Revised Biological Assessment for Designation 

of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site

off Jacksonville, Florida

January 2015

Appendix C: Biological Assessment

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action.................................................................. 1

1.2. Description of Action Area..................................................................................... 3

1.3. Listed and/or Proposed Species or Critical Habitat Within the Action Area ................. 3

2. DESCRIPTION OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT THAT MAY BE 

AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................... 5

2.1. Sea Turtles.......................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1. Loggerhead Sea Turtle .......................................................................... 5

2.1.2. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle ....................................................................... 6

2.1.3. Green Sea Turtle................................................................................... 7

2.1.4. Leatherback Sea Turtle.......................................................................... 8

2.2. Marine Mammals.................................................................................................. 8

2.2.1. North Atlantic Right Whale...................................................................... 8

2.2.2. Humpback Whale .................................................................................14

2.3. Fish ..................................................................................................................14

2.3.1. Shortnose Sturgeon..............................................................................14

2.3.2. Smalltooth Sawfish ...............................................................................15

2.3.3. Atlantic Sturgeon ..................................................................................15

3. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION.............................................................................18

3.1. Sea Turtles.........................................................................................................19

3.2. Marine Mammals.................................................................................................19

3.3. Fish ..................................................................................................................20

3.3.1. Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon............................................................20

3.3.2. Smalltooth Sawfish ...............................................................................20

4. MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND COMPENSATE FOR EFFECTS ......................23

4.1. Sea Turtles.........................................................................................................23

4.2. Marine Mammals.................................................................................................23

5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS............................................................................24

6. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................27

7. LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................29

8. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................33
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

ii

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Region of Interest Showing Proposed Alternatives and Existing Jacksonville 

and Fernandina Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites.......................................2

Figure 2-1 North Atlantic Right Whale Migration Patterns .....................................................10

Figure 2-2 North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat...........................................................11

Figure 2-3 North Atlantic Right Whale Occurrences within the Region of Interest .................12

Figure 2-4 Whale Strandings within the Project Area (1991-2006)........................................13

Figure 2-5 FWRI Right Whale Sightings 2008-2009..............................................................14

Figure 2-6 Range of the Atlantic Sturgeon ............................................................................18

TABLES

Table 1-1 ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat under the Jurisdiction of NMFS 

Potentially Occurring within the Action Area...........................................................4

Table 2-1 Sea Turtle Nesting Data for Duval County, Florida (1990-2011) ............................6

Table 3-1 Summary of the Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on ESA-Listed Species ......19

Table 6-1 Summary of Effects on Listed Species and Critical Habitat..................................27
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

ASSRT Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team

BA biological assessment

CDF confined disposal facility

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality

cy cubic yards

DoN Department of the Navy

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA/USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

EWS early warning system

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FWRI Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

MLLW mean lower low water

NARW North Atlantic right whale

NARWC North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

nmi nautical mile(s)

ODMDS ocean dredged material disposal site

ROI region of influence

SARBO South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion

SRT Status Review Team

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA, EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

iv

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) proposes to designate a new or 

expanded ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) offshore of Jacksonville, Duval 

County, Florida. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to 

ensure that any action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 

threatened species, including destruction or adverse modification of these species’ critical 

habitats. This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared in accordance with Section 7 of 

the ESA to analyze potential impacts to nine species under the jurisdiction of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) known to occur within the action area.

1.1. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

The existing Jacksonville ODMDS is located approximately 5 nmi southeast of the mouth of the 

St. Johns River on the continental shelf off the east coast of Florida (Figure 1-1). It is 1 nmi by 

1 nmi (1 nmi2) in size and is the primary site for placement of dredged material originating from 

the Jacksonville Harbor Federal Navigation Project and Naval Station Mayport. Due to capacity 

issues at this site, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District (USACE) and EPA 

have identified a need to either expand the existing Jacksonville ODMDS or designate a new 

ODMDS in the vicinity. The need for expanding current ocean disposal capacity is based on 

observed mounding, future capacity modeling, historical dredging volumes, lack of upland 

confined disposal facilities (CDF), and estimates of future proposed projects. 

The purpose of the proposed action (designation of an ODMDS) is to ensure that adequate 

environmentally acceptable and economically and logistically feasible ocean disposal site 

capacity is available for the next 50 years for suitable dredged material generated from new 

projects and maintenance dredging in the vicinity. This site will be used for the disposal of 

suitable dredged material originating in the Duval County region that is in compliance with the 

Ocean Dumping Criteria (40 CFR 227). The availability of suitable ocean disposal sites to 

support ongoing maintenance and capital improvement projects is essential for the continued 

use and economic growth of vital commercial and recreational areas in the region. As part of 

the site designation process, initial screening of alternative sites based on environmental, 

operational, and economic criteria were conducted to identify viable alternative sites that were 

evaluated in more detail during the site designation studies. These alternatives are described in 

detail in Chapter 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS evaluates the 

potential physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts associated with the 

proposed designation of the new ODMDS offshore of Jacksonville, Florida. The alternatives 

considered in the EIS and in this BA include the expansion of the existing Jacksonville ODMDS 

(Alternative 1a), designation of a new site south of the Jacksonville ODMDS (Alternative 2), 

designation of a new site north of the Jacksonville ODMDS (Alternative 3), and the No Action 

Alternative (Figure 1-1). 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

2
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

3

1.2. Description of Action Area

The action area (or region of influence [ROI]) is defined as the geographic area in which listed 

species could potentially be affected by the proposed action. Since vessels will be transiting 

between the St. Johns River and the designated site during dredged material disposal activities, 

the marine habitats inshore of the alternatives sites are also considered in this assessment. 

Therefore, the action area includes marine areas in the vicinity of the alternative sites (Figure 1-

1). 

The three alternative sites are situated on the inner continental shelf from approximately 6.7 to 

9.3 nmi from the mouth of the St. Johns River. Depths range from approximately 43 to 66 feet 

mean lower low water (MLLW). The ocean bottom is characterized by sand ridges and regular 

and irregular large-scale bedforms as evidenced in sidescan imagery collected in October 2009 

and March 2010, suggesting varying hydrodynamic influences, including tidal, longshore, and 

storm-derived currents. The bottom substrate is predominantly fine and medium quartz sand 

with fine shell fragments and traces of silt. Discrete areas of hardbottom are present near the 

existing Jacksonville ODMDS and appear as isolated piles and some more dispersed limestone 

material, ranging from pebble- to boulder-sized. The shape, pattern, and distribution of these 

features, along with historical use of the ODMDS to the south and east of existing boundaries, 

suggest that they are from prior disposal events. Hardbottom ledges and patchy low-relief reefs 

are present to the east of Alternative 3. Hardbottom habitats within and adjacent to each 

alternative site were groundtruthed and mapped. For a more detailed discussion of these 

habitats, see Final Report and Addendum to Final Report – Jacksonville ODMDS 

Reconnaissance Sidescan Sonar Survey (ANAMAR 2010).

1.3. Listed and/or Proposed Species or Critical Habitat Within the 

Action Area

Based on the species lists reviewed by NMFS, nine species listed under the ESA as 

endangered and threatened under the jurisdiction of NMFS potentially occur within the action 

area (Table 1-1) (NMFS 2010a). In addition, critical habitat has been designated for the North 

Atlantic right whale and loggerhead sea turtle. The BA addresses the potential impacts of 

designating a new or expanded ODMDS offshore of Jacksonville, Florida on these federally 

listed species and critical habitat. This BA is based upon literature review; data from NMFS, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC); and previous agency consultations on similar projects in the vicinity such 

as Final EIS for the Proposed Homeporting of Additional Surface Ships at Naval Station 

Mayport, Florida (NAVFAC 2008).
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

4

Table 1-1. ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat under the Jurisdiction of NMFS 

Potentially Occurring within the Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status

SEA TURTLES

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened; critical habitat

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered/Threatened1

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered

MARINE FISH

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered

Atlantic sturgeon – South 

Atlantic DPS Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Endangered

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered

MARINE MAMMALS

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered; critical habitat 

designated2

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered

1 Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as 

endangered.

2 Based on the 2006 relisting of separate right whale species in the northern Pacific and northern Atlantic oceans, 

NMFS is in the process of re-designating critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. A proposed critical 

habitat rule for the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) has been submitted to the Federal Register. As of March 

2014, no ruling has been made.

Source: NMFS 2010a
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

5

2. DESCRIPTION OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL 

HABITAT THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED 

ACTION

A total of nine threatened, endangered, or proposed endangered species under the jurisdiction 

of the NMFS potentially occur within or in the vicinity of the action area (Table 1-1). This section 

describes these species and their associated critical habitat.

2.1. Sea Turtles

2.1.1. Loggerhead Sea Turtle

Loggerhead sea turtles have a wide distribution including the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 

oceans. Loggerheads nest in the temperate and subtropical regions of their geographic 

distribution, and in the U.S. the most common nesting areas include the coastal region between 

North Carolina and Florida, including the Florida Gulf coast. In the southeastern U.S., the 

nesting season for loggerheads is late May through early September. Females lay 

approximately five nests annually on high-energy beaches characterized as narrow and steeply 

sloped with coarse-grained sand. There is a 2-month incubation period after which eggs hatch, 

resulting in births from June through November. Hatchlings struggle through the surf and 

attempt to swim away from land until they are able to take refuge in the downward current of 

surface water of the ocean. Several months are often spent in these nursery areas until ocean 

currents move the young turtles farther offshore to grow. A pelagic existence can last between 

7 and 12 years for juveniles before migration back to nearshore coastal areas to mature until 

adulthood. Western North Atlantic adult loggerheads forage predominately in areas throughout 

the relatively shallow continental shelf waters of the U.S., Bahamas, Cuba, and the Yucatán 

Peninsula, Mexico. Adults migrate between foraging habitats and beaches for nesting along the 

continental shelf or long distances across oceanic waters (NMFS and USFWS 1993; DoN

2002). 

The loggerhead turtle was listed as threatened in 1978 (NMFS 1978), and there are concerns 

for this species due to numerous human activities that impact nesting areas including alterations 

of beaches, such as beach armoring to prevent erosion for beachfront development or beach 

nourishment to replace sand lost to natural erosion. Adult mortality can be caused by a number 

of factors, including, but not limited to, coastal development that destroys foraging habitat and 

numerous types of fisheries that involve bycatch (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Although 

populations appear to be rebounding in some areas of their distribution, this is not the case in all 

areas. Data collected by USFWS indicated a steady and steep decline in the number of nests 

sighted in Florida from 1998 through 2007 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). NMFS has determined 

that the loggerhead turtle has nine distinct population segments (DPSs). As of 2011, four DPSs 

are listed as threatened and five are listed as endangered, including the northwest Atlantic 

Ocean DPS (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm, accessed 2/27/12).

Approximately 90% of all loggerhead nesting in the continental U.S. takes place in Florida

(FWRI 2007a). The 2011 FWC Index Nesting Beach Survey results indicate loggerhead nest 

counts on Florida's index beaches have declined from a peak of nearly 60,000 in 1998. 

A detailed analysis of Florida's long-term loggerhead nesting data (1989-2011) revealed that 

following a 24% increase between 1989 and 1998, nest counts declined 16% between 

1998 and 2011. However, the recent trend may be stabilizing. Loggerhead sea turtle nest 

counts in 2011 were close to the average for the preceding 5-year period 

(http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/, accessed 2/27/12). In 

Duval County, nesting totals have fluctuated, but have shown an overall increase between 1990
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

6

and 2011. Table 2-1 contains 1990 to 2011 nesting data for loggerhead, leatherback, and 

green sea turtles in Duval County.

The beaches inshore of the action area are habitat for loggerhead nesting, and the nearshore 

areas are sufficient for pelagic juvenile habitat and adult feeding activities (NAVFAC 2008). 

Loggerheads are the most commonly sighted sea turtles off the Atlantic coast of north Florida 

(DoN 2002) and are expected to occur in the vicinity of the alternative sites throughout the year. 

Table 2-1. Sea Turtle Nesting Data for Duval County, Florida (1990-2011)

Year Loggerhead Leatherback Green

1990 43 0 0

1991 40 0 0

1992 29 0 0

1993 30 1 0

1994 78 0 0

1995 54 0 0

1996 69 0 0

1997 63 0 0

1998 72 1 2

1999 119 2 0

2000 80 0 1

2001 87 1 0

2002 55 0 0

2003 88 2 0

2004 41 0 1

2005 67 0 3

2006 103 0 4

2007 36 2 0

2008 99 1 1

2009 81 5 0

2011 152 3 3

1990-2006 data sources: FWRI 2007a,c,d

2007-2011 data source: FWRI 2011

Critical habitat was designated for loggerhead sea turtles July 10, 2014 along the Atlantic coast. 

Critical habitat identified as LOGG-N-14, nearshore reproductive, is located in the coastal area 

of the project location. The boundaries of the unit are nearshore areas from the south boundary 

of Kathryn Abbey Hanna Park to Matanzas Inlet (crossing St. Augustine Inlet) from the mean 

high water line seaward 1.6 km (1 nmi). The physical biological feature of nearshore 

reproductive habitat is defined as a portion of the nearshore waters adjacent to nesting beaches 

that are used by hatchlings to egress to the open-water environment as well as by nesting 

females to transit between beach and open water during the nesting season. The primary 

constituent elements that support this habitat are the following: (1) nearshore waters directly off 

the highest density nesting beaches and their adjacent beaches as identified in 50 CFR 17.95(c) 

to 1.6 km (1 mile) offshore; (2) waters sufficiently free of obstructions or artificial lighting to allow 

transit through the surf zone and outward toward open water; and (3) waters with minimal 

manmade structures that could promote predators (i.e., nearshore predator concentration 

caused by submerged and emergent offshore structures), disrupt wave patterns necessary for 

orientation, and/or create excessive longshore currents.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

7

2.1.2. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

The historic distribution of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle includes the Gulf coasts of Mexico and 

the U.S. and the Atlantic coast of North America. Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are shallow-water 

benthic feeders often found foraging in embayments. They nest in large aggregations called 

arribadas, which are speculated to enhance survival of eggs due to “safety in numbers.” The 

majority of nesting activities occurs in one isolated area of Mexico, with limited nesting 

occurrences reported in Texas and no nesting occurrences recorded on the Atlantic coast of the 

U.S. (NAVFAC 2008). Kemp’s ridley populations have declined more than any other sea turtle 

species and was listed as endangered in 1970 (NMFS and USFWS 1992a; 2007a).

From 1979 through 2006 there were no records of Kemp’s ridley nesting in Duval County (FWRI 

2007b). Part of the post-juvenile distribution includes the Atlantic coast through Florida, and 

occurrence is mainly seasonal for feeding. The shallow waters of the southeastern U.S. are 

suitable habitat for all life stages of this species throughout much of the year, and Kemp’s ridley 

sea turtles are expected to occur year-round in waters between the shoreline and the 50-meter 

isobath. The waters off the Atlantic coast of north Florida, including the alternative sites, are 

most suitable for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles from May through October (DoN 2002). 

2.1.3. Green Sea Turtle

Green sea turtles are distributed throughout the world’s oceans, and in the Western Atlantic 

they range from Massachusetts to Argentina, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. 

In the summer when water is warmer the distribution is broad, but in general these animals are 

not found north of Cape Hatteras along the Atlantic coast. For U.S. populations, nesting occurs 

primarily in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Atlantic coast of Florida. Nesting 

season takes place from April through September with an incubation period of approximately 

2 months. Because green sea turtles are herbivores and feed primarily on sea grasses and 

algae, adults are found in nearshore areas. Juveniles are found more offshore rafting in algae 

and leading a pelagic existence until adulthood. The green turtle was protected under the ESA 

in 1978, with breeding populations in Florida, the Pacific Ocean, and Mexico listed as 

endangered and all others as threatened. Current threats include loss of nesting habitat, death 

as fisheries bycatch, and poaching. A status review of the endangered nesting populations 

recommended that the populations remain listed as endangered, as currently there is not 

evidence that these populations have recovered (NMFS and USFWS 2007b).

Green turtle nest counts have increased approximately tenfold from 1989 to 2011, a trend that 

differs markedly from that of the loggerhead. The nest count in 2011 was the highest for that 

period (http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/, accessed 

2/27/12). Although green sea turtles are known to nest in substantial numbers in the southeast 

U.S., in Florida they typically nest along the beaches from Brevard County south to Broward 

County, south of the action area (DoN 2002). However, they do nest in very low numbers along 

the beaches of Duval County. In 2011, three green turtle nests were recorded in Duval County 

(Table 2-1) (FWRI 2011). 

South of North Carolina, green sea turtles are expected to occur year-round in waters between 

the shoreline and the 50-meter isobath. The preferred habitats of this species are seagrass 

beds and worm-rock reefs, which are located primarily in shallow water environments along the 

Atlantic coast. Green sea turtles are expected to occur within the vicinity of the alternative sites

throughout the year. 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

8

2.1.4. Leatherback Sea Turtle

Leatherback sea turtles are broadly distributed throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean 

Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico, with a relatively high tolerance for extreme temperatures. This 

high temperature tolerance allows for long migrations through areas with varying oceanographic 

conditions (DoN 2002). In addition to extreme thermal tolerances, leatherbacks are known to be 

deep divers (over 300 feet) and spend a large amount of time offshore in deeper waters (Eckert 

et al. 1989). The hypothesized reason for the offshore preference is that leatherback sea turtles 

feed on jellyfish and other pelagic animals that are found most commonly offshore (Eckert 

1995). Although generally a deep-diving pelagic species, seasonal movement into coastal 

waters to feed on large jellyfish that are associated with rivers and frontal boundaries has been 

documented. Leatherback sea turtles nest from March through July, with an incubation period 

of 55 to 75 days (DoN 2007a). The majority of nesting occurs along the coasts of Mexico, but 

nesting also occurs at various Caribbean locations and the Atlantic coast of Florida (Conley and 

Hoffman 1987). The leatherback sea turtle was listed as endangered in 1970 (NMFS and 

USFWS 1992b). The decline in numbers of leatherback sea turtles is mainly attributed to 

nesting habitat degradation; illegal harvest of adults and eggs; incidental take such as by-catch, 

entanglement, and dredging-related takes; and pollution (Eckert 1995).

Surveyors counted a near-record number of leatherback nests on index beaches in Florida in 

2011. Similar to the nest counts for green turtles, leatherback nest counts have been increasing 

exponentially. From 1989 through 2011, leatherback nests at core index beaches numbered 

from 27 to 615 (http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/, 

accessed 2/27/12). Leatherbacks typically nest along the beaches from Brevard County south 

to Broward County, south of the vicinity of the action area. However, they do nest in very low 

numbers along the beaches of Duval County. In 2011, three leatherback turtle nests were 

recorded in Duval County (Table 2-1) (FWRI 2011). 

Leatherbacks are the second most commonly seen sea turtle, after loggerheads, off the Atlantic 

coast of north Florida (DoN 2002) and are expected to occur within the vicinity of the alternative

sites throughout the year.

2.2. Marine Mammals

2.2.1. North Atlantic Right Whale

The historic range of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) was from temperate areas to 

subarctic locations in the North Atlantic Ocean (NAVFAC 2008). Some individuals have been 

sighted migrating over extremely deep waters, but most sightings occur in coastal and 

continental shelf waters. Individuals have been reported as far south as the Gulf of Mexico, 

although these occurrences are rare. Currently, their distribution is highly influenced by season 

and specific activities. Calving occurs between November and April in southeastern U.S.

waters. The coastal waters off Georgia and northern Florida are the only known calving ground 

for the North Atlantic right whale, with calving occurring between December and March 

(Figure 2-1) (DoN 2007b). Feeding primarily occurs from spring until fall in coastal waters of the 

northeastern U.S. and Canada where their prey (zooplankton) is abundant. When North Atlantic 

right whales are not occupied with reproductive or paternal duties, their distribution is strongly 

linked to the distribution of their prey, which is comprised of various zooplankton species, 

particularly those with high lipid content. Migration for feeding is a critical activity, as both the 

quality and quantity of their food source are important. Although general distributional patterns 

do exist, information for many individuals throughout the winter is not well documented (NMFS 

2004, 2006a).

Ship collisions and entanglement in fishing gear are the primary causes of injury and death in 

the population. According to the NMFS Large Whale Ship Strike Database, as of 2004, North 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

9

Atlantic right whales were the fourth most commonly struck whale species in the world. The

region comprised of the southeastern U.S. and Caribbean had the fifth highest number of vessel 

strikes on all whale species in the world and was the leader in vessel strikes for all of North 

America. When speed was recorded for individual vessel strike events, the most common 

vessel speed was 13 to 15 knots. Substantially fewer strikes occurred for vessels traveling at 

speeds less than 10 knots (Jensen and Silber 2004). Additional factors such as habitat 

degradation, contaminants, predators, and past whaling activities have all contributed to the 

endangered status of the North Atlantic right whale (NMFS 2007b). Of particular concern are 

dredging activities, as individuals have been sighted in shipping channels and other areas 

where dredging is common. This has led to agencies encouraging dredging operations to adopt 

protective measures, such as posting lookouts on hopper dredge vessels and adherence to 

recommended precautionary guidelines for operations to reduce the risk of collision (NMFS 

2004). 

According to the 2011 North Atlantic right whale report card released annually by the North 

Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC), the best estimate of catalogued North Atlantic right 

whale population was 490 individuals (NARWC 2011). Even though population estimates are 

extremely low, there is hope that the population may rebound if effective actions are taken to 

reduce the number of collisions with ships and entanglements with fishing gear are effective 

(NMFS 2004). The designation of critical habitat is a means to minimize these activities in 

areas where North Atlantic right whales are frequently present.

Designated critical habitat, which is the core of the calving ground and essential to the 

conservation of this species, is shown in Figure 2-2. Critical habitat was designated in 1994 for 

the coastal areas of southern Georgia and northern Florida from shore out to 15 nmi offshore 

from the mouth of the Altamaha River, Georgia, to Jacksonville, Florida, and then from shore 

out 5 nmi offshore from Jacksonville to approximately Sebastian Inlet, Florida (NMFS 1994). 

Revision of the existing critical habitats has been under study for several years. NMFS is 

evaluating potential critical habitat areas along the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine through 

Florida. 

As shown in Figure 2-3, based on annual surveys from December through March 1985 to 2007, 

North Atlantic right whales are relatively common within the vicinity of the alternative sites, the 

area that would be transited between the dredge project area and the ODMDS, and near the 

federal navigation channel (Zani et al. 2006, 2008; DoN 2007c; Right Whale Consortium 2007). 

Coastal waters of Florida were identified as one of five “high use” areas in the revised NMFS 

recovery plan (NMFS 2004a). Figure 2-4 shows documented strandings of right whales in the 

vicinity of the project area between 1991 and 2006. Figure 2-5 shows right whale sightings in 

the region of the project area from surveys conducted from 2008 to 2009 (FWRI 2009). The 

eastern portion of the federal navigation channel and the three alternative sites are within North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitat.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

10
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

11
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

12
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

13
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

14

2.2.2. Humpback Whale

Humpback whales are found in all of the world’s oceans and were listed as endangered in 1973. 

In general, summers are spent at high-latitude feeding grounds from southern New England to 

Norway, and migration during the winter is to the West Indies, over shallow banks and along 

continental coasts, where calving occurs. Most humpback whale sightings are in nearshore and 

continental shelf waters; however, humpback whales frequently travel across deep water during 

migration. Calving peaks from January through March, but some animals have been 

documented arriving as early as December, and a few not leaving until June. Strandings occur 

each year, for which over 50% of the animals exhibit scarring or fresh wounds due to fishing 

gear entanglement or boat collisions (DoN 2002). 

Since humpback whales migrate south to calving grounds during the fall and make return 

migrations to the northern feeding grounds in spring, they are not expected off the coast of 

Florida during the summer, when they will be at their northern feeding grounds. The coastal 

region of Florida is not designated as an area of concentrated occurrence for this species (DoN 

2002). Humpback whales have been spotted in the St. Johns River as recently as 2003. 

However, the habitat in the action area is not ideal for foraging or breeding humpback whales, 

but would serve as a migration corridor to feeding and breeding grounds. Based on sightings, 

strandings, and life history characteristics, humpbacks are expected to occur occasionally within 

the offshore areas near the alternative sites during fall, winter, and spring (DoN 2002). 

2.3. Fish

2.3.1. Shortnose Sturgeon

Historical distribution for shortnose sturgeon has been in major rivers along the Atlantic 

seaboard, with the northern limit near the St. John River in Canada and the southern limit near 

the Indian River in central Florida (NAVFAC 2008). This species is known to spawn in 

freshwater rivers and feed and overwinter in freshwater and marine habitats, although 

occurrence in the marine environment is less common. Adults are generally thought to be 

estuarine anadromous in southern rivers. Shortnose sturgeon were listed as an endangered 

species in 1967 and remained listed with the passing of the ESA of 1972. A recovery plan was 

completed for shortnose sturgeon in hopes to de-list and recover populations depleted by 

habitat loss, fishing, and incidental fisheries bycatch. Currently 19 populations of shortnose 

sturgeon have been identified throughout their distribution areas, and the only viable population 

south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, resides in the Altamaha River. Population dynamics 

information is virtually nonexistent for most southern populations due to the small number of 

individuals recorded in surveys. Shortnose sturgeon feed on crustaceans, insect larvae, worms, 

and mollusks (NMFS 1998).

Beginning in spring 2001, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) and the 

USFWS began research on the population status and distribution of the species in the St. Johns 

River. After approximately 4,492 hours of gill-net sampling from January through August of 

2002 and 2003 in the upper river and estuarine area, only one shortnose sturgeon was 

captured. In addition, after 21,381 hours of gill-net sampling for other species from 1980 

through 1993, there were no incidental captures of sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon are known to 

use warm-water springs in other southern rivers, but only eight individual fish have been 

observed in the numerous warm-water springs found upstream in the St. Johns River system, 

and these sightings occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s. FWRI concluded that with the lack 

of current sightings in surveys, the patchy and extremely infrequent catch of small individuals, 

and the historic low numbers, it is highly unlikely that a significant population of shortnose 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

15

sturgeon currently resides within the St. Johns River (FWRI 2007e). Because the St. Johns 

River is heavily industrialized and has been for many years, shortnose sturgeon populations 

may have suffered due to habitat degradation and blocked access to historic spawning grounds 

in the upstream reaches of the river. Spawning habitat for this species is rock or gravel 

substrate near limestone outcroppings, which is very rare in the St. Johns River and associated 

tributaries. Reproduction of shortnose sturgeon has not been documented in the St. Johns 

River, and no large adults (>10 pounds) have been sighted in this area (FWRI 2007e). Due to 

the limited catch of shortnose sturgeon in the vicinity of the St. Johns River, their occurrence 

within the entrance channel and the offshore areas near the alternative sites is unlikely.

2.3.2. Smalltooth Sawfish

The historic range of smalltooth sawfish in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico was from 

Texas to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, with a large number of occurrences in Florida

(NAVFAC 2008). This elasmobranch species requires warm water and is rarely found north of 

southern Florida during winter months. Juveniles inhabit exclusively nearshore habitats such as 

mangroves, river mouths, and coastal bay waters, while adults populate similar nearshore 

habitats in addition to offshore waters. Smalltooth sawfish was listed as endangered in 2003 

(NMFS 2003b). The loss and degradation of juvenile and adult habitat and the concurrent high 

incidence of fisheries bycatch for adults are the likely causes of decline. Current distribution is 

reduced by as much as 95%, with regular occurrences of the species restricted to the southern 

tip of Florida from the Caloosahatchee River to the Florida Keys. Smalltooth sawfish are late to 

mature, slow-growing, and produce small numbers of young (NMFS 2006b).

The area of occurrence for smalltooth sawfish includes a variety of nearshore habitats. The 

action area includes nearshore habitat areas, but smalltooth sawfish have not been sighted 

regularly in the area, or in any area of northern Florida, since the 1800s. The majority of 

sightings in northern Florida have been large individuals, thought to be part of southern 

populations transiting through the area. There has been only one confirmed sighting of this 

species in northern Florida during winter months. The NMFS draft recovery plan states a need 

for this species to repopulate the coast of Florida, but due to its location in regards to the current 

southern distribution of this species, the action area (Northern Florida) is not one of the main 

areas to be repopulated (NMFS 2006b). Due to its sporadic and rare occurrence anywhere 

north of southern Florida, it is considered very unlikely that smalltooth sawfish would occur 

within the project area.

2.3.3. Atlantic Sturgeon

The Atlantic sturgeon is included because this species is proposed to be listed as endangered

during the course of this EIS/ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Federal 

agencies and the public are encouraged to consider this species during project planning.

The historic range of the Atlantic sturgeon is from St. Croix, Maine, to the St. Johns River, 

Florida. They spend most of their lives in marine waters and migrate up rivers from February 

through March to spawn. Threats from dredging, water quality, and commercial bycatch likely 

contribute to the population decline of this species. Due to habitat degradation, the St. Johns 

River is suspected to serve as only a nursery for existing Atlantic sturgeon that still utilize the 

waterway system (NMFS and USFWS 1998). The St. Johns River is not currently used for 

spawning, and historical use of the river is unknown (ASSRT 2007). Therefore, it is unlikely that 

the Atlantic sturgeon will inhabit the waters within the entrance channel and federal navigation 

channel. However, because the Atlantic sturgeon spends a majority of its life in marine waters, 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

16

this species may be present in the offshore areas in the vicinity of the alternative sites and in the 

transit areas between dredge project areas and the ODMDS (Figure 2-6).

A large U.S. commercial fishery (100,000 to 250,000 lbs/year) existed for the Atlantic sturgeon 

from the 1950s through the mid-1990s; the origin of the fishery dates back to colonial times 

(NMFS 2009). The Atlantic sturgeon is managed under a Fishery Management Plan 

implemented by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which implemented 

a coast-wide moratorium on the harvest of wild Atlantic sturgeon in late 1997/early 1998. NMFS 

followed this with a similar moratorium for federal waters. The status has been periodically 

reviewed since being identified as a candidate species for listing under the ESA in 1991 (NMFS 

2010). In 2007, a Status Review Team (SRT) consisting of biologists from NMFS, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and USFWS completed a status review report on Atlantic sturgeon 

in the United States. The report was reviewed and supplemented by eight state and regional 

experts who provided their individual expert opinions on the scientific facts contained in the 

report and provided additional information to ensure the report provided the best available data. 

Lastly, the report was peer-reviewed by six academic experts. NMFS evaluated the status 

review report and all other best available information to determine if listing Atlantic sturgeon 

under the ESA as either threatened or endangered was warranted. The SRT recommended 

that Atlantic sturgeon in the United States be divided into the following five DPSs: Gulf of 

Maine; New York Bight; Chesapeake Bay; Carolina; and South Atlantic. After reviewing the 

available information on the Carolina and South Atlantic DPSs (the two DPSs located within the 

NMFS Southeast Region), NMFS determined that listing these two DPSs as endangered was 

warranted, and in October 2010 proposed to list them as endangered under the ESA (NMFS 

2010). The Final Listing Rule for South Atlantic and Carolina DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon in the 

southeast region was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5914). 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

17
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

18

3. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION

This section presents an analysis of potential direct and indirect effects on ESA-listed species 

as a result of the proposed action. Potential activities that may affect ESA-listed species include 

in-water disturbances such as movement by surface support vessels and dredged material 

disposal operations. Direct effects would be associated with physical encounters of surface 

vessels with a listed species and effects of disposed material in the water column and benthic 

environments. Indirect effects typically result from ancillary activities that are influenced by 

disposal activities or their direct effects that occur later in time and that are reasonably certain to 

occur (e.g., attraction of predators due to development and human presence). All direct and 

indirect project effects on listed species have been further classified and evaluated based on 

their anticipated longevity (i.e., temporary or permanent effects). Table 3-1 provides a summary 

of the potential direct and indirect effects on ESA-listed species with implementation of the 

proposed action.

Table 3-1. Summary of the Potential Direct and Indirect Effects on ESA-Listed Species

Direct Effects Indirect Effects

Species Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent

FISH

Shortnose sturgeon No No No No

Atlantic sturgeon No No No No

Smalltooth sawfish No No No No

SEA TURTLES

Loggerhead Yes No No No

Leatherback Yes No No No

Kemp's ridley Yes No No No

Green Yes No No No

MARINE MAMMALS

North Atlantic right whale Yes No No No

Humpback whale Yes No No No

As they relate to the ESA-listed species and critical habitat considered in this BA, direct and 

indirect effects from proposed activities within the action area have been evaluated based upon 

(1) an understanding of the methods and equipment that would be used during dredge material 

disposal operations, (2) knowledge of the potential for such methods and equipment to disturb 

the natural resources on which the subject species depend, and (3) awareness of the types of 

effects that have resulted from similar actions in the past.

The use of surface support vessels during the disposal activities to the proposed ODMDS would 

not significantly change the airborne or underwater noise environment within the action areas. 

The alternative sites are currently transited regularly by numerous commercial and recreational 

vessels, recreational boaters, and other surface vessels (e.g., freighters). Therefore, the 

potential effects of airborne or underwater noise from surface vessels on listed species are not 

discussed further.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

19

3.1. Sea Turtles

Sea turtles are at risk from collisions with vessels since they spend time breathing and sunning 

on the surface of the water. Little information is available on the types of vessels responsible for 

turtle deaths or injury, although the focus has tended to be on recreational boat traffic (National 

Research Council 1990). Surface vessels would transit to and from the ODMDS to dispose of 

dredged materials, and heightened vessel activity may lead to collisions between vessels and 

sea turtles. The dredge contractors would adopt avoidance and minimization measures to 

reduce the potential for collisions with sea turtles at the surface. Vessels associated with the 

transport of dredged material to the ODMDS are expected to implement actions, where feasible, 

to avoid interactions with sea turtles, including maneuvering away from the animal or slowing 

the vessel. However, during poor sighting conditions (i.e., fog, high sea state, darkness), 

detecting sea turtles can be difficult and there is higher potential for a vessel strike. 

Nevertheless, the potential for a collision between a vessel and a sea turtle is expected to be 

unlikely due to the type and nature of the proposed activities within the action area. 

Disposal activities at the ODMDS can potentially reduce food availability by burying and altering 

the benthic habitat and creating temporary increases in turbidity. The effect of increased 

turbidity on sea turtles is expected to be minimal due to the short duration of the reduced water 

clarity. The effects of burial on benthic infauna could be persistent within the boundaries of the 

ODMDS since disposal operations repeatedly impact the same area, potentially making it 

difficult for benthic infauna to fully recover within the disposal footprint or altering species 

composition. However, the approximately 4-nmi2 ODMDS represents only a small portion of this 

type of benthic habitat available in the region, and only a small portion of the ODMDS would be 

impacted during each disposal event. Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to adversely 

affect sea turtles.

Loggerhead critical habitat is located approximately 3.4 miles to the west of the proposed 

ODMDS. Transiting to and from the mouth of the St. Johns River to the ODMDS would not 

occur within critical habitat. Predominate current direction is to the north and south. Therefore 

any disposal plumes would not be transported to the critical habitat. Designation of the 

expanded ODMDS would not result in the addition of any obstructions, artificial lighting or 

manmade objects within the critical habitat Therefore, the primary constituent elements that 

support this habitat would not be affected and the proposed action would not adversely affect

critical habitat.

3.2. Marine Mammals

The following section discusses the potential effects of the proposed action on North Atlantic 

right whales and humpback whales within the project area. As effects in the marine 

environment are similar for the two whale species in the assessment, the analysis will be 

combined for both species. Dredged material disposal activities and their potential effects on 

listed whale species are addressed. The primary concern is an increase in the level of surface 

vessel activity in the action area (NAVFAC 2008). 

Disturbance from ships transiting through the area would not be significantly different from 

normal vessel operations that occur daily in the project area, although during dredging activities 

there would be an increase in vessel activity in the area between the river entrance and the 

proposed ODMDS. Impacts from disposal operations are expected to be consistent with 

previous findings by NMFS (NMFS 1991, 1995). Since these consultations were completed, 

(1) the estimated number of North Atlantic right whales has increased based on the data 

presented in the NMFS annual stock assessments and the numbers of North Atlantic right 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

20

whales reported by the New England Aquarium in their annual "Right Whale Report Card"; 

(2) implementation of the early warning system (EWS) associated with operations near or within 

the calving grounds has been solidified by Memorandum of Agreement and has been in place 

since 1989; and (3) USACE's involvement with and awareness of North Atlantic right whale

issues has increased significantly. Based on these factors, USACE expects that disposal

operations will have a minimal effect on North Atlantic right whales. There would be no 

permanent or indirect effects associated with the proposed action.

Critical habitat analysis of the potential effects of the proposed action on North Atlantic right 

whale critical habitat was based on an analysis of the impacts on the habitat itself and those 

elements that make up habitat. The actual physical habitat located outside the St. Johns River 

channel is part of the designated North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, and no alteration to 

this portion of critical habitat would occur. The alternatives are located in North Atlantic right 

whale critical habitat, but dredged materials would settle out to the benthos, which is not 

considered part of the critical habitat. Dredged materials would travel through the water column 

and would result in localized, short-term changes in the water column as sediments settle on the 

seafloor. Because of the low-level releases, dilution, and the transient natures of water masses, 

adverse effects to water quality should be local and short-term and should have minimal effect 

on the region (USEPA 1983). Based upon the current analysis of potential effects on 

designated critical habitat, implementation of the proposed action within the project area would 

not compromise the function or relevance of any habitat indicators or critical habitat elements. 

The proposed action would not increase fragmentation of the North Atlantic right whale

population nor decrease the function of any calving areas. Therefore, implementation of the 

proposed action would not destroy or adversely modify North Atlantic right whale critical habitat.

3.3. Fish

3.3.1. Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon

FWRI concluded that with the lack of current sightings in surveys, the patchy and extremely 

infrequent catch of small individuals, and the historic low numbers, it is highly unlikely that 

significant populations of shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon currently reside within the St. Johns 

River. The proposed ODMDS will be located several miles offshore the mouth of the St. Johns 

River, and though some individuals may be present in the marine waters in the area of 

alternative sites, shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are not likely to be adversely affected by the 

proposed action.

3.3.2. Smalltooth Sawfish

Encounter data indicate that smalltooth sawfish can be found with some regularity only in south 

Florida from Charlotte Harbor to Florida Bay. A limited number of reported encounters (one 

each in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas) have occurred outside of Florida since 1998. 

Peninsular Florida is the main U.S. region that historically and currently hosts the species yearround because the region provides the appropriate climate (subtropical to tropical) and contains 

the habitat types (lagoons, bays, mangroves, and nearshore reefs) suitable for the species. 

Encounter data and research efforts indicate that a resident, reproducing population of 

smalltooth sawfish exists only in southwest Florida (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2005). 

Smalltooth sawfish have not been sighted in the action area. The closest sawfish encounter 

documented in Mote Marine Laboratory’s Sawfish Encounter Database (1999-2006) was near 

St. Augustine in the Atlantic Ocean (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2006). In the unlikely event a 

sawfish is present in the project area, sawfish should not be affected by the vessels transiting to 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

21

the ODMDS because they advance at a slow pace and are noisy; giving mobile sawfish the 

opportunity to get out of the way (no sawfish take by a dredge has ever been reported to 

NMFS). Additionally, prey items (e.g., fish and crustaceans) are not limiting in Florida’s east 

coast waters and, since mangroves are not affected, it is unlikely that foraging habitats for 

smalltooth sawfish will be affected. Therefore, smalltooth sawfish are not likely to be adversely 

affected by the proposed action.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

22

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

23

4. MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND COMPENSATE 

FOR EFFECTS 

4.1. Sea Turtles

USACE will comply with applicable windows and protective measures for protection of sea 

turtles as stated in the most current South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO). 

NMFS and USFWS will be consulted on specific dredging projects, and separate biological 

opinions may be prepared for those projects. USACE will comply with any special conditions 

associated with those project-specific biological opinions.

In general, to minimize the potential for collisions, vessels transporting dredged materials to the 

ODMDS are expected to implement protective measures, where feasible, to avoid interactions 

with sea turtles, including maneuvering away from the animal or slowing the vessel, particularly 

during poor sighting conditions (i.e., fog, high sea state, darkness). During transport of dredged 

material to the ODMDS and when returning to the dredging site, vessels would use caution and 

proceed at a speed such that the vessel can safely take proper and effective action to avoid a 

potential collision with a sea turtle; this preventative action would significantly reduce the 

potential for a vessel strike with a sea turtle. Any collision with and/or injury to a sea turtle shall 

be reported immediately to the NMFS’s Protected Resources Division and the local authorized 

sea turtle stranding/rescue organization.

Despite these precautions, turtles may prove very difficult to spot from a moving vessel when 

they are resting below the water surface, during nighttime, and during periods of inclement 

weather. It is assumed, however, that a collision between a sea turtle and moving vessel is 

unlikely. Adult, subadult, and perhaps juvenile turtles are capable of avoiding moving dredgerelated vessels, especially when the vessels operate within these limited areas at slow to 

relatively slow speeds. Impacts from collisions are, consequently, not likely to adversely affect 

marine turtle populations within the project area.

4.2. Marine Mammals

To minimize project impacts on right whales and other marine mammals related to transporting 

dredged material to the new ODMDS, USACE will comply with the terms and conditions of the 

most recent SARBO. As with the sea turtles, NMFS and USFWS will be consulted on specific 

dredging projects, and separate biological opinions may be prepared for those projects. 

USACE will comply with any special conditions associated with those project-specific biological 

opinions.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

24

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

25

5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508) 

implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 

et seq.), define cumulative effects as

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR § 1508.7).

Similar and unrelated actions occurring in the vicinity of the action area include navigation 

channel maintenance, commercial and recreational fishing, sand borrow areas, and shipping 

traffic. Past projects include the designation of the existing Jacksonville ODMDS and 

Fernandina Beach ODMDS, including their ongoing use. Ongoing projects include the 

maintenance of the Jacksonville Harbor Federal Navigation entrance channel and the Naval 

Station Mayport entrance channel and turning basin. Recently completed projects include the 

Naval Station Mayport deepening. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the 

Jacksonville Harbor Deepening project and the designation and use of sand borrow areas.

The designation of an expanded or new ODMDS is not expected to introduce new human 

activities in the project vicinity. Commercial shipping and recreational and commercial fishing 

are expected to continue. Increased vessel traffic associated with the implementation of the 

Naval Station Mayport and Jacksonville Harbor Deepening Projects may lead to an increased 

risk of animal collisions with vessels transiting to and from the ODMDS during initial 

construction; however, observance of critical habitat designations and the North Atlantic right 

whale EWS would mitigate for this potential increase. The increased vessel traffic associated 

with these projects may also affect water quality at a greater frequency than existing 

circumstances. These effects are expected to be temporary.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

26

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

27

6. CONCLUSION 

Table 6-1 summarizes the determination of effects on listed species and critical habitat as 

presented in the previous sections from implementation of the proposed action.

Table 6-1. Summary of Effects on Listed Species and Critical Habitat

Species ESA Status Effects Determination

FISH

Shortnose sturgeon Endangered Not likely to adversely affect

Atlantic sturgeon Endangered Not likely to adversely affect

Smalltooth sawfish Endangered Not likely to adversely affect

SEA TURTLES

Loggerhead Threatened* May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Leatherback Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Kemp's Ridley Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Green Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

MARINE MAMMALS

North Atlantic right whale Endangered* May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Humpback whale Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

* Critical habitat designated in the area of the Proposed Action
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

28

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

29

7. LITERATURE CITED

ANAMAR. 2010. Final Report and Addendum to Final Report – Jacksonville ODMDS 

Reconnaissance Sidescan Sonar Survey. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. August 2010.

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service.

Conley, W.J. and B.A. Hoffman. 1987. Nesting Activity of Sea Turtles in Florida, 1979-1985. 

Florida Scientist 50:201-210.

DoN (Department of the Navy). 2002. Marine Resource Assessment for the 

Charleston/Jacksonville Operating Area. Final Report. Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, Norfolk, VA. August.

DoN. 2007a. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Naval Station Mayport, 

Mayport, Florida. October. 

DoN. 2007b. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement for Navy Atlantic Fleet Training in the Navy Cherry Point 

Range Complex and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings. Federal Register 72:21248-

21249.

DoN. 2007c. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement for Navy Atlantic Fleet Training in the Jacksonville 

Range Complex and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings. Federal Register 72:3806-3807.

DoN. 2008. Marine Resources Assessment Update for the Charleston/Jacksonville Operation 

Area Final Report.

Eckert, K.L. 1995. Leatherback Sea Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. National Marine Fisheries 

Service and FWS status reviews for sea turtles listed under ESA 1973. P.T. Plotkin, 

editor. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD.

Eckert, S.A. and K.L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G.L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and Foraging 

Behavior of Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 67:2834-2840.

FWRI (Florida Wildlife Research Institute). 2007a. Statewide Nesting Beach Survey Program 

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Nesting Data, 1990-2006. 

http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/

FWRI. 2007b. Reported Nesting Activity of the Kemp’s Ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, in Florida, 

1979-2006; Data Summary Date: 11 May 2007. 

FWRI. 2007c. Statewide Nesting Beach Survey Program Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Nesting Data, 1990-2006. 
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

30

FWRI. 2007d. Statewide Nesting Beach Survey Program Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) 

Nesting Data, 1990-2006.

FWRI. 2007e. Shortnose Sturgeon Population Evaluation in the St. Johns River, Florida. 

http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/sturgeon/research/population-evaluation/

FWRI. 2009. Right Whales Research Activities.

http://research.myfwc.com/images/articles/18051/r_right_whales.pdf

FWRI. 2011. Sea turtle nesting data retrieved from http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/seaturtles/nesting/statewide/. Accessed 2/27/12.

Jensen, A.S. and G.K. Silber. 2004. NMFS Large Whale Ship Strike Database. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25. January.

NARWC (North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium). 2007. North Atlantic Right Whale 

Consortium Sightings Database. New England Aquarium, Boston, MA. 31 July.

NARWC. 2011. North Atlantic Right Whale Annual Report Card, November 2011 [online 

publication]. Accessed 02/27/12.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NAVFAC. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Homeporting of 

Additional Surface Ships at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. November 2008.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1978. Listing and Protecting Loggerhead Sea 

Turtles as “Threatened Species” and Populations of Green and Olive Ridley Sea Turtles 

as Threatened Species or “Endangered Species”. Federal Register 43:32800-32811.

NMFS. 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Silver 

Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS. 1994. Critical Habitat for Northern Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Federal Register 

59:28805-28835.

NMFS. 1995. Regional Biological Opinion for Hopper Dredging of Channels and Beach 

Nourishment Activities in the Southeastern United States from North Carolina through 

Florida East Coast. Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD and Southeast 

Regional Office, Jacksonville, FL. 25 August.

NMFS. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). 

Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 

December.

NMFS. 2003b. Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Endangered Status for a Distinct 

Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United States. 

Federal Register 68:15674-15680.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

31

NMFS. 2004. Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Silver 

Spring, MD. August.

NMFS. 2006a Review of the Status of the Right Whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific 

Oceans. Silver Spring, MD. December.

NMFS. 2006b. Draft Recovery Plan for Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). Prepared by the 

Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team for NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. August.

NMFS. 2007b. National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Database and the 

Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Database for Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns 

Counties, Florida (1991-2006). Southeast Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

NMFS. 2010a. Species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/

NMFS. 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listings for Two 

Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in 

the Southeast. 50 CFR Part 224. NOAA.

NMFS. 2010c. 50 CFR Part 224, Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 193/Wednesday, October 6, 

2010/Proposed Rules.

NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

1992a. Recovery Plan for Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Prepared by 

the Kemp’s Ridley Recovery Team for USFWS, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM and 

NMFS, Washington, DC.

NMFS and USFWS. 1992b. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles Dermochelys coriacea in 

the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS, Washington, DC.

NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle Caretta 

caretta. Prepared by the Loggerhead/Green Turtle Recovery Team for USFWS, 

Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA and NMFS, Washington, DC.

NMFS and USFWS. 1998. Status Review of the Atlantic Sturgeon. National Marine Fisheries 

Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007a. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), 5-year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD and USFWS, Jacksonville, FL. 

August.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007b. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD and USFWS, Jacksonville, FL. 

August.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007c. Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. NMFS, Silver Spring, MD and USFWS, Jacksonville, FL. August.

Simpfendorfer, Colin A. and Tonya R. Wiley. 2005. Final Report: National Smalltooth Sawfish 

Encounter Database. Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

32

Simpfendorfer, Colin A. and Tonya R. Wiley. 2006. Final Report: National Smalltooth Sawfish 

Encounter Database. Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008a. USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse: Data 

on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Takes. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/species.cfm?Species=LK&Type=District&Code=SAJ. 

USACE. 2008b. USACE Sea Turtle Data Warehouse: Data on Green Sea Turtle Takes. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/species.cfm?Species=CM&Type=District&Code=SAJ.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation. 

USEPA Criteria and Standards Division. Washington, D.C.

Zani, M.A., A.R. Knowlton, S.D. Kraus, K.M. Lagueux, and H.M. Pettis. 2006. Aerial Surveys to 

Reduce Ship/Whale Collisions in the Calving Ground of the North Atlantic Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis). Annual report submitted to NOAA.

Zani, M.A., A.R. Knowlton, K.M. Lagueux, P. Hamilton, S.D. Kraus, and H.M. Pettis. 2008. 

Aerial Surveys to Reduce Ship/Whale Collisions in the Calving Ground of the North 

Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Annual Report submitted to NOAA.
Appendix C: Biological Assessment

33

8. LIST OF PREPARERS

This Biological Assessment was prepared by ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc. for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Jacksonville District.

USACE Project Manager

Patrick Griffin

USACE-Jacksonville District

701 San Marco Blvd.

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc.

Lead Technical Writer: Christine Smith

Technical Editor and Project Manager: Michelle Rau

ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc

2106 NW 67th Place Suite 5

Gainesville, Florida 32653