)
 

" 

. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

Agency: . Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Activity: Reinitiation - Continued Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station pursuant to a License issued by the NRC in April 2009 

FINERl2010/01855 

. Conducted by: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Date Issued: 

Approved by: 

INTRODUCTION 

This constitutes NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) biological opinion 

(Opinion) issued in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, on the effects of the continued operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station (OCNGS) pursuant to a license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 

2009 in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (68 Stat. 919) and Title II 

. of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242). 

This Opinion is based on information provided in NRC's June 2006 Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement, a March 29, 2005 Biological Assessment (BA), records from 

previous section 7 consultations on the operation of this facility and correspondence with NRC 

staff, AmerGen Energy Company, Exelon, and other sources of information. A complete 

administrative record of this consultation will be kept on file at the NMFS Northeast Regio~lal

Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 

BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION HISTORY 

The OCNGS began commercial operation in 1969. No obserVed takes of endangered or 

threatened species occurred at the OCNGS prior to 1992. However, between June 1992 and July 

1994, 9 sea turtle impingements occurred at the OCNGS intake trash bars, including 5 

loggerheads (4 individuals, I recapture), and 4 Kemp's ridleys (see Figures I and 2 and complete 

information in Appendix I). In a letter dated November 2,1993, NMFS stated that formal 

consultation on the operation of the OCNGS was necessary due to takes of threatened and 

endangered sea turtles. In a letter dated November 19, 1993, the NRC requested formal 

consultation. A BA was prepared by the OCNGS, reviewed and submitted by the NRC, and 

received by NMFS on January 25, 1995. 

1 
2

A Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the effects of the operation of OCNGS on loggerhead, green, 

and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles was signed on September 21, 1995. This Opinion concluded that 

the continued operation of OCNGS may adversely affect listed turtles, but was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any sea turtle species. The accompanying Incidental Take 

Statement (ITS) exempted the annual take of 10 loggerhead (no more than 3 lethal), 3 Kemp’s 

ridley (no more than 1 lethal), and 2 green (no more than 1 lethal) sea turtles. The incidental take 

exemption extended for a period of 5 years from the date of the Opinion (i.e., to September 21, 

2000). 

Between 1995 and 2000, there were nine takes of sea turtles associated at OCNGS. Although no 

sea turtles were captured in 1995 or 1996, the level of incidental take exempted in the 1995 

Opinion was met in 1997, 1999, and 2000. 

On August 3, 2000, NMFS was copied on a letter from the Acting Site Director of the OCNGS, 

Sander Levin, to the NRC, requesting the renewal of the Biological Opinion/Incidental Take 

Statement and submitting an updated BA. On September 18, 2000, NRC requested reinitiation 

of formal consultation on the effects of the continued operation of the OCNGS on sea turtles and 

submitted a revised BA. On January 23, 2001, the NRC submitted supplemental information and 

clarification on the BA as requested by NMFS. NRC also identified areas where data were 

lacking or unavailable. Consultation was completed with the issuance of an Opinion dated July 

18, 2001. The accompanying ITS exempted the annual take of 5 loggerheads (no more than 3 

lethal), 4 Kemp’s ridley (no more than 3 lethal), and 2 green (no more than 1 lethal) sea turtles. 

A revised ITS was issued on August 29, 2001 in response to concerns raised by the AmerGen 

Energy Company1

 in regards to some requirements in the terms and conditions; however, no 

changes were made to the numbers of exempted sea turtle takes. 

On August 7, 2004, the OCNGS recorded its fifth incidental take of a Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

since the beginning of that year, exceeding the level of take exempted in the 2001 ITS. This 

incidental take was followed by 3 more takes of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles on September 11, 

September 12, and September 23, 2004 respectively. In a letter dated August 26, 2004, NRC 

requested reinitiation of formal section 7 consultation for the continued operation of OCNGS. 

On April 28, 2005 NMFS received a BA, dated March 29, 2005 from the NRC. Section 7 

consultation concluded with the issuance of an Opinion dated September 22, 2005. This Opinion 

analyzed the effect of the continued operation of the OCNGS through the expiration of the 

current NRC license (April 2009). In this Opinion, NMFS concluded that the continued 

operation of the OCGNS was likely to adversely affect but not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley or green sea turtles. The ITS accompanying the 2005 

Opinion exempted the annual take of 2 loggerheads (1 lethal), 8 Kemp’s ridleys (4 lethal), and 1 

green (alive or dead) annually as a result of the operation of the OCNGS. 

 

1 The OCNGS was previously owned and operated by the AmerGen Company. The facility is currently owned and 

operated by Exelon. 
3

In a letter dated June 9, 2006, NRC requested the initiation of Section 7 consultation on the 

effects of the operation of the OCNGS under a proposed renewed NRC license which would 

authorize operation of OCNGS for an additional 20 years. Consultation was concluded with the 

issuance of an Opinion on November 21, 2006. In this Opinion, NMFS concluded that the 

operation of the OCGNS pursuant to the license proposed to be issued by NRC in April 2009, 

was likely to adversely affect but not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, 

Kemp’s ridley or green sea turtles. The ITS exempts the annual take of up to 8 sea turtles at the 

facility each year. NMFS anticipated that of these 8 sea turtles, no more than 3 of these turtles 

are likely to be loggerheads and no more than 1 of these sea turtles are likely to be a green sea 

turtle. NMFS anticipated that up to 3 of the 8 sea turtles may be dead; of the dead sea turtles, no 

more than 1 is likely to be a green sea turtle and no more than 1 is likely to be a loggerhead. The 

November 2006 Opinion became effective on April 9, 2009, the date that the new NRC license 

was issued. 

On September 25, 2009, the level of exempted take (8 sea turtles total) was exceeded with the 

capture of a live Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. Shortly after, NRC and NMFS discussed the need to 

reinitiate the consultation. Two additional live Kemp’s ridley sea turtles were captured at the 

facility in 2009. In April 2010, consultation was reinitiated. During the summer and fall of 2010 

as the consultation was being written, eight sea turtles were captured at the facility. The capture 

of a second green sea turtle during 2010 (October 11, 2010) and a third on October 30, 2010, 

represented new information as there had never been more than one green sea turtle captured at 

OCNGS in a given year. Upon mutual agreement, the consultation period was extended to allow 

NMFS to consider this new information in the development of the pending Opinion. In 2011, a 

total of 8 sea turtles were captured at OCNGS. This consultation is a reinitiation of the 

consultation that concluded with NMFS issuance of an Opinion dated November 21, 2006. 

A summary (Table 1) is provided below of the takes of sea turtles at the OCNGS from 1992 

through October 2011. Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide additional information on these takes. 

Complete information is provided in a table located in Appendix I. A map illustrating the 

location of the facility is included as Figure 3. 
4

Kemp’s ridley Loggerhead Green TOTAL

1992 1 3* 0 4

1993 1 0 0 1

1994 2 2 0 4

1995 0 0 0 0

1996 0 0 0 0

1997 1 0 0 1

1998 0 1 0 1

1999 1 0 1 2

2000 2 2 1 5

2001 2 0 1 3

2002 2 0 0 2

2003 1 0 1 2

2004 8 0 0 8

2005 2 0 0 2

2006 4 2 0 6

2007 2 0 0 2

2008 6 0 0 6

2009 10 0 1 11

2010 5 1 3 9

2011 6 1 1 8

TOTAL 56 12 9 77

Table 1. Total number of sea turtles captured or impinged at OCNGS from 1992 – October 2011. 

*Two individual loggerheads were captured in 1992; one was recaptured two days following 

release into the discharge canal. 
5

Figure 1. Number of sea turtles taken annually at OCNGS, 1992-2011. 
6

Figure 2. Number of dead sea turtles captured or impinged annually at OCNGS, 1992-

2011. 
A* 3. lncúlon ( ulles.

1
8

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed activity is the continued operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

under the terms of the 2009 license. The license issued by the NRC in April 2009 is valid 

through April 2029. In December 2010, Exelon, the current owner of the OCNGS, announced 

that the OCNGS would be closing ten years early and that plant operations would cease in 2019. 

On October 12, 2011, the NRC issued a letter to Exelon confirming that NRC had received 

Exelon’s notice of intent to permanently cease operations of the OCNGS by no later than 

December 31, 2019. NMFS requested clarification from the NRC on the status of the OCNGS 

license after 2019. NRC has indicated that the operating license will remain in effect until April 

2029, regardless of Exelon’s stated plans to cease operations early. As the term of the license has 

not changed and because, under the terms of the existing license, operations are authorized until 

April 9, 2029, NMFS has considered the potential impacts of the continued operation of the 

facility through the end of its operating license. NMFS anticipates that a future Section 7 

consultation between NMFS and NRC would consider effects to listed species from any 

decommissioning plans or other activities associated with the future termination of operations at 

OCNGS. As there is no information on future activities currently available, any effects of 

decommissioning or activities associated with the termination of operations are not knowable at 

this time. 

Details on the operation of the facilities are described below. The Oyster Creek generating units 

withdraw water from the Forked River and discharge water to Oyster Creek. In 1972, Congress 

assigned authority to administer the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the US Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). The CWA further allowed EPA to delegate portions of its CWA 

authority to states. On April 13, 1982, EPA authorized the State of New Jersey to issue National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. New Jersey’s NPDES, or State 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), program is administered by the NJ 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). NJDEP issues and enforces SPDES permits 

for the OCNGS. 

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 requires that the location, design, construction, 

and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for 

minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). EPA regulates impingement and 

entrainment under Section 316(b) of the CWA through the NPDES permit process. 

Administration of Section 316(b) has also been delegated to NJDEP, and that provision is 

implemented through the SPDES program. 

OCNGS cannot operate without cooling water. Intake and discharge of water through the 

cooling water system would not occur but for the operation of the facility pursuant to a renewed 

license; therefore, the effects of the cooling water system on listed species are a direct effect of 

the proposed action. NRC staff state that the authority to regulate cooling water intakes and 

discharges under the CWA lies with EPA, or in this case, NJDEP, as the state has been delegated 

NPDES authority by EPA. Pursuant to NRC’s regulations, operating licenses are conditioned 

upon compliance with all applicable law, including but not limited to CWA Section 401 

Certifications and NPDES/SPDES permits. Therefore, the effects of the proposed Federal action-
9

- the continued operation of OCNGS pursuant to the 2009 operating license, which necessarily 

involves the removal and discharge of water from the Forked River and Oyster Creek-- are 

shaped not only by the terms of the renewed operating license but also by the SPDES permit as 

issued by the NJDEP. This Opinion will consider the effects of the operation of OCNGS over 

the remaining term of the operating license pursuant to the Operating License issued by the NRC 

in 2009 and the SPDES permit issued by NYDEP that is already in effect. 

NPDES/SPDES Permits 

Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of 

cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing 

adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). In July 2004, the EPA published the Phase II 

Rule implementing Section 316(b) of the CWA for Existing Facilities (69 FR 41576), which 

applied to large power producers that withdraw large amounts of surface water for cooling (50 

MGD or more) (189,000 m3/day or more). The rule became effective on September 7, 2004 and 

included numeric performance standards for reductions in impingement mortality and 

entrainment that would demonstrate that the cooling water intake system constitutes BTA for 

minimizing impingement and entrainment impacts. Existing facilities subject to the rule were 

required to demonstrate compliance with the rule’s performance standards during the renewal 

process for their NPDES permit through development of a Comprehensive Demonstration Study 

(CDS). As a result of a Federal court decision, EPA officially suspended the Phase II rule on July 

9, 2007 (72 FR 37107) pending further rulemaking. EPA instructed permitting authorities to 

utilize best professional judgment in establishing permit requirements on a case by-case basis for 

cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities until it has resolved the issues raised by the 

court’s ruling.

Most recently, in 1994, NJDEP issued a SPDES permit for OCNGS. The 1994 permit expired 

in 1999. Prior to the expiration date, however, the owners of the facility at that time, submitted 

timely SPDES permit renewal applications to the Department and, by operation of the State 

Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA), the 1994 SPDES permit was administratively extended. 

In July 2006, NJDEP issued a draft SPDES permit for OCNGS that provided two alternatives to 

mitigate effects of cooling water withdrawal. The first is to reduce intake flow to the level 

commensurate of that of closed-cycle cooling. The second alternative, should a closed-cycle 

cooling system be unavailable to OCNGS, is to install and operate a combination of design and 

construction technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures with the goal of 

meeting the impingement and entrainment performance standards. The second alternative would 

also require Exelon to begin a wetlands restoration and enhancement program in the Barnegat 

Bay watershed. This permit was never finalized. On June 1, 2011, a revised draft SPDES permit 

was issued to Exelon. No final permit decision has been made to date; however, it is NMFS 

understanding that operations of OCNGS under a revised SPDES permit are likely to be similar 

to current operations. However, in a compromise designed to avoid installation of cooling 

towers, the SPDES permit would require Exelon to cease operations 10 years prior to the 

expiration of the NRC license. In October 2011, NRC made available a letter sent to Exelon 
10

acknowledging Exelon’s plans to cease operations by December 31, 2019. As of November 1, 

2011, the SPDES permit had not yet been finalized by the State. 

In this consultation, NMFS has considered effects of the operation of OCNGS through the 

remainder of the 20-year extended operating period with the 1994 SPDES permit in effect. This 

scenario is the one defined by NRC as its proposed action in its Final GSEIS and the BA 

provided to NMFS in which NRC considered effects of the operation of the facility during the 

extended operating period on shortnose sturgeon. Therefore, it is the subject of this consultation. 

However, if a new final SPDES permit is issued, NRC and NMFS would have to determine if 

reinitiation of this consultation is necessary to consider any effects of the operation of the facility 

on shortnose sturgeon that were not considered in this Opinion. 

Description of OCNGS Operations 

The OCNGS facility is located in Lacey Township, New Jersey and lies between the south 

branch of the Forked River and Oyster Creek. Both streams discharge into Barnegat Bay. The 

facility was constructed in the 1960s and became operational in December 1969. During 

construction, a semicircular canal was dredged between the two streams to create a horseshoe 

shaped cooling water system that consists of the lower reaches or the south branch of the Forked 

River, the man-made dredged canal and the lower reaches of Oyster Creek (see Figure 4 for a 

map of the facility). When the plant is operational, the flow direction in the south fork of the 

Forked River is reversed, and all of the flow goes into the OCNGS. 

OCNGS is a single unit plant with a boiling water nuclear reactor and steam turbine. The reactor 

has a design power level of 1930 megawatts thermal and a net power output of 640 megawatts 

electric. Plant cooling is provided by a once through system that draws water from Barnegat Bay 

via the south branch of the Forked River and a man-made intake canal and discharges heat back 

to Barnegat Bay via a man-made discharge canal and Oyster Creek. Two separate intake 

structures withdraw water from the intake canal, the circulating water system intake (CWS) and 

the dilution water system (DWS) intake. 

The CWS provides cooling water for the main condensers and for safety-related heat exchangers 

and other equipment within the station. Water is drawn into the CWS from the intake canal 

(south fork of the Forked River) through six intake bays and is subsequently discharged into the 

discharge canal as heated effluent. During normal plant operation, four circulating water pumps 

withdraw a total of 1740 m3/min of water. The maximum permissible average intake velocity for 

water approaching the CWS intake ports is 30 cm/sec. The maximum daily effluent temperature 

for cooling water discharge back to the discharge canal is 41.1°C. 

The DWS is designed to minimize the thermal effects on the discharge canal and Barnegat Bay 

by thermally diluting the circulating water from the condenser with colder ambient temperature 

water. Water is pumped from the intake canal through the six intake bays and discharged directly 

into the discharge canal, where it mixes with and reduces the temperature of the heated effluent 

from the CWS. A maximum of two dilution pumps are operated at one time, but when ambient 

water temperature exceeds 30.5°C, usually only one dilution pump is put into operation. The 
11

average intake velocity for water in front of the DWS intake (with two pumps in operation) is 

approximately 73 cm/sec. As expected, the average intake velocity with one DWS pump in 

operation is notably less than 73 cm/sec. 

The dimensions and structures at the CWS are nearly identical to those of the DWS. Several 

differences are that the intake velocity at the DWS is much higher than at the CWS, and the 

CWS has a vertical traveling screen to filter small organisms. The intakes at both the CWS and 

DWS are screened by six sets of trash bars, which extend from the bottom of each intake bay to 

several feet above the water (7.3 m high and 3.3 m wide). The depth at the intake bays are 

approximately 4 to 6 meters deep. The trash bars are 0.95 cm wide steel bars set on 7.5 cm 

centers, and the openings between the trash bars are 6.6 cm wide. A trash rake assembly traverses 

the entire width of the intake on rails; it contains a trash hopper which transports the material 

removed from the bars to a debris container. Personnel cleaning the CWS and DWS intake trash 

racks from June to October observe the trash rake during the cleaning operation so that the rake 

may be stopped if a sea turtle is sighted. The trash bars are inspected at least once every four 

hours (i.e., three times during each 12-hour work shift) from June to October to remove debris 

and to monitor potential sea turtle takes. At the CWS, organisms smaller than 6.6cm travel 

through the openings onto a traveling screen system where they are washed from the screens and 

returned to the discharge canal on a slide system. At the DWS, small organisms travel with the 

dilution water into the discharge canal. 

A floating debris/ice barrier is in place upstream of the CWS and DWS intake structures to divert 

floating debris (e.g., wood, eelgrass, ice) away from the CWS intake and towards the DWS 

intake. The barrier is intended to prevent excessive amounts of debris or ice from accumulating 

on the CWS traveling screen or trash bars. The wood floating barrier extends 60 cm below the 

surface. 

Both intakes have sea turtle retrieval/rescue equipment on site in the event of a sea turtle 

impingement. At the CWS intake structure, a rescue sling suitable for lifting large sea turtles (in 

excess of 20 kg) is present. Long-handled dip nets are present at the CWS and DWS intake 

structures during June through October, and are suitable for retrieving the smaller turtles which 

are more likely to be found at the OCNGS. Both the rescue sling and the long-handled dip nets 

are only adequate for retrieving turtles from the water surface or within about 1 meter of the 

surface, as the use of either device requires that the sea turtle be visible from the surface. 

Action Area

The action area is defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by 

the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The direct and 

indirect effects of the OCNGS are the intake of water into the CWS and DWS from the south 

fork of the Forked River, which causes a reversal of normal flow, and the discharge of warmed 

and chlorinated water into Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay. The discharge plume occupies 

Oyster Creek and extends into a relatively large surface area of Barnegat Bay (estimated to be 

less than 1.6 km in an east-west direction by 5.6 km in a north-south direction, under all 
12

conditions). In general, elevated temperatures do not extend to the bottom of the Bay except in 

the area immediately adjacent to the mouth of Oyster Creek. 

The action area for this consultation includes the intake areas of both the DWS and CWS intakes 

at the OCNGS, the south fork of Forked River, Oyster Creek, and the region where the thermal 

plume extends into Barnegat Bay from Oyster Creek. 

LISTED SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA 

Several species of listed sea turtles under NMFS’ jurisdiction occur in New Jersey waters and are 

likely to occur in the action area. These species include the Northwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment (NWA DPS) of loggerhead sea turtles, and Kemp’s ridley and green sea 

turtles. Hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles may also occur in New Jersey waters but, as 

explained below, these species are not likely to occur in the action area for this consultation. 

Leatherback sea turtles are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found 

in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1972). 

In the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, leatherback turtles are found in northeastern waters during the 

warmer months. This species is found in coastal waters of the continental shelf and near the Gulf 

Stream edge (Lutcavage 1996). Leatherbacks are predominantly a pelagic species and feed on 

jellyfish, cnidarians and tunicates; leatherbacks will travel to nearshore areas when in pursuit of 

these prey species. 

Estimated to number approximately 115,000 adult females globally in 1980 (Pritchard 1982) and 

only 34,500 by 1995 (Spotila et al. 1996), leatherback populations have been decimated 

worldwide, not only by fishery related mortality but, at least historically, due to intense 

exploitation of eggs on the beach (Ross 1979). The status of the leatherback population in the 

Atlantic is difficult to assess since major nesting beaches occur over broad areas within tropical 

waters outside the United States. Recent information suggests that Western Atlantic populations 

declined from 18,800 nesting females in 1996 (Spotila et al., 1996) to 15,000 nesting females by 

2000 (Spotila, pers. comm). 

Leatherbacks have been documented in waters off New Jersey and have also been found stranded 

on New Jersey coastal and estuarine beaches. Shoop and Kenney (1992) observed concentrations 

of leatherbacks during the summer off the south shore of Long Island and off New Jersey. 

Leatherbacks in these waters are thought to be following their preferred jellyfish prey. This 

aerial survey estimated the leatherback population for the northeastern U.S. at approximately 

300-600 animals (from near Nova Scotia, Canada to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). 

The only direct access to Barnegat Bay from the Atlantic Ocean is through a single, narrow inlet, 

approximately 300 m wide. While leatherbacks could enter Barnegat Bay, it is improbable given 

that this species is rarely found in inshore waters. Furthermore, given this species’ distribution 

and migratory and foraging patterns, it is also unlikely that this species will travel through the 

navigation channels to reach the OCNGS. No leatherback sea turtles have been observed in 

Barnegat Bay or at OCNGS. As a result, NMFS has determined that leatherback sea turtles are 
13

not likely to occur in the action area for this consultation. As such, this species will not be 

considered further in this Opinion. 

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

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

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

coelenterates, and mollusks. The Culebra Archipelago of Puerto Rico contains especially 

important foraging habitat for hawksbills. Nesting areas in the western North Atlantic include 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

There are accounts of hawksbills in south Florida and a number are encountered in Texas each 

year. Most of the Texas records report small turtles, probably in the 1-2 year class range. Many 

of the captures or strandings that are reported are of individuals in an unhealthy or injured 

condition. The lack of sponge-covered reefs and the cold winters in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

probably prevent hawksbills from establishing a viable population in this area. In the north 

Atlantic, small hawksbills have stranded as far north as Cape Cod, Massachusetts. However, 

many of these strandings were observed after hurricanes or offshore storms. 

While hawksbills have occasionally been found in northern mid-Atlantic waters, it is improbable 

that this species will be present in the action area given its distribution, and migratory and 

foraging patterns. No hawksbill sea turtles have been observed in Barnegat Bay or at OCNGS. 

As a result, NMFS has determined that hawksbill sea turtles are not likely to occur in the action 

area for this consultation. As such, this species will not be considered further in this Opinion. 

Status of Sea Turtles

With the exception of loggerheads, sea turtles are listed under the ESA at the species level rather 

than as subspecies or distinct population segments (DPS). Therefore, information on the rangewide status of Kemp’s ridley and green sea turtles is included to provide the status of each 

species, overall. Information on the status of loggerheads will only be presented for the DPS 

affected by this action. Additional background information on the range-wide status of these 

species can be found in a number of published documents, including sea turtle status reviews and 

biological reports (NMFS and USFWS 1995; Hirth 1997; Marine Turtle Expert Working Group 

[TEWG] 1998, 2000, 2007, 2009; NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d; Conant et 

al. 2009), and recovery plans for the loggerhead sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 2008), Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtle (NMFS et al. 2011), and green sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 1998b). 

2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

The April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig affected sea turtles in the Gulf of 

Mexico. There is an on-going assessment of the long-term effects of the spill on Gulf of Mexico 

marine life, including sea turtle populations. Following the spill, juvenile Kemp’s ridley, green, 

and loggerhead sea turtles were found in Sargassum algae mats in the convergence zones, where 

currents meet and oil collected. Sea turtles found in these areas were often coated in oil and/or 

had ingested oil. Approximately 536 live adult and juvenile sea turtles were recovered from the 

Gulf and brought into rehabilitation centers; of these, 456 were visibly oiled (these and the 
14

following numbers were obtained from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill/). To date, 

469 of the live recovered sea turtles have been successfully returned to the wild, 25 died during 

rehabilitation, and 42 are still in care but will hopefully be returned to the wild eventually. 

During the clean-up period, 613 dead sea turtles were recovered in coastal waters or on beaches 

in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and the Florida Panhandle. As of February 2011, 478 of 

these dead turtles had been examined. Many of the examined sea turtles showed indications that 

they had died as a result of interactions with trawl gear, most likely used in the shrimp fishery, 

and not as a result of exposure to or ingestion of oil. 

During the spring and summer of 2010, nearly 300 sea turtle nests were relocated from the 

northern Gulf to the east coast of Florida with the goal of preventing hatchlings from entering the 

oiled waters of the northern Gulf. From these relocated nests, 14,676 sea turtles, including 

14,235 loggerheads, 125 Kemp’s ridleys, and 316 greens, were ultimately released from Florida 

beaches. 

A thorough assessment of the long-term effects of the spill on sea turtles has not yet been 

completed. However, the spill resulted in the direct mortality of many sea turtles and may have 

had sublethal effects or caused environmental damage that will impact other sea turtles into the 

future. The population level effects of the spill and associated response activity are likely to 

remain unknown for some period into the future. 

Loggerhead sea turtle 

The loggerhead is the most abundant species of sea turtle in U.S. waters. Loggerhead sea turtles 

are found in temperate and subtropical waters and occupy a range of habitats including offshore 

waters, continental shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons. They are also exposed to a variety of 

natural and anthropogenic threats in the terrestrial and marine environment. 

Listing History 

Loggerhead sea turtles were listed as threatened throughout their global range on July 28, 1978. 

Since that time, several status reviews have been conducted to review the status of the species 

and make recommendations regarding its ESA listing status. Based on a 2007 5-year status 

review of the species, which discussed a variety of threats to loggerheads including climate 

change, NMFS and FWS determined that loggerhead sea turtles should not be delisted or 

reclassified as endangered. However, it was also determined that an analysis and review of the 

species should be conducted in the future to determine whether DPSs should be identified for the 

loggerhead (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). Genetic differences exist between loggerhead sea 

turtles that nest and forage in the different ocean basins (Bowen 2003; Bowen and Karl 2007). 

Differences in the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA also exist between loggerhead 

nesting groups that occur within the same ocean basin (TEWG 2000; Pearce 2001; Bowen 2003; 

Bowen et al. 2005; Shamblin 2007; TEWG 2009; NMFS and USFWS 2008). Site fidelity of 

females to one or more nesting beaches in an area is believed to account for these genetic 

differences (TEWG 2000; Bowen 2003). 
15

In part to evaluate those genetic differences, in 2008, NMFS and FWS established a Loggerhead 

Biological Review Team (BRT) to assess the global loggerhead population structure to determine 

whether DPSs exist and, if so, the status of each DPS. The BRT evaluated genetic data, tagging 

and telemetry data, demographic information, oceanographic features, and geographic barriers to 

determine whether population segments exist. The BRT report was completed in August 2009 

(Conant et al. 2009). In this report, the BRT identified the following nine DPSs as being discrete 

from other conspecific population segments and significant to the species: (1) North Pacific 

Ocean, (2) South Pacific Ocean, (3) North Indian Ocean, (4) Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, (5) 

Southwest Indian Ocean, (6) Northwest Atlantic Ocean, (7) Northeast Atlantic Ocean, (8) 

Mediterranean Sea, and (9) South Atlantic Ocean. 

The BRT concluded that although some DPSs are indicating increasing trends at nesting beaches 

(Southwest Indian Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean), available information about anthropogenic 

threats to juveniles and adults in neritic and oceanic environments indicate possible 

unsustainable additional mortalities. According to an analysis using expert opinion in a matrix 

model framework, the BRT report stated that all loggerhead DPSs have the potential to decline in 

the foreseeable future. Based on the threat matrix analysis, the potential for future decline was 

reported as greatest for the North Indian Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic 

Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs (Conant et al. 2009). The BRT 

concluded that the North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, Southeast 

Indo-Pacific Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea 

DPSs were at risk of extinction. The BRT concluded that although the Southwest Indian Ocean 

and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs were likely not currently at immediate risk of extinction, the 

extinction risk was likely to increase in the foreseeable future. 

On March 16, 2010, NMFS and USFWS published a proposed rule (75 FR 12598) to divide the 

worldwide population of loggerhead sea turtles into nine DPSs, as described in the 2009 Status 

Review. Two of the DPSs were proposed to be listed as threatened and seven of the DPSs, 

including the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, were proposed to be listed as endangered. NMFS 

and the USFWS accepted comments on the proposed rule through September 13, 2010 (75 FR 

30769, June 2, 2010). On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15932), NMFS and USFWS extended the date 

by which a final determination on the listing action will be made to no later than September 16, 

2011. This action was taken to address the interpretation of the existing data on status and trends 

and its relevance to the assessment of risk of extinction for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, 

as well as the magnitude and immediacy of the fisheries bycatch threat and measures to reduce 

this threat. New information or analyses to help clarify these issues were requested by April 11, 

2011. 

On September 22, 2011, NMFS and USFWS issued a final rule (76 FR 58868), determining that 

the loggerhead sea turtle is composed of nine DPSs (as defined in Conant et al., 2009) that 

constitute species that may be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Five DPSs 

were listed as endangered (North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, 

Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea), and four DPSs were listed as threatened 

(Northwest Atlantic Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, and Southwest 
16

Indian Ocean). Note that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA) DPS and the Southeast IndoPacific Ocean DPS were original proposed as endangered. The NWA DPS was determined to be 

threatened based on review of nesting data available after the proposed rule was published, 

information provided in public comments on the proposed rule, and further discussions within 

the agencies. The two primary factors considered were population abundance and population 

trend. NMFS and USFWS found that an endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted 

given the large size of the nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread, 

the trend for the nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts 

are underway to address threats. This final listing rule became effective on October 25, 2011. 

The September 2011 final rule also noted that critical habitat for the two DPSs occurring within 

the U.S. (NWA DPS and North Pacific DPS) will be designated in a future rulemaking. 

Information from the public related to the identification of critical habitat, essential physical or 

biological features for this species, and other relevant impacts of a critical habitat designation 

was solicited. Currently, no critical habitat is designated for any DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, 

and therefore, no critical habitat for any DPS occurs in the action area. 

Presence of loggerhead sea turtles in the action area 

The effects of this proposed action are only experienced within New Jersey state waters. NMFS 

has considered the available information on the distribution of the 9 DPSs to determine the origin 

of any loggerhead sea turtles that may occur in the action area. As noted in Conant et al. (2009), 

the range of the four DPSs occurring in the Atlantic Ocean are as follows: NWA DPS – north of 

the equator, south of 60° N latitude, and west of 40° W longitude; Northeast Atlantic Ocean 

(NEA) DPS – north of the equator, south of 60° N latitude, east of 40° W longitude, and west of 

5° 36’ W longitude; South Atlantic DPS – south of the equator, north of 60° S latitude, west of 

20° E longitude, and east of 60° W longitude; Mediterranean DPS – the Mediterranean Sea east 

of 5° 36’ W longitude. These boundaries were determined based on oceanographic features, 

loggerhead sightings, thermal tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead 

distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. While adults are highly 

structured with no overlap, there may be some degree of overlap by juveniles of the NWA, NEA, 

and Mediterranean DPSs on oceanic foraging grounds (Laurent et al. 1993, 1998; Bolten et al. 

1998; LaCasella et al. 2005; Carreras et al. 2006, Monzón-Argüello et al. 2006; Revelles et al. 

2007). Previous literature (Bowen et al. 2004) has suggested that there is the potential, albeit 

small, for some juveniles from the Mediterranean DPS to be present in U.S. Atlantic coastal 

foraging grounds. These conclusions must be interpreted with caution however, as they may be 

representing a shared common haplotype and lack of representative sampling at Eastern Atlantic 

rookeries rather than an actual presence of Mediterranean DPS turtles in US Atlantic coastal 

waters. A re-analysis of the data by the Atlantic loggerhead Turtle Expert Working Group has 

found that that it is unlikely that U.S. fishing fleets are interacting with either the Northeast 

Atlantic loggerhead DPS or the Mediterranean loggerhead DPS (Peter Dutton, NMFS, Marine 

Turtle Genetics Program, Program Leader, personal communication, September 10, 2011). 

Given that the action area is a subset of the area fished by US fleets, it is reasonable to assume 

that based on this new analysis, no individuals from the Mediterranean DPS or Northeast 

Atlantic DPS would be present in the action area. Sea turtles of the South Atlantic DPS do not 
17

inhabit the action area of this consultation (Conant et al. 2009). As such, the remainder of this 

consultation will only focus on the NWA DPS, listed as threatened. 

Distribution and Life History 

Ehrhart et al. (2003) provided a summary of the literature identifying known nesting habitats and 

foraging areas for loggerheads within the Atlantic Ocean. Detailed information is also provided 

in the 5-year status review for loggerheads (NMFS and USFWS 2007a), the TEWG report 

(2009), and the final revised recovery plan for loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean 

(NMFS and USFWS 2008), which is a second revision to the original recovery plan that was 

approved in 1984 and subsequently revised in 1991. 

In the western Atlantic, waters as far north as 41 N to 42 N latitude are used for foraging by 

juveniles, as well as adults (Shoop 1987; Shoop and Kenney 1992; Ehrhart et al. 2003; Mitchell 

et al. 2003). In U.S. Atlantic waters, loggerheads commonly occur throughout the inner 

continental shelf from Florida to Cape Cod, Massachusetts and in the Gulf of Mexico from 

Florida to Texas, although their presence varies with the seasons due to changes in water 

temperature (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b; Braun and Epperly 1996; 

Braun-McNeill et al. 2008; Mitchell et al. 2003). Loggerheads have been observed in waters 

with surface temperatures of 7 C to 30 C, but water temperatures ≥11 C are most favorable 

(Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995b). The presence of loggerhead sea turtles in U.S. 

Atlantic waters is also influenced by water depth. Aerial surveys of continental shelf waters 

north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina indicated that loggerhead sea turtles were most 

commonly sighted in waters with bottom depths ranging from 22 m to 49 m deep (Shoop and 

Kenney 1992). However, more recent survey and satellite tracking data support that they occur 

in waters from the beach to beyond the continental shelf (Mitchell et al. 2003; Braun-McNeill 

and Epperly 2004; Mansfield 2006; Blumenthal et al. 2006; Hawkes et al. 2006; McClellan and 

Read 2007; Mansfield et al. 2009). 

Loggerhead sea turtles occur year round in ocean waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, and Florida. In these areas of the South Atlantic Bight, water temperature is influenced 

by the proximity of the Gulf Stream. As coastal water temperatures warm in the spring, 

loggerheads begin to migrate to inshore waters of the Southeast United States (e.g., Pamlico and 

Core Sounds) and also move up the U.S. Atlantic coast (Epperly et al. 1995a, 1995b, 1995c; 

Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2004), occurring in Virginia foraging areas as early as April/May 

and on the most northern foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine in June (Shoop and Kenney 

1992). The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. The large majority leave the 

Gulf of Maine by mid-September but some turtles may remain in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast 

areas until late fall. By December, loggerheads have migrated from inshore and more northern 

coastal waters to waters offshore of North Carolina, particularly off of Cape Hatteras, and waters 

further south where the influence of the Gulf Stream provides temperatures favorable to sea 

turtles (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Epperly et al. 1995b). 

Recent studies have established that the loggerhead’s life history is more complex than 
18

previously believed. Rather than making discrete developmental shifts from oceanic to neritic 

environments, research is showing that both adults and (presumed) neritic stage juveniles 

continue to use the oceanic environment and will move back and forth between the two habitats 

(Witzell 2002; Blumenthal et al. 2006; Hawkes et al. 2006; McClellan and Read 2007; 

Mansfield et al. 2009). One of the studies tracked the movements of adult post-nesting females 

and found that differences in habitat use were related to body size with larger adults staying in 

coastal waters and smaller adults traveling to oceanic waters (Hawkes et al. 2006). A tracking 

study of large juveniles found that the habitat preferences of this life stage were also diverse with 

some remaining in neritic waters and others moving off into oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 

2007). However, unlike the Hawkes et al. (2006) study, there was no significant difference in the 

body size of turtles that remained in neritic waters versus oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 

2007). 

Pelagic and benthic juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and 

vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988; NMFS and USFWS 2008). Sub-adult and adult 

loggerheads are primarily coastal dwelling and typically prey on benthic invertebrates such as 

mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hard bottom habitats (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

As presented below, Table 3 from the 2008 loggerhead recovery plan highlights the key life 

history parameters for loggerheads nesting in the United States. 
19

 

 

Population Dynamics and Status 

By far, the majority of Atlantic nesting occurs on beaches of the southeastern United States 

(NMFS and USFWS 2007a). For the past decade or so, the scientific literature has recognized 

five distinct nesting groups, or subpopulations, of loggerhead sea turtles in the Northwest 
20

Atlantic, divided geographically as follows: (1) a northern group of nesting females that nest 

from North Carolina to northeast Florida at about 29 N latitude; (2) a south Florida group of 

nesting females that nest from 29 N latitude on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast; (3) a 

Florida Panhandle group of nesting females that nest around Eglin Air Force Base and the 

beaches near Panama City, Florida; (4) a Yucatán group of nesting females that nest on beaches 

of the eastern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico; and (5) a Dry Tortugas group that nests on beaches of 

the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida and on Cal Sal Bank (TEWG 2009). 

Genetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA, which a sea turtle inherits from its mother, indicate that 

there are genetic differences between loggerheads that nest at and originate from the beaches 

used by each of the five identified nesting groups of females (TEWG 2009). However, analyses 

of microsatellite loci from nuclear DNA, which represents the genetic contribution from both 

parents, indicates little to no genetic differences between loggerheads originating from nesting 

beaches of the five Northwest Atlantic nesting groups (Pearce and Bowen 2001; Bowen 2003; 

Bowen et al. 2005; Shamblin 2007). These results suggest that female loggerheads have site 

fidelity to nesting beaches within a particular area, while males provide an avenue of gene flow 

between nesting groups by mating with females that originate from different nesting groups 

(Bowen 2003; Bowen et al. 2005). The extent of such gene flow, however, is unclear (Shamblin 

2007). 

The lack of genetic structure makes it difficult to designate specific boundaries for the nesting 

subpopulations based on genetic differences alone. Therefore, the Loggerhead Recovery Team 

recently used a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic 

separation, and geopolitical boundaries, in addition to genetic differences, to reassess the 

designation of these subpopulations to identify recovery units in the 2008 recovery plan. 

In the 2008 recovery plan, the Loggerhead Recovery Team designated five recovery units for the 

Northwest Atlantic population of loggerhead sea turtles based on the aforementioned nesting 

groups and inclusive of a few other nesting areas not mentioned above. The first four of these 

recovery units represent nesting assemblages located in the Southeast United States. The fifth 

recovery unit is composed of all other nesting assemblages of loggerheads within the Greater 

Caribbean, outside the United States, but which occur within U.S. waters during some portion of 

their lives. The five recovery units representing nesting assemblages are: (1) the Northern 

Recovery Unit (NRU: Florida/Georgia border through southern Virginia), (2) the Peninsular 

Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU: Florida/Georgia border through Pinellas County, Florida), (3) the 

Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU: islands located west of Key West, Florida), (4) the 

Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU: Franklin County, Florida through Texas), 

and (5) the Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU: Mexico through French Guiana, Bahamas, 

Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles). 

The Recovery Team evaluated the status and trends of the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead 

population for each of the five recovery units, using nesting data available as of October 2008 

(NMFS and USFWS 2008). The level and consistency of nesting coverage varies among 

recovery units, with coverage in Florida generally being the most consistent and thorough over 
21

time. Since 1989, nest count surveys in Florida have occurred in the form of statewide surveys (a 

near complete census of entire Florida nesting) and index beach surveys (Witherington et al.

2009). Index beaches were established to standardize data collection methods and maintain a 

constant level of effort on key nesting beaches over time. 

Note that NMFS and USFWS (2008), Witherington et al. (2009), and TEWG (2009) analyzed 

the status of the nesting assemblages within the NWA DPS using standardized data collected 

over periods ranging from 10-23 years. These analyses used different analytical approaches, but 

found the same finding that there had been a significant, overall nesting decline within the NWA 

DPS. However, with the addition of nesting data from 2008-2010, the trend line changes 

showing a very slight negative trend, but the rate of decline is not statistically different from zero 

(76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). The nesting data presented in the Recovery Plan (through 

2008) is described below, with updated trend information through 2010 for two recovery units. 

From the beginning of standardized index surveys in 1989 until 1998, the PFRU, the largest 

nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic by an order of magnitude, had a significant increase 

in the number of nests. However, from 1998 through 2008, there was a 41% decrease in annual 

nest counts from index beaches, which represent an average of 70% of the statewide nesting 

activity (NMFS and USFWS 2008). From 1989-2008, the PFRU had an overall declining 

nesting trend of 26% (95% CI: -42% to -5%; NMFS and USFWS 2008). With the addition of 

nesting data through 2010, the nesting trend for the PFRU does not show a nesting decline 

statistically different from zero (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). The NRU, the second 

largest nesting assemblage of loggerheads in the United States, has been declining at a rate of 

1.3% annually since 1983 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The NRU dataset included 11 beaches 

with an uninterrupted time series of coverage of at least 20 years; these beaches represent 

approximately 27% of NRU nesting (in 2008). Through 2008, there was strong statistical data to 

suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline, but with the inclusion of nesting data 

through 2010, nesting for the NRU is showing possible signs of stabilizing (76 FR 58868, 

September 22, 2011). Evaluation of long-term nesting trends for the NGMRU is difficult 

because of changed and expanded beach coverage. However, the NGMRU has shown a 

significant declining trend of 4.7% annually since index nesting beach surveys were initiated in 

1997 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). No statistical trends in nesting abundance can be determined 

for the DTRU because of the lack of long-term data. Similarly, statistically 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. Additionally, changing survey effort at 

monitored beaches and scattered and low-level nesting by loggerheads at many locations 

currently precludes comprehensive analyses (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

Sea turtle census nesting surveys are important in that they provide information on the relative 

abundance of nesting each year, and the contribution of each nesting group to total nesting of the 

species. Nest counts can also be used to estimate the number of reproductively mature females 

nesting annually. The 2008 recovery plan compiled information on mean number of loggerhead 

nests and the approximated counts of nesting females per year for four of the five identified 

recovery units (i.e., nesting groups). They are: (1) for the NRU, a mean of 5,215 loggerhead 
22

nests per year (from 1989-2008) with approximately 1,272 females nesting per year; (2) for the 

PFRU, a mean of 64,513 nests per year (from 1989-2007) with approximately 15,735 females 

nesting per year; (3) for the DTRU, a mean of 246 nests per year (from 1995-2004, excluding 

2002) with approximately 60 females nesting per year; and (4) for the NGMRU, a mean of 906 

nests per year (from 1995-2007) with approximately 221 females nesting per year. For the 

GCRU, the only estimate available for the number of loggerhead nests per year is from Quintana 

Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where a range of 903-2,331 nests per year was estimated from 1987-2001 

(NMFS and USFWS 2007a). There are no annual nest estimates available for the Yucatán since 

2001 or for any other regions in the GCRU, nor are there any estimates of the number of nesting 

females per year for any nesting assemblage in this recovery unit. Note that the above values for 

average nesting females per year were based upon 4.1 nests per female per Murphy and Hopkins 

(1984). 

Genetic studies of juvenile and a few adult loggerhead sea turtles collected from Northwest 

Atlantic foraging areas (beach strandings, a power plant in Florida, and North Carolina fisheries) 

show that the loggerheads that occupy East Coast U.S. waters originate from these Northwest 

Atlantic nesting groups; primarily from the nearby nesting beaches of southern Florida, as well as 

the northern Florida to North Carolina beaches, and finally from the beaches of the Yucatán 

Peninsula, Mexico (Rankin-Baransky et al. 2001; Witzell et al. 2002; Bass et al. 2004; Bowen et 

al. 2004). The contribution of these three nesting assemblages varies somewhat among the 

foraging habitats and age classes surveyed along the east coast. The distribution is not random 

and bears a significant relationship to the proximity and size of adjacent nesting colonies (Bowen 

et al. 2004). Bass et al. (2004) attribute the variety in the proportions of sea turtles from 

loggerhead turtle nesting assemblages documented in different east coast foraging habitats to a 

complex interplay of currents and the relative size and proximity of nesting beaches. 

Unlike nesting surveys, in-water studies of sea turtles typically sample both sexes and multiple 

age classes. In-water studies have been conducted in some areas of the Northwest Atlantic and 

provide data by which to assess the relative abundance of loggerhead sea turtles and changes in 

abundance over time (Maier et al. 2004; Morreale et al. 2005; Mansfield 2006; Ehrhart et al.

2007; Epperly et al. 2007). The TEWG (2009) used raw data from six in-water study sites to 

conduct trend analyses. They identified an increasing trend in the abundance of loggerheads 

from three of the four sites located in the Southeast United States, one site showed no discernible 

trend, and the two sites located in the northeast United States showed a decreasing trend in 

abundance of loggerheads. The 2008 loggerhead recovery plan also includes a full discussion of 

in-water population studies for which trend data have been reported, and a brief summary will be 

provided here. 

Maier et al. (2004) used fishery-independent trawl data to establish a regional index of 

loggerhead abundance for the southeast coast of the United States (Winyah Bay, South Carolina 

to St. Augustine, Florida) during the period 2000-2003. A comparison of loggerhead catch data 

from this study with historical values suggested that in-water populations of loggerhead sea 

turtles along the southeast U.S. coast appear to be larger, possibly an order of magnitude higher 

than they were 25 years ago, but the authors caution a direct comparison between the two studies 
23

given differences in sampling methodology (Maier et al. 2004). A comparison of catch rates for 

sea turtles in pound net gear fished in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex of North 

Carolina between the years 1995-1997 and 2001-2003 found a significant increase in catch rates 

for loggerhead sea turtles for the latter period (Epperly et al. 2007). A long-term, on-going study 

of loggerhead abundance in the Indian River Lagoon System of Florida found a significant 

increase in the relative abundance of loggerheads over the last 4 years of the study (Ehrhart et al.

2007). However, there was no discernible trend in loggerhead abundance during the 24-year 

time period of the study (1982-2006) (Ehrhart et al. 2007). At St. Lucie Power Plant, data 

collected from 1977-2004 show an increasing trend of loggerheads at the power plant intake 

structures (FPL and Quantum Resources 2005). 

In contrast to these studies, Morreale et al. (2005) observed a decline in the percentage and 

relative numbers of loggerhead sea turtles incidentally captured in pound net gear fished around 

Long Island, New York during the period 2002-2004 in comparison to the period 1987-1992, 

with only two loggerheads (of a total 54 turtles) observed captured in pound net gear during the 

period 2002-2004. This is in contrast to the previous decade’s study where numbers of 

individual loggerheads ranged from 11 to 28 per year (Morreale et al. 2005). No additional 

loggerheads were reported captured in pound net gear in New York through 2007, although two 

were found cold-stunned on Long Island bay beaches in the fall of 2007 (Memo to the File, L. 

Lankshear, December 2007). Potential explanations for this decline include major shifts in 

loggerhead foraging areas and/or increased mortality in pelagic or early benthic stage/age classes 

(Morreale et al. 2005). Using aerial surveys, Mansfield (2006) also found a decline in the 

densities of loggerhead sea turtles in Chesapeake Bay over the period 2001-2004 compared to 

aerial survey data collected in the 1980s. Significantly fewer loggerheads (p<0.05) were 

observed in both the spring (May-June) and the summer (July-August) of 2001-2004 compared 

to those observed during aerial surveys in the 1980s (Mansfield 2006). A comparison of median 

densities from the 1980s to the 2000s suggested that there had been a 63.2% reduction in 

densities during the spring residency period and a 74.9% reduction in densities during the 

summer residency period (Mansfield 2006). The decline in observed loggerhead populations in 

Chesapeake Bay may be related to a significant decline in prey, namely horseshoe crabs and blue 

crabs, with loggerheads redistributing outside of Bay waters (NMFS and USFWS 2008). 

As with other turtle species, population estimates for loggerhead sea turtles are difficult to 

determine, largely given their life history characteristics. However, a recent loggerhead 

assessment using a demographic matrix model estimated that the loggerhead adult female 

population in the western North Atlantic ranges from 16,847 to 89,649, with a median size of 

30,050 (NMFS SEFSC 2009). The model results for population trajectory suggest that the 

population is most likely declining, but this result was very sensitive to the choice of the position 

of the parameters within their range and hypothesized distributions. The pelagic stage survival 

parameter had the largest effect on the model results. As a result of the large uncertainty in our 

knowledge of loggerhead life history, at this point predicting the future populations or population 

trajectories of loggerhead sea turtles with precision is very uncertain. It should also be noted that 

additional analyses are underway which will incorporate any newly available information. 
24

As part of the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS), line 

transect aerial abundance surveys and turtle telemetry studies were conducted along the Atlantic 

coast in the summer of 2010. AMAPPS is a multi-agency initiative to assess marine mammal, 

sea turtle, and seabird abundance and distribution in the Atlantic. Aerial surveys were conducted 

from Cape Canaveral, Florida to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Satellite tags on juvenile 

loggerheads were deployed in two locations – off the coasts of northern Florida to South Carolina 

(n=30) and off the New Jersey and Delaware coasts (n=14). As presented in NMFS NEFSC 

(2011), the 2010 survey found a preliminary total surface abundance estimate within the entire 

study area of about 60,000 loggerheads (CV=0.13) or 85,000 if a portion of unidentified hardshelled sea turtles were included (CV=0.10). Surfacing times were generated from the satellite 

tag data collected during the aerial survey period, resulting in a 7% (5%-11% inter-quartile 

range) median surface time in the South Atlantic area and a 67% (57%-77% inter-quartile range) 

median surface time to the north. The calculated preliminary regional abundance estimate is 

about 588,000 loggerheads along the U.S. Atlantic coast, with an inter-quartile range of 382,000-

817,000 (NMFS NEFSC 2011). The estimate increases to approximately 801,000 (inter-quartile 

range of 521,000-1,111,000) when based on known loggerheads and a portion of unidentified 

turtle sightings. The density of loggerheads was generally lower in the north than the south; 

based on number of turtle groups detected, 64% were seen south of Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina, 30% in the southern Mid-Atlantic Bight, and 6% in the northern Mid-Atlantic 

Bight. Although they have been seen farther north in previous studies (e.g., Shoop and Kenney 

1992), no loggerheads were observed during the aerial surveys conducted in the summer of 2010 

in the more northern zone encompassing Georges Bank, Cape Cod Bay, and the Gulf of 

Maine. These estimates of loggerhead abundance over the U.S. Atlantic continental shelf are 

considered very preliminary. A more thorough analysis will be completed pending the results of 

further studies related to improving estimates of regional and seasonal variation in loggerhead 

surface time (by increasing the sample size and geographical area of tagging) and other 

information needed to improve the biases inherent in aerial surveys of sea turtles (e.g., research 

on depth of detection and species misidentification rate). This survey effort represents the most 

comprehensive assessment of sea turtle abundance and distribution in many years. Additional 

aerial surveys and research to improve the abundance estimates are anticipated in 2011-2014, 

depending on available funds. 

Threats 

The diversity of a sea turtle’s life history leaves them susceptible to many natural and human 

impacts, including impacts while they are on land, in the neritic environment, and in the oceanic 

environment. The 5-year status review and 2008 recovery plan provide a summary of natural as 

well as anthropogenic threats to loggerhead sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2008). 

Amongst those of natural origin, hurricanes are known to be destructive to sea turtle nests. Sand 

accretion, rainfall, and wave action that result from these storms can appreciably reduce hatchling 

success. Other sources of natural mortality include cold-stunning, biotoxin exposure, and native 

species predation. 

Anthropogenic factors that impact hatchlings and adult females on land, or the success of nesting 

and hatching include: beach erosion, beach armoring, and nourishment; artificial lighting; beach 
25

cleaning; beach pollution; increased human presence; recreational beach equipment; vehicular 

and pedestrian traffic; coastal development/construction; exotic dune and beach vegetation; 

removal of native vegetation; and poaching. An increased human presence at some nesting 

beaches or close to nesting beaches has led to secondary threats such as the introduction of exotic 

fire ants, feral hogs, dogs, and an increased presence of native species (e.g., raccoons, armadillos, 

and opossums), which raid nests and feed on turtle eggs (NMFS and USFWS 2007a, 2008). 

Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expanses of the Northwest Atlantic 

coast (in areas like Merritt Island, Archie Carr, and Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuges), 

other areas along these coasts have limited or no protection. Sea turtle nesting and hatching 

success on unprotected high density East Florida nesting beaches from Indian River to Broward 

County are affected by all of the above threats. 

Loggerheads are affected by a completely different set of anthropogenic threats in the marine 

environment. These include oil and gas exploration, coastal development, and transportation; 

marine pollution; underwater explosions; hopper dredging; offshore artificial lighting; power 

plant entrainment and/or impingement; entanglement in debris; ingestion of marine debris; 

marina and dock construction and operation; boat collisions; poaching; and fishery interactions. 

A 1990 National Research Council (NRC) report concluded that for juveniles, subadults, and 

breeders in coastal waters, the most important source of human caused mortality in U.S. Atlantic 

waters was fishery interactions. The sizes and reproductive values of sea turtles taken by 

fisheries vary significantly, depending on the location and season of the fishery, and sizeselectivity resulting from gear characteristics. Therefore, it is possible for fisheries that interact 

with fewer, more reproductively valuable turtles to have a greater detrimental effect on the 

population than one that takes greater numbers of less reproductively valuable turtles (Wallace et 

al. 2008). The Loggerhead Biological Review Team determined that the greatest threats to the 

NWA DPS of loggerheads result from cumulative fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic habitats 

(Conant et al. 2009). Attaining a more thorough understanding of the characteristics, as well as 

the quantity of sea turtle bycatch across all fisheries is of great importance. 

Of the many fisheries known to adversely affect loggerheads, the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico shrimp fisheries were considered to pose the greatest threat of mortality to neritic 

juvenile and adult age classes of loggerheads, accounting for an estimated 5,000 to 50,000 

loggerhead deaths each year (NRC 1990). Significant changes to the South Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico shrimp fisheries have occurred since 1990, and the effects of these shrimp fisheries on 

ESA-listed species, including loggerhead sea turtles, have been assessed several times through 

section 7 consultation. There is also a lengthy regulatory history with regard to the use of Turtle 

Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries 

(Epperly and Teas 2002; NMFS 2002a; Lewison et al. 2003). The current section 7 consultation 

on the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries was completed in 2002 and 

estimated the total annual level of take for loggerhead sea turtles to be 163,160 interactions (the 

total number of turtles that enter a shrimp trawl, which may then escape through the TED or fail 

to escape and be captured) with 3,948 of those takes being lethal (NMFS 2002a). 
26

In addition to improvements in TED designs and TED enforcement, interactions between 

loggerheads and the shrimp fishery have also been declining because of reductions in fishing 

effort unrelated to fisheries management actions. The 2002 Opinion take estimates are based in 

part on fishery effort levels. In recent years, low shrimp prices, rising fuel costs, competition 

with imported products, and the impacts of recent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have all 

impacted the shrimp fleets; in some cases reducing fishing effort by as much as 50% for offshore 

waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GMFMC 2007). As a result, loggerhead interactions and 

mortalities in the Gulf of Mexico have been substantially less than projected in the 2002 Opinion. 

Currently, the estimated annual number of interactions between loggerheads and shrimp trawls in 

the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery is 23,336, with 647 (2.8%) of those interactions resulting in 

mortality (Memo from Dr. B. Ponwith, Southeast Fisheries Science Center to Dr. R. Crabtree, 

Southeast Region, PRD, December 2008). Section 7 consultation on the Shrimp FMP has 

recently been reinitiated and a new Biological Opinion is forthcoming. 

Loggerhead sea turtles are also known to interact with non-shrimp trawl, gillnet, longline, 

dredge, pound net, pot/trap, and hook and line fisheries. The NRC (1990) report stated that other 

U.S. Atlantic fisheries collectively accounted for 500 to 5,000 loggerhead deaths each year, but 

recognized that there was considerable uncertainty in the estimate. The reduction of sea turtle 

captures in fishing operations is identified in recovery plans and 5-year status reviews as a 

priority for the recovery of all sea turtle species. In the threats analysis of the loggerhead 

recovery plan, trawl bycatch is identified as the greatest source of mortality. While loggerhead 

bycatch in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear was previously estimated for the period 

1996-2004 (Murray 2006, 2008), a recent bycatch analysis estimated the number of loggerhead 

sea turtle interactions with U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear from 2005-2008 (Warden 

2011a). Northeast Fisheries Observer Program data from 1994-2008 were used to develop a 

model of interaction rates and those predicted rates were applied to 2005-2008 commercial 

fishing data to estimate the number of interactions for the trawl fleet. The number of predicted 

average annual loggerhead interactions for 2005-2008 was 292 (CV=0.13, 95% CI=221-369), 

with an additional 61 loggerheads (CV=0.17, 95% CI=41-83) interacting with trawls but being 

released through a TED. Of the 292 average annual observable loggerhead interactions, 

approximately 44 of those were adult equivalents. Warden (2011b) found that latitude, depth and 

SST were associated with the interaction rate, with the rates being highest south of 37°N latitude 

in waters < 50 m deep and SST > 15°C. This estimate is a decrease from the average annual 

loggerhead bycatch in bottom otter trawls during 1996-2004, estimated to be 616 sea turtles 

(CV=0.23, 95% CI over the 9-year period: 367-890) (Murray 2006, 2008). 

There have been several published estimates of the number of loggerheads taken annually as a 

result of the dredge fishery for Atlantic sea scallops, ranging from a low of zero in 2005 (Murray 

2007) to a high of 749 in 2003 (Murray 2004). Murray (2011) recently re-evaluated loggerhead 

sea turtle interactions in scallop dredge gear from 2001-2008. In that paper, the average number 

of annual observable interactions of hard-shelled sea turtles in the Mid-Atlantic scallop dredge 

fishery prior to the implementation of chain mats (January 1, 2001 through September 25, 2006) 

was estimated to be 288 turtles (CV = 0.14, 95% CI: 209-363) [equivalent to 49 adults], 218 of 

which were loggerheads [equivalent to 37 adults]. After the implementation of chain mats, the 
27

average annual number of observable interactions was estimated to be 20 hard-shelled sea turtles 

(CV = 0.48, 95% CI: 3-42), 19 of which were loggerheads. If the rate of observable interactions 

from dredges without chain mats had been applied to trips with chain mats, the estimated number 

of observable and inferred interactions of hard-shelled sea turtles after chain mats were 

implemented would have been 125 turtles per year (CV = 0.15, 95% CI: 88-163) [equivalent to 

22 adults], 95 of which were loggerheads [equivalent to 16 adults]. Interaction rates of hardshelled turtles were correlated with sea surface temperature, depth, and use of a chain mat. 

Results from this recent analysis suggest that chain mats and fishing effort reductions have 

contributed to the decline in estimated loggerhead sea turtle interactions with scallop dredge gear 

after 2006 (Murray 2011). 

An estimate of the number of loggerheads taken annually in U.S. Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries 

has also recently been published (Murray 2009a, b). From 1995-2006, the annual bycatch of 

loggerheads in U.S. Mid-Atlantic gillnet gear was estimated to average 350 turtles (CV=0.20, 

95% CI over the 12-year period: 234 to 504). Bycatch rates were correlated with latitude, sea 

surface temperature, and mesh size. The highest predicted bycatch rates occurred in warm waters 

of the southern Mid-Atlantic in large-mesh gillnets (Murray 2009a). 

The U.S. tuna and swordfish longline fisheries that are managed under the Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) FMP are estimated to capture 1,905 loggerheads (no more than 339 mortalities) 

for each 3-year period starting in 2007 (NMFS 2004a). NMFS has mandated gear changes for 

the HMS fishery to reduce sea turtle bycatch and the likelihood of death from those incidental 

takes that would still occur (Garrison and Stokes 2010). In 2010, there were 40 observed 

interactions between loggerhead sea turtles and longline gear used in the HMS fishery (Garrison 

and Stokes 2011a, 2011b). All of the loggerheads were released alive, with the vast majority 

released with all gear removed. While 2010 total estimates are not yet available, in 2009, 242.9 

(95% CI: 167.9-351.2) loggerhead sea turtles are estimated to have been taken in the longline 

fisheries managed under the HMS FMP based on the observed takes (Garrison and Stokes 2010). 

The 2009 estimate is considerably lower than those in 2006 and 2007 and is consistent with 

historical averages since 2001 (Garrison and Stokes 2010). This fishery represents just one of 

several longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Lewison et al. (2004) estimated that 

150,000-200,000 loggerheads were taken in all Atlantic longline fisheries in 2000 (including the 

U.S. Atlantic tuna and swordfish longline fisheries as well as others). 

Documented takes also occur in other fishery gear types and by non-fishery mortality sources 

(e.g., hopper dredges, power plants, vessel collisions), but quantitative estimates are unavailable. 

The most recent Recovery Plan for loggerhead sea turtles as well as the 2009 Status Review 

Report identifies global climate change as a threat to loggerhead sea turtles. However, trying to 

assess the likely effects of climate change on loggerhead sea turtles is extremely difficult given 

the uncertainty in all climate change models and the difficulty in determining the likely rate of 

temperature increases and the scope and scale of any accompanying habitat effects. Additionally, 

no significant climate change-related impacts to loggerhead sea turtle populations have been 

observed to date. Over the long-term, climate change related impacts are expected to influence 
28

biological trajectories on a century scale (Parmesan and Yohe 2003). As noted in the 2009 Status 

Review (Conant et al. 2009), impacts from global climate change induced by human activities 

are likely to become more apparent in future years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) 2007). Climate change related increasing temperatures, sea level rise, changes in ocean 

productivity, and increased frequency of storm events may affect loggerhead sea turtles. 

Increasing temperatures are expected to result in rising sea levels (Titus and Narayanan 1995 in 

Conant et al. 2009), which could result in increased erosion rates along nesting beaches. Sea 

level rise could result in the inundation of nesting sites and decrease available nesting habitat 

(Daniels et al. 1993; Fish et al. 2005; Baker et al. 2006). The BRT noted that the loss of habitat 

as a result of climate change 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; both in Conant et al. 2009). Along developed coastlines, and especially 

in areas where erosion control structures have been constructed to limit shoreline movement, 

rising sea levels may cause severe effects on nesting females and their eggs as nesting females 

may deposit eggs seaward of the erosion control structures potentially subjecting them to 

repeated tidal inundation. However, if global temperatures increase and there is a range shift 

northwards, beaches not currently used for nesting may become available for loggerhead sea 

turtles, which may offset some loss of accessibility to beaches in the southern portions of the 

range. 

Climate change has the potential to result in changes at nesting beaches that may affect 

loggerhead sex ratios. Loggerhead sea turtles exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination. 

Rapidly increasing global temperatures may result in warmer incubation temperatures and highly 

female-biased sex ratios (e.g., Glen and Mrosovsky 2004; Hawkes et al. 2009); however, to the 

extent that nesting can occur at beaches further north where sand temperatures are not as warm, 

these effects may be partially offset. The BRT specifically identified climate change as a threat 

to loggerhead sea turtles in the neritic/oceanic zone where climate change may result in future 

trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and/or distribution. In the threats 

matrix analysis, climate change was considered for oceanic juveniles and adults and 

eggs/hatchlings. The report states that for oceanic juveniles and adults, “although the effect of 

trophic level change from...climate change...is unknown it is believed to be very low.” For 

eggs/hatchlings the report states that total mortality from anthropogenic causes, including sea 

level rise resulting from climate change, is believed to be low relative to the entire life stage. 

However, only limited data are available on past trends related to climate effects on loggerhead 

sea turtles; current scientific methods are not able to reliably predict the future magnitude of 

climate change, associated impacts, whether and to what extent some impacts will offset others, 

or the adaptive capacity of this species. 

However, Van Houtan and Halley (2011) recently developed climate based models to investigate 

loggerhead nesting (considering juvenile recruitment and breeding remigration) in the North 

Pacific and Northwest Atlantic. These models found that climate conditions/oceanographic 

influences explain loggerhead nesting variability, with climate models alone explaining an 
29

average 60% (range 18%-88%) of the observed nesting changes over the past several decades. In 

terms of future nesting projections, modeled climate data show a future positive trend for Florida 

nesting, with increases through 2040 as a result of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation signal. 

While there is a reasonable degree of certainty that certain climate change related effects will be 

experienced globally (e.g., rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns), due to a 

lack of scientific data, the specific effects to sea turtles resulting from climate change are not 

predictable or quantifiable at this time (Hawkes et al. 2009). However, given this uncertainty 

and the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts (i.e., the century scale), it is unlikely 

that climate related impacts will have a significant effect on the status of loggerhead sea turtles 

over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through April 2029).

Summary of Status for Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

Loggerheads are a long-lived species and reach sexual maturity relatively late at around 32-35 

years in the Northwest Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The species continues to be affected 

by many factors occurring on nesting beaches and in the water. These include poaching, habitat 

loss, and nesting predation that affects eggs, hatchlings, and nesting females on land, as well as 

fishery interactions, vessel interactions, marine pollution, and non-fishery (e.g., dredging) 

operations affecting all sexes and age classes in the water (NRC 1990; NMFS and USFWS 

2007a, 2008). As a result, loggerheads still face many of the original threats that were the cause 

of their listing under the ESA. 

As mentioned previously, a final revised recovery plan for loggerhead sea turtles in the 

Northwest Atlantic was recently published by NMFS and FWS in December 2008. The revised 

recovery plan is significant in that it identifies five unique recovery units, which comprise the 

population of loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic, and describes specific recovery criteria for 

each recovery unit. The recovery plan noted a decline in annual nest counts for three of the five 

recovery units for loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic, including the PFRU, which is the 

largest (in terms of number of nests laid) in the Atlantic Ocean. The nesting trends for the other 

two recovery units could not be determined due to an absence of long term data. 

NMFS convened a new Loggerhead Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) to review all 

available information on Atlantic loggerheads in order to evaluate the status of this species in the 

Atlantic. A final report from the Loggerhead TEWG was published in July 2009. In this report, 

the TEWG indicated that it could not determine whether the decreasing annual numbers of nests 

among the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations were due to stochastic processes 

resulting in fewer nests, a decreasing average reproductive output of adult females, decreasing 

numbers of adult females, or a combination of these factors. Many factors are responsible for 

past or present loggerhead mortality that could impact current nest numbers; however, no single 

mortality factor stands out as a likely primary factor. It is likely that several factors compound to 

create the current decline, including incidental capture (in fisheries, power plant intakes, and 

dredging operations), lower adult female survival rates, increases in the proportion of first-time 

nesters, continued directed harvest, and increases in mortality due to disease. Regardless, the 

TEWG stated that “it is clear that the current levels of hatchling output will result in depressed 
30

recruitment to subsequent life stages over the coming decades” (TEWG 2009). However, the 

report does not provide information on the rate or amount of expected decrease in recruitment 

but goes on to state that the ability to assess the current status of loggerhead subpopulations is 

limited due to a lack of fundamental life history information and specific census and mortality 

data. 

While several documents reported the decline in nesting numbers in the NWA DPS (NMFS and 

USFWS 2008, TEWG 2009), when nest counts through 2010 are analyzed, the nesting trends 

from 1989-2010 are not significantly different than zero for all recovery units within the NWA 

DPS for which there are enough data to analyze (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). The 

SEFSC (2009) estimated the number of adult females in the NWA DPS at 30,000, and if a 1:1 

adult sex ratio is assumed, the result is 60,000 adults in this DPS. Based on the reviews of 

nesting data, as well as information on population abundance and trends, NMFS and USFWS 

determined in the September 2011 listing rule that the NWA DPS should be listed as threatened. 

They found that an endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted given the large size 

of the nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread, the trend for the 

nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts are underway to 

address threats. 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles

Distribution and Life History 

The Kemp’s ridley is one of the least abundant of the world’s sea turtle species. In contrast to 

loggerhead, leatherback, and green sea turtles, which are found in multiple oceans of the world, 

Kemp’s ridleys typically occur only in the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean 

(NMFS et al. 2011). 

Kemp’s ridleys mature at 10-17 years (Caillouet et al. 1995; Schmid and Witzell 1997; Snover et 

al. 2007; NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Nesting occurs from April through July each year with 

hatchlings emerging after 45-58 days (NMFS et al. 2011). Females lay an average of 2.5 clutches 

within a season (TEWG 1998, 2000) and the mean remigration interval for adult females is 2 

years (Marquez et al. 1982; TEWG 1998, 2000). 

Once they leave the nesting beach, hatchlings presumably enter the Gulf of Mexico where they 

feed on available Sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species (NMFS et al. 

2011). The presence of juvenile turtles along both the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, 

where they are recruited to the coastal benthic environment, indicates that post-hatchlings are 

distributed in both the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean (TEWG 2000). 

The location and size classes of dead turtles recovered by the STSSN suggests that benthic 

immature developmental areas occur along the U.S. coast and that these areas may change given 

resource quality and quantity (TEWG 2000). Developmental habitats are defined by several 

characteristics, including coastal areas sheltered from high winds and waves such as embayments 

and estuaries, and nearshore temperate waters shallower than 50 m (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). 

The suitability of these habitats depends on resource availability, with optimal environments 
31

providing rich sources of crabs and other invertebrates. Kemp’s ridleys consume a variety of 

crab species, including Callinectes, Ovalipes, Libinia, and Cancer species. Mollusks, shrimp, 

and fish are consumed less frequently (Bjorndal 1997). A wide variety of substrates have been 

documented to provide good foraging habitat, including seagrass beds, oyster reefs, sandy and 

mud bottoms, and rock outcroppings (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). 

Foraging areas documented along the U.S. Atlantic coast include Charleston Harbor, Pamlico 

Sound (Epperly et al. 1995c), Chesapeake Bay (Musick and Limpus 1997), Delaware Bay 

(Stetzar 2002), and Long Island Sound (Morreale and Standora 1993; Morreale et al. 2005). For 

instance, in the Chesapeake Bay, Kemp’s ridleys frequently forage in submerged aquatic grass 

beds for crabs (Musick and Limpus 1997). Upon leaving Chesapeake Bay in autumn, juvenile 

Kemp’s ridleys migrate down the coast, passing Cape Hatteras in December and January (Musick 

and Limpus 1997). These larger juveniles are joined by juveniles of the same size from North 

Carolina sounds and smaller juveniles from New York and New England to form one of the 

densest concentrations of Kemp’s ridleys outside of the Gulf of Mexico (Epperly et al. 1995a, 

1995b; Musick and Limpus 1997). 

Adult Kemp’s ridleys are found in the coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern 

United States, but are typically rare in the northeastern U.S. waters of the Atlantic (TEWG 2000). 

Adults are primarily found in nearshore waters of 37 m or less that are rich in crabs and have a 

sandy or muddy bottom (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). 

Population Dynamics and Status 

The majority of Kemp’s ridleys nest along a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, 

Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS et al. 2011). There is a 

limited amount of scattered nesting to the north and south of the primary nesting beach (NMFS 

and USFWS 2007c). Nesting often occurs in synchronized emergences termed arribadas. The 

number of recorded nests reached an estimated low of 702 nests in 1985, corresponding to fewer 

than 300 adult females nesting in that season (TEWG 2000; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS 

et al. 2011). Conservation efforts by Mexican and U.S. agencies have aided this species by 

eliminating egg harvest, protecting eggs and hatchlings, and reducing at-sea mortality through 

fishing regulations (TEWG 2000). Since the mid-1980s, the number of nests observed at Rancho 

Nuevo and nearby beaches has increased 14-16% per year (Heppell et al. 2005), allowing 

cautious optimism that the population is on its way to recovery. An estimated 5,500 females 

nested in the State of Tamaulipas over a 3-day period in May 2007 and over 4,000 of those 

nested at Rancho Nuevo (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). In 2008, 17,882 nests were documented 

on Mexican nesting beaches (NMFS 2011). There is limited nesting in the United States, most 

of which is located in South Texas. While six nests were documented in 1996, a record 195 

nests were found in 2008 (NMFS 2011). 

Threats 

Kemp’s ridleys face many of the same natural threats as loggerheads, including destruction of 

nesting habitat from storm events, predators, and oceanographic-related events such as coldstunning. Although cold-stunning can occur throughout the range of the species, it may be a 
32

greater risk for sea turtles that utilize the more northern habitats of Cape Cod Bay and Long 

Island Sound. In the last five years (2006-2010), the number of cold-stunned turtles on Cape Cod 

beaches averaged 115 Kemp’s ridleys, 7 loggerheads, and 7 greens (NMFS unpublished 

data). The numbers ranged from a low in 2007 of 27 Kemp's ridleys, 5 loggerheads, and 5 greens 

to a high in 2010 of 213 Kemp's ridleys, 4 loggerheads, and 14 greens. Annual cold stun events 

vary in magnitude; the extent of episodic major cold stun events may be associated with numbers 

of turtles utilizing Northeast U.S. waters in a given year, oceanographic conditions, and/or the 

occurrence of storm events in the late fall. Although many cold-stunned turtles can survive if 

they are found early enough, these events represent a significant source of natural mortality for 

Kemp’s ridleys. 

Like other sea turtle species, the severe decline in the Kemp’s ridley population appears to have 

been heavily influenced by a combination of exploitation of eggs and impacts from fishery 

interactions. From the 1940s through the early 1960s, nests from Ranch Nuevo were heavily 

exploited, but beach protection in 1967 helped to curtail this activity (NMFS et al. 2011). 

Following World War II, there was a substantial increase in the number of trawl vessels, 

particularly shrimp trawlers, in the Gulf of Mexico where adult Kemp’s ridley sea turtles occur. 

Information from fisheries observers helped to demonstrate the high number of turtles taken in 

these shrimp trawls (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Subsequently, NMFS has worked with the 

industry to reduce sea turtle takes in shrimp trawls and other trawl fisheries, including the 

development and use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs). As described above, there is lengthy 

regulatory history with regard to the use of TEDs in the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

shrimp fisheries (NMFS 2002a; Epperly 2003; Lewison et al. 2003). The 2002 Biological 

Opinion on shrimp trawling in the southeastern United States concluded that 155,503 Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtles would be taken annually in the fishery with 4,208 of the takes resulting in 

mortality (NMFS 2002a). 

Although modifications to shrimp trawls have helped to reduce mortality of Kemp’s ridleys, this 

species is also affected by other sources of anthropogenic impact (fishery and non-fishery 

related), similar to those discussed above. Three Kemp’s ridley captures in Mid-Atlantic trawl 

fisheries were documented by NMFS observers between 1994 and 2008 (Warden and Bisack 

2010), and eight Kemp’s ridleys were documented by NMFS observers in mid-Atlantic sink 

gillnet fisheries between 1995 and 2006 (Murray 2009a). Additionally, in the spring of 2000, a 

total of five Kemp’s ridley carcasses were recovered from the same North Carolina beaches 

where 275 loggerhead carcasses were found. The cause of death for most of the turtles recovered 

was unknown, but the mass mortality event was suspected by NMFS to have been from a largemesh gillnet fishery for monkfish and dogfish operating offshore in the preceding weeks (67 FR 

71895, December 3, 2002). The five Kemp’s ridley carcasses that were found are likely to have 

been only a minimum count of the number of Kemp’s ridleys that were killed or seriously injured 

as a result of the fishery interaction, since it is unlikely that all of the carcasses washed ashore. 

The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center also documented 14 Kemp’s ridleys entangled in 

or impinged on Virginia pound net leaders from 2002-2005. Note that bycatch estimates for 

Kemp’s ridleys in various fishing gear types (e.g., trawl, gillnet, dredge) are not available at this 

time, largely due to the low number of observed interactions precluding a robust estimate. 
33

The recovery plan for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (NMFS et al. 2011) identifies climate change as a 

threat; however, as with the other species discussed above, no significant climate change-related 

impacts to Kemp’s ridley sea turtles have been observed to date. Atmospheric warming could 

cause habitat alteration which may change food resources such as crabs and other invertebrates. 

It may increase hurricane activity, leading to an increase in debris in nearshore and offshore 

waters, which may result in an increase in entanglement, ingestion, or drowning. In addition, 

increased hurricane activity may cause damage to nesting beaches or inundate nests with sea 

water. Atmospheric warming may change convergence zones, currents and other oceanographic 

features that are relevant to Kemp's ridleys, as well as change rain regimes and levels of 

nearshore runoff. 

Considering that the Kemp’s ridley has temperature-dependent sex determination (Wibbels 2003) 

and the vast majority of the nesting range is restricted to the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, global 

warming could potentially shift population sex ratios towards females and thus change the 

reproductive ecology of this species. A female bias is presumed to increase egg production 

(assuming that the availability of males does not become a limiting factor) (Coyne and Landry 

2007) and increase the rate of recovery; however, it is unknown at what point the percentage of 

males may become insufficient to facilitate maximum fertilization rates in a population. If males 

become a limiting factor in the reproductive ecology of the Kemp's ridley, then reproductive 

output in the population could decrease (Coyne 2000). Low numbers of males could also result 

in the loss of genetic diversity within a population; however, there is currently no evidence that 

this is a problem in the Kemp's ridley population (NMFS et al. 2011). Models (Davenport 1997, 

Hulin and Guillon 2007, Hawkes et al. 2007, all referenced in NMFS et al. 2011) predict very 

long-term reductions in fertility in sea turtles due to climate change, but due to the relatively long 

life cycle of sea turtles, reductions may not be seen until 30 to 50 years in the future. 

Another potential impact from global climate change is sea level rise, which may result in 

increased beach erosion at nesting sites. Beach erosion may 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. In the case of the Kemp’s ridley where most of the critical 

nesting beaches are undeveloped, beaches may shift landward and still be available for nesting. 

The Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS) shoreline is accreting, unlike much of the Texas 

coast, and with nesting increasing and the sand temperatures slightly cooler than at Rancho 

Nuevo, PAIS could become an increasingly important source of males for the population. 

As with the other sea turtle species discussed in this section, while there is a reasonable degree of 

certainty that certain climate change related effects will be experienced globally (e.g., rising 

temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns), due to a lack of scientific data, the specific 

effects of climate change on this species are not predictable or quantifiable at this time (Hawkes 

et al. 2009). However, given the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts (i.e., the 

century scale), it is unlikely that climate change will have a significant effect on the status of 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through April 

2029). 
34

Summary of Status for Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

The majority of Kemp’s ridleys nest along a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, 

Tamaulipas, Mexico (Carr 1963; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS et al. 2011). The number of 

nesting females in the Kemp’s ridley population declined dramatically from the late 1940s 

through the mid-1980s, with an estimated 40,000 nesting females in a single arribada in 1947 

and fewer than 300 nesting females in the entire 1985 nesting season (TEWG 2000; NMFS et al. 

2011). However, the total annual number of nests at Rancho Nuevo gradually began to increase 

in the 1990s (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Based on the number of nests laid in 2006 and the 

remigration interval for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (1.8-2 years), there were an estimated 7,000-

8,000 adult female Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in 2006 (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). The number 

of adult males in the population is unknown, but sex ratios of hatchlings and immature Kemp’s 

ridleys suggest that the population is female-biased, suggesting that the number of adult males is 

less than the number of adult females (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). While there is cautious 

optimism for recovery, events such as the Deepwater Horizon oil release, and stranding events 

associated skimmer trawl use and poor TED compliance in the northern Gulf of Mexico may 

dampen recent population growth. 

As with the other sea turtle species, fishery mortality accounts for a large proportion of annual 

human-caused mortality outside the nesting beaches, while other activities like dredging, 

pollution, and habitat destruction account for an unknown level of other mortality. Based on 

their 5-year status review of the species, NMFS and USFWS (2007c) determined that Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtles should not be reclassified as threatened under the ESA. A revised bi-national 

recovery plan was published for public comment in 2010, and in September 2011, NMFS, 

USFWS, and the Services and the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico 

(SEMARNAT) released the second revision to the Kemp’s ridley recovery plan. 

Green sea turtles 

Green sea turtles are distributed circumglobally, and can be found in the Pacific, Indian, and 

Atlantic Oceans as well as the Mediterranean Sea (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 2007d; Seminoff 

2004). In 1978, the Atlantic population of the green sea turtle was listed as threatened under the 

ESA, except for the breeding populations in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which 

were listed as endangered. As it is difficult to differentiate between breeding populations away 

from the nesting beaches, all green sea turtles in the water are considered endangered. 

Pacific Ocean 

Green sea turtles occur in the western, central, and eastern Pacific. Foraging areas are also found 

throughout the Pacific and along the southwestern U.S. coast (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). In 

the western Pacific, major nesting rookeries at four sites including Heron Island (Australia), 

Raine Island (Australia), Guam, and Japan were evaluated and determined to be increasing in 

abundance, with the exception of Guam which appears stable (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). In 

the central Pacific, nesting occurs on French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, which has also been 

reported as increasing with a mean of 400 nesting females annually from 2002-2006 (NMFS and 

USFWS 2007d). The main nesting sites for the green sea turtle in the eastern Pacific are located 
35

in Michoacan, Mexico and in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The 

number of nesting females per year exceeds 1,000 females at each site (NMFS and USFWS 

2007d). However, historically, greater than 20,000 females per year are believed to have nested 

in Michoacan alone (Cliffton et al. 1982; NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The Pacific Mexico green 

turtle nesting population (also called the black turtle) is considered endangered. 

Historically, green sea turtles were used in many areas of the Pacific for food. They were also 

commercially exploited, which, coupled with habitat degradation, led to their decline in the 

Pacific (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). Green sea turtles in the Pacific continue to be affected by 

poaching, habitat loss or degradation, fishing gear interactions, and fibropapillomatosis, which is 

a viral disease that causes tumors in affected turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1998b; NMFS 2004b). 

Indian Ocean 

There are numerous nesting sites for green sea turtles in the Indian Ocean. One of the largest 

nesting sites for green sea turtles worldwide occurs on the beaches of Oman where an estimated 

20,000 green sea turtles nest annually (Hirth 1997; Ferreira et al. 2003). Based on a review of 

the 32 Index Sites used to monitor green sea turtle nesting worldwide, Seminoff (2004) 

concluded that declines in green sea turtle nesting were evident for many of the Indian Ocean 

Index Sites. While several of these had not demonstrated further declines in the more recent 

past, only the Comoros Island Index Site in the western Indian Ocean showed evidence of 

increased nesting (Seminoff 2004). 

Mediterranean Sea

There are four nesting concentrations of green sea turtles in the Mediterranean from which data 

are available – Turkey, Cyprus, Israel, and Syria. Currently, approximately 300-400 females nest 

each year, about two-thirds of which nest in Turkey and one-third in Cyprus. Although green sea 

turtles are depleted from historic levels in the Mediterranean Sea (Kasparek et al. 2001), nesting 

data gathered since the early 1990s in Turkey, Cyprus, and Israel show no apparent trend in any 

direction. However, a declining trend is apparent along the coast of Palestine/Israel, where 300-

350 nests were deposited each year in the 1950s (Sella 1982) compared to a mean of 6 nests per 

year from 1993-2004 (Kuller 1999; Y. Levy, Israeli Sea Turtle Rescue Center, unpublished data). 

A recent discovery of green sea turtle nesting in Syria adds roughly 100 nests per year to green 

sea turtle nesting activity in the Mediterranean (Rees et al. 2005). That such a major nesting 

concentration could have gone unnoticed until recently (the Syria coast was surveyed in 1991, 

but nesting activity was attributed to loggerheads) bodes well for the ongoing speculation that the 

unsurveyed coast of Libya may also host substantial nesting. 

Atlantic Ocean 

Distribution and Life History 

As has occurred in other oceans of its range, green sea turtles were once the target of directed 

fisheries in the United States and throughout the Caribbean. In 1890, over one million pounds of 

green sea turtles were taken in a directed fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (Doughty 1984). 

However, declines in the turtle fishery throughout the Gulf of Mexico were evident by 1902 

(Doughty 1984). 
36

In the western Atlantic, large juvenile and adult green sea turtles are largely herbivorous, 

occurring in habitats containing benthic algae and seagrasses from Massachusetts to Argentina, 

including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Wynne and Schwartz 1999). Green sea turtles 

occur seasonally in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast waters such as Chesapeake Bay and Long Island 

Sound (Musick and Limpus 1997; Morreale and Standora 1998; Morreale et al. 2005), which 

serve as foraging and developmental habitats. 

Some of the principal feeding areas in the western Atlantic Ocean include the upper west coast of 

Florida, the Florida Keys, and the northwestern coast of the Yucatán Peninsula. Additional 

important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include the Mosquito and Indian River Lagoon 

systems and nearshore wormrock reefs between Sebastian and Ft. Pierce Inlets in Florida, Florida 

Bay, the Culebra archipelago and other Puerto Rico coastal waters, the south coast of Cuba, the 

Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua, the Caribbean coast of Panama, and scattered areas along 

Colombia and Brazil (Hirth 1971). The waters surrounding the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, 

and its outlying keys are designated critical habitat for the green sea turtle. 

Age at maturity for green sea turtles is estimated to be 20-50 years (Balazs 1982; Frazer and 

Ehrhart 1985; Seminoff 2004). As is the case with the other sea turtle species described above, 

adult females may nest multiple times in a season (average 3 nests/season with approximately 

100 eggs/nest) and typically do not nest in successive years (NMFS and USFWS 1991; Hirth 

1997). 

Population Dynamics and Status 

Like other sea turtle species, nest count information for green sea turtles provides information on 

the relative abundance of nesting, and the contribution of each nesting group to total nesting of 

the species. Nest counts can also be used to estimate the number of reproductively mature 

females nesting annually. The 5-year status review for the species identified eight geographic 

areas considered to be primary sites for threatened green sea turtle nesting in the 

Atlantic/Caribbean, and reviewed the trend in nest count data for each (NMFS and USFWS 

2007d). These include: (1) Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, (2) Tortuguero, Costa Rica, (3) Aves 

Island, Venezuela, (4) Galibi Reserve, Suriname, (5) Isla Trindade, Brazil, (6) Ascension Island, 

United Kingdom, (7) Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea, and (8) Bijagos Achipelago, GuineaBissau (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Nesting at all of these sites is considered to be stable or 

increasing with the exception of Bioko Island, which may be declining. However, the lack of 

sufficient data precludes a meaningful trend assessment for this site (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

Seminoff (2004) reviewed green sea turtle nesting data for eight sites in the western, eastern, and 

central Atlantic, including all of the above threatened nesting sites with the exception that nesting 

in Florida was reviewed in place of Isla Trindade, Brazil. He concluded that all sites in the 

central and western Atlantic showed increased nesting with the exception of nesting at Aves 

Island, Venezuela, while both sites in the eastern Atlantic demonstrated decreased nesting. 

These sites are not inclusive of all green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic Ocean. However, other 

sites are not believed to support nesting levels high enough that would change the overall status 
37

of the species in the Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

By far, the most important nesting concentration for green sea turtles in the western Atlantic is in 

Tortuguero, Costa Rica (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Nesting in the area has increased 

considerably since the 1970s and nest count data from 1999-2003 suggest nesting by 17,402-

37,290 females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The number of females nesting per year 

on beaches in the Yucatán, at Aves Island, Galibi Reserve, and Isla Trindade number in the 

hundreds to low thousands, depending on the site (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

The status of the endangered Florida breeding population was also evaluated in the 5-year review 

(NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The pattern of green sea turtle nesting shows biennial peaks in 

abundance, with a generally positive trend since establishment of the Florida index beach surveys 

in 1989. This trend is perhaps due to increased protective legislation throughout the Caribbean 

(Meylan et al. 1995), as well as protections in Florida and throughout the United States (NMFS 

and USFWS 2007d). 

The statewide Florida surveys (2000-2006) have shown that a mean of approximately 5,600 nests 

are laid annually in Florida, with a low of 581 in 2001 to a high of 9,644 in 2005 (NMFS and 

USFWS 2007d). Most nesting occurs along the east coast of Florida, but occasional nesting has 

been documented along the Gulf coast of Florida, at Southwest Florida beaches, as well as the 

beaches in the Florida Panhandle (Meylan et al. 1995). More recently, green sea turtle nesting 

occurred on Bald Head Island, North Carolina (just east of the mouth of the Cape Fear River), 

Onslow Island, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore. One green sea turtle nested on a beach in 

Delaware in 2011, although its occurrence was considered very rare. 

Threats 

Green sea turtles face many of the same natural threats as loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtles. In addition, green sea turtles appear to be particularly susceptible to fibropapillomatosis, 

an epizootic disease producing lobe-shaped tumors on the soft portion of a turtle’s body. 

Juveniles appear to be most affected in that they have the highest incidence of disease and the 

most extensive lesions, whereas lesions in nesting adults are rare. Also, green sea turtles 

frequenting nearshore waters, areas adjacent to large human populations, and areas with low 

water turnover, such as lagoons, have a higher incidence of the disease than individuals in 

deeper, more remote waters. The occurrence of fibropapilloma tumors may result in impaired 

foraging, breathing, or swimming ability, leading potentially to death (George 1997). 

As with the other sea turtle species, incidental fishery mortality accounts for a large proportion of 

annual human-caused mortality outside the nesting beaches. Witherington et al. (2009) observes 

that because green sea turtles spend a shorter time in oceanic waters and as older juveniles occur 

on shallow seagrass pastures (where benthic trawling is unlikely), they avoid high mortalities in 

pelagic longline and benthic trawl fisheries. Although the relatively low number of observed 

green sea turtle captures makes it difficult to estimate bycatch rates and annual take levels, green 

sea turtles have been observed captured in the pelagic driftnet, pelagic longline, southeast shrimp 

trawl, and mid-Atlantic trawl and gillnet fisheries. Murray (2009a) also lists five observed 
38

captures of green turtle in Mid-Atlantic sink gillnet gear between 1995 and 2006. Other 

activities like channel dredging, marine debris, pollution, vessel strikes, power plant 

impingement, and habitat destruction account for an unquantifiable level of other mortality. 

Stranding reports indicate that between 200-400 green sea turtles strand annually along the 

eastern U.S. coast from a variety of causes most of which are unknown (STSSN database). 

The five year status review for green sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 2007d) notes that global 

climate change is affecting green sea turtles and is likely to continue to be a threat. There is an 

increasing female bias in the sex ratio of green turtle hatchlings. While this is partly attributable 

to imperfect egg hatchery practices, global climate change is also implicated as a likely cause as 

warmer sand temperatures at nesting beaches are likely to result in the production of more female 

embryos. At least one nesting site, Ascension Island, has had an increase in mean sand 

temperature in recent years (Hays et al. 2003 in NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Climate change 

may also impact nesting beaches through sea level rise which may reduce the availability of 

nesting habitat and increase the risk of nest inundation. Loss of appropriate nesting habitat may 

also be accelerated by 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. Oceanic changes related to rising water temperatures 

could result in changes in the abundance and distribution of the primary food sources of green 

sea turtles, which in turn could result in changes in behavior and distribution of this species. 

Seagrass habitats may suffer from decreased productivity and/or increased stress due to sea level 

rise, as well as salinity and temperature changes (Short and Neckles 1999; Duarte 2002). 

As noted above, the increasing female bias in green sea turtle hatchlings is thought to be at least 

partially linked to increases in temperatures at nesting beaches. However, due to a lack of 

scientific data, the specific future effects of climate change on green sea turtles species are not 

predictable or quantifiable to any degree at this time (Hawkes et al. 2009). For example, 

information is not available to predict the extent and rate to which sand temperatures at the 

nesting beaches used by green sea turtles may increase over the temporal scale of the proposed 

action (i.e., through April 2029) and the extent to which green sea turtles may be able to cope 

with this change by selecting cooler areas of the beach or shifting their nesting distribution to 

other beaches at which increases in sand temperature may not be experienced. 

Summary of Status of Green Sea Turtles

A review of 32 Index Sites2

 distributed globally revealed a 48-67% decline in the number of 

mature females nesting annually over the last three generations3

(Seminoff 2004). An evaluation 

of green sea turtle nesting sites was also conducted as part of the 5-year status review of the 

species (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Of the 23 threatened nesting groups assessed in that report 

 

2

The 32 Index Sites include all of the major known nesting areas as well as many of the lesser nesting areas for 

which quantitative data are available. 

3 Generation times ranged from 35.5 years to 49.5 years for the assessment depending on the Index Beach site 
39

for which nesting abundance trends could be determined, ten were considered to be increasing, 

nine were considered stable, and four were considered to be decreasing (NMFS and USFWS 

2007d). Nesting groups were considered to be doing relatively well (the number of sites with 

increasing nesting were greater than the number of sites with decreasing nesting) in the Pacific, 

western Atlantic, and central Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). However, nesting 

populations were determined to be doing relatively poorly in Southeast Asia, eastern Indian 

Ocean, and perhaps the Mediterranean. Overall, based on mean annual reproductive effort, the 

report estimated that 108,761 to 150,521 females nest each year among the 46 threatened and 

endangered nesting sites included in the evaluation (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). However, 

given the late age to maturity for green sea turtles, caution is urged regarding the status for any of 

the nesting groups since no area has a dataset spanning a full green sea turtle generation (NMFS 

and USFWS 2007d). 

Seminoff (2004) and NMFS and USFWS (2007d) made comparable conclusions with regard to 

nesting for four nesting sites in the western Atlantic that indicate sea turtle abundance is 

increasing in the Atlantic Ocean. Each also concluded that nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica 

represented the most important nesting area for green sea turtles in the western Atlantic and that 

nesting had increased markedly since the 1970s (Seminoff 2004; NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

However, the 5-year review also noted that the Tortuguero nesting stock continued to be affected 

by ongoing directed take at their primary foraging area in Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS 

2007d). The endangered breeding population in Florida appears to be increasing based upon 

index nesting data from 1989-2010 (NMFS 2011). 

As with the other sea turtle species, fishery mortality accounts for a large proportion of annual 

human-caused mortality outside the nesting beaches, while other activities like hopper dredging, 

pollution, and habitat destruction account for an unknown level of other mortality. Based on its 

5-year status review of the species, NMFS and USFWS (2007d) determined that the listing 

classification for green sea turtles should not be changed. However, it was also determined that 

an analysis and review of the species should be conducted in the future to determine whether 

DPSs should be identified (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

Environmental baselines for biological opinions include the past and present impacts of all state, 

federal or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of 

all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early 

Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with 

the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The environmental baseline for this Opinion 

includes the effects of several activities that may affect the survival and recovery of the listed 

species in the action area. 

Federal Actions that have Undergone Formal or Early Section 7 Consultation 

The only project within the action area that has been subject to formal section 7 consultation has 

been the operation of the OCNGS. Details of these previous consultations were noted in the 
40

Background section (see page 1). The impact of the historical operation of the OCNGS on listed 

sea turtles is detailed below. 

Impacts of the Historical Operation of the OCNGS 

As noted above, the OCGNS was constructed in the 1960s and began generating power in 1969. 

No sea turtles were observed at the facility until 1992. However, between 1969 and 1992 there 

was no directed attempt to document sea turtles at the facility and the frequency and efficiency of 

monitoring the intakes prior to 1992 has not been determined. Since 1992 there have been a total 

of 69 recorded takes at the OCNGS (see Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2 above, Table 2 below and 

Appendix 1 for details). 

Between June 1992 and July 1994, 9 sea turtle impingements occurred at the OCNGS intake 

trash bars, including 5 loggerheads (1 recapture) and 4 Kemp's ridleys. Three of the loggerheads 

and 1 of the Kemp's ridleys were recovered alive. The remaining turtles were recovered dead 

from the intake trash bars. Of the 5 dead sea turtles, 3 were necropsied. Necropsy results for 2 

of the 3 sea turtles indicated that they had died prior to becoming impinged at the intakes (1 

loggerhead, 1 Kemp’s ridley), while the remaining turtle, a Kemp’s ridley, likely drowned at the 

intakes. Of the 2 sea turtles that were not necropsied, 1 of them displayed signs of injury or 

decomposition that indicated it may have died prior to becoming impinged on the intakes. 

There were no sea turtle takes observed in 1995 or 1996. One Kemp’s ridley turtle was lethally 

taken in 1997. No necropsy was completed for this turtle; however, the lack of significant 

injuries or signs of decomposition indicate it likely died at the intakes. In 1998, one loggerhead 

was recovered alive. 

Between 1999 and 2006, a total of 30 sea turtle impingements have been documented at the 

OCNGS intake structures. Of these 30 turtles, (22 Kemp’s ridley, 4 loggerheads, and 4 green), 

21 of the turtles were recovered alive. Of the 9 dead sea turtles (8 Kemp’s, 1 green), necropsy 

results are available for 3 Kemp’s ridleys. Necropsy results indicate that 1 of the turtles likely 

died from drowning at the intakes while the other two sea turtles were likely dead prior to 

becoming impinged on the intakes. Of the remaining 6 dead sea turtles, only 1 of them had 

wounds which indicated it may have died prior to becoming impinged at the intakes. Between 

2007 and 2010, a total of 28 sea turtles were recovered from the OCNGS intake structures. Of 

these 28 turtles (23 Kemp’s, 1 loggerhead, and 4 green), 22 were recovered alive. Of the six 

dead turtles, necropsy results indicate that 3 likely died by drowning at the intakes, 2 were likely 

dead prior to impingement and 1 had an unknown cause of death. 

In summary, there have been 69 total observed sea turtles at the OCNGS intakes since 1969, 

including 50 Kemp’s ridleys, 11 loggerheads (which includes 1 recapture), and 8 greens. These 

numbers include 21 dead sea turtles (18 Kemp’s, 1 green, 2 loggerheads) that have been removed 

from the intakes at OCNGS since 1992. Based on the best available information, at least 12 (11 

Kemps, 1 green) of the 21 dead sea turtles likely died from drowning or suffocation at the 

intakes. No cause of death was able to be identified for two of the turtles captured at OCNGS; 7 

turtles likely died prior to impingement at the intakes; however, the lack of necropsy information 
41

for several of these turtles makes this conclusion somewhat speculative. 

Since 1992, the number of sea turtles collected at the OCNGS intakes annually has ranged from 

zero (1995 and 1996) to a maximum of 11 in 2009. The number of loggerheads at OCNGS has 

ranged from zero to 3 (1992), the number of Kemp’s ridley annual takes has been from zero to 10 

(2009), and, the number of green sea turtles collected annually on the intakes ranged from zero to 

3 (2010). The number of mortalities has been as high of 4 in 2009, while in most other years it 

has been 1 or zero (with the exception of 2004 (3 Kemp’s), 2001 (2 Kemp’s) and 1994 (2 

Kemp’s and 1 loggerhead). 

The best available information indicates that the operation of OCNGS has had an effect on sea 

turtles in the action area. In addition to causing the death of at least 12 sea turtles since 1992, it 

has caused injury to nearly all the other live sea turtles captured at the facility (76 total) and has 

disrupted the migratory movements of these turtles. These turtles have also been subjected to the 

stress of removal from the water and transfer to a rehabilitation facility. 

Contaminants and Water Quality 

Point source discharges (i.e., municipal wastewater, industrial or power plant cooling water or 

waste water) and compounds associated with discharges (i.e., metals, dioxins, dissolved solids, 

phenols, and hydrocarbons) contribute to poor water quality and may also impact the health of 

sea turtle populations. 

Sources of contamination in the action area include atmospheric loading of pollutants, 

stormwater runoff from coastal development, groundwater discharges, and industrial 

development. Chemical contaminants may occur in the action area largely as a result of nonpoint 

source pollution. The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program has data on trace metals and radionuclides 

in the Barnegat Bay, but other toxic chemical contaminants may also occur in the action area 

including halogenated hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The 

Barnegat Bay estuary may be more susceptible to toxic chemical contaminants than may other 

estuaries because of its limited dilution capacity and flushing rate (Barnegat Bay Estuary 

Program 2001). 

While the effects of contaminants on turtles are relatively unclear, pollutants may also make sea 

turtles more susceptible to disease by weakening their immune systems. Chemical contaminants 

may also have an effect on sea turtle reproduction and survival. Pollution may also be linked to 

the fibropapilloma virus that kills many turtles each year (NMFS 1997). If pollution is not the 

causal agent, it may make sea turtles more susceptible to disease by weakening their immune 

systems. 

Excessive turbidity due to coastal development and/or construction sites could influence sea 

turtle foraging ability. Turtles are not very easily affected by changes in water quality or 

increased suspended sediments, but if these alterations make habitat less suitable for turtles and 

hinder their capability to forage, eventually they would tend to leave or avoid these less desirable 

areas (Ruben and Morreale 1999). 
42

Approximately 28% of the Barnegat Bay watershed is developed (residential, commercial, 

industrial, and institutional), while 46% is forested land. Barnegat Bay supports a thriving tourist 

industry, with boating, fishing, swimming, and hunting being top recreational activities. The 

developed land around the Bay may contribute to marine pollution which may in turn impact sea 

turtles. Marine debris (e.g., discarded fishing line or lines from boats) can entangle turtles in the 

water and drown them. Turtles commonly ingest plastic or mistake debris for food. 

Private and Commercial Vessel Operations

Private and commercial vessels operate in the action area and have the potential to interact with 

sea turtles. An unknown number of private recreational boaters frequent coastal waters. These 

activities have the potential to result in lethal (through entanglement or boat strike) or non-lethal 

(through harassment) takes of listed species that could prevent or slow a species’ recovery. 

Collisions with vessels, from both commercial and recreational sources, is a potential contributor 

to sea turtle mortality in the action area. Fifty to 500 loggerheads and 5 to 50 Kemp’s ridley 

turtles are estimated to be killed by vessel traffic per year in the U.S. (National Research Council 

1990). Although some of these strikes may be post-mortem, the data show that vessel traffic is a 

substantial cause of sea turtle mortality. The Intracoastal Waterway traverses the length of 

Barnegat Bay, and numerous recreational boaters and commercial fishing boats travel this 

waterway. The Intracoastal Waterway is maintained at a depth of approximately 2 meters by the 

Army Corps of Engineers, but the greatest depths in Barnegat Bay of 3 to 4 meters occur along 

this area. Vessel traffic occurs in the action area, specifically in the thermal plume region that 

extends from Oyster Creek into Barnegat Bay. As turtles may be in the area where high vessel 

traffic occurs, the potential exists for collisions with vessels transiting from within the action area 

into the main waters of Barnegat Bay. At least 3 of the sea turtles impinged at OCNGS likely 

died due to injuries sustained from propeller wounds and/or a boat strike prior to becoming 

impinged. As these wounds were relatively fresh, they were likely sustained within the action 

area. Several other sea turtles had scars indicative of past interactions with boats or propellers; it 

is impossible to determine whether these interactions occurred within the action area. 

Non-Federally Regulated Fishery Operations 

Very little is known about the level of interactions with listed species in fisheries that operate 

strictly in state waters. However, depending on the fishery in question, many state permit holders 

also hold federal licenses; therefore, section 7 consultations on federal actions in those fisheries 

address some state-water activity. Impacts on sea turtles from state fisheries may be greater than 

those from federal activities in certain areas due to the distribution of these species. Nearshore 

entanglements of turtles have been documented; however, information is not currently available 

on whether the vessels involved were permitted by the state or by NMFS. NMFS is actively 

participating in a cooperative effort with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(ASMFC) and member states to standardize and/or implement programs to collect information 

on level of effort and bycatch of protected species in state fisheries. When this information 

becomes available, it can be used to refine take reduction plan measures in state waters. 

A variety of commercial and recreational fisheries occur in the action area. Commercially 

important finfish and shellfish species occurring in the Barnegat Bay include the American eel, 
43

alewife, bluefish, striped bass, summer flounder, winter flounder, weakfish, blue crab, horseshoe 

crab, and hard clam (Barnegat Bay Estuary Program 2001). Several recreational fisheries exist 

in the action area as well, most notably for bluefish, striped bass, summer flounder, winter 

flounder, weakfish, black sea bass, and tautog. Fishing gear has been found to entangle and/or 

hook sea turtles, which can lead to mortality if the sea turtle cannot surface for air. Throughout 

their range, sea turtles have been taken in different types of gear, including gillnet, pound net, rod 

and reel, trawl, pot and trap, longline, and dredge gear. There have been no documented takes of 

sea turtles in any of the fisheries in Barnegat Bay, but it is not known to what degree the various 

fisheries interact with turtles. For example, one of the sea turtles impinged at OCNGS had 12 

feet of line wrapped around its flipper and was trailing a plastic bucket tied to this line. It is not 

known whether this line and bucket were related to fishing operations in the action area. 

However, it is likely that sea turtles in the action area interact and are affected by commercial or 

recreational fisheries operating in the action area. 

Global climate change 

The global 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) and precipitation has 

increased nationally by 5%-10%, mostly due to an increase in heavy downpours (NAST 2000). 

There is a high confidence, based 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, and circulation. Ocean acidification resulting from massive amounts of 

carbon dioxide and pollutants released into the air can have major adverse impacts on the 

calcium balance in the oceans. Changes to the marine ecosystem due to climate change include 

shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and fish abundance (IPCC 2007b). 

These trends are most apparent over the past few decades. 

Climate model projections exhibit a wide range of plausible scenarios for both temperature and 

precipitation over the next century. Both of the principal climate models used by the National 

Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) project warming in the southeast by the 2090s, but at 

different rates (NAST 2000): the Canadian model scenario shows the southeast U.S. 

experiencing a high degree of warming, which translates into lower soil moisture as higher 

temperatures increase evaporation; the Hadley model scenario projects less warming and a 

significant increase in precipitation (about 20%). The scenarios examined, which assume no 

major interventions to reduce continued growth of world greenhouse gases (GHG), indicate that 

temperatures in the U.S. will rise by about 3o-5oC (5o-9oF) on average in the next 100 years 

which is more than the projected global increase (NAST 2000). A warming of about 0.2oC per 

decade is projected for the next two decades over a range of emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). 

This temperature increase will very likely be associated with more extreme precipitation and 

faster evaporation of water, leading to greater frequency of both very wet and very dry 

conditions. Climate warming has resulted in increased precipitation, river discharge, and glacial 

and sea-ice melting (Greene et al. 2008). 

The past 3 decades have witnessed major changes in ocean circulation patterns in the Arctic, and 

these were accompanied by climate associated changes as well (Greene et al. 2008). Shifts in 
44

atmospheric conditions have altered Arctic Ocean circulation patterns and the export of 

freshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). With respect specifically to 

the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), changes in salinity and temperature are thought to be the 

result of changes in the earth’s atmosphere caused by anthropogenic forces (IPCC 2006). The 

NAO impacts climate variability throughout the northern hemisphere (IPCC 2006). Data from 

the 1960s through the present show that the NAO index has increased from minimum values in 

the 1960s to strongly positive index values in the 1990s and somewhat declined since (IPCC 

2006). This warming extends over 1000m deep and is deeper than anywhere in the world oceans 

and is particularly evident under the Gulf Stream/ North Atlantic Current system (IPCC 2006). 

On a global scale, large discharges of freshwater into the North Atlantic subarctic seas can lead 

to intense stratification of the upper water column and a disruption of North Atlantic Deepwater 

(NADW) formation (Greene et al. 2008, IPCC 2006). There is evidence that the NADW has 

already freshened significantly (IPCC 2006). This is turn can lead to a slowing down of the 

global ocean thermohaline (large-scale circulation in the ocean that transforms low-density upper 

ocean waters to higher density intermediate and deep waters and returns those waters back to the 

upper ocean), which can have climatic ramifications for the whole earth system (Greene et al. 

2008). 

While predictions are available regarding potential effects of climate change globally, it is more 

difficult to assess the potential effects of climate change over the next few decades on coastal and 

marine resources on smaller geographic scales, such as Barnegat Bay generally and the action 

area specifically, especially as climate variability is a dominant factor in shaping coastal and 

marine systems. The effects of future change will vary greatly in diverse coastal regions for the 

United States. Additional information on potential effects of climate change specific to the 

action area is discussed below. Warming is very likely to continue in the U.S. during the next 25 

to 50 years regardless of reduction in GHGs, due to emissions that have already occurred (NAST 

2000). It is very likely that the magnitude and frequency of ecosystem changes will continue to 

increase in the next 25 to 50 years, and it is possible that they will accelerate. Climate change 

can cause or exacerbate direct stress on ecosystems through high temperatures, a reduction in 

water availability, and altered frequency of extreme events and severe storms. Water 

temperatures in streams and rivers are likely to increase as the climate warms and are very likely 

to have both direct and indirect effects on aquatic ecosystems. Changes in temperature will be 

most evident during low flow periods when they are of greatest concern (NAST 2000). In some 

marine and freshwater systems, shifts in geographic ranges and changes in algal, plankton, and 

fish abundance are associated with high confidence with rising water temperatures, as well as 

related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation (IPCC 2007). 

 

A warmer and drier climate is expected to result in reductions in stream flows and increases in 

water temperatures. Expected consequences could be a decrease in the amount of dissolved 

oxygen in surface waters and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and toxic chemicals 

due to reduced flushing rate (Murdoch et al. 2000). Because many rivers are already under a 

great deal of stress due to excessive water withdrawal or land development, and this stress may 

be exacerbated by changes in climate, anticipating and planning adaptive strategies may be 

critical (Hulme 2005). A warmer-wetter climate could ameliorate poor water quality conditions 
45

in places where human-caused concentrations of nutrients and pollutants currently degrade water 

quality (Murdoch et al. 2000). Increases in water temperature and changes in seasonal patterns of 

runoff will very likely disturb fish habitat and affect recreational uses of lakes, streams, and 

wetlands. Surface water resources in the southeast are intensively managed with dams and 

channels and almost all are affected by human activities; in some systems water quality is either 

below recommended levels or nearly so. A global analysis of the potential effects of climate 

change on river basins indicates that due to changes in discharge and water stress, the area of 

large river basins in need of reactive or proactive management interventions in response to 

climate change will be much higher for basins impacted by dams than for basins with freeflowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). Human-induced disturbances also influence coastal and 

marine systems, often reducing the ability of the systems to adapt so that systems that might 

ordinarily be capable of responding to variability and change are less able to do so. Because 

stresses on water quality are associated with many activities, the impacts of the existing stresses 

are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Within 50 years, river basins that are impacted by 

dams or by extensive development will experience greater changes in discharge and water stress 

than unimpacted, free-flowing rivers (Palmer et al. 2008). 

While debated, researchers anticipate: 1) the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods will 

change across the nation; 2) a warming of about 0.2oC per decade; and 3) a rise in sea level 

(NAST 2000). A warmer and drier climate will reduce stream flows and increase water 

temperature resulting in a decrease of DO and an increase in the concentration of nutrients and 

toxic chemicals due to reduced flushing. Sea level is expected to continue rising: during the 20th 

century global sea level has increased 15 to 20 cm, and between 1985 and 1995 more than 32,000 

acres of coastal salt marsh was lost in the southeastern U.S. due to a combination of human 

development activities, sea level rise, natural subsidence and erosion. 

Effects on sea turtles globally 

Sea turtle species have persisted for millions of years and throughout this time have experienced 

wide variations in global climate conditions. Throughout this time sea turtles have been able to 

adapt to environmental change. As such, climate change at normal rates (thousands of years) is 

not thought to have historically been a problem for sea turtle species. As explained in the “Status 

of the Species” sections above, sea turtles are most likely to be affected by climate change due to 

increasing sand temperatures at nesting beaches which in turn would result in increased 

female:male sex ratio among hatchlings, sea level rise which could result in a reduction in 

available nesting beach habitat, increased risk of nest inundation, a potential shift to more 

northern beaches for nesting, and changes in the abundance and distribution of forage species 

which could result in changes in the foraging behavior and distribution of sea turtle species. 

However, as noted in the “Status of the Species” section above, with the exception of green sea 

turtles, information on current effects of global climate change on sea turtles is not available and 

while it is speculated that future climate change may affect these species, it is not possible to 

quantify the extent to which effects may occur. 

Effect of Climate Change in the Action Area 
46

Information on how climate change will impact the action area is extremely limited. The Office 

of the New Jersey State Climatologist has summarized available information on a state-wide 

basis. Although there is much variation from year to year, these data show a statistically 

significant rise in average statewide temperature (approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit) over the 

last 113 years. It is predicted that in the Northeastern US, precipitation, particularly in the form 

of rainfall, and runoff are expected to increase in future years (NECIA 2007). NOAA tide gauge 

data reported by the State indicates that the sea level at the New Jersey coast sites of Atlantic 

City, Cape May, and Sandy Hook has risen at a rate of approximately 4 mm/y since recording 

began in the early- to mid-1900s; anthropogenic contribution to the recent higher rate of rise is 

approximately 2 mm/y, approximately one-half of the total observed rate of rise, which is in line 

with recent estimates of the global rate. 

As there is significant uncertainty in the changes that may be experienced in the action area due 

to climate change, it is difficult to predict the impact of these changes on sea turtles. However, 

as sea turtles do not nest within the action area any changes in Barnegat Bay due to climate 

change, such as rising sea levels which could increase beach erosion, would not affect nesting 

success. Similarly, any change in sand temperature at beaches in the action area would not affect 

the sex ratio of sea turtle hatchlings as sea turtles do not nest on these beaches. The most likely 

effect to sea turtles in the action area from climate change would be if warming temperatures led 

to changes in the seasonal distribution of sea turtles or sea turtle prey distribution and abundance. 

This would likely result in changes in foraging behavior by sea turtles in the action area and 

could lead to either an increase or decrease in the number of sea turtles in the action area, 

depending on whether there was an increase or decrease in the forage base and/or a seasonal shift 

in water temperature. For example, if there was a decrease in sea grasses in the action area 

resulting from increased water temperatures or other climate change related factors, it is 

reasonable to expect that there may be a decrease in the number of foraging green sea turtles in 

the action area. Likewise, if the prey base for loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley or leatherback sea 

turtles was affected, there may be changes in the abundance and distribution of these species in 

the action area. Similarly, if water temperatures become warmer earlier in the year and stay 

warmer through the fall there may be a shift in the seasonal distribution of sea turtles in the 

action area, such that sea turtles may begin northward migrations from their southern 

overwintering grounds earlier in the spring and thus would be present in the action area earlier in 

the year. Similarly, if water temperatures were warmer in the fall, sea turtles could remain in the 

action area later in the year. 

As described above, over the long term, global climate change may affect sea turtles by affecting 

the distribution of prey, water temperature and water quality; however, there is significant 

uncertainty, due to a lack of scientific data, on the degree to which these effects may be 

experienced and the degree to which sea turtles will be able to successfully adapt to any such 

changes. Any activities occurring within and outside the action area that contribute to global 

climate change are also expected to affect sea turtles in the action area. Scientific data on 

changes in sea turtle distribution and foraging behavior in the action area is not available. 

Therefore, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty whether and how their distribution 

or foraging behavior in the action area have been or are currently affected by climate change 
47

related impacts. Implications of potential changes in the action area related to climate change are 

not clear in terms of population level impacts, data specific to these species in the action area are 

lacking. Therefore, any recent impacts from climate change in the action area are not 

quantifiable or describable to a degree that could be meaningfully analyzed in this consultation. 

However, given the likely rate of climate change, it is unlikely that there will be significant 

effects to sea turtles in the action area, such as changes in distribution or abundance, over the 

time period considered in this consultation (i.e., through April 2029) and it is unlikely that sea 

turtles in the action area will experience new climate change related effects not already captured 

in the “Status of the Species” section above concurrent with the proposed action. 

Reducing Threats to ESA-listed Sea Turtles

NMFS has implemented multiple measures to reduce the capture and mortality of sea turtles in 

fishing gear, and other measures to contribute to the recovery of these species. While some of 

these actions occur outside of the action area for this consultation, the measures affect sea turtles 

that do occur within the action area. 

Sea Turtle Handling and Resuscitation Techniques 

 NMFS has developed and published as a final rule in the Federal Register 

(66 FR 67495, December 31, 2001) sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques for sea 

turtles that are incidentally caught during scientific research or fishing activities. Persons 

participating in fishing activities or scientific research are required to handle and resuscitate (as 

necessary) sea turtles as prescribed in the final rule. These measures help to prevent mortality of 

hard-shelled turtles caught in fishing or scientific research gear. 

Sea Turtle Entanglements and Rehabilitation 

A final rule (70 FR 42508) published on July 25, 2005, allows any agent or employee of NMFS, 

the USFWS, the U.S. Coast Guard, or any other Federal land or water management agency, or 

any agent or employee of a state agency responsible for fish and wildlife, when acting in the 

course of his or her official duties, to take endangered sea turtles encountered in the marine 

environment if such taking is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or entangled endangered sea turtle, 

or dispose of a dead endangered sea turtle, or salvage a dead endangered sea turtle that may be 

useful for scientific or educational purposes. NMFS already affords the same protection to sea 

turtles listed as threatened under the ESA (50 CFR 223.206(b)). 

Education and Outreach Activities 

Education and outreach activities do not directly reduce the threats to ESA-listed sea turtles. 

However, education and outreach are a means of better informing the public of steps that can be 

taken to reduce impacts to sea turtles (i.e., reducing light pollution in the vicinity of nesting 

beaches) and increasing communication between affected user groups (e.g., the fishing 

community). NMFS intends to continue these outreach efforts in an attempt to increase the 

survival of protected species through education on proper release techniques. 

Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) 

As is the case with education and outreach, the STSSN does not directly reduce the threats to sea 
48

turtles. However, STSSN participants in New Jersey not only collect data on dead sea turtles, 

but also rescues and rehabilitates live stranded turtles. Data collected by the STSSN are used to 

monitor stranding levels and identify areas where unusual or elevated mortality is occurring. 

These data are also used to monitor incidence of disease, study toxicology and contaminants, and 

conduct genetic studies to determine population structure. The states that participate in the 

STSSN tag live turtles when encountered (either via the stranding network through incidental 

takes or in-water studies). Tagging studies help provide an understanding of sea turtle 

movements, longevity, and reproductive patterns, all of which contribute to our ability to reach 

recovery goals for the species. 

Sea Turtle Disentanglement Network 

NMFS Northeast Region established the Northeast Atlantic Coast Sea Turtle Disentanglement 

Network (STDN) in 2002. This program was established in response to the high number of 

leatherback sea turtles found entangled in pot gear along the U.S. Northeast Atlantic coast. The 

STDN is considered a component of the larger STSSN program and it operates in New 

Jersey. The NMFS Northeast Regional Office oversees the STDN program. 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

This section of an Opinion assesses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on 

threatened and endangered species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities 

that are interrelated or interdependent (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects are those that are caused 

later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part 

of a larger action and depend upon the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions 

are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration (50 CFR 

402.02). This Opinion examines the likely effects (direct and indirect) of the proposed action on 

sea turtles in the action area and their habitat within the context of the species current status, the 

environmental baseline and cumulative effects. 

The proposed action has the potential to affect threatened and endangered sea turtles in several 

ways: impingement at either the CWS or DWS intake trash racks; capture of free swimming sea 

turtles in the intake bays; altering the abundance or availability of sea turtle prey items; and 

altering water quality through the discharge of heated and chlorinated effluent. 

Sea Turtles in the Action Area 

No surveys have been conducted for sea turtles in the action area specifically or Barnegat Bay 

generally. Based on the known seasonal migration patterns of sea turtles in coastal waters of the 

U.S. Mid-Atlantic and historic occurrence of sea turtles in Barnegat Bay and at the OCNGS, sea 

turtles are likely to occur in the action area from May-October, with the majority of sea turtles 

present between June and September. Sea turtles in Barnegat Bay generally and the action area 

specifically, are primarily juveniles, although occasional adults may be present. 

Impingement and Capture of Sea Turtles 

As explained above, 76 individual sea turtles have been captured at the OCNGS since 1992. 

Twenty-three of these turtles have been found dead. Of the live sea turtles, some were swimming 
49

freely in the intake bays and were removed from the water with a dip net while the remaining 

were observed impinged on the trash rack and removed or discovered in the piles of debris 

removed from the trash rack by the mechanical rake. Nearly all of the sea turtles have evidence 

of interaction with the trash racks, including abrasions and bruising which suggests that even the 

live sea turtles were at least temporarily impinged on the rack or otherwise struggled to remove 

themselves from the area. There is currently no available data on the distribution of loggerheads, 

Kemp’s ridleys and greens in the action area, in Barnegat Bay or in the coastal waters of New 

Jersey. This makes it impossible to determine that percentage of sea turtles in the action area that 

are affected by the operation of OCNGS. It is possible that sea turtles occur in the action area 

and are able to swim away from the intake bays without being detected and do not become 

impinged in the intake structure. 

It is unclear why sea turtles enter the Forked River and encounter the OCNGS intake structures. 

In order to be present at the intake bays, live sea turtles must actively swim from Barnegat Bay 

into the Forked River and continue downstream to the intake bays. As the current velocity does 

not increase until within several meters of the intakes, it does not appear that sea turtles are 

subject to inescapable currents in the Forked River which would draw them to the intakes. It has 

been hypothesized that sea turtles are attracted to the intake screens when prey items such as blue 

crabs and horseshoe crabs are gathered there. For example, in 1992, a loggerhead removed from 

the CWS intake bay was released into the discharge canal. Two days later this turtle was 

recaptured at the CWS intake. This sea turtle would have had to actively swim back to the CWS 

intake area which suggests that the turtle was attracted to either the ambient conditions in the 

south fork of the Forked River or to the conditions at the intake trash racks. However, it is 

possible that the return of this sea turtle to the intake was a coincidence and that the turtle was 

not particularly attracted to the intake area. While sea turtles have not been documented in the 

discharge canal, conditions in the canal may also be attractive to sea turtles. The warm water 

discharge may increase the distribution of prey species to the area, and returns of live entrained 

organisms or dead fish and other material dumped from the traveling screens may provide food 

for the turtles or scavenging prey species. 

As noted above, there was no program in place to monitor the intakes for sea turtles prior to 1992 

and it is possible that some number of sea turtles have always occurred in the action area and that 

they went un-documented. While personnel did not monitor the intakes for sea turtles 

specifically, various impingement and entrainment observations and studies occurred prior to 

1992; no sea turtles were recorded during this time. As the operation of the OCNGS has not 

changed appreciably since 1969, the onset of turtle captures in 1992 may be due to higher 

numbers of sea turtles in the action area or some change in ambient conditions that served to 

attract sea turtles to the intakes (e.g., prey availability). One possible explanation is that the 

presence of sea turtles in the action area changed due to the deepening of Barnegat Inlet in 1992. 

In association with the deepening, the south jetty at the entrance of Barnegat Bay was re-aligned. 

The combination of these activities provided for a greater volume of water and tidal range in the 

Barnegat Bay and in the vicinity of Oyster Creek. It has been hypothesized that this change in 

conditions may have contributed to a greater number of turtles entering the action area. 
50

If maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway and Barnegat Inlet make the Bay more 

accessible to turtles, the frequency of impingements at OCNGS may increase after each dredging 

episode and decrease as the Bay fills with sediment. While difficult to quantify, an increase in 

the occurrence of oceanic fronts may have also contributed to an increase in turtles in Barnegat 

Bay, as Polovina et al. (2000) suggest that turtles use oceanic fronts as migratory and foraging 

habitat. If a greater number of turtles are in the offshore New Jersey waters as a result of the 

oceanic patterns and they migrate through the Barnegat Inlet, more sea turtles may be found in 

the action area. Sea turtles may enter the Barnegat Bay with an increase in waves, winds and 

tidal prism. The yearly fluctuations may also be attributable to biological factors such as the 

abundance of prey organisms (e.g., blue crabs, horseshoe crabs) in the vicinity of Oyster Creek. 

The sea turtles likely to occur in the action area are too large to pass through the intake trash bars, 

which are constructed with 6.6 cm wide openings. Any sea turtle that is smaller than the trash 

bar opening would pass through the CWS intake trash bars and be transported to the water via 

the same traveling screen system that returns entrained fish and other small organisms. It is 

unlikely that turtles small enough to fit through the 6.6 cm wide opening will be in the vicinity of 

the OCNGS, because turtles of that size would be limited to hatchlings, a life stage not likely 

occur in inshore embayments, but rather in offshore currents (NMFS and USFWS 1992 and 

1997). 

As noted above both live and dead sea turtles have been found impinged at the OCNGS in the 

past, at both the DWS and CWS intakes. No sea turtles have been observed in the discharge 

canal. As water flow is away from this system, sea turtles would not be vulnerable to 

impingement or entrainment in the discharge canal. Sea turtles impinged at the intakes may 

suffocate or drown if they are unable to remove themselves from the trash bars and remain 

underwater for an extended period of time. At times when there is a heavy debris load at the 

intakes it may be more difficult for a sea turtle to remove itself from the trash bars. If sea turtles 

impinged on the trash bars are removed in time they may survive the impingement. Plant 

personnel estimated that many of the turtles that were taken at OCNGS had been impinged for up 

to 8 hours. In some natural situations, turtles may remain submerged for several hours. 

However, stress dramatically decreases the amount of time a turtle can stay submerged. 

Under conditions of involuntary or forced submergence, sea turtles maintain a high level of 

energy consumption, which rapidly depletes their oxygen store and can result in large, potentially 

harmful internal changes (Magnuson et al. 1990). Those changes include a substantial increase 

in blood carbon dioxide, increases in epinephrine and other hormones associated with stress, and 

severe metabolic acidosis caused by high lactic acid concentrations. In forced submergence, a 

turtle becomes exhausted and then comatose; it will die if submergence continues. For example, 

trawl times for shrimpers in the southeast are limited by regulation to 55 minutes in the summer 

months and 75 minutes in the winter months, due to the fact that there is a strong positive 

correlation between tow time (i.e., forced submergence) and incidence of sea turtle death 

(Henwood and Stuntz 1987, Stebenau and Vietti 2000). Physical and biological factors that 

increase energy consumption, such as high water temperature and increased metabolic rates 

characteristic of small turtles, would be expected to exacerbate the harmful effects of forced 
51

submergence. Other factors, such as the level of dissolved oxygen in the water, the activity of 

the turtle and whether or not it has food in its stomach, may also affect the length of time it may 

stay submerged. It is likely that sea turtles impinged on the intake trash bars are already stressed; 

these conditions may increase the turtles’ susceptibility to suffocation or drowning. 

Nearly all of the sea turtles removed from OCNGS, including those recovered alive, have had 

evidence of injury sustained from contact with the trash bars. Typically this injury has been 

abrasions or bruising. Sea turtles may also be subject to injury from the operation of the trash 

rake which removes debris from the intake trash bars. The rake, a horizontal array of large 

curved tines, is lowered down into the bay to remove debris from the intake gratings. When the 

rake reaches the desired depth, the tines are deployed, curving downward to penetrate through the 

grate before the rake is raised. This process could cause serious injury to a turtle. Scrapes on a 

turtle’s carapace could also result from interactions with the intake trash bars, or during rescue 

and retrieval by OCNGS personnel. Scrapes have been observed the carapace of several sea 

turtles removed from the intakes. Additionally, two of the sea turtles have had puncture wounds 

near the base of their necks which may be indicative of interactions with the tines of the trash 

rake. 

All of the sea turtles at OCNGS have been collected between June and October. This is 

consistent with the presumption that because of seasonal fluctuations of water temperatures, 

loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles only occur in the action area during this time 

period. As sea turtles are only likely to occur in the action area from June through October, it is 

reasonable to anticipate that impacts of the OCNGS on listed species will only be observed from 

June through October. The majority of sea turtles have been collected in July, followed by 

September. This may be reflective of the migratory nature of these species as they move up the 

coast in early summer and move back down the coast in the fall. There does not seem to be any 

discernible pattern in month by month species distribution. While the exact dates of capture have 

varied from year to year, the overall seasonal distribution of sea turtles at OCNGS does not 

appear to have changed over time. 

The maximum number of turtles collected at OCNGS in one year was eleven (in 2009); 10 

Kemp’s ridleys and 1 green. In other years, the number has ranged from zero to 9. Prior to 2009, 

the highest number of turtles collected at OCNGS was 2004, with 8 Kemp’s ridleys captured. 

Physical and biological factors may have played a role in attracting more turtles to the vicinity of 

OCNGS in 2004, 2009 and 2010 (the three years with the highest number of turtles at OCNGS). 

Oceanic water temperatures off of New Jersey were slightly higher during 2004 than in previous 

years. The NRC states that based on information provided from the National Weather Service, 

the average ocean water temperatures in New Jersey during the summer of 2004 were 1.4oC 

above normal. This increase in water temperature may have been a factor attracting juvenile sea 

turtles to the waters of the mid-Atlantic searching for foraging and developmental habitats. 

Therefore, the increased water temperatures observed in Atlantic waters during the summer of 

2004 may be a factor contributing to the high number of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles taken at 

OCNGS that year. It is interesting to note that only 2 sea turtles were found at the OCNGS in 

2005. The number of sea turtles at the facility likely reflects annual environmental fluctuation in 
52

the action area, such as water temperature, the proximity of the Gulf Stream, storm activity, and 

the quality and quantity of prey in the area. After 2005, numbers again increased with 6 sea 

turtles at OCNGS in 2006, 6 in 2008, 11 in 2009 and 9 in 2010; although, there were only 2 sea 

turtles at OCNGS in 2007. 

Some of the between year fluctuation in sea turtles at the facility may be related to water 

temperatures in the mid-Atlantic, with more sea turtles likely to be captured at OCNGS during 

years when mid-Atlantic water temperatures are warmer. However, there is not enough 

information about specific conditions in the action area to make predictions about future 

fluctuations in sea turtle numbers. 

More Kemp’s ridleys are caught at OCNGS than loggerheads and greens, which is noteworthy, as 

there are thought to be more loggerheads than Kemp’s ridleys in New Jersey waters. Kemp’s 

ridleys may be more likely to become impinged in the intake structures due to their physiology 

and behavioral characteristics. Swimming efficiency is likely related to the size of a turtle, with 

larger turtles having a stronger swimming ability than smaller turtles. As such, it is possible that 

because the Kemp’s ridleys and greens found impinged at OCNGS are generally smaller than the 

loggerheads they were not able to effectively escape the intake velocity (mean straight carapace 

length (SCL) of 48.94 cm for loggerheads (n=12) and SCL of 26.7 cm and 28.9 cm respectively 

for Kemp’s ridley (n=52) and green sea turtles (n=9)). Of the 76 individual turtles found at 

OCNGS from 1992 through 2011, 53 of these turtles were found alive, and 23 were dead. Of 

the 12 loggerheads, 10 were alive at the time of removal from the water. Both loggerheads that 

were dead when removed from the water had necropsies completed which indicated that the 

loggerheads likely died prior to becoming impinged on the intakes. Of the 9 green sea turtles, 

only 1 was dead. While necropsy results are not available for this turtle, the lack of apparent 

injury or infection suggest it likely drowned or suffocated due to impingement. Of the 56 

Kemp’s ridleys observed at OCNGS since 1992, 20 were dead when removed from the intakes. 

Necropsies conducted on 5 Kemp’s ridleys indicate they likely died prior to impingement on the 

intakes; one additional Kemp’s showed signs of decomposition that indicated that it also was 

likely dead prior to impingement at the OCNGS. Of the 14 remaining dead Kemp’s ridleys, 

necropsy results confirmed that 5 died from suffocation or drowning at the intakes. For two 

Kemp’s ridleys necropsied (one in 2009 and one in 2010), no cause of death could be identified. 

The lack of noticeable injury or signs of decomposition suggest that the remaining 6 Kemp’s also 

died from suffocation or drowning at the intakes. Overall, this information suggests that once at 

the intakes, the likelihood of mortality may be species dependent. 

The ability of a given turtle to swim against the current at either the CWS or DWS intake and the 

condition at time of capture could depend on the species, size, relative health of each individual, 

or the particular conditions associated with each take (e.g., water temperature, duration of 

submergence time, etc.). Kemp’s ridleys cannot survive underwater as long as other sea turtle 

species, as they have been found to drown faster in trawl nets compared to other species 

(Magnuson et al. 1990). A turtle weakened by disease or injured by a boat strike would be more 

susceptible to impingement if the velocity at the intake is a factor in the likelihood of 

impingement. Many of the sea turtles found impinged on the intake trash bars at OCNGS have 
53

previously been victims of collision with propellers. In several cases the wounds appear to be 

fresh, which may be a contributing factor to the impingement, as the sea turtle would be weak. 

Other sea turtles at OCNGS have been found to have abnormal blood results indicative of disease 

or were otherwise impaired (missing flipper, etc.). 

 

As discussed above, smaller sea turtles are subject to a greater amount of stress if caught in an 

intake, as they have a lower swimming ability. The smaller size of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtles 

found at OCNGS in combination with the increased susceptibility to drowning noted by 

Magnuson et al. (1990) may explain why this species seems to be more vulnerable to death at the 

intakes than the other species. 

As noted above, sea turtles have been collected and impinged at both the CWS and DWS intakes. 

Of the 77 sea turtles collected from 1992 to 2011, 43 (56%) have occurred at the DWS intake 

and 34 (44%) at the CWS intake. From 1992 to 2011, 8 of 12 loggerheads (67%) captured at 

OCNGS have been retrieved from the CWS intake, while only 21 of the 56 Kemp’s ridleys 

(34%) have been found at the CWS intake. The loggerheads incidentally captured have been 

generally larger than the Kemp’s ridleys (average SCL 48.9 cm and 26.7cm, respectively), and 

the larger size of the loggerheads could result in more efficient swimming ability, allowing the 

animal to move around the floating ice/debris barrier and end up at the CWS intake. If Kemp’s 

ridley and green turtles were found close to the surface and lacking the swimming ability or 

strength to dive beneath the floating ice/debris barrier, they would be channeled to the DWS 

intake. These species’ prey are typically found on the bottom (e.g., crustaceans, marine grasses), 

which would suggest that they would not be on the surface if they were foraging. 

Of the 23 dead sea turtles, 20 have been found at the DWS (87%). Of all the sea turtles found at 

the DWS, 48% were dead (20 of 42 total). This compares to approximately 9% of the sea turtles 

at the CWS found dead (3 of 35). This difference may be attributable to a number of factors but 

is most likely related to the presence of the debris/ice barrier which diverts floating debris away 

from the CWS intake and towards the DWS intake. A turtle that swims or drifts on the surface 

toward the OCNGS intakes may be turned towards the DWS by the floating wooden debris/ice 

barrier. The orientation of the barrier may result in turtles at the surface being funneled toward 

the DWS. However, there are gaps on either end which a turtle could easily swim through and 

the barrier only extends 2 feet below the surface, so a healthy turtle could easily swim under the 

barrier and turn left towards the CWS intake. Additionally, the intake velocity at the DWS is 

considerably higher than that of the CWS intake. This could make it more difficult for sea turtles 

to free themselves from the trash bars and increase the likelihood of drowning once impinged. 

The presence of a greater amount of grasses and other debris at the DWS may also make it more 

difficult for sea turtles to free themselves from the trash bars and may make it more difficult for 

plant personnel to spot sea turtles here and remove them from the trash bars in time to prevent 

drowning. More Kemp’s ridleys and greens have been found at the DWS than loggerheads, as 

these species have been found to have an overall smaller average carapace length than the 

loggerheads, they may be more susceptible to drowning due to their smaller size and lower 

swimming ability, especially when stressed. It is also likely that any previously dead sea turtles 

that float into the area would be diverted to the DWS intake and be discovered there. 
54

As noted above, not all of the dead sea turtles collected at OCNGS died as a result of the 

operation of the facility. However, as only some of the dead sea turtles have been necropsied, it 

is difficult to definitively determine the cause of death for many of these turtles. As explained 

above, of the 23 dead sea turtles, necropsy results indicated that 6 of the sea turtles were dead 

prior to becoming impinged or captured. Signs of decomposition and injury suggest that an 

additional 2 sea turtles may also have been dead prior to becoming impinged. The cause of death 

for 2 Kemp’s ridleys was unable to be determined, despite a complete necropsy. The cause of 

death for the other 13 sea turtles is likely suffocation or drowning at OCNGS, with 6 of these 

confirmed by necropsy. Additionally, 2 sea turtles were removed from the water alive at 

OCNGS but later died. While both sea turtles showed signs of previous illness or injury, it is 

unknown if interactions at OCNGS contributed to their death. 

In addition to injury and mortality, impingement or capture at the OCNGS intake could result in 

the interruption of migration and the eventual loss of nesting opportunities. Sea turtles migrate to 

northeastern waters when the waters warm in the late spring and early summer, returning south in 

the late fall. While turtles may be in the action area for foraging purposes, it is possible that 

turtles are migrating through the area in the spring on their way to more suitable foraging habitats 

in the Northeast, or in the fall on their way to overwintering areas. If interactions at the OCNGS 

impedes normal behaviors, this would affect typical sea turtle migration and/or foraging patterns. 

Most of the sea turtles found at OCNGS are juveniles and are not yet partaking in nesting. 

However, if impingement results in mortality, these animals would not nest in the future and 

would not subsequently contribute to the population. 

The continued operation of the OCNGS for the remainder of its 20 year license will not cause 

any operational changes at the CWS or DWS intakes that are likely to cause a different rate of 

impingement or capture of sea turtles than has been observed in the past. As noted above, the 

number of sea turtles in the action area is variable each year depending on environmental factors 

such as water temperature, weather patterns and prey availability and may also be related to 

dredging and shoaling actions in Barnegat Bay and this variability is likely to continue. Over 

time, there has been a general increase in the number of Kemp’s ridley and green sea turtles and a 

decrease in the number of loggerheads captured at the facility. From 1992-2000, an average of 1 

Kemp’s ridley, 1 loggerhead and less than 1 green sea turtles were captured at the facility each 

year, with a total of 8 Kemp’s ridley, 8 loggerhead and 2 green sea turtles over this period. From 

2001-2011, an average of 4 Kemp’s ridley, less than 1 loggerhead and 1 green sea turtle was 

captured at the facility, with a total of 43 Kemp’s ridley, 4 loggerheads and 7 green sea turtles 

over this period. While it is impossible to determine what has caused this shift in species 

distribution at the OCNGS, there have been no operational changes at the facility that would 

account for this shift. It may be linked to factors affecting these species globally (i.e., outside of 

the action area) or may be related to a change in distribution of prey species or climate related 

factors, such as increased water temperatures. However, as the shift in the sea turtle species 

observed at OCNGS has been sustained over at least the last 10 years (2001-2011), it is 

reasonable to anticipate that it is likely to continue over the remainder of the 20 year operating 

license. 
55

Using the mean number of sea turtles of each species captured or impinged at OCNGS over the 

last 12 years (2000-2011, inclusive; 4.3 Kemp’s ridley/year, 0.36 loggerheads/year, 0.64 

greens/year), NMFS has calculated the number of sea turtles of each species likely to be captured 

or impinged at OCNGS over the duration of the facility’s operating license (i.e., 2012- April 

2029). Using this method, NMFS anticipates that over the upcoming 16 year period4

, a total of 

71 Kemp’s ridley, 6 loggerhead, and 11 green sea turtles are likely to be captured or impinged at 

the OCNGS. Based on the observation of sea turtles captured at the facility in the past, it is 

likely that nearly all of the sea turtles captured will suffer from some degree of injury, likely 

abrasions and bruising, due to interactions with the trash bars. However, if rescued alive, these 

injuries are not expected to be life threatening and sea turtles are expected to make a complete 

recovery. This assumption is validated by reports provided by MMSC where, in recent years, all 

turtles captured at OCNGS have been transported to and observed by qualified sea turtle 

biologists prior to eventual release. 

NMFS anticipates that sea turtles will continue to die due to suffocation and drowning caused by 

impingement on the trash bars. Using information on the number of dead sea turtles of each 

species captured or impinged at the facility NMFS has calculated a mortality rate for each 

species5 (0.36 for Kemp’s ridley, 0.17 for loggerheads, and 0.11 for greens). While NMFS 

recognizes that some number of previously dead sea turtles may become impinged on the intake 

trash bars each year, the difficulty in definitively determining a cause of death and the 

inconsistency in the applicant’s ability to obtain necropsy results for dead sea turtles makes it 

difficult to accurately predict the number of previously dead sea turtles that will become 

impinged on the intakes each year; therefore, NMFS has assumed for purposes of this analysis, 

that any dead sea turtle collected at OCNGS was killed as a result of operations of the facility. 

Using this method, NMFS anticipates that over the remainder of the 20 year operating license, a 

total of 26 Kemp’s ridley, 1 loggerhead, and 2 green sea turtles will be killed as a result of 

operations of the OCNGS. 

Effects on Prey 

Significant numbers of aquatic organisms besides sea turtles are also impinged at the CWS and 

DWS intakes and large volumes of small organisms are entrained at both intakes. It has been 

hypothesized that sea turtles are attracted to the intakes due to the high concentration of sea turtle 

forage items, particularly blue crabs, horseshoe crabs and sea grasses, which are found at the 

intakes. 

 

4The license will expire in April 2029. As sea turtles are only present in the action area May – October, no sea 

turtles are likely to be captured or impinged in 2029, thus NMFS has considered the potential for interactions over 

16 “sea turtle seasons,” 2012-2028. 

5 This rate was calculated by dividing the number of dead sea turtles by species by the total number captured or 

impinged of that species. Given the uncertaintity associated with determining cause of death, for purposes of this 

calculation, the operation of OCNGS was assumed to have caused or contributed to the cause of death. 
56

In addition to concentrating sea turtle forage items at the intakes, the operation of the OCNGS 

intakes causes a large number of potential sea turtle prey items to be lost each year. Several of 

the species subject to impingement and entrainment at the OCNGS are potential prey for sea 

turtles, including blue crabs, hard clams and several shrimp species. Recent data on rates of 

impingement and entrainment are not available. However, studies reviewed by the NJ DEP 

(NJDEP draft NPDES permit 2005) indicate that the equivalent of 59,000 adult hard clams and 

10,400 blue crabs are lost to impingement and entrainment each year. This represents a large 

number of organisms that are no longer available for sea turtles to prey upon in the action area. 

In addition to clams and crabs, several million shrimp and fish are also subject to impingement 

and entrainment at the facility each year. While the OCNGS causes the death of many thousands 

of potential sea turtle forage items each year, the effect of this loss of prey on sea turtles in the 

action area is unknown; however, there is no evidence that sea turtles in the action area are 

affected by a reduction in the availability of forage items. For example, sea turtles removed from 

the intakes display no evidence of starvation or other indications of a lack of quality forage. 

Additionally, if sea turtles were limited by available forage items in the action area, it is likely 

that numbers of sea turtles at the OCNGS would be decreasing when in fact the numbers show an 

increasing trend. Based on the best available information, while the OCNGS reduces the amount 

of sea turtle forage items available for sea turtles in the action area, this loss appears to be 

insignificant to sea turtles in the action area. 

Effects on Water Quality 

The water quality of effluents discharged from the OCNGS is regulated through the New Jersey 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) program. The NJDPES permit specifies the 

discharge standards and monitoring requirements for each discharge. Under this regulatory 

program, Exelon treats wastewater effluents, collects and disposes of potential contaminants, and 

undertakes pollution prevention activities. 

The NJPDES permit for this facility was last issued in 1994. This permit expired in 1999 and 

has been administratively extended each year. A draft permit was submitted for public comment 

in July 2005 and a revised draft permit was submitted for public comment in January 2010; a 

subsequent revised draft permit was released for public comment in June 2011. To date, no 

action has been taken on the draft permit and the facility is still operating under the terms of the 

1994 permit. As such, the effects of the OCGNS continuing to operate under the terms of the 

1994 permit will be discussed below. 

Impacts of chlorine used at the OCNGS 

Low level, intermittent chlorination is used to control biofouling in the OCNGS service water 

system and circulating water systems. The main condenser cooling water is chlorinated for a 

maximum of two hours per day. The permitted maximum daily concentration of chlorine 

discharge is 0.2 mg/l or a maximum daily chlorine usage of 41.7 kg/day. The NRC has stated 

that the chlorine demand in the main condenser discharge consumes almost all remaining free 

chlorine and results in very little chlorine being released to the discharge canal (approximately 

0.1 mg/l). The DWS does not have any chlorine discharges. 
57

Chemical contaminants have been found in the tissues of sea turtles from certain geographical 

areas. While the effects of chemical contaminants on turtles are relatively unclear, they may 

have an effect on sea turtle reproduction and survival. Chemical contaminants may also affect 

the immune system, making sea turtles more susceptible to disease and other stresses. There is 

no information available on the effects of chlorination on sea turtles. It is also unknown as to 

whether the sea turtles impinged at OCNGS had appreciable levels of chlorine in their tissues. 

The necropsies conducted on the sea turtles found at the OCNGS did not assess the levels of 

contaminants in the tissue. 

There are a number of studies that have examined the effects of Chlorine Produced Oxidants 

(also referred to as Total Residual Chlorine or TRC) on aquatic life (Post 1987; Buckley 1976); 

however, no directed studies that have examined the effects of CPO on sea turtles have been 

conducted. The EPA has set the Criteria Maximum Concentration6

 for exposure to chlorine at 

0.019mg/L. 

As noted above, the daily maximum “end-of-pipe” concentration (i.e., the concentration of TRC 

in the effluent as it discharges into the receiving water) allowed by the permit is 0.2mg/L. The 

anticipated TRC level at the point of discharge is significantly higher than EPA’s ambient water 

quality criteria and higher than chlorine levels known to be protective of aquatic life. The 

chlorinated water is mixed with unchlorinated water from the DWS system at the point of 

discharge and is rapidly diluted before it enters Barnegat Bay, the area where the highest number 

of sea turtles are likely to be present. It is also important to note that elevated chlorine levels are 

not known to occur at the CWS and DWS intakes where sea turtles are likely to be present for 

extended periods of time, but only at the discharges where sea turtles have not been observed. 

Based on the best available information, due to the rapid dilution of chlorinated effluent, the 

level of chlorination at the OCNGS is believed to have an insignificant effect on sea turtles in the 

action area. 

The chlorine discharge may also have an effect on sea turtle forage items. Chlorine is used in the 

plant as a biocide, and the discharge of this chemical could kill sea turtle forage items or cause 

them to leave the area, thus reducing the number available to sea turtles. However, as explained 

above, there is no indication that sea turtles in the action area are limited by the amount of 

available forage. Additionally, blue crabs, one of the main forage items for sea turtles in the 

action area, are relatively insensitive to chlorine levels. For example, EPA has reported LC50 

levels for blue crabs of 0.7 – 0.86mg/L (EPA 1986). Based on the best available information, 

while the discharge of chlorinated effluent may affect individual sea turtle forage items, the level 

of chlorination at the OCNGS is believed to have an insignificant effect on the ability for sea 

turtles to forage successfully in the action area. 

Heated Effluent 

 

6 CMC or acute criteria; defined in 40 CFR 131.36 as equals the highest concentration of a pollutant to which 

aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time (up to 96 hours) without deleterious effects 
58

Heated condenser cooling water discharged from the CWS and ambient temperature intake canal 

water discharged from the DWS meet and mix in the discharge canal and are returned to 

Barnegat Bay via this canal. This process results in heated discharge water mixing with the 

ambient water and elevating the normal water temperatures. The NJPDES permit for this facility 

limits the discharge of heated effluent to an instantaneous maximum of 41.1°C or 12.8°C above 

ambient. The temperature rise of the CWS discharge is typically about 11oC above ambient 

canal temperatures, while the DWS discharge is approximately 5.6oC above ambient water 

temperatures when two dilution pumps are operating. 

The impacts of the thermal plume in Barnegat Bay appear to be on the surface and relatively 

small, thus reducing the potential for negative affects to sea turtles. The cooling water 

discharged from OCNGS has been studied on several occasions to determine the distribution, 

geometry, and dynamic behavior of the thermal plume (OCNGS 2000). While the discharge 

temperature near OCNGS is high, the turbulent dilution mixing produces rapid temperature 

reductions. Little mixing with the heated discharge and ambient water occurs in Oyster Creek 

from the site of the discharge to the Bay, because of the relatively short residence time and the 

lack of turbulence or additional dilution. However, in Barnegat Bay, temperatures are rapidly 

reduced when mixing with ambient temperature Bay water occurs as well as heat rejection into 

the atmosphere. In Barnegat Bay, the plume occupies a relatively large surface area (estimated to 

be less than 1.6 km in an east-west direction by 5.6 km in a north-south direction, under all 

conditions) and in general, elevated temperatures do not extend to the bottom of the Bay except 

in the area immediately adjacent to the mouth of Oyster Creek. While the plume in Barnegat Bay 

is on the surface, sea turtles may be exposed to the plume as they are coming up for air. 

Excessive heat exposure (hyperthermia) is a stress to sea turtles but is a rare phenomenon when 

sea turtles are in the ocean (Milton and Lutz 2003). As such, limited information is available on 

the impacts of hyperthermia on sea turtles. Environmental temperatures above 40°C can result in 

stress for green sea turtles (Spotila et al. 1997). Sea turtle eggs exposed to temperatures above 

38°C typically fail to hatch (Bustard and Grehan 1967). As noted above, the daily maximum 

“end-of-pipe” temperature is 41.1°C. However, the maximum temperatures recorded in the 

discharge canal were 38°C during a dilution pump failure event in 2002. It is also important to 

note that elevated temperature is not known to occur at the CWS and DWS intakes where sea 

turtles are likely to be present for extended periods of time, but only at the site of the discharges 

where sea turtles have not been observed. 

While sea turtles will not likely be killed by the elevated temperatures, temperature increases 

may affect normal distribution and foraging patterns. The thermal effluent discharged from the 

plant into Oyster Creek may represent an attraction for turtles. If turtles are attracted into Oyster 

Creek by this thermal plume, they could remain there late enough in the fall to become coldstunned when they finally travel into Barnegat Bay at the start of their southern migration. Cold 

stunning occurs when water temperatures drop quickly and turtles become incapacitated. The 

turtles lose their ability to swim and dive, lose control of buoyancy, and float to the surface 

(Spotila et al. 1997). If sea turtles are concentrated around the heated discharge or in surrounding 
59

waters heated by the discharge (e.g., Oyster Creek or Barnegat Bay) and move outside of this 

plume into cooler waters (approximately less than 8-10oC), they could become cold stunned. 

However, existing data from OCNGS and other power plants in the NMFS Northeast Region do 

not support the concern that warm water discharge may keep sea turtles in the area until 

surrounding waters are too cold for their safe departure. Data reported by the STSSN indicate 

that cold-stunning has occurred around mid-November in New York waters. No incidental 

captures of sea turtles have been reported at the OCNGS later than October, with the minimum 

recorded temperature at time of capture of 11.8°C, suggesting that sea turtles leave the action 

area before cold-stunning could potentially occur. 

While cold stunning could still occur given the heated discharge and the water temperatures in 

New Jersey during certain times of the year (e.g., less than 10oC), NRC has identified certain 

aspects of the OCNGS discharge that may make cold stunning less likely to occur. For example, 

the area where sea turtles could overwinter (and encounter acceptable water temperatures) is 

limited to the small area around the condenser discharge, prior to any mixing with the DWS 

flow. Winter water temperatures in the discharge canal, downstream of the area where the DWS 

and CWS flows mix, routinely fall below 7.2oC. These temperatures in the discharge canal 

would not be suitable for sea turtle survival. Sea turtles generally are found in water 

temperatures greater than 10oC, but have occasionally been documented in colder waters. For 

example, in March 1999, a live loggerhead sea turtle was observed taken on a monkfish gillnet 

haul in North Carolina, in a water temperature of 8.6oC. In any event, during the winter, the area 

where the water temperatures would be suitable for sea turtles is small and localized. Based on 

the best available information, there is no evidence that the discharge of heated effluent increases 

the vulnerability of sea turtles in the action area to cold stunning. 

Effect on Sea Turtle Prey 

Cold shock mortalities of fish have occurred at OCNGS when water temperatures have decreased 

in the fall. There is no evidence that sea turtles have been adversely affected by any mass 

mortality of fish or that sea turtle prey have been impacted by cold shock events. The number 

and severity of these events have been reduced as a result of the operation of the two dilution 

pumps in the fall, when ambient water temperatures began to drop, to decrease the attractiveness 

of the discharge canal as overwintering habitat. As mentioned, cold stunning of sea turtles has 

not been documented at OCNGS, but the measures to reduce cold shock mortalities of fish would 

also help reduce the potential for cold stunning of sea turtles. 

Heat shock events have also been recorded at OCNGS. For example, on September 23, 2002, 

5,876 fish were killed. NRC reports that the mortality was attributed to heat shock because of an 

accidental shutdown of the dilution pumps during a routine electrical maintenance procedure. 

During that event, the water temperature in the discharge canal rose from approximately 32.8°C 

to 38.3°C within 3 hours of pump shutdown and the temperature at this location remained at 

37.8°C for several hours until the dilution pump operation was restored. High temperatures 

recorded during this event are the highest temperatures on record for the action area. There is no 

evidence that any sea turtles were in the impact area during this event. 
60

The thermal discharges from OCNGS may influence the distribution and survival of sea turtles’ 

primary prey resources. Blue crab and horseshoe crab are found in the canal, generally during the 

warmer months, but the effect of the heated effluent on the distribution of these species is 

uncertain. Crustaceans may move elsewhere when conditions are unfavorable (e.g., elevated 

water temperatures), but there is no information at this time suggesting that this has occurred at 

OCNGS. It is probable that when sea turtles are foraging in the summer, the heated effluent will 

not have as great of an impact on the turtles as it would in the winter. Furthermore, the New 

Jersey DEP evaluated the impact of the OCNGS thermal plume on Barnegat Bay and concluded 

that the effects on fish distribution and abundance were small and localized (Summers et al. 1989 

in OCNGS 2000). Thus, it appears that the preferred prey of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridleys, and 

greens are impacted insignificantly, if at all, by the thermal discharge from OCNGS and that 

there are no significant impacts on the ability of sea turtles to forage due to this discharge. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects as defined in 50 CFR 402.02 to include the effects of future State, tribal, local 

or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area considered in the 

biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not 

considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the 

ESA. Ongoing Federal actions are considered in the “Environmental Baseline” section above. 

Natural mortality of sea turtles, including disease (parasites), predation, and cold-stunning, 

occurs in mid-Atlantic waters. In addition to impingement in the OCNGS intakes, sources of 

human-induced effects on turtles in the action area include incidental takes in state-regulated 

fishing activities, vessel collisions, ingestion of plastic debris, and pollution. While the 

combination of these unrelated, non-federal activities in Barnegat Bay may adversely affect 

populations of endangered and threatened sea turtles. 

State Water Fisheries - NMFS believes that the fishing activities in Barnegat Bay will continue 

in the future, and as a result, sea turtles will continue to be impacted by fishing gear used in the 

action area. Throughout their range, sea turtles have been taken in different types of gear, 

including gillnet, pound net, rod and reel, trawl, pot and trap, longline, and dredge gear. Thus, it 

is likely that commercial and recreational fisheries in the action area will continue to impact sea 

turtles, albeit to an unknown extent. 

Vessel Interactions – NMFS’ STSSN data indicate that vessel interactions are responsible for a 

large number of sea turtles strandings within the action area each year. Such collisions are 

reasonably certain to continue into the future. Collisions with boats can stun or easily kill sea 

turtles, and many stranded turtles have obvious propeller or collision marks (Dwyer et al. 2003). 

However, it is not always clear whether the collision occurred pre- or post-mortem. Fifty to 500 

loggerheads and 5 to 50 Kemp’s ridley turtles are estimated to be killed by vessel traffic per year 

in the U.S. (National Research Council 1990). Although some of these strikes may be postmortem, the data show that vessel traffic is a substantial cause of sea turtle mortality. As turtles 

will likely be in the area where high vessel traffic occurs, the potential for collisions with vessels 

transiting these waters exists. The MMSC in Brigantine, New Jersey, reports an increase in the 
61

number of turtles hit by boats in New Jersey inshore and nearshore waters, as determined from 

sea turtle stranding records. NMFS believes that sea turtles takes by vessel interactions will 

continue in the future. An estimate of the number of sea turtles that will likely be killed by 

vessels is not available from data at this time. 

Pollution and Contaminants – Human activities in the action area causing pollution are 

reasonably certain to continue in the future, as are impacts to sea turtles resulting from exposure 

to this pollution. However, the level of impacts cannot be projected. Sources of contamination 

in the action area include atmospheric loading of pollutants, stormwater runoff from coastal 

development, groundwater discharges, and industrial development. Chemical contamination 

may have an effect on listed species reproduction and survival. While the effects of 

contaminants on sea turtles are not well documented, pollution may also make sea turtles more 

susceptible to disease by weakening their immune systems. Marine debris (e.g., discarded 

fishing line or lines from boats) can entangle turtles in the water and drown them. Turtles 

commonly ingest plastic or mistake debris for food. Chemical contaminants may also have an 

effect on sea turtle reproduction and survival. Excessive turbidity due to coastal development 

and/or construction sites could influence sea turtle foraging ability. As mentioned previously, 

turtles are not very easily affected by changes in water quality or increased suspended sediments, 

but if these alterations make habitat less suitable for turtles and hinder their capability to forage, 

eventually they would tend to leave or avoid these areas (Ruben and Morreale 1999). 

Twenty-eight percent of the land around Barnegat Bay is developed. In the future, a larger 

amount of the watershed will likely be developed because Barnegat Bay supports a thriving 

tourist industry and more individuals are moving to the coast in general. An increase in boating, 

fishing, and general use of the Bay is also likely to occur. With this increase in development and 

utilization of the Bay, there is a greater potential for debris and pollutants to enter the waters of 

the action area. Sea turtles will continue to be impacted by pollution in the Bay and any increase 

in debris or pollutants would exacerbate this effect. Marine debris (e.g., discarded fishing line or 

lines from boats) can entangle turtles in the water and drown them. Turtles commonly ingest 

plastic or mistake debris for food. Storm water runoff and other sources of nonpoint source 

pollution may result in the waters containing chemical contaminants. The Barnegat Bay estuary 

may be more susceptible to toxic chemical contaminants than many other estuaries because of its 

limited dilution capacity and flushing rate (Barnegat Bay Estuary Program 2001). Chemical 

contaminants may have an effect on sea turtle reproduction and survival, but the impacts are still 

relatively unclear. 

Global climate change is expected to continue and may impact sea turtles and their habitat in the 

action area. Rising temperatures and sea levels may affect sea turtle sex ratios and could result in 

increased egg mortality. No sea turtle nesting takes place in the action area. However, turtles in 

the action area come from nesting sites that may be affected by climate change related impacts. 

Alterations to foraging habitats and prey resources and potential changes in migratory pathways 

and range expansion are additional ways that sea turtles in the action area may continue to be 

impacted by climate change. Although there is much speculation on the potential impacts of 

climate change to species and ecosystems, there is significant uncertainty associated with any of 
62

these analyses making it impossible to accurately predict the most likely scenario that will result 

and consequently what impacts will be experienced by species and their habitats. Any 

predictions on future effects to sea turtles in the action area resulting from climate change are 

speculative. In addition to the uncertainty of the rate, magnitude and distribution of future 

climate change and its impacts to sea turtles, the adaptability of these species and the ecosystems 

on which they depend is unknown. Sea turtles may exhibit a variety of adaptations to cope with 

climate change-related impacts, although it will likely take decades to centuries for both climaterelated impacts and associated adaptations to occur (Limpus 2006), which further complicates 

any prediction of future impacts of climate change on sea turtles in the action area. As noted in 

the Status of the Species and Environmental Baseline sections above, only limited data are 

available on past trends related to climate effects on sea turtles and current scientific methods are 

not able to reliably predict the future magnitude of climate change and associated impacts or the 

adaptive capacity of this species. While there is a reasonable degree of certainty that certain 

climate change related effects will be experienced (e.g., rising temperatures and changes in 

precipitation patterns), due to a lack of scientific data, the specific effects to sea turtles resulting 

from climate change are not currently predictable or quantifiable (Hawkes et al. 2009). However, 

given the likely rate of change associated with climate impacts (i.e., the century scale), it is 

unlikely that climate related impacts will have a significant effect on any species of sea turtles 

(e.g., changes in status, distribution, abundance or behavior resulting from effects of climate 

change) in the action area over the temporal scale of the proposed action (i.e., through April 

2029).

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS

NMFS has estimated that the proposed action, the continued operation of the OCNGS over the 

course of the remainder of the 20 year life of the license (i.e., 2012- April 2029), will result in the 

capture or impingement of up to 71 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, 6 loggerhead sea turtles and 11 

green sea turtles, with mortalities of up to 26 Kemp’s ridleys, 1 loggerhead, and 2 green sea 

turtles. As explained in the “Effects of the Action” section, effects of the facility on sea turtle 

prey items and the effect of the discharge of pollutants, including chlorine and heat, will be 

insignificant or discountable. 

In the discussion below, NMFS considers whether the effects of the proposed action reasonably 

would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the 

survival and recovery of the listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution of the species. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed 

action would jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In the NMFS/USFWS Section 7 

Handbook, for the purposes of determining jeopardy, survival is defined as, “the species’ 

persistence as listed or as a recovery unit, beyond the conditions leading to its endangerment, 

with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment. Said in another 

way, survival is the condition in which a species continues to exist into the future while retaining 

the potential for recovery. This condition is characterized by a species with a sufficient 

population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of 

sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring, which exists in an environment 

providing all requirements for completion of the species’ entire life cycle, including 
63

reproduction, sustenance, and shelter.” Recovery is defined as, “Improvement in the status of 

listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act.” Below, for each of the listed species that may be affected by the 

proposed action, NMFS summarizes the status of the species and considers whether the proposed 

action will result in reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution of that species and then 

considers whether any reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution resulting from the 

proposed action would reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of that 

species, as those terms are defined for purposes of the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles are listed as a single species classified as “endangered” under the 

ESA. Kemp’s ridleys occur in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The only major nesting 

site for Kemp’s ridleys is a single stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico 

(Carr 1963; USFWS and NMFS 1992; NMFS and USFWS 2007c). 

Nest count data provides the best available information on the number of adult females nesting 

each year. As is the case with the other sea turtles species discussed above, nest count data must 

be interpreted with caution given that these estimates provide a minimum count of the number of 

nesting Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. In addition, the estimates do not account for adult males or 

juveniles of either sex. Without information on the proportion of adult males to females, and the 

age structure of the Kemp’s ridley population, nest counts cannot be used to estimate the total 

population size (Meylan 1982; Ross 1996; Zurita et al. 2003; Hawkes et al. 2005; letter to J. 

Lecky, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, from N. Thompson, NMFS Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center, December 4, 2007). Nevertheless, the nesting data does provide valuable 

information on the extent of Kemp’s ridley nesting and the trend in the number of nests laid. 

Based on the number of nests laid in 2006 and the remigration interval for Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtles, there were an estimated 7,000-8,000 adult female Kemp’s ridleys in 2006 (NMFS and 

USFWS 2007c), which represents an increase in the nesting trend for Kemp’s ridleys. 

The most recent review of the Kemp’s ridley as a species suggests that it is in the early stages of 

recovery (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). Nest count data indicate increased nesting and increased 

numbers of nesting females in the population. NMFS also takes into account a number of recent 

conservation actions including the protection of females, nests, and hatchlings on nesting 

beaches since the 1960s and the enhancement of survival in marine habitats through the 

implementation of TEDs in the early 1990s and a decrease in the amount of shrimping off the 

coast of Tamaulipas and in the Gulf of Mexico in general (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). More 

female Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are maturing and subsequently nesting, and/or are surviving to 

an older age and producing more nests across their lifetime, resulting in a positive population 

trend globally. 

There are no assessments of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in New Jersey waters generally or the 

action area specifically; thus, NMFS is not able to make any conclusions regarding the number 

or trends for Kemp’s ridleys in the action area. However, since records of sea turtle interactions 

at OCNGS began in 1992, there has been an upward trend of observations of Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtles at OCNGS. This upward trend may be reflective of an increase in Kemp’s ridleys in the 
64

action area, which may be related to a global population increase. Kemp’s ridley sea turtles that 

occur in the action area will continue to experience anthropogenic and natural sources of 

mortality. However, NMFS is not aware of any future actions that are reasonably certain to 

occur that area likely to change the trend or reduce the stability of Kemp’s ridleys globally or 

within the action area. Also, as discussed above, NMFS does not expect Kemp’s ridleys to 

experience any new effects associated with climate change during the time period covered by 

this consultation (i.e., through April 2029). As such, NMFS expects that numbers of Kemp’s 

ridleys in the action area will continue to be stable over the duration of the proposed action. 

NMFS has estimated that the continued operation of OCNGS through the duration of its 

operating license (i.e., through April 2029), will result in the impingement or capture of up to 71 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; up to 26 of these sea turtles may die as a result of impingement at the 

OCNGS intakes. 

Live turtles captured at the facility may have minor injuries; however, they are expected to make 

a complete recovery without any impairment to future fitness. Capture at OCNGS will 

temporarily prevent these sea turtles from carrying out essential behaviors such as foraging and 

migrating. However, these behaviors are expected to resume as soon as the turtles are returned to 

the wild. The capture of live Kemp’s ridley sea turtles from the OCNGS intakes is not likely to 

reduce the numbers of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the action area, the numbers of Kemp’s ridley

in any subpopulation or the species as a whole. Similarly, as the capture of live Kemp’s ridley

sea turtles from the OCNGS intakes will not affect the fitness of any individual, no effects to 

reproduction are anticipated. The capture of live Kemp’s ridley sea turtles from the OCNGS 

intakes is also not likely to affect the distribution of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the action area or 

affect the distribution of sea turtles throughout their range. As any effects to individual live 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles removed from the intakes will be minor and temporary there are not 

anticipated to be any population level impacts. 

The mortality of up to 26 Kemp’s ridleys represents a very small percentage of the Kemp’s 

ridleys worldwide. Even taking into account just nesting females, the death of up to 26 Kemp’s 

ridleys represents less than 0.4% of the population. While the death of up to 26 Kemp’s ridleys 

will reduce the number of Kemp’s ridleys compared to the number that would have been present 

absent the proposed action, it is not likely that this reduction in numbers will change the status of 

this species or its stable to increasing trend as this loss represents a very small percentage of the 

population (less than 0.4%). Reproductive potential of Kemp’s ridleys is not expected to be 

affected in any other way other than through a reduction in numbers of individuals. A reduction 

in the number of Kemp’s ridleys would have the effect of reducing the amount of potential 

reproduction as any dead Kemp’s ridleys would have no potential for future reproduction. In 

2006, the most recent year for which data is available, there were an estimated 7-8,000 nesting 

females. While the species is through to be female biased, there are likely to be several thousand 

adult males as well. Given the number of nesting adults, it is unlikely that the loss of 26 Kemp’s 

ridleys would affect the success of nesting in any year. Additionally, this small reduction in 

potential nesters is expected to result in a small reduction in the number of eggs laid or 

hatchlings produced in future years and similarly, a very small effect on the strength of 
65

subsequent year classes. Even considering the potential future nesters that would be produced by 

the individuals that would be killed as a result of the proposed action, any effect to future year 

classes is anticipated to be very small and would not change the stable to increasing trend of this 

species. Additionally, the proposed action will not affect nesting beaches in any way or disrupt 

migratory movements in a way that hinders access to nesting beaches or otherwise delays 

nesting. 

The proposed action is not likely to reduce distribution because the action will not impede 

Kemp’s ridleys from accessing foraging grounds or cause more than a temporary disruption to 

other migratory behaviors. Additionally, given the small percentage of the species that will be 

killed as a result of the operations of OCNGS, there is not likely to be any loss of unique genetic 

haplotypes and no loss of genetic diversity. 

While generally speaking, the loss of a small number of individuals from a subpopulation or 

species may have an appreciable reduction on the numbers, reproduction and distribution of the 

species this is likely to occur only when there are very few individuals in a population, the 

individuals occur in a very limited geographic range or the species has extremely low levels of 

genetic diversity. This situation is not likely in the case of Kemp’s ridleys because: the species 

is widely geographically distributed, it is not known to have low levels of genetic diversity, there 

are several thousand individuals in the population and the number of Kemp’s ridleys is likely to 

be increasing and at worst is stable. 

Based on the information provided above, the death of up to 26 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles over 

the remainder of the OCNGS operating license will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival (i.e., it will not decrease the likelihood that the species will continue to persist into the 

future with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment). The 

action will not affect Kemp’s ridleys in a way that prevents the species from having a sufficient 

population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of 

sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring and it will not result in effects to the 

environment which would prevent Kemp’s ridleys from completing their entire life cycle, 

including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. This is the case because: (1) the species’ 

nesting trend is increasing; (2) the death of 26 Kemp’s ridleys represents an extremely small 

percentage of the species as a whole; (3) the death of 26 Kemp’s ridleys will not change the 

status or trends of the species as a whole; (4) the loss of these Kemp’s ridleys is not likely to have

an effect on the levels of genetic heterogeneity in the population; (5) the loss of these Kemp’s 

ridleys is likely to have such a small effect on reproductive output that the loss of these 

individuals will not change the status or trends of the species; (5) the action will have only a 

minor and temporary effect on the distribution of Kemp’s ridleys in the action area and no effect 

on the distribution of the species throughout its range; and, (6) the action will have no effect on 

the ability of Kemp’s ridleys to shelter and only an insignificant effect on individual foraging 

Kemp’s ridleys. 

In certain instances an action that does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species survival 

(persistence) may affect its likelihood of recovery or the rate at which recovery is expected to 
66

occur. As explained above, NMFS has determined that the proposed action will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood that Kemp’s ridleys will survive in the wild. Here, NMFS considers the 

potential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recovery. As noted above, recovery is defined 

as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate. Section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA requires listing of a species if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (i.e., “endangered”), or likely to become in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future (i.e., “threatened”) because of any 

of the following five listing factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

The proposed action is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since it 

will result in an extremely small reduction in the number of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in any 

geographic area and since it will not affect the overall distribution of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles 

other than to cause temporary delays in migratory movements. The proposed action will not 

utilize Kemp’s ridley sea turtles for recreational, scientific or commercial purposes, affect the 

adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species or affect itscontinued 

existence. The proposed action is likely to result in the mortality of up to 26 Kemp’s ridleys; 

however, as explained above, the loss of these individuals and what would have been their 

progeny is not expected to affect the persistence of Kemp’s ridleys. As the reduction in numbers 

and future reproduction is very small, the loss of these individuals will not change the status or 

trend of Kemp’s ridleys, which is stable to increasing. The effects of the proposed action will not 

hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger of extinction since the action will 

cause the mortality of only a very small percentage of the species as a whole and these mortalities 

are not expected to result in the reduction of overall reproductive fitness for the species as a 

whole. The effects of the proposed action will also not reduce the likelihood that the status of the 

species can improve to the point where it is recovered and could be delisted. Therefore, the 

proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that Kemp’s ridleys can be brought to 

the point at which they are no longer listed as endangered or threatened. Based on the analysis 

presented herein, the proposed action, resulting in the capture or impingement of no more than 

71 Kemp’s ridleys and the mortality of no more than 26 of those individuals, is not likely to 

appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of this species. 

The Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead sea turtles is listed as “threatened” under the ESA. 

It takes decades for loggerhead sea turtles to reach maturity. Once they have reached maturity, 

females typically lay multiple clutches of eggs within a season, but do not typically lay eggs 

every season (NMFS and USFWS 2008). There are many natural and anthropogenic factors 

affecting the survival of loggerheads prior to their reaching maturity as well as for those adults 

who have reached maturity. As described in the Status of the Species/Environmental Baseline 

and Cumulative Effects sections above, loggerhead sea turtles in the action area continue to be 

affected by multiple anthropogenic impacts including bycatch in commercial and recreational 

fisheries, habitat alteration, dredging, power plant intakes and other factors that result in 

mortality of individuals at all life stages. Negative impacts causing death of various age classes 
67

occur both on land and in the water. Many actions have been taken to address known negative 

impacts to loggerhead sea turtles. However, many remain unaddressed, have not been 

sufficiently addressed, or have been addressed in some manner but whose success cannot be 

quantified. 

The SEFSC (2009) estimated the number of adult females in the NWA DPS at 30,000, and if a 

1:1 adult sex ratio is assumed, the result is 60,000 adults in this DPS. Based on the reviews of 

nesting data, as well as information on population abundance and trends, NMFS and USFWS 

determined in the September 2011 listing rule that the NWA DPS should be listed as threatened. 

They found that an endangered status for the NWA DPS was not warranted given the large size 

of the nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread, the trend for the 

nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and substantial conservation efforts are underway to 

address threats. 

In this Opinion, NMFS has considered the potential impacts of the proposed action on the NWA 

DPS of loggerhead sea turtles. Based on the average number of loggerhead sea turtles captured 

or impinged at OCNGS over the most recent 10 year period, no more than 6 loggerhead sea 

turtles are likely to be captured or impinged at OCNGS over the remaining term of the facility’s 

operating license. Based on the mortality rate for loggerheads captured or impinged at the 

facility, no more than 1 of these turtles are likely to die as a result of interactions with the facility. 

Due to the difficulty in determining cause of death, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis, 

that any dead loggerhead sea turtle captured or impinged at OCNGS was killed as a result of 

interactions with the facility. NMFS anticipates that on average, no more than 1 loggerhead sea 

turtle would be captured or impinged annually; however, as many as 3 loggerhead sea turtles 

have been captured at OCNGS in a given year and it is possible that there will be years where as 

many as 3 loggerheads will be captured and also likely that there will be years where no 

loggerhead sea turtles are captured. Live turtles captured at the facility may have minor injuries; 

however, they are expected to make a complete recovery without any impairment to future 

fitness. Capture at OCNGS will temporarily prevent these sea turtles from carrying out essential 

behaviors such as foraging and migrating. However, these behaviors are expected to resume as 

soon as the turtles are returned to the wild. The capture of live loggerhead sea turtles from the 

OCNGS intakes is not likely to reduce the numbers of loggerhead sea turtles in the action area, 

the numbers of loggerheads in any subpopulation or the species as a whole. Similarly, as the 

capture of live loggerhead sea turtles from the OCNGS intakes will not affect the fitness of any 

individual, no effects to reproduction are anticipated. The capture of live loggerhead sea turtles 

from the OCNGS intakes is also not likely to affect the distribution of loggerhead sea turtles in 

the action area or affect the distribution of sea turtles throughout their range. As any effects to 

individual live loggerhead sea turtles removed from the intakes will be minor and temporary 

there are not anticipated to be any population level impacts. 

The lethal removal of up to 1 loggerhead sea turtle from the action area over the remainder of the 

term of the operating license (i.e., through April 2029), would be expected to reduce the number 

of loggerhead sea turtles from the recovery unit of which they originated as compared to the 

number of loggerheads that would have been present in the absence of the proposed actions 
68

(assuming all other variables remained the same). However, this does not necessarily mean that 

these recovery units will experience reductions in reproduction, numbers or distribution in 

response to these effects to the extent that survival and recovery would be appreciably reduced. 

The final revised recovery plan for loggerheads compiled the most recent information on mean 

number of loggerhead nests and the approximated counts of nesting females per year for four of 

the five identified recovery units (i.e., nesting groups). They are: (1) for the NRU, a mean of 

5,215 loggerhead nests per year with approximately 1,272 females nesting per year; (2) for the 

PFRU, a mean of 64,513 nests per year with approximately 15,735 females nesting per year; (3) 

for the DTRU, a mean of 246 nests per year with approximately 60 females nesting per year; and 

(4) for the NGMRU, a mean of 906 nests per year with approximately 221 females nesting per 

year. For the GCRU, the only estimate available for the number of loggerhead nests per year is 

from Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where a range of 903-2,331 nests per year was estimated 

from 1987-2001 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). There are no annual nest estimates available for 

the Yucatán since 2001 or for any other regions in the GCRU, nor are there any estimates of the 

number of nesting females per year for any nesting assemblage in this recovery unit. 

It is likely that the loggerhead sea turtles captured at OCNGS originate from several of the 

recovery units. Limited information is available on the genetic makeup of sea turtles in the midAtlantic, including Barnegat Bay. Cohorts from each of the five western Atlantic subpopulations 

are expected to occur in the action area. Genetic analysis of samples collected from immature 

loggerhead sea turtles captured in pound nets in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex in 

North Carolina from September-December of 1995-1997 indicated that cohorts from all five 

western Atlantic subpopulations were present (Bass et al. 2004). In a separate study, genetic 

analysis of samples collected from loggerhead sea turtles from Massachusetts to Florida found 

that all five western Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations were represented (Bowen et al. 2004). 

Bass et al. (2004) found that 80 percent of the juveniles and sub-adults utilizing the foraging 

habitat originated from the south Florida nesting population, 12 percent from the northern 

subpopulation, 6 percent from the Yucatan subpopulation, and 2 percent from other rookeries. 

The previously defined loggerhead subpopulations do not share the exact delineations of the 

recovery units identified in the 2008 recovery plan. However, the PFRU encompasses both the 

south Florida and Florida panhandle subpopulations, the NRU is roughly equivalent to the 

northern nesting group, the Dry Tortugas subpopulation is equivalent to the DTRU, and the 

Yucatan subpopulation is included in the GCRU. 

Based on the genetic analysis presented in Bass et al. (2004) and the small number of 

loggerheads from the DTRU or the NGMRU likely to occur in the action area it is extremely 

unlikely that the loggerhead likely to be killed due to interactions with the OCNGS will originate 

from either of these recovery units. The majority, at least 80% of the loggerheads captured or 

impinged, are likely to have originated from the PFRU, with the remainder from the NRU and 

GCRU. As such, of the 6 loggerheads likely to be captured or impinged at the facility, 5 are 

expected to be from the PFRU, with 1 from the NRU or the GCRU. As explained above, only 1 

loggerhead mortality is expected to result from the operation of the facility over the remainder of 

its operating license. As it is impossible to predict whether this turtle will be from the PFRU, the 

NRU or the GCRU, NMFS considers below the effects of the mortality of 1 loggerhead from any 
69

of the these three recovery units. 

As noted above, the most recent population estimates indicate that there are approximately 

15,735 females nesting annually in the PFRU and approximately 1,272 females nesting per year 

in the NRU. For the GCRU, the only estimate available for the number of loggerhead nests per 

year is from Quintana Roo, Yucatán, Mexico, where a range of 903-2,331 nests per year was 

estimated from 1987-2001 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). There are no annual nest estimates 

available for the Yucatán since 2001 or for any other regions in the GCRU, nor are there any 

estimates of the number of nesting females per year for any nesting assemblage in this recovery 

unit; however, the 2008 recovery plan indicates that the Yucatan nesting aggregation has at least 

1,000 nesting females annually. As the numbers outlined here are only for nesting females, the 

total number of loggerhead sea turtles in each recovery unit is likely significantly higher. The 

loss of 1 loggerhead represents an extremely small percentage of the number of sea turtles in the 

PFRU. Even if the total population was limited to 15,735 loggerheads, the loss of 1 individual 

would represent approximately 0.006% of the population. Similarly, the loss of 1 loggerhead 

from the NRU represents an extremely small percentage of the recovery unit. Even if the total 

population was limited to 1,272 sea turtles, the loss of 1 individual would represent 

approximately 0.08% of the population. The loss of 1 loggerhead from the GCRU, which is 

expected to support at least 1,000 nesting females, represents less than 0.1% of the population. 

The loss of such a small percentage of the individuals from any of these recovery units represents 

an even smaller percentage of the species as a whole. As such, it is unlikely that the death of one 

loggerhead sea turtle will have a detectable effect on the numbers and population trends of 

loggerheads in these recovery units or the number of loggerheads in the population as a whole. 

Additionally, this action is not likely to reduce distribution of loggerheads because the action will 

only result in temporary delays for foraging and migrating loggerheads and will not impede any 

loggerheads from accessing suitable foraging grounds and or disrupt other migratory behaviors. 

In general, while the loss of a small number of individuals from a subpopulation or species may 

have an appreciable reduction on the numbers, reproduction and distribution of the species, this 

is likely to occur only when there are very few individuals in a population, the individuals occur 

in a very limited geographic range or the species has extremely low levels of genetic diversity. 

This situation is not likely in the case of loggerhead sea turtles because: the species is widely 

geographically distributed, it is not known to have low levels of genetic diversity, and there are 

several thousand individuals in the population. 

Based on the information provided above, the death of no more than 1 loggerhead sea turtle as a 

result of the ongoing operations of the OCNGS will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival (i.e., it will not decrease the likelihood that the species will continue to persist into the 

future with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential recovery from endangerment). The 

action will not affect loggerheads in a way that prevents the species from having a sufficient 

population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic heterogeneity, and number of 

sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring and it will not result in effects to the 

environment which would prevent loggerheads from completing their entire life cycle, including 

reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. This is the case because: (1) the death of 1 loggerhead 
70

represents an extremely small percentage of the species as a whole; (2) the loss of this loggerhead 

will not change the status or trends of any nesting aggregation, recovery unit or the species as a 

whole; (3) the loss of 1 loggerhead is not likely to have an effect on the levels of genetic 

heterogeneity in the population; (3) the loss of one loggerhead is likely to have an undetectable 

effect on reproductive output of any nesting aggregation or the species as a whole; and, (4) the 

action will have no effect on the distribution of loggerheads in the action area or throughout its 

range; and, (6) the action will have no effect on the ability of loggerheads to shelter and only an 

insignificant effect on individual foraging loggerheads. 

 

In certain instances an action may not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species survival 

(persistence) but may affect its likelihood of recovery or the rate at which recovery is expected to 

occur. As explained above, NMFS has determined that the proposed action will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood that loggerheads will survive in the wild. Here, NMFS considers the 

potential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recovery. As noted above, recovery is defined 

as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires listing of a species if it is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., “endangered”), or likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future (i.e., 

“threatened”) because of any of the following five listing factors: (1) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. 

The proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the loggerhead sea 

turtle species. Also, it is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since 

it will result in an extremely small reduction in the number of loggerheads in any geographic area 

and since it will not affect the overall distribution of loggerheads other than to cause minor 

temporary adjustments in movements in the action area. The proposed action will not utilize 

loggerheads for recreational, scientific or commercial purposes, affect the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to protect any of these species of sea turtles, or affect their continued 

existence. As explained above, the proposed action is likely to result in the mortality of up to 1 

loggerhead over the remainder of the facility’s operating license (i.e., through April 9, 2029); 

however, as explained above, the loss of this individual over this time period is not expected to 

affect the persistence of loggerhead sea turtles. In summary, the effects of the proposed action 

will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger of extinction; further, the 

action will not prevent the species from growing in a way that leads to recovery and the action 

will not change the rate at which recovery can occur. This is the case because while the action 

may result in a small reduction in the number of loggerheads and a small reduction in the amount 

of potential reproduction due to the loss of one individual, these effects will be undetectable over 

the long-term and the action is not expected to have long term impacts on the future growth of 

the population or its potential for recovery. Therefore, based on the analysis presented above, the 

proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that loggerhead sea turtles can be 
71

brought to the point at which they are no longer listed as endangered or threatened. 

Despite the threats faced by individual loggerhead sea turtles inside and outside of the action 

area, the proposed action will not increase the vulnerability of individual sea turtles to these 

additional threats and exposure to ongoing threats will not increase susceptibility to effects 

related to the proposed action. While NMFS is not able to predict with precision how climate 

change will continue to impact loggerhead sea turtles in the action area or how the species will 

adapt to climate-change related environmental impacts, no additional effects related to climate 

change to loggerhead sea turtles in the action area are anticipated over the life of the proposed 

action (i.e., through 2029). NMFS has considered the effects of the proposed action in light of 

cumulative effects explained above, including climate change, and has concluded that even in 

light of the ongoing impacts of these activities and conditions, the conclusions reached above do 

not change. 

Based on the analysis presented herein, the proposed action, resulting in the mortality of no more 

than 1 loggerhead, is not likely to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of the NWA DPS 

of loggerhead sea turtles. 

Green sea turtles are listed as both threatened and endangered under the ESA. Breeding colony 

populations in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico are considered endangered while all 

others are considered threatened. Due to the inability to distinguish between these populations 

away from the nesting beach, for this Opinion, green sea turtles are considered endangered 

wherever they occur in U.S. waters. Green sea turtles are distributed circumglobally and can be 

found in the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans as well as the Mediterranean Sea (NMFS and 

USFWS 1991; Seminoff 2004; NMFS and USFWS 2007d). As is also the case with the other 

sea turtle species, green sea turtles face numerous threats on land and in the water that affect the 

survival of all age classes. 

A review of 32 Index Sites distributed globally revealed a 48% to 67% decline in the number of 

mature females nesting annually over the last three generations (Seminoff 2004). For example, 

in the eastern Pacific, the main nesting sites for the green sea turtle are located in Michoacan, 

Mexico, and in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, where the number of nesting females exceeds 

1,000 females per year at each site (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). Historically, however, greater 

than 20,000 females per year are believed to have nested in Michoacan alone (Cliffton et al.

1982; NMFS and USFWS 2007d). However, the decline is not consistent across all green sea 

turtle nesting areas. Increases in the number of nests counted and, presumably, the numbers of 

mature females laying nests were recorded for several areas (Seminoff 2004; NMFS and USFWS 

2007d). Of the 32 index sites reviewed by Seminoff (2004), the trend in nesting was described 

as: increasing for 10 sites, decreasing for 19 sites, and stable (no change) for 3 sites. Of the 46 

green sea turtle nesting sites reviewed for the 5-year status review, the trend in nesting was 

described as increasing for 12 sites, decreasing for 4 sites, stable for 10 sites, and unknown for 20 

sites (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). The greatest abundance of green sea turtle nesting in the 

western Atlantic occurs on beaches in Tortuguero, Costa Rica (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

Nesting in the area has increased considerably since the 1970s and nest count data from 1999-
72

2003 suggest nesting by 17,402-37,290 females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). One of 

the largest nesting sites for green sea turtles worldwide is still believed to be on the beaches of 

Oman in the Indian Ocean (Hirth 1997; Ferreira et al. 2003; NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

However, nesting data for this area has not been published since the 1980s and updated nest 

numbers are needed (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

The results of genetic analyses show that green sea turtles in the Atlantic do not contribute to 

green sea turtle nesting elsewhere in the species’ range (Bowen and Karl 2007). Therefore, 

increased nesting by green sea turtles in the Atlantic is not expected to affect green sea turtle 

abundance in other ocean basins in which the species occurs. However, the ESA-listing of green 

sea turtles as a species across ocean basins means that the effects of a proposed action must, 

ultimately, be considered at the species level for section 7 consultations. NMFS recognizes that 

the nest count data available for green sea turtles in the Atlantic clearly indicates increased 

nesting at many sites. However, NMFS also recognizes that the nest count data, including data 

for green sea turtles in the Atlantic, only provides information on the number of females 

currently nesting, and is not necessarily a reflection of the number of mature females available to 

nest or the number of immature females that will reach maturity and nest in the future. Given the 

late age to maturity for green sea turtles (20 to 50 years) (Balazs 1982; Frazer and Ehrhart 1985; 

Seminoff 2004), caution is urged regarding the trend for any of the nesting groups since no area 

has a dataset spanning a full green sea turtle generation (NMFS and USFWS 2007d). 

As described in the Status of the Species, Environmental Baseline and Cumulative Effects 

sections above, green sea turtles in the action area continue to be affected by multiple 

anthropogenic impacts including bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries, habitat 

alteration and other factors that result in mortality of individuals at all life stages. 

In this Opinion, NMFS has considered the potential impacts of the proposed action on green sea 

turtles. Based on the average number of green sea turtles captured or impinged at OCNGS over 

the most recent 12 year period, no more than 11 green sea turtles are likely to be captured or 

impinged at OCNGS over the remaining term of the facility’s operating license. Based on the 

mortality rate for greens captured or impinged at the facility, no more than 2 of these turtles are 

likely to die as a result of interactions with the facility. Due to the difficulty in determining cause 

of death, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis, that any dead green sea turtle captured or 

impinged at OCNGS was killed as a result of interactions with the facility. NMFS anticipates 

that on average, no more than 1 green sea turtle will be captured or impinged annually; however, 

as many as 3 green sea turtles have been captured at OCNGS in a given year and it is possible 

that there will be years where as many as 3 greens will be captured and also likely that there will 

be years where no green sea turtles are captured. Live turtles captured at the facility may have 

minor injuries; however, they are expected to make a complete recovery without any impairment 

to future fitness. Capture at OCNGS will temporarily prevent these sea turtles from carrying out 

essential behaviors such as foraging and migrating. However, these behaviors are expected to 

resume as soon as the turtles are returned to the wild. The capture of live green sea turtles from 

the OCNGS intakes is not likely to reduce the numbers of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the action 

area, the numbers of green sea turtles in any subpopulation or the species as a whole. Similarly, 
73

as the capture of live green sea turtles from the OCNGS intakes will not affect the fitness of any 

individual, no effects to reproduction are anticipated. The capture of live green sea turtles from 

the OCNGS intakes is also not likely to affect the distribution of green sea turtles in the action 

area or affect the distribution of sea turtles throughout their range. As any effects to individual 

live green sea turtles removed from the intakes will be minor and temporary there are not 

anticipated to be any population level impacts. 

The lethal removal of up to 2 green sea turtles from the action area over the remainder of the 

term of the operating license (i.e., through April 2029), would be expected to reduce the number 

of green sea turtles as compared to the number of green sea turtles that would have been present 

in the absence of the proposed actions (assuming all other variables remained the same). 

However, this does not necessarily mean that the species will experience reductions in 

reproduction, numbers or distribution in response to these effects to the extent that survival and 

recovery would be appreciably reduced. 

The lethal removal of 2 green sea turtles, whether males or females, immature or mature animals, 

would reduce the number of green sea turtles as compared to the number of green that would 

have been present in the absence of the proposed action assuming all other variables remained 

the same; the loss of 2 green sea turtles represents a very small percentage of the species as a 

whole. Even compared to the number of nesting females (17,000-37,000), which represent only 

a portion of the number of greens worldwide, the mortality of 2 greens represents less than 

0.011% of the population. The loss of these sea turtles would be expected to reduce the 

reproduction of green sea turtles as compared to the reproductive output of green sea turtles in 

the absence of the proposed action. As described in the “Status of the Species” section above, 

NMFS considers the trend for green sea turtles to be stable. However, as explained below, the 

death of up to 2 green sea turtles over the remainder of the operating license will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival for the species for the following reasons. 

While generally speaking, the loss of a small number of individuals from a subpopulation or 

species may have an appreciable reduction on the numbers, reproduction and distribution of the 

species this is likely to occur only when there are very few individuals in a population, the 

individuals occur in a very limited geographic range or the species has extremely low levels of 

genetic diversity. This situation is not likely in the case of greens because: the species is widely 

geographically distributed, it is not known to have low levels of genetic diversity, there are 

several thousand individuals in the population and the number of greens is likely to be increasing 

and at worst is stable. This action is not likely to reduce distribution of greens because the action 

will not impede greens from accessing foraging grounds or cause more than a temporary 

disruption to other migratory behaviors. 

Based on the information provided above, the death of up to 2 greens sea turtles will not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival (i.e., it will not decrease the likelihood that the 

species will continue to persist into the future with sufficient resilience to allow for the potential 

recovery from endangerment). The action will not affect green sea turtles in a way that prevents 

the species from having a sufficient population, represented by all necessary age classes, genetic 
74

heterogeneity, and number of sexually mature individuals producing viable offspring and it will 

not result in effects to the environment which would prevent green sea turtles from completing 

their entire life cycle, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter. This is the case because: 

(1) the species’ nesting trend is increasing; (2) the death of 2 green sea turtles represents an 

extremely small percentage of the species as a whole; (3) the loss of 2 green sea turtles will not 

change the status or trends of the species as a whole; (4) the loss of 2 green sea turtles is not 

likely to have an effect on the levels of genetic heterogeneity in the population; (5) the loss of 2 

green sea turtles is likely to have an undetectable effect on reproductive output of the species as a 

whole; (6) the action will have no effect on the distribution of greens in the action area or 

throughout its range; and (7) the action will have no effect on the ability of loggerheads to shelter 

and only an insignificant effect on individual foraging loggerheads. 

In certain instances an action may not appreciably reduce the likelihood of a species survival 

(persistence) but may affect its likelihood of recovery or the rate at which recovery is expected to 

occur. As explained above, NMFS has determined that the proposed action will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood that green sea turtles will survive in the wild. Here, NMFS considers the 

potential for the action to reduce the likelihood of recovery. As noted above, recovery is defined 

as the improvement in status such that listing is no longer appropriate. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires listing of a species if it is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range (i.e., “endangered”), or likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future (i.e., 

“threatened”) because of any of the following five listing factors: (1) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. 

The proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of green sea turtles. 

Also, it is not expected to modify, curtail or destroy the range of the species since it will result in 

an extremely small reduction in the number of Green sea turtles in any geographic area and since 

it will not affect the overall distribution of Green sea turtles other than to cause minor temporary 

adjustments in movements in the action area. The proposed action will not utilize Green sea 

turtles for recreational, scientific or commercial purposes, affect the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to protect any of these species of sea turtles, or affect their continued 

existence. As explained above, the proposed action is likely to result in the mortality of up to 2 

green sea turtles; however, as explained above, the loss of these individuals over this time period 

is not expected to affect the persistence of green sea turtles. The effects of the proposed action 

will not hasten the extinction timeline or otherwise increase the danger of extinction; further, the 

action will not prevent the species from growing in a way that leads to recovery and the action 

will not change the rate at which recovery can occur. This is the case because while the action 

may result in a small reduction in the number of greens and a small reduction in the amount of 

potential reproduction due to the loss of two individuals, these effects will be undetectable over 

the long-term and the action is not expected to have long term impacts on the future growth of 
75

the population or its potential for recovery. Therefore, based on the analysis presented above, the 

proposed action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood that green sea turtles can be brought to 

the point at which they are no longer listed as endangered or threatened. 

Despite the threats faced by individual green sea turtles inside and outside of the action area, the 

proposed action will not increase the vulnerability of individual sea turtles to these additional 

threats and exposure to ongoing threats will not increase susceptibility to effects related to the 

proposed action. While NMFS is not able to predict with precision how climate change will 

continue to impact Green sea turtles in the action area or how the species will adapt to climatechange related environmental impacts, no additional effects related to climate change to Green 

sea turtles in the action area are anticipated over the life of the proposed action (i.e., through 

2029). NMFS has considered the effects of the proposed action in light of cumulative effects 

explained above, including climate change, and has concluded that even in light of the ongoing 

impacts of these activities and conditions, the conclusions reached above do not change. 

Based on the analysis presented herein, the proposed action, resulting in the mortality of no more 

than 2 green sea turtles over the remaining term of the operating license, is not likely to 

appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of this species. 

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the best available information on the status of endangered and threatened species 

under NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the 

proposed action, interdependent and interrelated actions and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ 

biological opinion that the proposed action may adversely affect but is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley or green sea turtles. No critical habitat is 

designated in the action area; therefore, none will be affected by the proposed action. 

In the Incidental Take Statement accompanying this Opinion (see page 79), NMFS has 

determined that removal of sea turtles from the water and transfer of these sea turtles to an 

appropriate STSSN facility (such as the MMSC) is necessary and appropriate to ensure that sea 

turtles are monitored, rehabilitated and treated as necessary and that they are released back into 

the wild at a suitable location. The effects of holding and transfer to the facility on listed species 

in the action area are outlined below. 

Effects of holding and relocation to MMSC as required by the Incidental Take Statement 

NMFS has estimated that up to 71 Kemp’s ridley, 6 loggerhead, and 11 green sea turtles are 

likely to be impinged or captured at the OCNGS intakes over the remaining duration of the 

OCNGS operating license. While removal from the water, taking measurements, holding the sea 

turtles and transferring live turtles to a rehabilitation facility will cause stress and temporarily 

disrupt normal foraging and migratory behaviors, once released into the wild these turtles are 

likely to rapidly resume normal behaviors. Sea turtles are typically transferred to MMSC within 

a couple of hours of capture. Only 2 sea turtles (both Kemp’s ridley) have died at MMSC after 

transfer from OCNGS and necropsies indicated that both sea turtles died from injuries and 

infection sustained prior to impingement at the intakes. NMFS has no information to suggest 
76

that the handling and transfer of sea turtles to a facility such as MMSC will have any significant 

adverse effects on sea turtles; in fact, all turtles transferred from OCNGS to MMSC, with the 

exceptions noted above, have been deemed healthy and ultimately returned to the wild. Removal 

of sea turtles from the water at the OCNGS intakes will ensure that these turtles are not subject to 

additional injury or eventual death at the intakes and that they will be released into the wild at a 

suitable location. Additionally, the transfer of sea turtles to an appropriate facility ensures that 

any sea turtles needing medical attention can be properly cared for. Two sea turtles removed 

from OCNGS have been eventually sent to a rehabilitation center in Topsail, North Carolina for 

surgery to repair injuries either sustained at OCNGS or prior to impingement. As such, NMFS 

believes that the removal of sea turtles from the water at OCGNS and the transfer of these turtles 

to an appropriate stranding facility will have a net beneficial effect to these turtles. 

While the measuring of sea turtles will cause additional handling of these individuals and may 

cause stress, this is likely to be temporary and there are no known lasting effects of taking these 

measurements. The holding of sea turtles and transport to a stranding facility will temporarily 

disrupt normal foraging and migratory behaviors; however, once returned to the wild these turtles 

are likely to rapidly resume normal behaviors. As such, the holding, measuring, handling and 

transfer of live sea turtles is not likely to result in any additional adverse effects to these sea 

turtles. The handling, measuring and transfer of dead sea turtles will not have any additional 

effects on these turtles as they are already dead. 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles

As noted above, NMFS has determined that the capture or impingement of up to 71 Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtles over the remaining duration of the license, including the death of up to 26 of 

these turtles, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species. No additional 

deaths are likely to be attributable to measuring, handling or transfer. As explained above, the 

measuring, handling and transfer is not likely to cause any long lasting or significant adverse 

effects to these turtles and is likely to have a net beneficial effect. 

Loggerhead sea turtles 

As noted above, NMFS has determined that the capture or impingement of up to 6 loggerhead 

sea turtles over the remaining duration of the license, including the death of no more than 1 of 

these turtles, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species. No additional 

deaths are likely to be attributable to measuring, handling or transfer. As explained above, the 

measuring, handling and transfer is not likely to cause any long lasting or significant adverse 

effects to these turtles and is likely to have a net beneficial effect. 

Green sea turtles 

As noted above, NMFS has determined that the capture or impingement of up to 11 sea turtles 

over the remaining duration of the license, including the death of no more than 2 of these turtles, 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of this species. No additional deaths are likely 

to be attributable to measuring, handling or transfer. As explained above, the measuring, 

handling and transfer is not likely to cause any long lasting or significant adverse effects to these 

turtles and is likely to have a net beneficial effect. 
77

Conclusion of effects of holding and relocation 

After reviewing the best available information on the status of endangered and threatened species 

under NMFS jurisdiction, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the action, 

and the cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ biological opinion that the monitoring, holding and 

relocation of sea turtles required by the Incidental Take Statement will have the beneficial effect 

of ensuring that these sea turtles are properly cared for and released back into the wild at a 

suitable location. Adding these procedures to the overall project is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, or green sea turtles. Because no critical 

habitat is designated in the action area, none will be affected. NMFS has determined that the 

proposed action of renewing the operating license for the OCGNS and the measuring, holding 

and transfer of sea turtles as required by the Incidental Take Statement and the two actions 

together are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered 

species. Overall, holding and relocation to an appropriate facility will be a net benefit to the sea 

turtles. 
78

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species of fish and wildlife. “Fish and 

wildlife” is defined in the ESA “as any member of the animal kingdom, including without 

limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for 

which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, 

mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or 

offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(8). “Take” is defined as to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in 

any such conduct. Harm is further defined by NMFS to include any act which actually kills or 

injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation 

that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral 

patterns including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take 

is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 

lawful activity. “Otherwise lawful activities” are those actions that meet all State and Federal 

legal requirements except for the prohibition against taking in ESA Section 9 (51 FR 19936), 

including any state endangered species laws or regulations. Section 9(g) makes it unlawful for 

any person “to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any 

offense defined [in the ESA.]” 16 U.S.C. 1538(g). See also 16 U.S.C. 1532(13). Under the 

terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part 

of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA provided that such taking 

is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by NRC so that 

they become binding conditions for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. NRC has a 

continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If NRC (1) 

fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the operator, 

Exelon, to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through 

enforceable terms in the operating license, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. 

In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, NRC or the applicant must report the progress 

of the action and its impact on the species to the NMFS as specified in the Incidental Take 

Statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)] (See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service’s Joint Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook (1998) at 4-

49). 

Amount or Extent of Take 

The OCNGS will continue to operate until April 2029 under the terms of the existing license 

issued by the NRC that became effective in April 2009. This action has the potential to directly 

affect Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead and green sea turtles due to impingement at the CWS and DWS 

intakes and capture by plant personnel near the intakes. These interactions are likely to cause 

injury and/or mortality to the affected sea turtles. In addition, the removal of sea turtles from the 

water and transfer to a rehabilitation facility may cause stress and will disrupt the sea turtles 

normal foraging and migratory behaviors. Based on the distribution of sea turtles in the action 

area and information available on historic interactions between sea turtles and the OCNGS, 

NMFS anticipates that no more than NMFS has estimated that the proposed action will result in 
79

the capture or impingement of up to 71 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, 6 loggerhead sea turtles and 11 

green sea turtles, inclusive of mortalities accounting for no more than 26 Kemp’s ridleys, 1 

loggerhead, and 2 green sea turtles. All of the sea turtles captured or impinged are likely to be 

injured due to interactions with the trash bars. While the handling of decomposed turtles or turtle 

parts is considered to be a take, NMFS is most concerned with the takes that appear to be fresh 

dead sea turtles and therefore directly attributable to the operation of the OCNGS. NMFS 

recognizes that previously dead sea turtles may become impinged on the intakes at OCNGS and 

that some number of dead sea turtles taken at the facility may not necessarily be related to the 

operation of the facility itself. Due to the difficulty in determining the cause of death of sea 

turtles found dead at the intakes and the inconsistency in the ability of NRC and the applicant to 

secure prompt necropsy results, the aforementioned anticipated level of take includes sea turtles 

that may have been dead prior to impingement on the OCNGS intakes. As explained in the 

“Effects of the Action” section, effects of the facility on sea turtle prey items and the effect of the 

discharge of pollutants, including chlorine and heat, will be insignificant or discountable. In the 

accompanying Opinion, NMFS determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result 

in jeopardy to any sea turtle species. 

In order to effectively monitor the effects of this action, it is necessary to examine the sea turtles 

that are captured at the facility. Monitoring provides information on the characteristics of the sea 

turtles encountered and may provide data which will help develop more effective measures to 

avoid future interactions with listed species. Additionally, as release of sea turtles back into the 

water at OCNGS is inappropriate as it would subject the sea turtles to additional stress and 

increase the likelihood of injury or mortality at the intakes, it is necessary to transfer the sea 

turtles to an appropriate STSSN facility. Currently, Exelon has an agreement with the MMSC 

where upon capturing a sea turtle at the facility, Exelon staff notifies MMSC and the turtle is 

transferred to MMSC care. NMFS believes that this procedure is necessary to effectively 

monitor the effects of the action and to ensure that the sea turtles are released back into the wild 

at an appropriate location. MMSC is authorized to care for, rehabilitate and release sea turtles 

pursuant to a Stranding Network Agreement and a permit issued by the USFWS pursuant to 

Section 10 of the ESA. As outlined below, NMFS is requiring NRC to ensure that Exelon 

continue this arrangement with MMSC or another appropriate STSSN approved and permitted 

facility. However, as the handling and transport of sea turtles may affect individuals by 

subjecting them to extended holding times and stress, the effects of this action have been 

considered in the accompanying Opinion. In the Opinion, NMFS has determined that no more 

than 71 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, 6 loggerhead sea turtles and 11 green sea turtles are likely to be 

directly affected by measuring, holding and transport. Reasonable and prudent measures and 

implementing terms and conditions requiring this monitoring and transport are outlined below. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures

NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to 

minimize impacts of incidental take of endangered and threatened sea turtles: 
80

1. OCNGS must continue to implement a NMFS approved program to prevent, monitor, 

minimize, and mitigate the incidental take of sea turtles at the CWS and DWS intake 

structures. 

2. All sea turtle impingements associated with the OCNGS and sea turtle sightings in the 

action area must be reported to NMFS. 

3. All live sea turtles must be transported to an appropriate facility for necessary 

rehabilitation and release into the wild. 

4. A necropsy of any dead sea turtles must be undertaken promptly to attempt to identify the 

cause of death, particularly whether the sea turtle died as a result of interactions with the 

intakes. 

Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, Exelon must comply with, and 

NRC must ensure through enforceable terms of the operating license that Exelon does comply 

with, the following terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement, which implement the 

reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring 

requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. Any taking that is in 

compliance with the terms and conditions specified in this Incidental Take Statement shall not be 

considered a prohibited taking of the species concerned (ESA Section 7(o)(2)). 

1. To implement RPM #1, the CWS and DWS (when operational) intake trash bars must be 

cleaned daily from June 1 to October 31. 

a. Cleaning must include the full length of the trash rack, i.e., down to the bottom of 

each intake bay. To lessen the possibility of injury to a turtle, the raking process 

must be closely monitored so that it can be stopped immediately if a turtle is 

sighted. 

b. Personnel must be instructed to look beneath surface debris before the rake is used 

to lessen the possibility of injury to a turtle. 

c. Personnel cleaning the racks must inspect all trash that is dumped to ensure that 

no sea turtles are present within the debris. 

d. An alternative method of daily cleaning of the full length of the trash racks must 

be developed for use between June 1 through October 31 when the trash rake is 

unavailable due to necessary repair or maintenance or is otherwise inoperable. If 

the trash rake will be inoperable for more than 24 hours, Exelon or NRC must 

contact NMFS and explain what alternate arrangements have been made to ensure 

that the full length of the trash racks is cleaned at least once per 24 hours. 
81

2. To implement RPM #1, inspection of CWS and DWS cooling water intake trash bars 

(and immediate area upstream) must continue to be conducted at least once every 4 hours 

(three times per 12-hour shift) from June 1 through October 31. NRC must ensure that 

inspections follow a set schedule so that they are regularly spaced rather than clumped. 

Inspections must occur at least three times during each 12 hour shift. A proposed 

schedule would be to schedule inspections 2 hours after the start of each shift and then 

every 4 hours during the shift. Times of inspections, including those when no turtles 

were sighted, must be recorded. 

3. To implement RPM #1, lighting must be maintained at the intake bays to enable 

inspection personnel to see the surface of each intake bay and to facilitate safe handling 

of turtles which are discovered at night. Portable spotlights must be available at both the 

CWS and the DWS for times when extra lighting is needed. 

4. To implement RPM #1, dip nets, baskets, and other equipment must be available at both 

the CWS and the DWS and must be used to remove smaller sea turtles from the OCNGS 

intake structures to reduce trauma caused by the existing cleaning mechanism. 

Equipment suitable for rescuing large turtles (e.g., rescue sling or other provision) must 

be available at OCNGS and readily accessible from the CWS and DWS. 

5. To implement RPM #1, an attempt to resuscitate comatose sea turtles must be made 

according to the procedures described in Appendix II. These procedures must be posted 

in appropriate areas such as the intake bay areas for both the CWS and the DWS, any 

other area where turtles would be moved for resuscitation, and the CWS and DWS 

operator's office(s). 

6. To implement RPM #2, OCNGS personnel must observe the canal area for sea turtles 

where and when possible (i.e., during the daylight hours). Any sea turtles sighted in the 

canal and in vicinity of OCNGS (not necessarily only near the intake structures) must be 

reported to NMFS within 24 hours of the observation (NMFS Section 7 Coordinator at 

(978) 281-9328 or FAX (978) 281-9394). 

7. To implement RPM #2, if any live or dead sea turtles are taken at OCNGS, plant 

personnel must notify NMFS within 24 hours of the take (NMFS Endangered Species 

Coordinator at 978-281-9208). An incident report for sea turtle take (Appendix III) must 

also be completed by plant personnel and sent to the NMFS Section 7 Coordinator via 

FAX (978-281-9394) within 24 hours of the take. Every sea turtle must be photographed. 

Information in Appendix IV will assist in identification of species impinged. All sea 

turtles that are sighted within the vicinity of OCNGS (including the intake and discharge 

structures) must also be recorded, and this information must be submitted in the annual 

report. 

8. To implement RPM #2, an annual report of incidental takes must be submitted to NMFS 

by January 1 of each year. This report will be used to identify trends and further 
82

conservation measures necessary to minimize incidental takes of sea turtles. The report 

must include, as detailed above, all necropsy reports, incidental take reports, photographs 

(if not previously submitted), a record of all sightings in the vicinity of OCNGS, and a 

record of when inspections of the intake trash bars were conducted for the 24 hours prior 

to the take. The annual report must also include any potential measures to reduce sea 

turtle impingement or mortality at the intake structures. This annual report must also 

include information on arrangements made with a STSSN facility to handle sea turtles 

taken in the coming year. The report must also include all necropsy reports. At the time 

the report is submitted, NMFS will supply NRC and Exelon with any information on 

changes to reporting requirements (i.e., staff changes, phone or fax numbers, e-mail 

addresses) for the coming year. 

9. To implement RPM #2, OCNGS personnel or NRC must notify NMFS when the OCNGS 

reaches 50% of the incidental take level for any species of sea turtle. At that time, NRC 

and NMFS will determine if additional measures are needed to minimize impingement at 

the CWS or DWS intake structures. 

10. To implement RPM#2, in any year when the estimated annual level of take (lethal and 

non-lethal) is exceeded, NRC must work with NMFS to determine whether the additional 

take represents new information revealing effects of the action that may not have been 

previously considered. 

11. To implement RPM #3, a stranding/rehabilitation facility with the appropriate ESA 

authority must be contacted immediately following any live sea turtle take. Appropriate 

transport methods must be employed following the stranding facilities protocols, to 

transport the animal to the care of the stranding/rehabilitation personnel for evaluation, 

necessary veterinary care, tagging, and release in an appropriate location and habitat. 

12. To implement RPM #4, all dead sea turtles must be necropsied by qualified personnel. 

The OCNGS must coordinate with a qualified facility or individual to perform the 

necropsies on sea turtles impinged at OCNGS, prior to the incidental turtle take, so that 

there is no delay in performing the necropsy or obtaining the results. The necropsy results 

must identify, when possible, the sex of the turtle, stomach contents, and the estimated 

cause of death. Necropsy reports must be submitted to the NMFS Northeast Region with 

the annual review of incident reports or, if not yet available, within 60 days of the 

incidental take. 

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are 

designed to minimize and monitor the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from 

the proposed action. Specifically, these RPMs and Terms and Conditions will ensure that Exelon 

continues to implement measures to reduce the potential of mortality for any sea turtles impinged 

at the OCNGS, to report all interactions to NMFS and to provide information on the likely cause 

of death of any sea turtles impinged at the facility. The discussion below explains why each of 

these RPMs and Terms and Conditions are necessary and appropriate to minimize or monitor the 
83

level of incidental take associated with the proposed action and how they represent only a minor 

change to the proposed action. 

RPM #1 and Term and Conditions #1-6 are necessary and appropriate because they are 

specifically designed to ensure that all appropriate measures are carried out to prevent, monitor 

and minimize the incidental take of sea turtles at the OCNGS. These conditions ensure that the 

potential for detection of sea turtles at the intakes is maximized and that any sea turtles removed 

from the water are done so in a manner that minimizes the potential for further injury. The 

procedures and requirements outlined in RPM #1 and Term and Conditions #1-6 are only a 

minor change because they are not expected to result in any modifications to plant operations and 

any increase in cost is small. Additionally, these conditions are consistent with conditions in 

previous ITSs for the OCNGS and are part of the normal procedures at the facility. 

RPM#2 and Term and Condition #6-10 are necessary and appropriate as ensure the proper 

handling and documentation of any interactions with listed species as well as the prompt 

reporting of these interactions to NMFS. This represents only a minor change as the 

implementation of these conditions is not anticipated to result in any increased cost, delay of the 

project or change in the operation of the facility. Additionally, these conditions are consistent 

with conditions in previous ITSs for the OCNGS and are part of the normal procedures at the 

facility. 

RPM#3 and Term and Condition #11 are necessary and appropriate as the continued transfer of 

turtles removed from the water alive to an approved stranding/rehabilitiation center maximizes 

the likelihood that these turtles when returned to the wild will be healthy. Additionally, this 

ensures that any injured turtles can be cared for, reducing the potential impact of any injuries and 

reducing the potential for delayed mortality. This represents only a minor change as Exelon 

already maintains a relationship with MMSC to carry out these activities and this condition is 

consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for the OCNGS and is part of the normal procedures 

at the facility. 

RPM#4 and Term and Condition #12 is necessary and appropriate to determine and document 

the likely cause of death for any sea turtle removed from the OCNGS intakes and whether the 

cause of death is attributable to the action under consideration in this Opinion. This represents 

only a minor change as Exelon already maintains a relationship with MMSC to carry out these 

activities and this condition is consistent with conditions in previous ITSs for the OCNGS and is 

part of the normal procedures at the facility. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to Section 7(a)(2), which requires agencies to ensure that all projects will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA places a 

responsibility on all federal agencies to “utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of 

this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species.” Conservation 

Recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a 

proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to 
84

develop information. As such, NMFS recommends that the NRC consider the following 

Conservation Recommendations, including but not limited to, requiring them as elements of the 

licensee’s Environmental Protection Plan: 

1. The NRC should use its authorities to support the investigation of methods to increase 

lighting and visibility at all trash racks, and work with OCNGS to implement these 

methods. At present, with use of portable spotlights and current lighting visibility is 

limited to approximately 1 meter below the water surface. Improvement of visibility may 

allow personnel to detect sea turtles at the intakes sooner and minimize the chance of 

mortality. 

2. The NRC should use its authorities to support tissue analysis of dead sea turtles removed 

from OCNGS to determine contaminant loads, including chlorine. 

3. In conjunction with NMFS, the NRC should use its authorities to support a research 

program to determine whether the plant provides features attractive to sea turtles (e.g., 

concentration of prey around intake structures, heated discharge). This program should 

investigate habitat use, diet, and local and long-term movements of sea turtles. Use of 

existing mark/recapture and telemetry methods should be considered in Barnegat Bay and 

associated waterways. 

4. The NRC should use its authorities to support underwater and surface videography or 

diving behavior telemetry studies of turtles at the intake bays, in the Forked River, in the 

Oyster Creek discharge canal, and in Barnegat Bay to determine how turtles use these 

waterways and their behavior in the intake bays. The surface videography could help 

identify sea turtles in Forked River prior to impingent in the intake structures. 

5. The NRC should use its authorities to support investigations on the variable 

environmental conditions which may contribute to or result in increased sea turtle taking 

(e.g. temperature changes, wind direction, influx of prey). Increased monitoring during 

favorable conditions for sea turtle presence near OCNGS should result from the 

investigations. 

6. NRC should use its authorities to support the review of historical benthic survey data to 

identify sea turtles prey density and distribution at various sites in the action area and 

associated waterways. This information would clarify the potential for sea turtle prey to 

be attracted to the intake structures or area around OCNGS during times when turtles are 

likely to be in the action area. 

7. The NRC should use its authorities to support in-water assessments, abundance, and 

distribution surveys for sea turtles in Barnegat Bay, Forked River, and Oyster Creek. 

Information obtained from these surveys should include the number of turtles sighted, 

species, location, habitat use, time of year, and portions of the water column sampled. 

REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION 
85

This concludes formal consultation on the continued operation of the OCNGS pursuant to the 

license issued by NRC in April 2009. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal 

consultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the 

action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of taking 

specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the 

action that may not have been previously considered; (3) the identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species; or (4) a new species is listed or 

critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. In instances where the 

amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, Section 7 consultation must be reinitiated 

immediately. 
86

LITERATURE CITED

Agnisola, C., McKenzie, D., Pellegrino, D., Bronzi, P., Tota, B. and Taylor, E. (1999), 

Cardiovascular responses to hypoxia in the Adriatic sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii). Journal of 

Applied Ichthyology, 15: 67–72. 

Andrews, H.V., and K. Shanker. 2002. A significant population of leatherback turtles in the 

Indian Ocean. Kachhapa 6:19. 

Andrews, H.V., S. Krishnan, and P. Biswas. 2002. Leatherback nesting in the Andaman and 

Nicobar Islands. Kachhapa 6:15-18. 

Attrill, M.J., J. Wright, and M. Edwards. 2007. Climate-related increases in jellyfish frequency 

suggest a more gelatinous future for the North Sea. Limnology and Oceanography 52:480-

485. 

Avens, L., J.C. Taylor, L.R. Goshe, T.T. Jones, and M. Hastings. 2009. Use of 

skeletochronological analysis to estimate the age of leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys 

coriacea in the western North Atlantic. Endangered Species Research 8:165-177. 

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the 

terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. Endangered Species Research 2:21-30. 

Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Pages 

117-125 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-54:387-429. 

Barnegat Bay Estuary Program. 2001. Web site <http://www.bbep.org> 

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

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

Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC 

Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, and J. Braun-McNeill. 2004. Multi-year analysis of stock composition 

of a loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) foraging habitat using maximum likelihood and 

Bayesian methods. Conservation Genetics 5:783-796. 

Bellmund, D.E., J.A. Musick, R.C. Klinger, R.A. Byles, J.A. Keinath, and D.E. Barnard. 1987. 

Ecology of sea turtles in Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Special Science 

Report No. 119, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 
87

Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. In press. Somatic growth model of juvenile 

loggerhead sea turtles: duration of the pelagic stage. 

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. Pages 199-233 in P.L. Lutz 

and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. New York: CRC Press. 

Blumenthal, J.M., J.L. Solomon, C.D. Bell, T.J. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, M.S. Coyne, A.C. 

Broderick, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Satellite tracking highlights the need for international 

cooperation in marine turtle management. Endangered Species Research 2:51-61. 

Bolten, A.B. 2003. Variation in sea turtle life history patterns: neritic vs. oceanic developmental 

stages. Pages 243-257 in P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken, eds. The Biology of Sea 

Turtles, Vol. 2. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, and H.R. Martins. 1994. Life history model for the loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta) populations in the Atlantic: Potential impacts of a longline fishery. 

U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-201:48-55. 

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. 

Bowen, B.W. 2003. What is a loggerhead turtle? The genetic perspective. Pages 7-27 in A.B. 

Bolten and B.E. Witherington, eds. Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Press. 

Bowen, B.W., and S.A. Karl. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. 

Molecular Ecology 16:4886-4907. 

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. Shaver, 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. 

Bowen, B.W., A.L. Bass, L. Soares, and R.J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of 

complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). 

Molecular Ecology 14:2389-2402. 

Braun, J., and S.P. Epperly. 1996. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in southern Georgia waters, 

June 1991. Gulf of Mexico Science 1996(1):39-44. 

Braun-McNeill, J., and S.P. Epperly. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of sea turtles in the 
88

western North Atlantic and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico from Marine Recreational Fishery 

Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Marine Fisheries Review 64(4):50-56. 

Braun-McNeill, J. , C.R. Sasso, S.P.Epperly, C. Rivero. 2008. Feasibility of using sea surface 

temperature imagery to mitigate cheloniid sea turtle–fishery interactions off the coast of 

northeastern USA. Endangered Species Research: Vol. 5: 257–266, 2008. 

Brodeur, R.D., C.E. Mills, J.E. Overland, G.E. Walters, and J.D. Schumacher. 1999. Evidence 

for a substantial increase in gelatinous zooplankton in the Bering Sea, with possible links to 

climate change. Fisheries Oceanography 8(4):296-306. 

Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, P. Logan, and E.A. Standora. 1991. Diet of green turtles (Chelonia 

mydas) in the waters of Long Island, NY. M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (Compilers). 

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, pp. 140-142. 

Caillouet, C., C.T. Fontaine, S.A. Manzella-Tirpak, and T.D. Williams. 1995. Growth of headstarted Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) following release. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 1(3):231-234. 

Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. The Turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja 

California. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

Carr, A.R. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempi. Ergebnisse der 

Biologie 26:298-303. 

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conserv. Biol. 1: 

103-121. 

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. 

Casale, P., P. Nicolosi, D. Freggi, M. Turchetto, and R. Argano. 2003. Leatherback turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) in Italy and in the Mediterranean basin. Herpetological Journal 

13:135-139. 

Castroviejo, J., J.B. Juste, J.P. Del Val, R. Castelo, and R. Gil. 1994. Diversity and status of sea 

turtle species in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:828-836. 

Chevalier, J., X. Desbois, and M. Girondot. 1999. The reason for the decline of leatherback 

turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in French Guiana: a hypothesis p.79-88. In Miaud, C. and R. 
89

Guyétant (eds.), Current Studies in Herpetology, Proceedings of the ninth ordinary general 

meeting of the Societas Europea Herpetologica, 25-29 August 1998 Le Bourget du Lac, 

France. 

Cliffton, K., D.O. Cornejo, and R.S. Felger. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. 

Pages 199-209 in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 

E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. 

Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2009. 222 pp. 

Coyne, M.S. 2000. Population Sex Ratio of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii): Problems in Population Modeling. PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University. 136pp. 

Coyne, M. and A.M. Landry, Jr. 2007. Population sex ratios and its impact on population 

models. In: Plotkin, P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns 

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. p. 191-211. 

Crouse, D.T. 1999. The consequences of delayed maturity in a human-dominated world. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium. 23:195-202. 

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

loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecol. 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 turtle populations. Ecol. Applic. 4:437-445. 

Daniels, R.C., T.W. White, and K.K. Chapman. 1993. Sea-level rise: destruction of threatened 

and endangered species habitat in South Carolina. Environmental Management 17(3):373-

385. 

Davenport, J. 1997. Temperature and the life-history strategies of sea turtles. Journal of 

Thermal Biology 22(6):479-488. 

Davenport, J., and G.H. Balazs. 1991. ‘Fiery bodies’ – Are pyrosomas an important component 

of the diet of leatherback turtles? British Herpetological Society Bulletin 37:33-38. 

Dodd, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta
90

(Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(14):1-110. 

Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: a forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical 

Quarterly 88:43-70. 

Duarte, C.M. 2002. The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29:192-206. 

Dutton, P.H., C. Hitipeuw, M. Zein, S.R. Benson, G. Petro, J. Pita, V. Rei, L. Ambio, and J. 

Bakarbessy. 2007. Status and genetic structure of nesting populations of leatherback turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) in the Western Pacific. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 

6(1):47-53. 

Dwyer, K.L., C.E. Ryder, and R. Prescott. 2002. Anthropogenic mortality of leatherback sea 

turtles in Massachusetts waters. Poster presentation for the 2002 Northeast Stranding 

Network Symposium. 

Eckert, S.A. 1999. Global distribution of juvenile leatherback turtles. Hubbs Sea World Research 

Institute Technical Report 99-294. 

Eckert, S.A. and J. Lien. 1999. Recommendations for eliminating incidental capture and 

mortality of leatherback sea turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, by commercial fisheries in 

Trinidad and Tobago. A report to the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network 

(WIDECAST). Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Technical Report No. 2000-310, 7 pp. 

Eckert, S.A., D. Bagley, S. Kubis, L. Ehrhart, C. Johnson, K. Stewart, and D. DeFreese. 2006. 

Internesting and postnesting movements of foraging habitats of leatherback sea turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in Florida. Chel. Cons. Biol. 5(2): 239-248. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1979. Reproductive characteristics and management potential of the sea turtle 

rookery at Canaveral National Seashore, Florida. Pp. 397-399 in Proceedings of the First 

Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 

9-12, 1976. R.M. Linn, ed. Transactions and Proceedings Series-National Park Service, No. 

5. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: 

geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 157-174 in A.B. Bolten and 

B.E. Witherington, eds. Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution 

Press. 

Ehrhart. L.M., W.E. Redfoot, and D.A. Bagley. 2007. Marine turtles of the central region of the 

Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Florida Scientist 70(4):415-434. 

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2010. Neritic Zone. Accessed 12 January 2010. 

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055318. 
91

Epperly, S.P. 2003. Fisheries-related mortality and turtle excluder devices. In: P.L. Lutz, J.A. 

Musick, and J. Wyneken (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol. II, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 

Florida. p. 339-353. 

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina 

inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93:254-261. 

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, F.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995b. Winter 

distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the 

summer flounder trawl fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 56(2):547-568. 

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

Conservation Biology 9(2):384-394. 

Epperly, S., L. Avens, L. Garrison, T. Henwood, 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 southeast U.S. waters and the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-490:1-88. 

Epperly, S.P., and W.G. Teas. 2002. Turtle Excluder Devices - Are the escape openings large 

enough? Fishery Bulletin 100:466-474. 

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. 

Ernst, C.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, 

Lexington. 347 pp. 

Ferreira, M.B., M. Garcia, and A. Al-Kiyumi. 2003. Human and natural threats to the green 

turtles, Chelonia mydas, at Ra’s al Hadd turtle reserve, Arabian Sea, Sultanate of Oman. 

Page 142 in J.A. Seminoff, compiler. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-503. 

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. 

FPL (Florida Power and Light Company) and Quantum Resources. 2005. Florida Power and 

Light Company, St. Lucie Plant Annual Environmental Operating Report, 2002. 57 pp. 

Frazer, N.B., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, 

and loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985(1):73-79. 
92

Fritts, T.H. 1982. Plastic bags in the intestinal tracts of leatherback marine turtles. Herpetological 

Review 13(3): 72-73. 

Garrison, L.P., and L. Stokes. 2010. Estimated bycatch of marine mammals and sea turtles in 

the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet during 2009. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-607:1-57. 

Garrison, L.P. and Stokes, L. 2011a. Preliminary estimates of protected species bycatch rates in 

the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery from 1 January to 30 June, 2010. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution 

#PRD-2010-10, Revised April 2011, 20p. 

Garrison, L.P. and Stokes, L. 2011b. Preliminary estimates of protected species bycatch rates in 

the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery from 1 July to 31 December, 2010. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution # 

PRD-2011-03, May 2011, 22p. 

George, R.H. 1997. Health Problems and Diseases of Sea Turtles. Pages 363-386 in P.L. Lutz 

and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 

Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of climate change on sand and 

nest temperatures at a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting beach. Global 

Change Biology 10:2036-2045. 

GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2007. Amendment 27 to the Reef 

Fish FMP and Amendment 14 to the Shrimp FMP to end overfishing and rebuild the red 

snapper stock. Tampa, Florida: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 490 pp. with 

appendices. 

Goff, G.P. and J.Lien. 1988. Atlantic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water off 

Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Field Nat. 102(1):1-5. 

Report July 1995, ECOFAC Componente de Sao Tomé e Príncipe, 33 pp. 

Greene, C.H. et al. 2008. Artctic Climate Change and its Impacts on the Ecology of the North 

Atlantic. Ecology 89 (11): S24-S38. 

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. 
93

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the 

potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 

13:923-932. 

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2009. Climate change and 

marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154. 

Henwood, T.A. and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during 

commercial shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817. 

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. 

Hildebrand, H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga “lora” Lepidochelys kempii 

(Garman), en la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico (Rept. Chel.). Ciencia Mex., 

22(4):105-112. 

Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western 

Gulf of Mexico, P. 447-453. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and conservation of sea turtles. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Hilterman, M.L. and E. Goverse. 2004. Annual report of the 2003 leatherback turtle research 

and monitoring project in Suriname. World Wildlife Fund - Guianas Forests and 

Environmental Conservation Project (WWF-GFECP) Technical Report of the Netherlands 

Committee for IUCN (NC-IUCN), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 21p. 

Hirth, H.F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. FAO 

Fisheries Synopsis 85:1-77. 

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 

1758). USFWS Biological Report 97(1):1-120. 

Hulin, V., and J.M. Guillon. 2007. Female philopatry in a heterogenous environment: ordinary 

conditions leading to extraordinary ESS sex ratios. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:13 

Hulme, P.E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the 

face of global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 617-627.IPCC (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. Valencia, Spain. 

Innis, C., C. Merigo, K. Dodge, M. Tlusty, M. Dodge, B. Sharp, A. Myers, A. McIntosh, D. 

Wunn, C. Perkins, T.H. Herdt, T. Norton, and M. Lutcavage. 2010. Health Evaluation of 

Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Northwestern Atlantic During Direct 
94

Capture and Fisheries Gear Disentanglement. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 

9(2):205-222. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, 

S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, 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, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA. 

James, M.C., R.A. Myers, and C.A. Ottenmeyer. 2005a. Behaviour of leatherback sea turtles, 

Dermochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proc. R. Soc. B, 272: 1547-1555. 

 

James, M.C., C.A. Ottensmeyer, and R.A. Myers. 2005b. Identification of high-use habitat and 

threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecol. 

Lett. 8:195-201. 

Kasparek, M., B.J. Godley, and A.C. Broderick. 2001. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia 

mydas, in the Mediterranean: a review of status and conservation needs. Zoology in the 

Middle East 24:45-74. 

Keinath, J.A. 1993. Movements and behavior of wild and head-started sea turtles. Ph.D. Diss. 

College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA., 206 pp. 

Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and D.E. Barnard. 1994a. Movements of head-started and nesting 

loggerhead sea turtles. Final Report to Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 79 pp. 

Keinath, J.A., D.E. Barnard, and J.A. Musick. 1994b. Post nesting movements of a loggerhead 

sea turtle. Report to USF&WS and Norfolk COE. 

Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia’s sea 

turtles: 1979-1986. Virginia J. Sci. 38(4): 329-336. 

Kuller, Z. 1999. Current status and conservation of marine turtles on the Mediterranean coast of 

Israel. Marine Turtle Newsletter 86:3-5. 

LaCasella, E.L., P.H. Dutton, and S.P. Epperly. 2005. Genetic stock composition of loggerheads 

(Caretta caretta) encountered in the Atlantic northeast distant (NED) longline fishery using 

additional mtDNA analysis. Pages 302-303 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. 

Lageux, C.J., C. Campbell, L.H. Herbst, A.R. Knowlton and B. Weigle. 1998. Demography of 

marine turtles harvested by Miskitu Indians of Atlantic Nicaragua. U.S. Department of 
95

Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412:90. 

Lalli, C.M., and T.R. Parsons. 1997. Biological oceanography: An introduction. 2nd Edition. 

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Publications. 

 

Laurent, L., J. Lescure, L. Excoffier, B. Bowen, M. Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L. 

Kornaraki, and G. Trabuchet. 1993. Genetic studies of relationships between Mediterranean 

and Atlantic populations of loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta with a mitochondrial marker. 

Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences (Paris), Sciences de la Vie/Life Sciences 

316:1233-1239. 

Laurent, L., P. Casale, M.N. Bradai, B.J. Godley, 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 the marine turtle stock composition in fishery bycatch: A case study 

in the Mediterranean. Molecular Ecology 7:1529-1542. 

Lewison, R.L., L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver. 2003. The impact of turtle 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 longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. 

Ecology Letters 7:221-231. 

Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 

1985(2): 449-456. 

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle 

survival. Pages 387-409 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. 

Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 

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

Prichard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of Sea Turtles: Causes 

and Prevention. Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation , Board of Environmental Studies 

and Toxicology, Board on Biology, Commission of Life Sciences, National Research 

Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp. 

Maier, P.P., A.L. Segars, M.D. Arendt, J.D. Whitaker, 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 on in-water sampling with trawl gear. Final report to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 86 pp. 

Mansfield, K. L. 2006. Sources of mortality, movements, and behavior of sea turtles in Virginia. 
96

Ph.D. dissertation, College of William and Mary. 343 pp. 

Mansfield, K.L., V.S. Saba, J.A. Keinath, and J.A. Musick. 2009. Satellite tracking reveals a 

dichotomy in migration strategies among juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Northwest 

Atlantic. Marine Biology 156:2555–2570. 

Marcano, L.A. and J.J. Alio-M. 2000. Incidental capture of sea turtles by the industrial shrimping 

fleet off northwestern Venezuela. U.S. department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436:107. 

Márquez, M.R., A. Villanueva O., and M. Sánchez P. 1982. The population of the Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico – Lepidochelys kempii. In: K.A. Bjorndal (editor), 

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institute Press. p. 

159-164. 

McClellan, C.M., and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life 

history. Biology Letters 3:592-594. 

McMahon, C.R., and G.C. Hays. 2006. Thermal niche, large-scale movements and implications 

of climate change for a critically endangered marine vertebrate. Global Change Biology 

12:1330-1338. 

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

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

Mitchell, G.H., R.D. Kenney, A.M. Farak, and R.J. Campbell. 2003. Evaluation of occurrence 

of endangered and threatened marine species in naval ship trial areas and transit lanes in the 

Gulf of Maine and offshore of Georges Bank. NUWC-NPT Technical Memo 02-121A. 

March 2003. 113 pp. 

Monzón-Argüello, C., A. Marco., C. Rico, C. Carreras, P. Calabuig, and L.F. López-Jurado. 

2006. Transatlantic migration of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): magnetic 

latitudinal influence. Page 106 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. 

Morreale, S.J. 1999. Oceanic migrations of sea turtles. Ph.D. diss. Cornell University, Ithaca, 

NY. 144 pp. 

Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1992. Habitat use and feeding activity of juvenile Kemp’s 

ridleys in inshore waters of the northeastern U.S. M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (Compilers). 

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, pp. 75-77. 
97

Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1993. Occurrence, movement, and behavior of the Kemp’s 

ridley and other sea turtles in New York waters. Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation Final 

Report April 1988-March 1993. 70 pp. 

Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1994. Occurrence, movement, and behavior of the Kemp’s 

ridley and other sea turtles in New York waters. Final report for the NYSDEC in fulfillment 

of Contract #C001984. 70 pp. 

 

Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology of sea turtles in northeastern 

U.S. waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-413:1-49. 

Morreale, S.J., C.F. Smith, K. Durham, R.A. DiGiovanni, Jr., and A.A. Aguirre. 2005. 

Assessing health, status, and trends in northeastern sea turtle populations. Interim report - 

Sept. 2002 - Nov. 2004. Gloucester, Massachusetts: National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Mrosovsky, N. 1981. Plastic jellyfish. Marine Turtle Newsletter 17:5-6. 

Mrosovsky, N., G.D. Ryan, M.C. James. 2009. Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 287-289. 

Murdoch, P. S., Baron, J. S. and Miller, T. L. (2000), POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE 

CHANGE ON SURFACE-WATER QUALITY IN NORTH AMERICA. JAWRA Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association, 36: 347–366. 

Murphy, T.M., and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting 

beaches in the southeast region. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service. 73pp. 

 

Murphy, T.M., S.R. Murphy, D.B. Griffin, and C. P. Hope. 2006. Recent occurrence, spatial 

distribution and temporal variability of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in 

nearshore waters of South Carolina, USA. Chel. Cons. Biol. 5(2): 216-224. 

Murray, K.T. 2004. Bycatch of sea turtles in the Mid-Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten 

magellanicus) dredge fishery during 2003. NEFSC Reference Document 04-11; 25 pp. 

Murray, K.T. 2006. Estimated average annual bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta 

caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996-2004. NEFSC Reference 

Document 06-19; 26 pp. 

Murray, K.T. 2007. Estimated bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in U.S. MidAtlantic scallop trawl gear, 2004-2005, and in sea scallop dredge gear, 2005. NEFSC 

Reference Document 07-04; 30 pp. 

Murray, K.T. 2008. Estimated average annual bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta 

caretta) in U.S. Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawl gear, 1996-2004 (2nd edition). NEFSC 
98

Reference Document 08-20; 32 pp. 

Murray, K.T. 2009a. Characteristics and magnitude of sea turtle bycatch in US mid-Atlantic 

gillnet gear. Endangered Species Research 8:211-224. 

Murray, K.T. 2009b. Proration of estimated bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles in U.S. MidAtlantic sink gillnet gear to vessel trip report landed catch, 2002-2006. NEFSC Reference 

Document 09-19; 7 pp. 

Murray, K.T. 2011. Sea turtle bycatch in the U.S. sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) dredge 

fishery, 2001–2008. Fish Res. 107:137-146. 

Musick, J.A., and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. 

Pages 137-164 in P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick, eds. The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, 

Florida: CRC Press. 

NMFS. 1997. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation on the Atlantic Pelagic Fishery 

for Swordfish, Tuna, and Shark in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation on Shrimp Trawling in the Southeastern United States, under the Sea Turtle 

Conservation Regulations and as Managed by the Fishery Management Plans for Shrimp in 

the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion. December 2, 2002. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation on the Proposed Regulatory Amendments to the Fisheries Management Plan for 

the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific. Biological Opinion. February 23, 2004. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Reinitiated Consultation on the Continued Authorization of the Atlantic Pelagic Longline 

Fishery under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS 

FMP). Biological Opinion. June 1, 2004. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation on the Proposed Renewal of an Operating License for the Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station, Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Biological Opinion. November 22, 2006. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008b. Summary Report of the Workshop on 

Interactions Between Sea Turtles and Vertical Lines in Fixed-Gear Fisheries. M.L. Schwartz 

(ed.), Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, Rhode Island. 54 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Biennial Report to Congress on the 
99

Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species, October 1, 2008 – September 30, 

2010. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 194 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2011. 

Preliminary summer 2010 regional abundance estimate of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) 

in northwestern Atlantic Ocean continental shelf waters. US Dept Commerce, Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-03; 33 pp. 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerheads and 

leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the 

loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL, SEFSC Contribution PRD-00/01-

08; Parts I-III and Appendices I-IV. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFSC-455, 343 pp. 

NMFS SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Center). 2009. An assessment of loggerhead sea 

turtles to estimate impacts of mortality reductions on population dynamics. NMFS SEFSC 

Contribution PRD-08/09-14. 45 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. 

Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas. Washington, 

D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 58 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. 

Recovery plan for leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, 

and Gulf of Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. 

Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Silver 

Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 139 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). 

Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 84 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

2007a. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. 

Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 65 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

2007b. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5 year review: summary and 
100

evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 79 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

2007c. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5 year review: summary and 

evaluation. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 50 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

2007d. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Silver 

Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service. 102 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. 

Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta 

caretta), Second revision. Washington, D.C.: National Marine Fisheries Service. 325 pp. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and 

SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, 

Maryland 156 pp. + appendices. 

NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 259 pp. 

Ogren, L.H. Biology and Ecology of Sea Turtles. 1988. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries, 

Panama City Laboratory. Sept. 7. 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. 2000. Assessment of the Impacts of the Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station on Kemp’s ridley (Lepidocheyls kempii), loggerhead (Caretta 

caretta), and Atlantic green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles. Biological Assessment submitted to 

NMFS, Gloucester, MA. 

Palka, D. 2000. Abundance and distribution of sea turtles estimated from data collected during 

cetacean surveys. Pages 71-72 in K.A. Bjorndal and A.B. Bolten, eds. Proceedings of a 

workshop on assessing abundance and trends for in-water sea turtle populations. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445. 

Palmer, M.A. C. Liermann, C.Nilsson, et al. 2008. Climate change and the world's river basins: 

anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 81–89. 

Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts 

across natural systems. Nature 421:37-42. 

Pearce, A.F. 2001. Contrasting population structure of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) 

using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers. Master’s thesis, University of Florida. 71 

pp. 
101

Pearce, A.F. and B.W. Bowen. 2001. Final report: Identification of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) 

stock structure in the southeastern United States and adjacent regions using nuclear DNA 

markers. Project number T-99-SEC-04. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

May 7, 2001. 79 pp. 

Polovina, J.J., D.R. Kobayashi, D.M. Ellis, M.P. Seki, and G.H. Balazs. 2000. Turtles on the 

edge: Movement of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) along oceanic fronts in the central 

North Pacific, 1997-1998. Fish. Oceanogr., 9:71-82. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1969. Endangered species: Kemp’s ridley turtle. Florida Naturalist, 49:15-19. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in Pacific, 

Mexico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982:741-747. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny and current status. Pp. 1-28 In: The Biology of Sea 

Turtles. Lutz, P., and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, New York. 432 pp. 

Pritchard, P.C.H. 2002. Global status of sea turtles: An overview. Document INF-001 prepared 

for the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, First 

Conference of the Parties (COP1IAC), First part August 6-8, 2002. 

Purcell, J.E., Graham, W.M., Dumont, H.J., 2001. Jellyfish Blooms: Ecological and 

Societal Importance. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol. 155 

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

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

Philadelphia, Penn. 

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 determined by mitochondrial 

DNA analysis. Journal of Herpetology 35(4):638-646. 

Rebel, T.P. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of the West Indies, Florida and the Gulf of 

Mexico. Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. 

Rees, A.F., A. Saad, and M. Jony. 2005. Marine turtle nesting survey, Syria 2004: discovery of 

a “major” green turtle nesting area. Page 38 in Book of Abstracts of the Second 

Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles. Antalya, Turkey, 4-7 May 2005. 

Revelles, M., C. Carreras, L. Cardona, A. Marco, F. Bentivegna, J.J. Castillo, G. de Martino, J.L. 

Mons, M.B. Smith, C. Rico, M. Pascual, and A. Aguilar. 2007. Evidence for an 

asymmetrical size exchange of loggerhead sea turtles between the Mediterranean and the 

Atlantic through the Straits of Gibraltar. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 
102

Ecology 349:261-271. 

Richardson A.J., A. Bakun, G.C. Hays, and M.J. Gibbons. 2009. The jellyfish joyride: causes, 

consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution 24:312-322. 

Richardson, T.H. and J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration 

patterns of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta nesting on Little Cumberland and 

Cumberland Islands, Georgia. Mar. Res. Publ, 33:39-44. 

Robinson, M.M., H.J. Dowsett, and M.A. Chandler. 2008. Pliocene role in assessing future 

climate impacts. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89(49):501-502. 

 

Ross, J.P. 1979. Green turtle, Chelonia mydas, Background paper, summary of the status of sea 

turtles. Report to WWF/IUCN. 4pp.

Ross, J.P., and M.A. Barwani. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea 

turtles. In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. 

Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.

Ruben, H.J, and S.J. Morreale. 1999. Draft Biological Assessment for Sea Turtles in New York 

and New Jersey Harbor Complex. Unpublished Biological Assessment submitted to National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

Sarti, L., S.A. Eckert, N. Garcia, and A.R. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the world’s largest 

nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 74:2-5. 

Sarti, L., S. Eckert, P. Dutton, A. Barragán, and N. García. 2000. The current situation of the 

leatherback population on the Pacific coast of Mexico and central America, abundance and 

distribution of the nestings: an update. Pages 85-87 in H. Kalb and T. Wibbels, compilers. 

Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. 

Sarti Martinez, L., A.R. Barragan, D.G. Munoz, N. Garcia, P. Huerta, and F. Vargas. 2007. 

Conservation and biology of the leatherback turtle in the Mexican Pacific. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 6(1):70-78. 

Schmid, J.R., and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp’s ridley turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempi): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology 2(4):532-537. 

Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, B.E. Witherington, and A.E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology of marine 

turtles in Florida Bay: Population structure, distribution, and occurrence of fibropapilloma 

U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415:265-267.
103

Schultz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelingen (Leiden), 

Number 143: 172 pp. 

Sella, I. 1982. Sea turtles in the Eastern Mediterranean and Northern Red Sea. Pages 417-423 

in K.A. Bjorndal, ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Seminoff, J.A. 2004. Chelonia mydas. In 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

Accessed 31 July 2009. http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/4615/summ. 

Shamblin, B.M. 2007. Population structure of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting in 

the southeastern United States inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences and 

microsatellite loci. Master’s thesis, University of Georgia. 59 pp. 

Shoop, C.R. 1987. The Sea Turtles. Pages 357-358 in R.H. Backus and D.W. Bourne, eds. 

Georges Bank. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 

Shoop, C.R., and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological 

Monographs 6:43-67. 

Short, F.T. and H.A. Neckles. 1999. The effects of global climate change on seagrasses. Aquat 

Bot 63: 169-196. 

Snover, M.L., A.A. Hohn, L.B. Crowder, and S.S. Heppell. 2007. Age and growth in Kemp’s 

ridley sea turtles: evidence from mark-recapture and skeletochronology. Pages 89-106 in 

P.T. Plotkin, ed. Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore, Maryland: 

Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Spotila, J.R., M.P. O’Connor, and F.V. Paladino. 1997. Thermal Biology. Pp. 297-314 In: The 

Biology of Sea Turtles. Lutz, P., and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, New York. 432 pp. 

Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 1996. 

Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going 

extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2: 209-222. 

Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific 

leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405(6786):529-530. 

Stebenau, E.K. and K.R. Vietti. 2000. Laboratory investigation of the physiological effects of 

multiple forced submergence in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Final report to the 

NMFS Galveston Laboratory. 
104

Stewart, K., C. Johnson, and M.H. Godfrey. 2007. The minimum size of leatherbacks at 

reproductive maturity, with a review of sizes for nesting females from the Indian, Atlantic 

and Pacific Ocean basins. Herp. Journal 17:123-128. 

Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011. 

Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years 

using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications, 21(1): 263–273. 

Suárez, A. 1999. Preliminary data on sea turtle harvest in the Kai Archipelago, Indonesia. 

Abstract, 2nd ASEAN Symposium and Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 

July 15-17, 1999, Sabah, Malaysia. 

Suárez, A., P.H. Dutton, and J. Bakarbessy. 2000. Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting 

on the North Vogelkop Coast of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Page 260 in H.J. Kalb and T. Wibbels, 

compilers. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. 

Stetzar, E. J. 2002. Population Characterization of Sea Turtles that Seasonally Inhabit the 

Delaware Estuary. Master of Science thesis, Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware. 

136pp. 

Terwilliger, K. and J.A. Musick. 1995. Virginia Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Conservation 

Team. Management plan for sea turtles and marine mammals in Virginia. Final Report to 

NOAA, 56 pp. 

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

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

Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409: 1-96. 

TEWG (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-444:1-115. 

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle 

population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555, 116 

pp. 

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle 

population in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-575:1-131. 

USFWS. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 

1758). Biological Report 97(1). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 120 pp. 
105

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1992. 

Recovery plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempü). Original. St. 

Petersburg, Florida: National Marine Fisheries Service. 40 pp. 

Van Houtan, K.S. and J.M. Halley. 2011. Long-Term Climate Forcing in Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

Nesting. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19043. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019043. 

Wallace, B.P., S.S. Heppell, R.L. Lewison, S. Kelez, and L.B. Crowder. 2008. Impacts of 

fisheries bycatch on loggerhead turtles worldwide inferred from reproductive value analyses. 

J Appl Ecol 45:1076-1085. 

Warden, M. and K. Bisack 2010. Analysis of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Bycatch in Mid-Atlantic 

Bottom Trawl Fisheries to Support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Sea Turtle 

Conservation and Recovery in Relation to Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Bottom Trawl 

Fisheries. NOAA NMFS NEFSC Ref. Doc.010. 13 pp. 

Warden, M.L. 2011a. Modeling loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions with US 

Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear for fish and scallops, 2005-2008. Biological Conservation 

144:2202-2212. 

Warden, M.L. 2011b. Proration of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in U.S. 

Mid-Atlantic bottom otter trawls for fish and scallops, 2005-2008, by managed species 

landed. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Centter Reference 

Document 11-04. 8 p. 

Wibbels, T. 2003. Critical approaches to sex determination in sea turtle biology and 

conservation. In: P. Lutz et al. (editors), Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol 2. CRC Press Boca 

Raton. p. 103-134. 

Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L. and J. Waldman. 2005. Rangewide population structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence 

analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region. Estuaries 28:406-21. 

Witherington, B., P. Kubilis, B. Brost, and A. Meylan. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a 

globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19:30-54. 

Witt, M.J., A.C. Broderick, D.J. Johns, C. Martin, R. Penrose, M.S. Hoogmoed, and B.J. Godley. 

2007. Prey landscapes help identify potential foraging habitats for leatherback turtles in the 

NE Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 337:231-243. 

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the 

U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fisheries 

Bulletin. 97:200-211. 
106

Witzell, W.N. In preparation. Pelagic loggerhead turtles revisited: Additions to the life history 

model? 6 pp. 

Witzell, W.N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): suggested changes 

to the life history model. Herpetological Review 33(4):266-269. 

Witzell, W.N., A.L. Bass, M.J. Bresette, D.A. Singewald, and J.C. Gorham. 2002. Origin of 

immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) at Hutchinson Island, Florida: evidence 

from mtDNA markers. Fish. Bull. 100:624-631. 

Wynne, K., and M. Schwartz. 1999. Guide to marine mammals and turtles of the U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico. Narragansett: Rhode Island Sea Grant. 

Yeung, C., S. Epperly, and C. A. Brown. 2000. Preliminary revised estimates of marine mammal 

and marine turtle bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet, 1992-1999 National 

Marine Fisheries Service Miami Laboratory PRD Contribution Number 99/00-13, SEFSC 

Miami, Fla. 

Zug, G.R., and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys 

coriacea: a skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 2(2):244-

249.
APPENDIX I Incidental Take of Sea Turtles at Oltster Creek Nuclear Generating Station lntake Structures

January 1992 through October 20t I

Ê

-l

SEATURTLE IMPINGEMENT

lltme Species Sfafus Leneth- rt Lacatian lemD 9eta¡ls

612511992

1250 hrs

lc Dead 35.5 cm SCL 9.6 ks lmpinged on DWS trash bars,

found upon routine inspection

21 6C Several deep gashes on side, appeared to be boþt propeller wounds. MMSC i

necropsy conctuded *u.. oiJJinl;;;;;i4;'iorndr. before impinsementl

i

9t9t1992

',l800 hrs

Cc Al¡ve 46.7 cm SCL 19.1 kg lmpinged on CWS trash bars,

found upon routine inspection

25.6 C Small wound with scartissue behind head. Releårsed into discharge canali

911111992

1400 hrs

Cc Alive 46.7 cm SCL 19.1 ks tmpinged on CWS trash bars,

found upon routine inspection

26"2 C Small wound with scar tissue behind head. Condidered to be the same turfle

foundon9/9/92'TakentoMMSC,tagged,andrþ|eased¡n1ooceannear

Brigantine, NJ. ; i

1012611992

0300 hrs

LK Alive 32.0 cm SCL 5.7 kg Impingéd on CWS trash bars,

found upon routine inspection

Head out of water pointing

upward.

11.3 C Turtle found alive, moving about normally. Two Scars from slash-like wounds oni

plastron. Not sure how long present at intake stlt¡cture, but may have been

there between 3 and I hours. Turtle taken to MÌüSC ¡n Brigantine, NJ, then to i

North Carolina, wlth eventual release into the ocdan off NC on Octobe r 31. 1992t,

1 0/1 7/1 993

1200 hrs

LK Dead 26.0 cm SCL 3.0 kg lmpinged on DWS trash bars,

found upon routine inspection

16.7 C Turtle found limp, immobile, no apparent breathirlg and resuscitation efforts were

unsuccessful. Minor scrape marks on plastron nray have occurred during

removal from intake area. Not sure how long prebent at intake structure, but 

I

may have been there between 4 and I hours- Necropsy by Dr. Morreale found :

that drowning likely cause of death (fresh dead, rþ obvious trauma, empty

stomach)- I

6/1 9/1 994

1330 hrs

Cc Alive 36.8 cm SCL 9.8 kg Found in CWS Bay #4,

swimming freely upstream of the

lrash ba¡'s

27.3 C Turtle found alive, moving about normally. Within 34 hours of capture, turtle

taken tô MMSC in Brigantine, frlJ, tagged, and relbased offshore.

711t1994

1000 hrs

LK Dead 27.7 cmSCL 3.6 kg Found in DWS Bay #5 upon

routine cleaning

25.7 C , no a odor of

tation ¡- Not sure how long

but in previous afrernoon. l

crops been received to l
I

cÞ

7t6t1994

0640 hrs

Cc Dead 61-4 cm SCL 40.4 kg Found in DWS Bay #4 upon

routine cleaning of dilutlon

rntakes

26.9 C re

I

i

I

hours earlier. Necropsy by MMSC (R. Schoelkoþf) found that turtle likely died 1 i

to 2 days before arriving at OCNGS, probably dup to a long term illness. ¡

i,l

7t12t1994

224O hrs

LK )ead 26.7 cm SCL 3.3 ks Found in DWS Bay #4 upon

routine cleaning of dilulion

intakes

28.4C Turtle found lÌmp, immobìle, no apparent breathìriO and resuscitation efforts wdre

unsuccessful. Not sure how long present at intaKe structure, but may have beer

there for several hours. Turtle sent to Cornell for: necropsy but the results have

not been received to date- |

9t4¡199t

0318 hrs

_k fead 4ö.ü Cm sUL 18.1 kg l-ound rn DWS tsay #b upon

routìne cleaning of dílution

intakes

¿2.9 L Turile found limp, immobiie, no apparent breathilg and resuscitation efforts we¡t

unsuccessful.Twodorsalscuteshaddamage,t¿utnoprominentscarsof

slashlike wounds. Not sure how long present at intake structure, but may have

been there for up to several hours.

8/1 8/1 998

0959 hrs

Cc Alive 50.8 cm SCL 22.4 kg |-ouno ilve wnfte roultnety

inspecting CWS Bay #4,

swimming freely upstream of the

trash bars

26.9 C furtle found alive, moving aboul normally. A 12l.oot 1/4" polypropylene rope 

I

with a bucket attached to one end was wrapped âround the right front flipper, I

and the flipper was atrophied and partially decayed. OCNGS was in full powef 

i

operation with four circulating water pumps and 2 dilution pumps. Turtle taken tci

MMSC in Brigantine, NJ, then to Sea World in Oiando, FL, with eventual releasé

into lhe ocean. i I

I

Jt23t1999

1310 hrs

LK Alive 26.4 cm SCL 2.9 kg lmpinged on CWS trash bars,

found upon routine inspection

19.6 C Turtle found alive, moving about normally and wiÉl no apparent injury- OCNGS

was in full power operation with four circulating wbter pumps and 2 difution

pumps- Turtle taken to MMSC in Brigantine. NJ, ihen to Virginia State Aquariúfn

with eventual release into the ocean.

10t23h959

0200 hrs

Cm Dead 27.û cm SCL 2.8 kg Found in DWS Bay #4 upon

routine cleaning of dìlution

intakes

17.1 C furtle found limp, immobile, no apparent breathinþ and resusc¡tation efforts weiq

rnsuccessful. OCNGS was in full power operatiln with four circulatìng water i

rurnps and 2 dilution pumps. Diluiion trash rackd were mechanically cle¿ned fid

¡revious day. Turtle sent to Cornell for necropsy¡but results have nol been 

i

'eceived to date. 

I

)6t231zrJl.JlÙ

1120 hrs

Cc Alive 47.8cm SCL 17.2 kg Found ¡n fronf of trash Þars ln

DWS Bay #l intake

25.3C Live turtle very active and no visible wnunds or injury. OCNGS was in full poweri

operation with four circulating water pumps and 2;dilution pumps- Transferred lol

MMSC in Briganline NJ, with eventual release intô the ocean.
s

-s

7t2t2000

1500 hrs

LK Dead 27-3 cm SCL 3.2ks Found floating into the trash bars

in DWS Bay #1 Ìntake on routine

inspection of dilution träsh racks

25-6 C fg

n

I

)1

furtle in freeze¡ until necropsy can be compleled. i

8i3l2000

1525 hrs

Cm Alive 29.2 cm SCL 3.4 kg Founci live in DWS Bay #4 intake

upon routine inspection of

dilution trash racks

28.8 C Turtle found alive, moving about normally and wñh no apparent injury. Carapaci

covered in barnacles: several marginal scutes hqd dull grayish coloration

(indicative of possible fungal infect¡on). OCNGS'was in full power operation wiit

four circulating water pumps and 2 dilution pumpis. Dilution trash racks

mechanically cleaned earlier the same day. Tu{e taken to MMSC in Brigantine

NJ, then to the Topsail lsland Rehab Center, NC¡ with eventual release into thÇ

ocean on October 12,2000.

8t28t2000

01 12 hæ

LK Alive 26.2 cm SCL 2-9 kg Found live in DWS Bay #1 ìntake

upon routine inspection of

dilution trash racks

26_5 C ïurtle found alive, moving about normally and wilh no apparent ín.jury. OCNGS

was in 72Yo power operation with four circulatinglwater pumps and 2 dilutìon

pumps. Dilution trash racks cleaned previous daty and inspected earlier same

níght of capture. Turtle taken to MMSC in Brìgaitine, NJ, then to the Topsail

lsland Rehab Center, NC, with anticipated eventual release into the ocean.

9i 1 8/2000

1310 hrs

Cc Alive 57.2 cm SCL 26.5 ks Found iive while routinely

inspecting CWS intake trash rack

BaylA

20 4C Turtle found alive, moving normally with no appatent ínjury. Majority of dorsal

surface c¡vered in bamacles; few scutes partiallf peeled- OCNGS was in full

power operation wilh four circulating water pumpS and 2 dilution pumps. Trash

racks cleaned previous afternoon- Turtle taken tÞ MMSC in Brigantine, NJ, and

^s Nt^-- u^-¡ Nt^ :^ t^t^

7tat2001

1430 hrs

Cm fiuv) Alive 26.7 cm SCL 2.3 kg Found five while routinely

inspecting CWS Bay fÊ4

26.7 C Turtle found alive, swimming freely in Bay lt4, mdving normally with no apparent

injury. Dorsal surface had several barnacles. OCNGS was in full power

operations with four circulating water pumps and]2 dilution pumps. Trash racks

cleaned the previous afternoon. Turtle taken to llarine Mammal Siranding

Center in Brigantine. NJ. After confiruning hea¡th and tagged, turtle released into

7t2212001

1744 hrs

Lk (juv) Dead 26 cm SCL 2.9 kg lmpinged on DWS Bay #5 trash

bars, fqund upon routine

inspection

26.9 C ïurtle found with deep slice wound between heacif and carapace on left side of

neck. OCNGS was in full power operation with fóur circulating water pumps and

2 dilution pumps. Irash racks cleaned at 330 hrsisame day. Turtle in freezer

',ñtil ñô^r ^ôr' ¡a, ¡l¡t ha car ¡ ¡n

8t14t200'l

0334 hrs

LK Dead 22.8 cm SCL;

21 .4 cm SCW

lmpinged on DWS Bay #6 27-8C Turtle appears fresh dead. no obvious prop wourids- Several scutes scraped on

carapace centerline and posterior notch. lntake rlelocity was 73 cm/sec and

OCNGS had 982 percent power generating capacity over previous 48 hrs. Trash

.-^t.^ ^t^^á^¡ ^c n^F t-õ ^^ñ^ ¡^., lñ+^1,^ ^^ñ^t 4,,.h¡¡;+., hi^h
o

6t29t2002

0200

LK Alive 25.4 cm SCL;

24.1 cm SCW

nla Found alive, swimming in CWS

Bay #5 and #6 cooling water

intake, upon routine inspection of

trash racks. Removed with large

dìpnet.

26.2 C furtle alive and active. appears healthy. Fresh sþar (?) on right side of carapacê.

3CNGS had 99.9% power- CWSìrash racks cleþned -4 hrs earfier (2200

il28l\2). Animal delivered to MMSC at 0455 hr$ - wound determined to not be i

>f signifìcant concem (eatlng and appeared healthy) Turtle later dìed at MMSC:

rnd necropsy performed- Found to be female, 

1ll 

t¡ssues surrounding cracked i

71312002

0755

LK Alive 34 cm SCL;

32.5 cm SCW

6kg Found alive, swimming in front of

DWS Eay #5 intake trash bars,

upon rOutine inspection.

Þamar¡orl rrriih ¡linnat

28.2C Turtle alive and active, appears h m long on dorsal

scute- OCNGS had 100% power. 0500 hrs. l

Animal delìvered to MMSC at 101 ng weli. Tagged

lmnnolloar lfQql l 17\ an¡¡ ralaacarl an l¡ ¡h¡ O ^oÀ. n.;^-^+;^- ¡rl t I

9124120A3

1455

LK Alive 31.1 cm SCL;

30.5 cm SCW

11.5 lbs Found alive, in intake pipe at

DWS Bay #6.

(Jt- ïurtle alive and active, appears healthy. One latéral scute chipped (old); 2

scrapes on ventral surface. OCNGS had 100% power. Screen last inspected g.

23-03 1345 hrs. Animal picked up by MMSC at.tr745 hrs; healthy and active.

T¡¡naá on¡l rala¡oa¡{ ¡n o DÃ ^^-. O.;^^^+l^^ Xd I

10t24t2003

0850

Cm fiuv) Alive 36.2 cm SCL;

30.5 cm SCW

6.9 kg Found alive, against CWS lntake

Bay tt4.

53F

(11.7 C)

Iurtle alive and alert, appears healthy but a bit lethargic. One scraped dorsal

scute and one chipped lateral scute- Heavy algaf growth on carapace. OCNGS

had 98% power. Screen last inspected 1O-24-O3 0500 hrs. Animal picked up br

MMSC at 1030 hrs; healthy and act¡ve. Heid at MMSC and then transferred tq

\/trQtt f^..^k-k ^^¡ a..¡-*.,-r --l---^ I

7t4t2004

1215 hrs

LK Dead 26.5 cm SCL;

25 cm SCW

5.4 kq Found dead upon routine

cleaning at DWS Bay #4 trash

racks

25.6 C

(78 F)

Turtie fresh dead, no obvious prop wounds or otliter injuries. Minor

scrape/bruising on piastron near centerline. OCI¡GS had 100% percent powe(

generating capacity over previous 48 hrs. Trash iacks cleaned at 0800 hrs samr

day. Delivered to MMSC for necropsy at 1500 hfs: female; all intemal organs

healthy/unremarkable; stomach of crab parts; lu4gs appeared normal but sank ir

salt water solution and felt compressed. Probable cause of death--suffocation.

7111t2004

1422hrs

LK Alive 23 cm SCL;

22 cm SCW

1.8 kg Upon routine cleanìng, found

swimming upstream of DWS Bay

#5 trash racks. Turtle sudaced

and dove, and personnel

.^+.ì^.,^A }h^ ¡ai-al

81.5 F

(27.5 C)

TurÌle appeared in good condition. Some minor dcrapes noted on ventra! surfact

of carapace (plastron?). OCNGS hacl 100% powêr. Screen iast inspected 7-1 1-

04 at 1315 hrs. Anìmal taken to MMSC at 1623 hrs. Examined and released 2

days later off Brigantìne, NJ. i

7t16t2004

1100 hrs

LK Alive 28 cm SCL 3.1 kg Found alive upon routine

clean¡ng of DWS Bay #5 trash

r¡¡kc

76F

(22.4 C)

Turtle appeared in good condition Some small scr¿¡pes noted on plastron.

OCNGS had 100% power. Screen fast inspected 7-16-04 at 0900 hrs. Animai

r-Lôñ +^ ÂrtlQt- ãr 1?ñô h¡a Êvamiaa¡{ anrl ¡alaåcarl nf{ Þri¡cntina l'l I

7t20t2004

1213 hrs

LK Dead 18.3 cm SCL 0.8 kg Found dead upon routine

cleaning of CWS Bay #1 trash

racks

79.7 F

(26.5 C)

Resuscitation attempted but unsuccessful. Smal| puncture wound 1.3 cm

diameter in left rear surface of carapace. OCNGS had 100% power. Screen las

inspected 7-1944 a12115 hrs. Taken to MMSC bt 1000 on 7-2'l-04 for

8t712004

0900 hrs

LK Alive 27 cm SCL 3.2 kg Found alíve upon routíne

cleaning of DWS Bay #5 trash

racks

72.8 F

(22.7 c)

Turtle appeared healthy and moving normally. Srhall bruise noted on plastron

and healed scar ftom previous injury on left side of head in front of eye. OCNGS

had 100% power. Screen last inspedre d 8-7-04 çt 0515 hrs. Animal taken to

MMSC on B-7-04. Examined and subseeuentlv ¡leleased into ocean off

erinan+ina N! r trYatrFntn rrq ' 

I
sh 112004

1010 hrs

LK Dead 22.3 cm SCL;

22.9 cm SCW

2.2k9 Found dead upon routine

cleaning of DWS Bay #5 trash

ra¡lrc

24.3 C dersides of all 4 flippers. Small puncture wound tor I

GUt 1o rear of carapaée. Animat taken io MMSC. thel^r

EXCEEDED ITS i i

9112t2004

2329 hrs

LK Alive 21 cm SCL;

19.5 cm CW

1.4 kg Found alive upon routine

cleaning of CWS #5 trash racks

24.9 C \ctive and eating on Ìts own. Bruising to plastron and undersides of all 4

1ippers. Missing left front flipper (clean amputa'tþn). Small bump on beak aree

:f head- Turtle was taken to the MMSC in BrÌgañtine, NJ, where it was

;xamìned, measured, fed and held for observaticin prior to release. The turtle

¡r,as transoorled fo trhe VMSM for facoino ¡nd relàace FYlìFtrnFn lTs

9¡23t2004

2145 hrs

LK Alive 24.2 cm SCL 1.9 kg Found alíve swimming in CWS

Bay #3 cooling water intake,

upon rcutine inspection of trash

21.9 C Turtle appeared alert and responsive. Turtle wds taken to the MMSC in

Brigantine, NJ, where it was examined, m.asureb, fed and held for observatior¡

prior to release. The turtfe was transported to thç VMSM for tagging and

release FX(ìFFDFD lT-S i

7t412005

0905 hrs

LK Dead 23.2 cm SCL 1.4 kg Found in DWS Bay #1 upon

routine cieaning of dilutíon

intakes

21.9 C Turtle was found dead among - Turtle was takeir to the MMSC in Brigantine,

NJ, where it was examined, measured, the necrdpsy was preformed.- necropsy

results: skill crushed by possible prop strike, riglit carapace nearshoulder

cracked possible prop or skeg wound. unable toidetermine if injurìes were pre'o

post mortem. esophagus lined with black, gritty 4naterial. stomach and intestin€

8/5/2005

0500 hrs

LK Ave 23.6 cm SCL 1.9 ks Found alive swimming in CWS

Bay #4 cooling water intake,

upon routine inspection of trash

racks.

28.2C Turtle appeared alert and responsive, wound obÈerved on front left flipper.

Turtle was laken to the MMSC in Brigantine, NJ, ¡rhere it was examined,

measured, fed and held for observation. The turtlp was then sent to the Sea

Turtle Rescue and Rehabllitiation Center in Topsbil, NC for furthe¡ rehab. On

August 12, the turtle was trasported to the NC Siàte Veter¡nary School for

amputation of the wounded flipper. The turtle will u¡¿s¡t. further rehab before

hoinn ¡olcaca¡l .

6i3012006

1 

.100 hrs

LK Alive 27.3cm SCL,

25.8 cm

SCW

3.5k9 Found among the vegetation and

debrls removed from Bay #1 of

the DWS

25.6C Active, scrapes on dorsal and ventral carapace. iTransferred to MMSC and

released on July 5. :

711712006

0935 hrs

LK Alive

25.2 SCL,

24.00 scw

2.63 kg ln water within Bay #5 of the

DWS

26_7C ethargic during tranport but became alert and re3ponsive at MMSC. minor

¡brasions on carapace, plastron and head. sevefe bru¡sing on neck and base of

all four flippers. Abrasions and bruising on neck and flippers. Transfened to 

I

\itM-RC Annearc fô hê r'lninn finc iannad and ricace¡{ hv t\lÀltQC nn lrrlr¡ lQ

7t1912006

2130hrs

LK Alive

26.7 SCL,

24.8 SCW

3-2kg Found among the vegetation and

debris removed from Bay #1 of

+ho l-ìÀ/Q

2A1C Algae on catapce and minor bruising on plastronJ ll was found late at night and

was transferred to MMSC on7l2O am. Releasediby MMSC on July 23

7t25t2006

O425hrs

LK Dead

28.5cm SCL,

26cm SCW

3.3k9 Found dead among the

vegetation and debris removed

from Bay #4 of the DWS

27.9C Dead and moderately decomposed. OC staff repórted that several scutes

broken, areas of brusing and crush¡ng wounds toicarapace and plastron.

Necropsy conducted by MMSC - stomach and intÞstines fuJI of crab claws and

parts. moderately decomposed. carapace and plastron shor¡¡ evidence of being

crushed, possibly post-mortem. carapace had a iough break and scutes peelirig

8t1t2006

0507hrs

cc Alive

74 SCL,

65SWC

50 4kg ln waterwithìn Bay #1 of the

CWS

29.4C OC staff reported no visible wounds or bruising. humerous barnacles on i

ca(apace. transferred to MMSC - observed, doinþ well and released on Augusl 

I

2 i il

10t5t2006

0940hrs

cc Alive

20.3 SCL

Found among the vegetation and

debris removed from Bay #6 of

rha ñtÂlQ

18.8C lilution water intake bay 6 Missing front right flipper but has scar tissue and is

realed. Wound opened up from abrasion againstltrash rack- Transported to

t¡f MSC and f hen lo Tonc:il fnr srrrneru la reoair nld worrnd
F

3t9t2007

l925hrs

-K ave 25.4cm 2.7k9 Found among the vegetation and

debris removed from trash rack at

Bay #4 of the CWS

27.9C Alive and active. Transferred to MMSC - released into Atlantic Ocean by

MMSC on same day

16-1 4-1 0

1715 hrs

Oc alive 48.7cm SCL +4.6l'b DWS Bay 5 25.1C alive and active. Several old and healing scrapes on the posterior of the

carapace and plastron. Small amount of algal growth on the carapace.

Transferred to MMSC and released by MMSC.

9/t7/20O9

1050 hrs

CM alive 26.5SCL 5.41b on trash rack at Bay 4 DWs 18.7C alive and active after retrieval from trash grates. Two minor shallow

scarpaes on ventral surface. Tranported to MMSC released offshore

Brigantine lsland, NJ on September 18, 2009

911612007

0803hrs

LK alive 29.3cm 4.3k9 Found among the vegetation and

debris removed from trash rack at

Bay #4 of the DWS

2_1C Alive and active. Turtle observed swimming near CWS earlier in morning,

likely to be same turtle. Transfened to MMSC - released into Atlantic Ocean

by MMSC on 9-20-07.

6t27t2008

0115 hrs

LK alive 21.7cm SCL 3.41b ln water at Bay L of CWS 25.6C cooling water intake bay 1. alive with light scrape/bruise on ventral surface.

Transported to MMSC at 5:lSam same day. Tagged by MMSG reported

as active with no major injuries. Transported to MD and released by

MMSC off a USGG vessel on712312008

7t07t2008

0131 hrs

LK alive 25.9 cm SCL 5.91b ln water at Bay 3 of CWS 25C cooling water intake bay 3. alive and active. Minor bruising on plastron

and ventral surfaces of flippers. Transported to MMSC at 4:30 same day.

MMSC reported heavy barnacle load and abnormal bloodwork - treated

with antibiotics. Transported to MD and released by MMSC off a

USGG vessel on 7 12312008

7/2712008

0101 hrs

LK alive 20.7cm SCL 3.2lb ln water at Bay 1 of CWS 77.6C cooling water intake bay 1. observed prior to raking and removed with net.

alive with 3 cm laceration partially healed on left rear flipper and 1 cm cut

on left posterior of plastron near LRF. . Minor bruising on plastron and

ventral surface of flippers. Transported to MMSC same day. MMSC

transferred to VAMSG on 8-4-08. released by VAQS on 8/26108 in Cape

Gharles, VA.

7t2712008

0119 hrs

LK tve 25.5cm SCL 5.4 lb ln water at Bay L of CWS 27.6F cooling water intake bay 1. observed prior to raking and removed with net.

Alive and alert with minor bruising on plastron and ventral surface of

flippers. minor 'l cm laceration on dorsal surface of LRF. RRF missing a

portion of the tip - old healed injury. Transported to MMSC same day.

MMSC transferred to VAMSG on 08-04-08. released by VAQS on

8126108 in Gape Gharles, VA.

0713112008

1719 hrs

LK alive 22.5cm SCL 1.4 lb ln water within Bay 6 of the DWS 27.1C dilution water intake bay 6. lethargic with minor abrasions on skin, large

barnacle embedded under LFF, 2 barnacles under right eye, few barnacles

on carapace, minor bruising on plastron. Transferred to MMSG on same

day. MMSG transferred to VAMSC on 8-04-08. released by VAQS on

8126108 in Cape Charles, VA.
o9-12-2008

2112 hrs

LK dead 24.5cm SCL sb on trash rack Bay 6 of DWS 26.4C found among debris on face of trash rack in dilution water intake bay 6.

turtle severely decomposed and presumed dead prior to impingement --

racks had been cleaned 24 hours prior and inspected 4 hours prior.

Partially curshed carapace and deep narrow slice wound. transferred to

MMSC - determined death likely due to severe trauma to head and

carapace indicative of propellor wound. MMSC buried turtle on beach.

6/23/2}os

1010 hrs

LK alive 30cm SCL 7.61b ln water at Bay 5 of DWS 2L.5C turtle active and appears to be in good health. No visible injuries observed.

Transfened to MMSC - released by MMSC into Ocean in NJ on same day

7/17l20os

1400 hrs

LK dead 23.4cm SCL 6.5lbs on trash rack Bay 5 of DW5 26.2C observed in dilution water intake bay 5. 90% operation. Turtle was inactive

and removed from water. Resuscitation was attempted. MMSC necropsy

indicates that this was a female and multifocal hard nodules were present

in the liver. MMSC could not rule out drowning as a cause of death but

does state that the turtle was likely debilitated prior to encountering the

plant. MMSC buried the turtle on Brignantine lsland, NJ

7/23/2OOs

1250 hrs

LK dead 24.7cm SCL 4.91b on trash rack Bay 6 of DWS 25.2C turtle was inactive upon retrieval from the trash gates and resucitation was

attempted. Turtle had no puncture wounds or signs of major injury but did

have a 6.Scm long shallow scrape near midline. MMSC necropsy indicated

froth in left lung and froth and blood clots in the righ tlung. MMSC indicated

this was consitent with drowning. MMSC buried the turtle on Brigantine

lsland, NJ

3/s/2009 LK alive 23cm SCL 39b ln water at Bay #1of the CWS 29.4C very active after retrieval from trash gates and appeared healthy with no

signs of physical trauma. Transferred to MMSC and released.

8/ls/2009

1825 hrs

LK alive l0.7cm SCL 10.21b ln water at Bay 1 of DWS 28.8C active upon retrieval from water. No visible injuries. Turned over to MMSC.

MMSC reported in excellent condition and released it that day

09-1 0-2009

1 030 hrs

LK alive 24.7cm SCL 4.8 b ln water Bay 6 DWS 't9-7C alive but lethargic - evidence of previous injury on carapace (lOcm crack).

Went to MMSC that day. Transfened to Riverhead for rehab due to deep

wound (likely boat propellor)

9-25-2009

142O hrs

LK dead Z1.4cm SCL 3.slb Found among the vegetation and

debris removed from trash rack at

Bay #6 of the DWS

22.8C not active upon removal from intake bay - obviously dead. Necropsy was

peformed at MMSC - likely dead 1-2 days with no obvious cause of

death...no wounds or abnormalities upon necropsy. Gl tract contained crab

parts. Racks had been inspected 3 hrs prior to detection and cleaned 24

hours previously.
.t

9-25-2009

1440 hrs

LK alive

but died

shortly

after

removal

from

water

27cm SCL 6.11b ln water Bay 6 DWS 22.8C not active upon removal from intake bay but appeared to be alive.

Resuscitation was attempted but no results achieved other than a small

amount of water was drained from turtle. Turtle was dead when MMSC

responded. Necropy indicates this was a female turtle and cause of death

was drowning - fluid in lungs and lungs were compressed. digestive tract

full of crab hard parts and bladder had a small amount of urine. abrasions

on plastron and carapace.

10-07-2009

1 100hrs

LK alive

but died

at

MMSC

31.6cm SCL 10.01b ln water at Bay 6 DWS 20.1C Active and alert when retrieved from intake bay. Transferred to MMSC on

same day. MMSC noted bruising on flippers, bloodshot eyes and lethargy.

Upon arrival at MMSC turtle was not eating and died within 3 days.

Necropsy done at U Florida and cause of death determined to be

pneumonia and septicemia

1 0-30-09

1730 hrs

LK alive 26.4cm SCL s.6lb ln water at Bay 4 CWS 14.9C Fairly active upon removal from intake bay. Picked up by MMSC same day

MMSC reports animal was lethargic and cold. Skin was pink, turtle

dehydrated with sunken eyes, algae on carapace, head and plastron.

missing tips of RFF, LRF and RRF, small chip near rear tip of carapace,

several small holes in carapace, few small bamacales. MMSC observed it

eating very little and transported to Riverhead for rehab.

06-24-10

2155 hrs

LK alive 25.5cm SCL 4.9lbs DWS Bay 6 26.9C alive and active. Several small abrasions on plastron and carapce. Small

amount of scaring on flippers. Transferred to MMSC and released by

MMSC on 6-28-10

06-26-1 0

820hrs

LK alive 27.5cm SCL 3.21b CWS Bay 5 25.5C aliúe and active. Minor gouges on ridge of carapace that are old and

healing. Transferred to MMSC and released by MMSC on 6-28-10

07-03-1 0

0036 hrs

LK rlive 31.8cm SCL 10.21b CWS Bay 5 25.9C alive and active. Small scratches on carapace. Three old wounds partially

healed. Transfened to MMSC and released by MMSC on 7-9-10

l7-09-1 0

JO25

LK dead 33cm SCL 13b DWS Bay 6 31.05C dead. Scrapes on shell and small puncture wound in middle of chest.

Necroosv reoort not vet available.

101512010

1130 hrs

CM alive 30.6cm SCL 7b CWS Bay 4 16.3C alive and alert. Minor scrapes and bruises. Transferred to MMSC and

relased on 10-6-10

1 0-05-1 0

l'135

LK ave 33.6cm SCL L1.21b CWS Bay 4

'16.3C alive and alert. Minor scrapes and bruises. Transferred to MMSC and

relased on 10-6-10

10-1 1-10

0030

CM alive 28.8cm SCL 6.4 b CWS Bay 5 18.4C alive and alert. Small abrasion on nose and old healing scrapes on

plastron. Transferrred to MMSC and released on 10-1 1-10

1 0-30-1 0

0403

3M alive 26cm SCL CWS Bay 1 15.1C alive. No apparent injuries. Transferred to MMSL.

06-07-1 1

9:15 hrs LK

alive

25.1 cm SCL 6.4 tb DWS Bay 1 21.3C

alive and alert. Some bruising on plastron. Transferred to MMSC and

released.

ub-uv-1 1

17:34 hrs LK

Cead

2.1.5cm SCL 3.01b DWS Bav 4 27 '1C

dead. MMSU necropsy oetermrneo rt was oeao aI lrme oï rmprngemenr oue

to amount of decomp.
l8-1 3-1 1

l:55 hrs OM

alive

22.0 SCL 3.1 lbs CWS Bav 5 28.8C

alive and active. Minor scrapes on plastron. Transferred to MMSC and

released on 8-17-11

)8-22-11

l:40 hrs LK

alive

32.7 cm SCL 10lbs CWS Bay 6 28.1C

alive and active upon removal from water. Lethargic upon anival at MMSC.

Bruising and scrapes on plastron. Transfened to MMSC and released on 8.

24-11

)8-27-11

l:30 hrs _k

alive

32.0 cm SCL 3.8 lbs CWS Bay 1 28C

alive and active. Scrapes on plastron. Iranstened to MMSC ancl released

on 8-29-1 1

08-27-11

16:30 hrs _k

alive

32.0 cm SCL 11.2 lbs DWS Bav 4 25.7C

alive and alert. Scrapes on plastron. Old scar on shell - small section of left

rearflipper missing. Transferred to MMSCand released on 8-29

l8-30-1 1

l:45 hrs lc

alive

61.4 cm SCL 81.4 lbs 3WS Bay 5 22.8C

alive and alert. Many barnacles on shell, neck and flippers. Right front

flipper missing outer half and infected (pre-existing wound). Two severe

bites on right front flipper. Tooth rakes from shark. Transfened to MMSC

on Aug 30 at 12:45 then taken to VMSC for long term rehab

09-28-11

2:34 hrs LK

dead

24.8cm SCL 6.2lbs DWS Bay 2 25.5C

dead. MMSC necropsy determ¡ned ¡t was dead at t¡me of ¡mp¡ngement due

to amount of decomp.

h
116

APPENDIX II 

Handling and Resuscitation Procedures Sea Turtles Found at OCNGS 

Handling: 

Do not assume that an inactive turtle is dead. The onset of rigor mortis and/or rotting flesh are often the 

only definite indications that a turtle is dead. Releasing a comatose turtle into any amount of water will 

drown it, and a turtle may recover once its lungs have had a chance to drain. There are three methods 

that may elicit a reflex response from an inactive animal:

Nose reflex. Press the soft tissue around the nose which may cause a retraction of the head or 

neck region or an eye reflex response. 

Cloaca or tail reflex. Stimulate the tail with a light touch. This may cause a retraction or side 

movement of the tail. 

Eye reflex. Lightly touch the upper eyelid. This may cause an inward pulling of the eyes, 

flinching or blinking response. 

 

General handling guidelines:

Keep clear of the head. 

Adult male sea turtles of all species other than leatherbacks have claws on their foreflippers. 

Keep clear of slashing foreflippers.

Pick up sea turtles by the front and back of the top shell (carapace). Do not pick up sea turtles by 

flippers, the head or the tail. 

If the sea turtle is actively moving, it should be retained at the OCNGS until transported by 

stranding/rehabilitation personnel to the nearest designated stranding/rehabilitation facility. The 

rehabilitation facility should eventually release the animal in the appropriate location and habitat 

for the species and size class of the turtle. Turtles should not be released where there is a risk of 

re-impingement at OCNGS. 

Sea Turtle Resuscitation Regulations: (50 CFR 223.206(d)(1)) 

If a turtle appears to be comatose (unconscious), contact the designated stranding/rehabilitation personnel 

immediately. Once the rehabilitation personnel has been informed of the incident, attempts should be 

made to revive the turtle at once. Sea turtles have been known to revive up to 24 hours after resuscitation 

procedures have been followed. 

Place the animal on its bottom shell (plastron) so that the turtle is right side up and elevate the 

hindquarters at least 6 inches for a period of 4 up to 24 hours. The degree of elevation depends 

on the size of the turtle; greater elevations are required for larger turtles. 

Periodically, rock the turtle gently left to right and right to left by holding the outer edge of the 

shell (carapace) and lifting one side about 3 inches then alternate to the other side. 

Periodically, gently conduct one of the above reflex tests to see if there is a response. 

Keep the turtle in a safe, contained place, shaded, and moist (e.g., with a water-soaked towel over 

the eyes, carapace, and flippers) and observe it for up to 24 hours. 

If the turtle begins actively moving, retain the turtle until the appropriate rehabilitation personnel 

can evaluate the animal. The rehabilitation facility should eventually release the animal in a 

manner that minimizes the chances of re-impingement and potential harm to the animal (i.e., 

from cold stunning).

Turtles that fail to move within several hours (up to 24) should be transported to a suitable 

facility for necropsy (if the condition of the sea turtle allows). 
117

APPENDIX II, continued (Handling and Resuscitation Procedures)

Stranding/rehabilitation contact in New Jersey: 

Bob Schoelkopf, Marine Mammal Stranding Center 

P.O. Box 773 

Brigantine, NJ 

(609-266-0538) 

Special Instructions for Cold-Stunned Turtles: 

-stunned". If a turtle 

appears to be cold-stunned, the following procedures should be conducted: 

Contact the designated stranding/rehabilitation personnel immediately and arrange for them to 

pick up the animal. 

Until the rehabilitation facility can respond, keep the turtle in a sheltered place, where the 

ambient temperature is cool and will not cause a rapid increase in core body temperature. 
118

APPENDIX III

Incident Report of Sea Turtle Take - OCNGS

Photographs should be taken and the following information should be collected from all turtles (alive 

and dead) found in association with the OCNGS. Please submit all necropsy results (including sex and 

stomach contents) to NMFS upon receipt. 

Observer's full name:_______________________________________________________ 

Reporter’s full name:_______________________________________________________

Species Identification (Key attached):__________________________________________ 

Site of Impingement (CWS or DWS, Bay #, etc.):_________________________________ 

Date animal observed:________________ Time animal observed: ________________________ 

Date animal collected:________________ Time animal collected:_________________________ 

Date rehab facility contacted: ________________ Time rehab facility contacted: _____________ 

Date animal picked up: _____________________ Time animal picked up: __________________ 

Environmental conditions at time of observation (i.e., tidal stage, weather): 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Date and time of last inspection of screen:_____________________________________ 

Number of pumps operating at time of observation:____________________________________ 

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit at time of observation:________ 

Average percent of power generating capacity achieved per unit over the 48 hours previous to 

observation:___________________________________________________________________ 

Sea Turtle Information: (please designate cm/m or inches) 

Fate of animal (circle one): dead alive 

Condition of animal (include comments on injuries, whether the turtle is healthy or emaciated, general 

behavior while at OCNGS):_______________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________(please complete attached diagram)

Carapace length - Curved:_______________Straight:________________ 

Carapace width - Curved:________________Straight:________________ 

Existing tags?: YES / NO Please record all tag numbers. Tag # _____________________ 

Photograph attached: YES / NO 

(please label species, date, location of impingement on back of photograph) 
119

APPENDIX III, continued (Incident Report of Sea Turtle Take)

Draw wounds, abnormalities, tag locations on diagram and briefly describe below. 

Description of animal: 

All information should be sent to the following address: 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region 

Protected Resources Division 

Attention: Endangered Species Coordinator 

55 Great Republic Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930 

Phone: (978) 281-9328

FAX: (978) 281-9394
120

APPENDIX IV 

Identification Key for Sea Turtles Found in Northeast U.S. Waters

SEA TURTLES

Leatherback (Dermocheyls coriacea) 

Found in open water throughout the Northeast from spring through 

fall. Leathery shell with 5-7 ridges along the back. Largest sea turtle 

(4-6 feet). Dark green to black; may have white spots on flippers and 

underside. 

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) 

Bony shell, reddish-brown in color. Mid-sized sea turtle (2-4 feet). 

Commonly seen from Cape Cod to Hatteras from spring through fall, 

especially in southern portion of range. Head large in relation to 

body. 

Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) 

Most often found in Bays and coastal waters from Cape Cod to 

Hatteras from summer through fall. Offshore occurrence 

undetermined. Bony shell, olive green to grey in color. Smallest 

sea turtle in Northeast (9-24 inches). Width equal to or greater 

than length. 

Dc

Cc

Lk
121

APPENDIX IV, continued (Identification Key) 

SEA TURTLES

Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Uncommon in the Northeast. Occur in Bays and coastal waters 

from Cape Cod to Hatteras in summer. Bony shell, variably 

colored; usually dark brown with lighter stripes and spots. Small to 

mid-sized sea turtle (1-3 feet). Head small in comparison to body 

size. 

Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Rarely seen in Northeast. Elongate bony shell with overlapping scales. 

Color variable, usually dark brown with yellow streaks and spots 

(tortoise-shell). Small to mid-sized sea turtle (1-3 feet). Head 

relatively small, neck long. 

Cm

Ei