Regional n.o18/85/M of 07/09/1985Fretey 2001Acknowledgements: The Loggerhead RecoveryTeam acknowledges the significant contributionsof Karen Eckert, Jack Frazier, andMatthew Godfrey in completing this table. Information was alsoprovided by Sebastian Troeng, Isias Majil, Anabella Barrios, ArgelisRuiz, Marco Aurélio Robalo dos Santos, PeriMason, Helen R. Martins, Kimberly Stewart,Robert van Dam, David Gill, Paul Hoetjes,Randall Arauz, Carl Lloyd, and Lucy Hawkes.V-32V-33 

### A PPENDIX 

### 4: C ONSERVATION 

### L ANDS 

### T ABLE

U.S. Loggerhead Nesting Beaches in Conservation Lands (approximate length and ownership), 2007. Conservation lands are defined as public owne rship (Federal, state, or local government) and privately owned lands (e.g., non-profit conser vation foundations). Most of these lands are generally managed in a way that benefits sea turt le conservation. Public lands that have lighted development, armoring, or other profound threats to sea turtle nesting have not been included. In compiling the list of conservation lands, human vi sitation was not consider ed a profound threat to sea turtle nesting. Theref ore, public lands designated for human recreation have been included. F=Federal, S=State, C=County, M=Municipal, N=NGO Conservation Lands, P=Private Conservation Lands, T=Special Taxing District of the State.

Conservation Land Name Length (km) Ownership

VIRGINIA (north to south)
Chincoteague NWR (Assateague Island) 20.60 F
Wallops Island 10.60 F
Chincoteague NWR (Assawoman Island) 8.10 F
Chincoteague NWR (Metompkin Island) 1.20 F
Metompkin Island 10.90 N

Cedar Sandbar 1.60 S Cedar Island (Chincoteague NWR/The Nature Conservancy/private) 6.00 F, N,

Private

Parramore Island Natural Area Preserve 15.00 N
Hog Island 16.10 N, Private

Cobb Island 11.10 N

Little Cobb Island 1.10 N

Wreck Island 6.90 S
Ship Shoal Island 4.50 N
Myrtle Island 6.00 N

Smith Island 13.30 N

Fishermans Island NWR 9.70 F
Fort Story Military Reservation 5.80 F
Virginia Beach Resort Strip 9.70 M

Croatan Beach 1.60 M

Dam Neck Naval Base 5.20 F
Sandbridge Beach (includes Lit tle Island District Park) 8.10 M
Back Bay NWR 7.60 F
False Cape State Park 6.80 S

VIRGINIA TOTAL 187.50V-34 NORTH CAROLINA (north to south)
Currituck NWR (Swan Island Unit) 3.60 F
Currituck NWR (Monkey Island Unit) 1.60 F
The Nature Conservancy (unnamed parcel) 2.00 N

Currituck Banks National Estuarine Research Reserve 2.00 S

Pea Island NWR 19.50 F
Cape Hatteras National Seashore 80.00 F
Cape Lookout National Seashore 93.30 F

Fort Macon State Park 3.20 S

Hammocks Beach State Park 6.00 S

Onslow Beach 18.30 F
Lea and Huttaf Islands (Audubon) 3.22 N

Masonboro Island 12.00 S

Fort Fisher State Recreation Area 4.83 S

Bird Island 1.60 S

NORTH CAROLINA TOTAL 251.15

SOUTH CAROLINA (north to south)
Waites Island (Coastal Carolina University segment) 2.00 S
Myrtle Beach State Park 2.00 S
Huntington Beach State Park 4.80 S
Hobcaw Barony Research Reserve 3.30 S
North Island (Tom Yawkey Wildlif e Center Heritage Preserve) 15.00 S Sand/South Island (Tom Yawkey Wildlife Center Heritage Preserve) 8.00 S
Cedar Island (SCDNR Sant ee Coastal Reserve) 4.30 S
Murphy Island (SCDNR Santee Coastal Reserve) 9.00 S
Cape Romain NWR (Cape/Lighthouse Islands) 13.50 F
Cape Romain NWR (Raccoon Key) 9.00 F
Cape Romain NWR (Bull Island) 10.00 F
Capers Island (SCDNR Heritage Preserve) 5.20 S
Isle of Palms County Park 0.18 C
Folly Beach County Park (nor th end, no facilities) 0.80 C
Folly Beach County Park (south end, facilities) 0.76 C
Beachwalker County Park at Kiawah Island 1.00 C
Botany Bay Island 2.80 P
Botany Bay Plantation (Edisto Island) 3.50 S

Edisto Beach State Park 2.30 S
Pine Island (SCDNR) 0.50 S
Otter Island (SCDNR He ritage Preserve) 7.60 S
Hunting Island State Park 6.40 SV-35 Pritchards Island (University of South Carolina) 4.00 S
St. Phillips Island 1.00 P
Turtle Island (SCDNR He ritage Preserve) 1.00 S

SOUTH CAROLINA TOTAL 114.64

GEORGIA (north to south)
Little Tybee Island 8.70 S

Wassaw NWR 10.80 F

Pine Island 1.80 F

Ossabaw Island 17.70 S

Blackbeard Island NWR 14.40 F
Sapelo Island 9.90 S

Wolf Island NWR 4.00 F

Old Coast Guard Station/Bruce Tract 1.00 C
Massengale Park 0.50 C
Jekyll Island 14.70 S

Little Cumberland Island 4.90 P

Cumberland Island National Seashore 28.40 F

GEORGIA TOTAL 116.80

FLORIDA ATLANTIC COAST (north to south)

Fort Clinch State Park 3.70 S
Main Beach Park (aka Dr. G. Ralph Wolff Beach Park) 0.40 M

North Beach Park 0.40 M

Seaside Park 0.40 M

Peters Point Park 0.27 C
Burney Park 0.18 C

Little Talbot Island State Park 9.70 S
Huguenot Memorial Park 2.82 M
Mayport Naval Station 1.80 F
Kathryn Abbey Hanna Park 2.40 M

Guana River State Park 6.80 S

South Ponte Vedra Park 0.03 C

Surfside Park 0.05 C

Anastasia State Park 7.20 S

Franklin B. Butler Park 0.33 C

Crescent Beach Park 0.07 C

Fort Matanzas National Monument 1.61 F

River to Sea Preserve 0.16 C
Washington Oaks Gardens State Park 1.10 S
Malacompra Park 0.80 CV-36 Old Salt Road Park (16th Road Beach Access) 0.10 C
Jungle Hut Road Park 0.10 C

Varn Park 0.40 C
Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area 1.80 S

North Peninsula State Recreation Area 3.99 S

Bicentenial Park 0.19 C

Tom Renick Park 0.06 C
Birth Place of Speed Park 0.06 M

Dahlia Park 0.12 M

Ponce Preserve 0.29 M

Winterhaven Park 0.03 C
Lighthouse Point Park 0.52 C
Smyrna Dunes Park 0.94 C
North Beach Community Park 0.14 M

Canaveral National Seashore 38.20 F

Merritt Island NWR 9.80 F
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 21.00 F
Jetty Park 0.31 T

Cherie Down Park 0.13 C
Alan Shepard Park 0.38 M
Sidney Fischer Park 0.09 M

Lori Wilson Park 0.35 C

Robert P. Murkshe Memorial Park 0.13 C

Cresent Beach 0.08 M

Patrick Air Force Base 7.00 F
Seagull Park 0.06 C

S.P.R.A. Park 0.06 C
Hightower Beach Park 0.86 S/C

Pelican Beach Park 0.46 M
Richard G. Edgeton Bicentennial Park 0.05 M

Millenium Park 0.08 M

Irene H. Canova Park 0.13 C

Canova Beach Park 0.34 C
Howard E. Futch Memorial Park (Paradise Beach Park) 0.41 C

Sunrise Park 0.08 M

James H. Nance Park 0.21 M

Indialantic Beach 0.46 M

Wave Crest Park 0.06 M

Ocean Park 0.11 M
Loggerhead Park Preserve 0.07 M
Spessard Holland North Beach Park 0.41 CV-37 Spessard Holland South Beach Park 0.44 C
Archie Carr NWR (Bre vard County) 3.88 F/S/C

Sea Oats Park 0.09 S

Coconut Point Park 0.46 S
Juan Ponce de Leon Landing 0.70 S

Twin Shores Park 0.27 S

Judith Resnick Memorial Park 0.47 S
Brevard County Fire Rescue Property 0.04 C

Bonsteel Park 0.07 S

Sebastian Inlet State Park 4.80 S
Archie Carr NWR (Indian River County) 0.72 F/S

Ambersand Beach Park 0.03 C

Treasure Shores Park 0.50 C

North Treasure Shores Parcel 0.59 S

South Treasure Shores Parcel 0.15 S
Spallone Tract 0.03 S

Golden Sands Park 0.23 C

Wabasso Beach Park 0.11 C
Jungle Trail Conservation Area - North 0.16 C
Jungle Trail Conservation Area - South 0.30 C
Tracking Station Beach Park 0.33 C
Jaycee Park 0.16 C

Humiston Park 0.15 C

South Beach Park 0.17 C

Round Island Park 0.10 C

Avalon State Park 1.83 S
Pepper Park 0.63 S/C

Fort Pierce Inlet State Park 0.57 S
South Jetty Park 0.05 C

South Beach Boardwalk Park 0.38 S
Kimberly Bergalis Park 0.55 S

Surfside Park 0.18 M

Coconut Drive Park 0.15 M
Exchange Park 0.07 C

Green Turtle Beach Park 0.38 S
Frederick Douglass Park 0.31 C

Blind Creek Park 0.10 C

Turtle Beach Nature Trail 0.55 P

St. Lucie Power Plant 2.50 P

Walton Rocks Park 1.03 C/P

Dollman Park 0.57 CV-38 Waveland Park 0.10 C/P

Glasscock Beach Park 0.03 S

Sea Turtle Beach Park 0.40 S/C

Jensen Beach Park 0.44 C

Muscara 0.26 S

Bob Graham Beach Park 0.61 S/C

Bob Graham Beach Addition 0.10 C

Curtis Beach Park 0.09 S
Pasley Beach Park 0.09 C

Dubner 0.03 S

Beachwalk Park 0.13 C

Alex’s Beach Park 0.12 S
Bryn Mawr Park 0.03 C

Stokes Park 0.003 C
Virginia Forrest Beach Park 0.03 S
Tiger Shores Beach Park 0.04 C

Stuart Beach Park 0.41 C

Santa Lucea 0.25 S

Fletcher Beach Park 0.04 S
House of Refuge Park 0.63 C

Chastain Beach Park 0.03 C

Bathtub Reef Beach Park 0.31 S/C

St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park 4.30 S

Hobe Sound NWR 5.30 F

Hobe Sound Beach Park 0.08 C
Blowing Rocks Preserve 1.20 N
Coral Cove Park (incorporated) 0.29 C
Coral Cove (unincorpora ted - future park) 0.61 C
Jupiter Beach Park 0.57 C

Carlin Park 1.02 C
Diamondhead/Radnor (future park) 1.10 C
Ocean Cay Park 0.21 C

Juno Beach Park 0.09 C

Juno Dunes Natural Area 0.82 C
Loggerhead Park 0.34 C

John D. MacArthur Beach State Park 2.90 S

Ocean Reef Park 0.22 C
Riviera Municipal Beach 0.31 M
Palm Beach Municipal Beach 0.79 M
Phipps Ocean Park 0.37 M

R.G. Kreusler Park 0.16 CV-39 Lake Worth Municipal Beach 0.40 M
Lantana Municipal Beach 0.21 M

Ocean Hammock Park 0.33 C
Boynton Beach Oceanfront Park 0.30 M

Gulfstream Park 0.18 C
Delray Beach Municipal Beach 1.67 M

Atlantic Dunes 0.16 M
Milani (future park) 0.12 C
Spanish River Park 1.00 M

Red Reef Park 0.73 M

Red Reef Golf Course 0.36 M

South Beach Park 0.84 M

South Inlet Park 0.29 C

Southbeach Park 0.76 C
Hollywood North Beach Park 1.60 C
John U. Lloyd Beach State Park 3.90 S

North Shore Ocean Front Park 0.94 C

North Shore Park 0.24 C

64th Street Park 0.12 C

Indian Beach Park 0.17 C

Collins Park 0.16 C

Lummus Park 1.34 C

Ocean Front Park 0.16 C

Pier Park / South Pointe Park 0.43 M

Haulover Park 2.40 C

Crandon Park 3.98 C
Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park 1.90 S
Biscayne National Park 3.10 F
Long Key State Park 4.00 S
Little Crawl Key State Park 0.30 S

Bahia Honda State Park 4.70 S
Fort Zachary Taylor Historic State Park 0.20 S
Florida Keys NWRs (Boca Grand and Woman Keys) 2.59 F
Dry Tortugas National Park 3.70 F

FLORIDA ATLANTIC COAST TOTAL 223.21

FLORIDA GULF COAST (west to east, north to south)
Perdido Key State Park 2.30 S

Fort Pickens Gate Park 0.27 C
Gulf Islands National Seashore (Florida District) 35.60 F

Casino Beach 0.30 CV-40 Pensacola Beach Park East 0.09 C
Beach Accesses (2 adjacent unnamed parcels) 1.46 C

Navarre Beach State Park 1.93 S
Eglin Air Force Base 27.40 F
Newman C. Brackin Wayside Park and Boardwalk 0.20 C
John Beasley Park 0.20 C
City of Destin (unnamed parcel) 0.03 M

Henderson Beach State Park 2.10 S

James Lee Park 0.28 C
Miramar Regional Beach Access 0.33 C
Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 5.30 S

Stallworth Lake 0.08 C
Dune Allen/Fort Panic Regional Beach Access 0.11 C
Ed Walline Regional Beach Access 0.06 C
Gulfview Heights Regional Beach Access 0.03 C
Blue Mountain Regional Beach Access 0.03 C
Grayton Dunes Regional Beach Access 0.10 C

Garfield Addition 0.06 C
Grayton Beach State Park 3.10 S
St. Joe Property Regional Beach Access 0.04 C
Gulf Shore Manor (Santa Clara) Regional Beach Access 0.05 C
One Seagrove Neighborhood Beach Access 0.10 C

Deer Lake State Park 0.11 S
Walton Dunes Regional Beach Access 0.12 C
Inlet Beach Regional Beach Access 0.44 C
Camp Helen State Park 0.80 S

M.B. Miller Park 0.71 C

Rick Seltzer Park 0.05 C

St. Andrews State Park 9.00 S
Tyndall Air Force Base 28.50 F
St. Joseph Peninsula State Park 14.50 S
Cape Palms Park 0.03 C
Eglin Air Force Base (Cap e San Blas parcel) 4.80 F

Salinas Park 0.38 C

St. Vincent NWR 16.10 F
Little St. George Island (aka Cape St. George Island) 14.50 S
St. George Island County Park 0.16 C
St. George Island State Park 14.50 S

Jeff Lewis Wilderness Preserve 15.44 N
John S. Phipps Preserve 4.25 N

Bald Point State Park 5.50 SV-41 Anclote Key Preserve State Park 9.70 S

Fred H. Howard Park 0.30 C

Sunset Beach Park 0.10 M
Honeymoon Island State Park 6.40 S

Caladesi Island State Park 4.00 S

Indian Rocks Beach Access Park 0.09 C
Sand Key Park 0.80 C

Tiki Gardens/Indian Shores Beach Access Park 0.01 C
Redington Shores Beach Access Park 0.11 C

Archibald Memorial Beach 0.18 M

Madeira Beach Access Park 0.14 C
Kitty Stewart Park 0.02 M

John's Pass Beach and Park 0.06 M

Treasure Island Beach Access Park 0.08 C

St. Pete Beach Access Park 0.09 C
Fort Desoto County Park (North and East Beach) 9.60 C
Egmont Key NWR (and State Park) 5.20 F
Anna Maria Bayfront Park 0.32 M

Holmes Beach 0.97 M

Manatee Beach 0.64 C

Cortez Beach 0.81 C
Coquina Beach 1.45 C

Beer Can Island/Greer Island 0.37 S

North Lido Park 0.92 M

Lido Beach 0.95 M

South Lido Park 1.26 M
Siesta Key Public Beach 0.73 C

Point of Rocks 0.12 C

Turtle Beach 0.76 C

Palmer Point Park 0.73 C

Nokomis Beach 0.52 C
North Jetty Park 0.27 C

Venice Beach 0.27 M

Service Club Park 0.43 M

Brohard Beach 1.46 M
Caspersen Beach 2.79 C

Blind Pass Beach 0.90 C

Manasota Beach 0.43 C
Stump Pass Beach State Park 2.40 S
Chadwick Park (Englewood Beach) 0.59 C

Don Pedro Island State Park 2.40 SV-42 Gasparilla Island State Park 2.40 S
Cayo Costa State Park 10.90 S
North Captiva State Park 4.80 S

Little Estero Island Cri tical Wildlife Area 2.41 S
Lovers Key State Park 4.00 S
Bowditch Point Regional Park 0.18 C
Lynn Hall Memorial Park 0.18 C

Bonita Beach Park 0.18 C
Lely Barefoot Beach Preserve 2.30 C
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 2.40 S
Vanderbilt Beach County Park 0.10 C

Clam Pass Conservation and Park 3.00 C
Lowdermilk City Park 0.20 C
Tigertail Beach County Park 0.80 C

Ten Thousand Islands NWR 5.00 F

FLORIDA GULF COAST TOTAL 309.65

ALABAMA (west to east)
Dauphin Island Public Beach 1.40 C
Dauphin Island Campground 0.80 C

Fort Gaines State Historic Site 1.00 C
Fort Morgan State Historic Site 2.40 S
Bureau of Land Management (unnamed parcels) 1.00 F
ADCNR (unnamed park in Baldwin County) 0.40 S

Bon Secour NWR 4.60 F

Gulf Shores Public Beach 0.40 M

Gulf State Park 5.60 S

ALABAMA TOTAL 17.60

MISSISSIPPI

Gulf Islands National Seashor e (Mississippi District) 42.90 F

MISSISSIPPI TOTAL 42.90

LOUISIANA (west to east)
Breton NWR (Breton Island) 6.50 F

South Gosier 2.10 S
North Gosier (Grand) 0.80 S

Curlew 0.50 S

Freemason Island 2.20 SV-43 North Island 1.60 S
Breton NWR (Chandeleur Islands) 41.70 F

LOUISIANA TOTAL 55.40

TEXAS (north to south)

Sea Rim State Park 9.00 S
Rollover Fish Pass Wildlife Management Area 0.20 S

Bolivar Flats 4.80 S

Fort Travis Seashore 0.80 S
Mad Island Wildlife Management Area 21.80 S

Stewart Beach Park 1.70 M

Galveston Island State Park 2.50 S
Peach Point-Bryan Beach Wildlife Management Area 2.30 S

San Bernard NWR 8.80 F
Matagorda Island Wildlife Manageme nt Area/State Park/NWR 48.80 F/S
Mustang Island State Park 8.00 S

Padre Balli Park 2.00 C

Padre Island National Seashore 111.70 F
Andy Bowie Park 1.20 C
Laguna Atascosa NWR-Padre Island Preserve 31.70 F
Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR 6.50 F

Boca Chica State Park 1.00 S

TEXAS TOTAL 262.80

GRAND TOTAL 1,581.66