Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation

Biological Opinion

Action Agency: National Marine Fisheries IService, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

Highly Migratory Species IDivision

Activity: Reinitiation of Consultation on the Atlantic Highly Migratory

Species Fishery Management Plan and its Associated Fisheries

Consulting Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources,

Endangered Species Division

Approved by:

Date Issued:
Contents Page 

1.0. Consultation History ............................................................................ 3 

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action .............................................................. 4 

3.0. Status of Affected Species, Critical Habitat, Environmental Baseline ............................... 22 

4.0 Effects of the Action ........................................................................... 77 

5.0 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................... 101 

6.0. Integration and Synthesis of Effects .......................................................... 105 

7.0. Conclusion .................................................................................. 112 

8.0 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative ........................................................... 112 

9.0 Incidental Take Statement .................................................................... 118 

10.0 Conservation Recommendations .............................................................. 125 

11.0 Reinitiation of Consultation ................................................................... 128 

12.0. Literature Cited (will be posted separately at a later date) ........................................ . 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) requires that each 

federal agency shall ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. When the action of a federal agency may 

affect a protected species, that agency is required to consult with either the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, depending upon the protected species that may be 

affected. In this instance, NMFS has dual responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and ESA, respectively. 

The NMFS Highly Migratory Species Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries’s proposal to authorize 

fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) and 

Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP places them in the role of “action agency;” while NMFS’ 

Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources is NMFS’ “consulting agency”. This 

biological opinion has been prepared by NMFS’ Office of Protected Species and Southeast Regional 

Office, Protected Resources Division. This document constitutes the NMFS’ biological opinion (Opinion) 

based on review of NMFS’ HMS FMP and Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP and their effects on 

threatened and endangered marine mammals and sea turtles in accordance with section 7 of the ESA. 

This Opinion is based on information provided in the June 30, 2000, Opinion; March 8, 2001, draft Opinion 

prepared by NMFS Endangered Species Division, Southwest Region, on authorization of Western Pacific 

Region pelagic fisheries under the FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Regions; bycatch 

data analyses conducted by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC); recent sea turtle 

satellite tagging studies conducted by the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory in Hawaii and contract researchers 

in the Azores; recent (February 2001) stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles 

including an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback 

sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic, conducted by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NMFS 2001); recent NMFS - industry longline gear workshops and NMFS expert working group 

meeting held to review and discuss methods to minimize sea turtle - longline fishery interactions; the May 

28, 1999, final regulations for the HMS fishery (64 FR 29090) which established a Northeast U.S. Closed 

Area (closed June 1-June 30 annually); the June 14, 2000 “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Regulatory Amendment to the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks Fishery 

Management Plan”; the draft Technical Memorandum “Using Time and Area Closures to Minimize 

Incidental Catch and Bycatch in U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fisheries;” the August 1, 2000, Final Rule 

2
on Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Pelagic Longline Management (65 FR 47214) that prohibits pelagic 

longline fishing in certain areas including the DeSoto Canyon in the Gulf of Mexico, Charleston Bump and 

the East Coast of Florida at certain times; the September 27, 2000 “Environmental Assessment and 

Regulatory Impact Review for an Emergency Rule to Reduce Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the 

Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery;” the October 13, 2000, emergency regulations which closed an Lshape portion of the Northeast Distant Statistical Sampling Area (NED) from October 10, 2000, through 

April 9, 2001 (65 FR 60889); the February 5, 2001, technical amendment redefining the East Coast Florida 

and Charleston Bump closed areas and delaying the effectiveness date to March 1, 2001 (66 FR 8903); a 

February 16, 2001 decision memorandum on mortality of sea turtles in pelagic longline fisheries; a review 

of Spanish swordfish longline fishery - sea turtle interactions in the Mediterranean; communications with 

Spanish and Italian sea turtle - longline fishery researchers; telephone conversations with NMFS' Office 

of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species staff; meetings between the Highly Migratory Species 

staff and the Protected Species staff; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record 

of this consultation is on file in NMFS’ Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. 

1.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY 

Previous consultations. For almost two decades, fisheries targeting Highly Migratory Species have 

undergone many formal and informal section 7 consultations. The consultations are summarized in the 

June 30, 2000, Opinion and have collectively covered all components of the Atlantic pelagic fishery, 

including the pelagic driftnet, drift gillnet, pelagic longline, bottom longline, purse seine, and hand gear 

(hook and line, handline, and harpoon) in the western Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. 

On September 7, 2000, NMFS’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries asked the Office of Protected Resources 

to reinitiate consultation on the HMS fisheries, citing the need for further analyses of observer data, 

estimates of sea turtle mortalities from longline hook ingestion, satellite tagging data from “lightly” hooked 

and “deeply” hooked sea turtles, and additional population modeling of loggerhead and leatherback sea 

turtles to more precisely determine the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on sea turtles. On 

September 7, 2000, NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources re-initiated consultation on all the HMS 

fisheries. 

On November 1, 2000, the year-round closure for the DeSoto Canyon area went into effect. On March 

1, 2001, the Charleston Bump area closure (February 1 - April 30) and the year-round East Florida Coast 

area closure, which had been scheduled for February 1, 2001, went into effect. 

Implementation of the proposed VMS requirement for Atlantic pelagic longline fishing has been delayed 

indefinitely as a result of a September 25, 2000, decision by the U.S. District Court of the District of 

Columbia that the NMFS “reconsider its implementation.” On January 10, 2001, NMFS issued a notice 

requesting additional comments on the requirement with respect to the court decision. The comment 

period closed February 8, 2001. 

The emergency rule requiring the use of dipnets and line clippers meeting NMFS design and specification 

criteria to remove entangling fishing gear and reduce post-release mortality of captured sea turtles, and 

allowing the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to continue operating pending issuance of the present 

Opinion, expired April 9, 2001. NMFS implemented an interim final rule to extend these requirements 

indefinitely effective April 10, 2001, so there will be no lapse in dipnet/line cutter requirements (See 66 FR 

17370, March 30, 2001). 

3
On January 17-18, 2001, NMFS hosted a technical gear/longline fishery/sea turtle interaction workshop in 

Silver Spring, MD, which was attended by NMFS biologists and gear experts, pelagic longline fishermen 

and swordfish vessel captains, and representatives of the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association and NGO 

representatives. A previous, similar 2-day NMFS internal workshop was held in Miami, FL on August 31-

September 1, 1999, and a working group on reducing turtle bycatch in the Hawaii longline fishery met in 

Los Angeles, CA on September 12-13, 2000. 

NMFS is currently drafting a proposed rule and request for comments to amend the regulations protecting 

sea turtles to enhance their effectiveness in reducing sea turtle mortality resulting from shrimp trawling in 

the Atlantic and Gulf Areas of the southeastern United States. NMFS intends to publish a proposed rule 

in the Federal Register during summer 2001. A final rule could be in place soon thereafter. These 

proposed changes to existing Turtle Excluder Device (TED) regulations are designed to strengthen 

conservation measures required in the shrimp fishery and include a proposal to increase the minimum size 

of the TED opening. Current TED openings may be allowing continued high incidental take of large 

loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles. Since this means that a proportion of the pre-reproductive and 

reproductive turtles are not being excluded, it may preclude most of the benefits gained from excluding 

small juveniles. 

During the reconsultation process on the June 30, 2000, Opinion on the HMS fisheries, the shark drift 

gillnet fishery component exceeded its incidental take of leatherback sea turtles authorized by the June 30 

Opinion. Reconsultation on the shark drift gillnet fishery is incorporated into the present Opinion. The 

shark drift gillnet fishery was subsequently closed by emergency rule on March 9, 2001 through April 9, 

2001 (66 FR 15045, March 15, 2001), and the large coastal shark season closed on March 24, 2001, 

before the fishery was allowed to reopen. 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

NMFS’s Office of Sustainable Fisheries proposes to continue implementing the HMS FMP, as amended 

by HMS FMP regulatory amendment (15 CFR Part 902 and 50 CFR Part 285 et al.), and Amendment 1 

to the Atlantic Billfish FMP. This Opinion considers the effects of NMFS’ continued authorization of 

fisheries under the HMS FMP and Billfish FMP as considered in the June 30, 2000, Opinion; 

implementation of the August 1, 2000, final rule; the October 13, 2000, emergency rule on the HMS 

longline fishery; the proposed rule (in preparation) to amend the regulations protecting sea turtles from 

shrimp trawling; the March 30, 2001 interim final rule requiring pelagic longline vessels to carry and use 

line clippers and dipnets and to reduce the level of observer coverage outside the right whale calving 

season from 100% to 53%. 

NMFS’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries proposes to take this action under the authority of the MSA; 16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The MSA is the principal federal statute governing the management of U.S. marine 

fisheries. The management unit covered under the Atlantic HMS FMP consists of the populations of 

North Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) north of 5/N; western Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus 

thynnus) west of a line that follows 45/W longitude from Greenland to 10/N, then to the southeast to 

25/W at the equator, and then south along 25/W; Atlantic yellowfin tuna (T. albacares); Atlantic bigeye 

tuna (T. obesus); north Atlantic albacore tuna (T. alalunga) north of 5/N; west Atlantic skipjack tuna 

(Katsuwonus pelamis); and the species of sharks that inhabit the western North Atlantic Ocean. The 

management unit, and fishing activity for these species, extend across federal, and in some cases, state 

and international jurisdictional boundaries. The management units covered under the Billfish FMP include 

Atlantic blue marlin and white marlin, west Atlantic sailfish in the North and South Atlantic Ocean west of 

4
30/W longitude, and longbill spearfish in the entire Atlantic Ocean. In the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean 

Sea, these fish are also covered under the Billfish FMP. 

The stated purpose of the Atlantic HMS FMP and Atlantic Billfish FMP is to maximize the net benefits of 

the fisheries to the region and the nation. Some of the objectives stated in the FMPs are summarized as 

follows: 

• to rebuild overfished stocks 

• avoid and reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality 

• establish a foundation for international negotiation on conservation and management measures to 

rebuild overfished fisheries 

• better coordinate domestic conservation and management of the fisheries for Atlantic tunas, 

swordfish, sharks, billfish, considering the multispecies nature of many HMS fisheries, overlapping 

regional and individual participation, international management concerns, and other relevant factors 

• to develop eligibility criteria for participation in the shark and swordfish fisheries based on historical 

participation, including access for traditional swordfish handgear fishermen to participate fully as the 

stock recovers (Atlantic HMS FMP only), and 

• to create a management system to make fleet capacity commensurate with resource status so as to 

achieve the dual goals of economic efficiency and biological conservation (Atlantic HMS FMP only). 

Refer to the Final HMS FMP Volumes I, II, and III (April 1999), 15 CFR Part 902 and 50 CFR Part 635 

et al., and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan (April 1999) for a complete 

description. 

5
2.1 HMS FMP and Billfish FMP: Gear Types and Associated Management measures 

2.1.1 HMS FMP Management Measures 

The HMS FMP manages the following gear types: pelagic longline, bottom longline, gillnet, harpoon, purse 

seine, rod and reel, bandit gear and handline. (See 50 CFR 600.725 for allowable gear types in HMS 

fisheries.) For certain species, the FMP establishes minimize sizes and quotas, requires observers on 

fishing vessels and permits for certain time periods or gear. The gear prohibitions and fishing years 

established by the FMP are listed in Table 1. Also see Figure 1 for HMS time/area closures. 

Table 1. 

Fishery Gear Prohibitions Time/Area Closure Fishing Year 

Tuna driftnet gear is prohibited North mid-Atlantic for pelagic 

longlines in June (1x6 degree 

block: 39 to 40/N, 68 to 74/W) 

June 1 to May 31 

Swordfish driftnet gear is prohibited Not Implemented June 1 to May 31 

Sharks Gillnet gear prohibited unless a 

NMFS-approved observer is 

on board; harpoon gear is 

prohibited 

None January 1 to 

December 31 

In addition to the previously mentioned measures in the FMP, there are a number of other actions that 

affect the closure of areas to fishing. There is a regulatory amendment to the FMP to reduce bycatch 

and bycatch mortality from the longline fishery and there are two take reduction plans for marine 

mammals which affect HMS fisheries - the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), 

which was implemented via a rule published February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7529) and the Atlantic Offshore 

Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (AOCTRP). 

6
Figure 1 HMS Closed Areas, including Emergency L-Shape Closure in NED

Note: East Florida Coast and Charleston Bump Closures Delayed Until March 1, 2001 (see 66

FR 8903))

2.1.1.1 Regulatory Amendment to the HMS FMP 

This amendment (August 1, 2000, Final Rule to Reduce Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality from the Atlantic 

Pelagic Longline Fishery) addresses bycatch and incidental catch of undersized swordfish, Atlantic billfish 

(marlins and sailfish), turtles, marine mammals, and other non-target species by pelagic longline gear. In 

1997, NMFS began addressing this issue through the development of the draft HMS FMP and 

Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP. The draft FMPs were completed in October 1998, with a proposed 

rule published on January 20, 1999 (63 FR 57093). On May 28, 1999, NMFS published a consolidated 

final rule (64 FR 29090) implementing the April 1999 Final HMS FMP, and Final Amendment 1 of the 

Atlantic Billfish FMP. The HMS FMP contained actions to reduce bycatch in Atlantic pelagic longline 

fisheries, including a limited access program for Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and tunas which reduced the 

number of vessels that were permitted to land Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and tunas with pelagic longline 

gear from over 2,000 to approximately 450 vessels. Management measures also included closure of a 

portion of the Mid-Atlantic Bight for the month of June to reduce bluefin tuna discards. 

The bycatch reduction strategy outlined in the FMPs indicated that additional measures would 

subsequently be developed, including consideration of gear modifications and time/area closures. NMFS 

deferred implementation of the proposed Florida Straits time/area closure for protection of undersized 

swordfish and billfish until further analyses of the impacts of effort redistribution, and increased 

effectiveness with temporal and/or spatial expansion of the time/area management window. Further 

rationale for the delay included the potential magnitude of the economic and social impacts that would 

7
likely result from a more extensive time/area closure. Several joint HMS and Atlantic Billfish Advisory

Panel (AP) meetings have been held to discuss potential effectiveness of various bycatch reduction

methods. 

On December 15, 1999, NMFS published a proposed rule (64 FR 69982) to close an additional 196,000

square miles of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to pelagic longline fishing along the Gulf of

Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. A Draft SEIS on the proposed rule was also prepared. A

detailed discussion was provided describing a suite of management options considered, including: no action

(i.e., status quo on all regulations impacting the pelagic longline fishery); prohibition of pelagic longline

gear; 4 time/area closure scenarios (4 areas in the Gulf of Mexico and 4 areas in the southeastern U.S.

Atlantic coast were examined); prohibition of the use of live bait; several alternatives to reduce turtle

interactions (related to depth of hooks, water temperature and time of day); requiring use of circle hooks;

reduction of soak time; and limiting access by new entrants to the fishery to further reduce fishing effort

in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The objectives were to maximize the reduction of finfish bycatch,

minimize the reduction in the target catch of swordfish and other species, and minimize the impact on the

incidental catch of other species (e.g., turtles and marine mammals). 

The final rule was published on August 1, 2000 and became effective September 1, 2000. 

In the final rule, the proposed closure of the western Gulf of Mexico was changed to a Gulf-wide

prohibition on the use of live bait with pelagic longline gear. Also, the year-round closure of the DeSoto

Canyon area was added to further reduce dead discards of small swordfish. A year-round closure of the

area south of 31o

N latitude (the “Florida Atlantic closure area”) and a February 1 through April 30

closure of the area to the north of this (from 31o

N - 34° N latitude; i.e., the “Charleston Bump” closure

area) yielded results similar to the proposed preferred alternative, and these areas combined were

selected as the revised South Atlantic closure area in the final rule (See Figure 1).

2.1.1.2 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) 

The HMS FMP addresses the ALWTRP for the shark drift gillnet component of the HMS fisheries. 

Measures under the FMP to prevent potential interaction between right whales and this fishery include: 

closure of the Southeast U.S. right whale critical habitat and adjacent area (approximately Savannah, GA 

to Sebastian, FL) to all gillnet gear during the calving season (November 15 - March 31) when whale 

distribution may coincide with the fishery (with exemption for strike gillnet gear under certain specified 

conditions); a 100% observer requirement from November 15 to March 31 for anyone fishing outside (to 

the east or south) of the closed area (i.e., between Savannah, GA and approximately West Palm Beach, 

FL) or fishing with strikenet gear inside the closed area; and gear marking requirements. These 

requirements were previously implemented under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 

regulations establishing the ALWTRP. The HMS FMP adopted these regulations under authority of the 

MSA, to ensure regulatory consistency. 

2.1.1.3 Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (AOCTRP) 

The HMS FMP addresses the AOCTRP recommendations for the pelagic drift gillnet fishery and the 

pelagic longline fishery components of the HMS fishery. The May 1999 rule prohibits the use of this gear 

type in targeting tuna in pelagic waters. The proposed take reduction measures largely focused on the 

mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal areas, where marine mammal bycatch was highest. For the pelagic 

longline fishery, these measures include reducing the length of the longline to 24 nm (as a means of effort 

reduction) in the mid-Atlantic, retrieving the gear in reverse of the order set to decrease soak time, 

8
moving fishing location after 1 marine mammal interaction (because of the contiguous distribution of 

protected species bycatch noted in the observer data base), limited entry, increasing observer 

coverage, education/outreach workshops to increase awareness of marine mammal bycatch problems 

with the fishery and encourage proper techniques for disentanglement/release, and enhancing 

communication between fishermen. The TRT also recommended research on acoustic deterrent devices 

and, to prevent future expansion of the fishery into presently unexploited areas, closure of right whale 

critical habitats during seasons when right whales would likely be present. 

The May 28, 1999, final rule implementing the HMS FMP incorporates the AOCTRP’s recommendations 

to: move after an interaction; limit the length of longlines in the Mid-Atlantic Bight to 24 nm for one year 

(to assess its utility at marine mammal bycatch reduction); and limited entry. With respect to conducting 

fisherman education/outreach, NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and Division of Highly Migratory 

Species Management jointly decided that the education/outreach component of the rule should be made 

voluntary on a two-year trial basis, in keeping with the recommendations of the AOCTRP. NMFS’ 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries decided against the recommendation to retrieve gear in reverse order due 

to human safety concerns. However, this measure is allegedly practiced by several fishermen in the 

longline fishery currently; thus, it is unclear whether implementation of this strategy would have been 

effective in reducing levels of protected species bycatch. Therefore, it is unlikely that NMFS' decision 

not to implement this recommendation through the HMS FMP will greatly alter the overall effectiveness 

of the suite of take reduction strategies recommended by the AOCTRP. 

NMFS’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries, in consultation with the Office of Protected Resources, 

determined that the right whale critical habitat closure proposed under the AOCTRP would more 

appropriately be implemented under the MMPA. Provided the closure was implemented under the 

MMPA within a reasonable time-frame, NMFS' April 23, 1999, Opinion indicated that there would be no 

difference in terms of the level of protection afforded right whales. However, NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources has not yet addressed this issue under the MMPA. Currently, this is not a great 

concern because longline fishing generally doesn’t take place in right whale critical habitat areas; 

however, the AOCTRP recommends the closure to avoid potential future expansion of HMS fisheries into 

such habitat areas. 

2.1.2 Gear types and management measures 

Pelagic longlines are a dominant commercial fishing gear used by U.S. fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean to 

target highly migratory species. The following is a description of the gear types used in HMS fisheries, 

with emphasis on the pelagic longline. 

2.1.2.1 Pelagic Longline Fisheries 

The U.S. pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic HMS primarily targets swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or bigeye 

tuna in various areas and seasons. Secondary target species include dolphin (incidentally caught in the 

HMS fisheries), albacore tuna, pelagic sharks including mako, thresher, and porbeagle sharks, as well as 

several species of large coastal sharks. Although this gear can be modified (e.g. depth of set, hook type, 

etc.) to target either swordfish, tunas, or sharks, like other hook and line fisheries, it is a multi-species 

fishery. These fisheries are opportunistic, switching gear style and making subtle changes to target the 

best available economic opportunity of each individual trip. Longline gear sometimes attracts and hooks 

non-target finfish with no commercial value, as well as species, such as billfish, that cannot be retained by 

commercial fishermen under NMFS regulations. 

9
2.1.2.1.1 Pelagic Longline Gear 

When targeting swordfish, the lines generally are deployed at sunset and hauled in at sunrise to take 

advantage of swordfish nocturnal near-surface feeding habits. In general, longlines targeting tunas are 

set in the morning, deeper in the water column, and hauled in the evening. Except for vessels of the 

distant water fleet which undertake extended trips, fishing vessels preferentially target swordfish during 

periods when the moon is full to take advantage of increased densities of swordfish near the surface. 

Pelagic longline gear is composed of several parts, as shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Typical U.S. pelagic longline gear. Source: Arocha 1996. 

Figure 3, (NMFS 2001b), illustrates the difference between swordfish (shallow) and tuna (deep) longline 

sets. 

10
Compared with vessels targeting swordfish or mixed species, vessels targeting tuna typically are smaller 

and fish different grounds. Swordfish sets are buoyed to the surface, have few hooks between floats, and 

are relatively shallow. This same type of gear arrangement is used for mixed target sets. Tuna sets use 

a different type of float placed much further apart. Compared with swordfish sets, there are more hooks 

per foot between the floats and the hooks are set much deeper in the water column (> 109 meters). The 

hooks are also different for each target type. Swordfish sets generally use “J” hooks and tuna sets use 

“tuna” hooks, which are more curved than “J” hooks. In addition, tuna sets use bait only while swordfish 

fishing uses a combination of bait and lightsticks. The number of hooks per set varies with line 

configuration and target catch (see Table 2). 

Figure 3. Gear Configuration for Pelagic Longline Sets Targeting Swordfish vs. Tuna 

Table 2: Average Number of Hooks per set in the U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1995 through 1998. 

(Source: B. Sutter, NMFS draft SAFE Report, pers. comm. 2001) 

Target Species 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Swordfish 500 497 500 485 

Bigeye Tuna 831 804 725 732 

Yellowfin Tuna 753 750 717 717 

Shark 666 662 669 746 

Mix 705 724 710 719 

2.1.2.1.2 Pelagic Longline Catch and Discard Patterns 

11 
The pelagic longline fishery is comprised of five relatively distinct fisheries with different fishing practices 

and strategies, including the Gulf of Mexico yellowfin tuna fishery, the south Atlantic-Florida east coast to 

Cape Hatteras swordfish fishery, the mid-Atlantic and New England swordfish and bigeye tuna fishery, 

the U.S. distant water swordfish fishery, and the Caribbean Islands tuna and swordfish fishery. Each 

vessel type has different range capabilities due to fuel capacity, hold capacity, size, and construction. In 

addition to geographical area, segments differ by percentage of various target and non-target species, 

gear characteristics, bait, and deployment techniques. Some vessels fish in more than one fishery 

segment during the course of the year. Pelagic longline catch (including bycatch,and target catch) is 

largely related to these vessel and gear characteristics. 

Table 3: Observer Coverage Achieved in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery, 1995 ­

1999. 

Year Number of Sets Recorded Percentage of Total Number of Sets 

1995 696 5.2 

1996 361 2.5 

1997 448 3.1 

1998 287 2.9 

1999 430 4.0 

2.1.2.1.3 Overview of History and Current Management of the Pelagic Longline 

Fishery 

U.S. pelagic longline fishermen began targeting highly migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean in the early 

1960s. However, U.S. landings of swordfish did not exceed 1,500 metric tons until the mid-1970s. Since 

that time, the gear deployed has evolved several times. The majority of fishermen use monofilament 

mainline that is rigged depending on whether the line is targeting tunas or swordfish. There are 

differences in the location, timing, and gear configuration that are specific to the tuna or swordfish target. 

For example, yellowfin tuna fishing tends to occur during the day while most swordfish fishing takes place 

at night. However, particularly during swordfish sets, longline gear hooks many different pelagic species 

incidentally. The incidental catch includes species which are discarded for economic and regulatory 

reasons. A complete discussion of the pelagic longline fishery can be found in Regulatory Amendment 

One to the HMS FMP (NMFS 2000a). 

Pelagic longline fishermen are subject to minimum sizes for yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna, and 

swordfish to reduce the mortality of small fish. Pelagic longline fishermen are also subject to target catch 

limits in order to retain bluefin tuna. Regulatory discards compose a large portion of the bycatch in the 

fishery. In some areas and at certain times of the year, much of the bycatch in this fishery is released 

dead. Because it is difficult for pelagic longline fishermen to avoid undersized fish or bluefin tuna in some 

areas, NMFS has closed areas in the Gulf of Mexico and along the east coast. The intention of these 

12
closures is to relocate some of the fishing effort into areas where bycatch is expected to be lower. In 

order to enforce time/area closures, NMFS is considering requiring VMS on all pelagic longline vessels. 

In addition to regulations designed to reduce bycatch, pelagic longline fishermen are subject to quota 

management for swordfish, sharks and bluefin tuna. Quota monitoring requires seasonal regulations and 

closures. To document catch and effort, pelagic longline fishermen are subject to permitting and reporting 

requirements, including logbooks and observer coverage. In 1999, NMFS established a limited entry 

system for swordfish, shark, and tuna longline category permits. Pelagic longline fishermen who target 

swordfish or BAYS (Bigeye, Albacore, Yellowfin, Skipjack) tunas must have swordfish, shark, and tuna 

longline category permits. NMFS is re-evaluating the limited access program and may consider gearspecific permits in the future. Pelagic longlines are possibly the most regulated of all HMS gear types due 

to the nature of the gear and its catch/bycatch. 

2.1.2.1.4 Fish Bycatch Issues and Data Associated with the Pelagic Longline 

Fishery 

Fish are discarded from the pelagic longline fishery for a variety of reasons. As in other HMS fisheries, 

swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna may be discarded because they are undersized or 

unmarketable (e.g., shark-bitten). Blue sharks, as well as some other finfish species, are discarded as a 

result of a limited market (resulting in low prices) and perishability of the product. Large coastal sharks 

are discarded from this gear during times when the trip limit is exceeded or the shark season is closed. 

Bluefin tuna may be discarded because target catch requirements have not been met. All billfish and 

protected species including mammals, sea turtles, and birds are required to be discarded. In the past, 

swordfish have been discarded during times when the swordfish season is closed; however, the North 

Atlantic swordfish quota has not been met in recent years. 

Mortality of marlins, swordfish, sharks, and bluefin tuna from all fishing nations may significantly reduce 

the ability of these populations to rebuild and remains an important management issue. Recently, to 

further minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS published regulations 

to close areas to longline fishing and banned the use of live bait by longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. 

NMFS is also concerned about serious injuries to turtles and marine mammals as a result of interactions 

with pelagic longline gear. 

2.1.2.1.5 Observer Program for the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

A total of 430 longline sets were observed and recorded by NMFS observers in 1999 (4% coverage of a 

total of 11,045 sets reported). Table 3 compares observer coverage in past years for this fleet. The 

HMS Opinion requires that a minimum of 5% of the pelagic longline trips be selected for observer 

coverage for trips taken during 1999. In addition, the U.S. has agreed to an international recommendation 

requiring 5% observer coverage for all trips targeting yellowfin tuna and/or bigeye tuna. Unfortunately, 

due to logistical problems, it was not possible to place observers on all selected trips. NMFS is working 

towards improving compliance with observer requirements and facilitating communication between vessel 

operators and observer program coordinators. In addition, fishermen will be reminded of safety 

requirements for placement of observers, including the need to have all safety equipment on board that is 

required by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

2.1.2.2 Bottom Longline Fishery 

13
The Atlantic bottom longline fishery targets large coastal sharks; landings are dominated by sandbar and 

blacktip sharks. Gear consists of a 10-mile long monofilament mainline, with lighter weight monofilament 

gangions, with about 750 hooks. Fishing is conducted overnight. Commercial shark fishing effort with 

bottom longline gear is concentrated in the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Between 

1994 and 1997, the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation’s Observer Program 

observed 5.5 million hook hours of effort that caught more than 26,000 sharks. Their observations 

indicated that average bottom longline sets lasted between 10 and 15 hours. Within the limited access 

system for the shark fishery using bottom longline gear, NMFS estimates that approximately 211 and 578 

vessels are eligible for directed and incidental shark permits, respectively. 

2.1.2.3 Atlantic Pelagic Driftnets 

While considered under the HMS FMP, the use of pelagic driftnets has been prohibited in the tuna fishery 

and in the Atlantic swordfish fishery since January 1999. Therefore, it is not an issue for this consultation. 

2.1.2.4 Atlantic Coastal Driftnets 

The HMS FMP bans coastal driftnets for BAYS tuna but NMFS has issued exempted fishing permits 

under certain conditions. Bluefish, dogfish, and other species that are not covered under the HMS FMP 

are caught using coastal drifnets and will be considered under separate consultation and in the baseline for 

this Opinion. 

2.1.2.5 Southeast Shark Drift Gillnets 

Drift gillnets are typically 275 to 1,800 m long and 3.2 to 4.1 m deep, with stretched mesh from 12.7 to 

29.9 cm. Approximately 12 to15 vessels use gillnets. Fishing trips are usually less than 18 hours long and 

in nearshore areas within 30 nm from port. Recent legislation in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida has 

prohibited the use of commercial gillnets in state waters, thereby forcing some of these vessels into 

deeper waters under federal jurisdiction, where gillnets are less effective. The HMS FMP requires 100% 

observer coverage in the shark drift gillnet fishery during the right whale calving season and 53% during 

the remainder of the year, and prohibits the use of gillnets to fish for sharks unless a NMFS-approved 

observer is aboard. 

2.1.2.6 Purse Seines 

A purse seine is a floated and weighted encircling net (mesh size from 3 to 4.3 inches) that is closed by 

means of a drawstring threaded through rings attached to the bottom of the net. The floatline can be 

between 950 to 1200 yards long and the purse line can be between 1000 and 2200 yards long. The 

leadline ranges from 950 to 1,415 yards. Purse seine gear is a pelagic gear used to target species such as 

herring, mackerel, and tuna. Similar to midwater trawl gear, purse seine gear has a negligible catch of 

multispecies, as the gear is designed to fish in the upper layers of the water column for fish schooling at or 

near the surface of the ocean. In addition, as opposed to trawl gear, purse seine gear is not towed 

through the water column, giving demersal species the opportunity to escape. Five boats in the HMS 

fishery are equipped with purse seines. 

2.1.2.7 Handgear (Rod and Reel, Bandit Gear, Handline, and Harpoon) 

14
The handgear fishery for HMS includes private vessels, charter vessels, and headboat vessels. Small 

bluefin tuna are typically caught by trolling with artificial lures, although chunking has become popular in 

some areas, using rod and reel. Giant bluefin tuna are harpooned (a commercial fishery), or are caught 

by trolling, or by chumming and drifting with several types of hook and line gear. Mackerel, whiting, 

mullet, ballyhoo, and squid are usual choices for bait. 

Recreational fishing for medium and giant bluefin tuna with rod and reel generally takes place between 

December and February off North Carolina. Smaller bluefin tuna are generally targeted off Virginia, 

Delaware, and Maryland in early to mid-summer, with the center of activity moving northward into the 

New York Bight as the season progresses. Giant bluefin tuna are generally caught with handgear in 

Cape Cod Bay, the Gulf of Maine, and other New England waters during summer and early fall. Fishing 

usually takes place between eight and 200 km from shore. 

As part of the limited access program implemented in the HMS FMP, NMFS issued handgear permits to 

fishermen who provide documentation of having been issued a swordfish permit for use with harpoon 

gear or who landed swordfish with handgear, as evidenced by logbook records, verifiable sales slips or 

receipts from registered dealers, or state landing records. NMFS issued handgear permits to those 

applicants who met the earned income requirement. There are approximately 20,000 vessels permitted to 

use rod and reel, either recreational or commercial, for Atlantic tuna. 

2.2 Description of the Current HMS Fisheries 

The fisheries for highly migratory species have been described extensively in the HMS FMP the Billfish 

FMP, and in previous consultations, as noted above; these descriptions are incorporated herein by 

reference. Definitions of the various gear-types used in HMS fisheries are provided in 2.1.2 Gear and 

Management Measures, above. Recreational fisheries for all HMS managed species groups also exist. 

Collectively, these fisheries are prosecuted throughout the U.S. Atlantic EEZ and beyond. HMS 

fisheries include fisheries targeting swordfish, tuna, bluefin tuna, sharks, and billfish, as described below. 

Total (preliminary) reported U.S. catch of tuna and tuna-like fishes (including swordfish, but excluding 

other billfishes) in 1998 was 26,631 metric tons (mt). This represents a decrease of 2,883 mt (10% 

decrease) from 1997. Estimated swordfish catch (including estimated dead discards) decreased 185 mt to 

3,655 mt, and provisional landings from the U.S. fishery for yellowfin in the Gulf of Mexico decreased in 

1998 to 2,006 from 2,634 in 1997. The estimated 1998 Gulf of Mexico landings of yellowfin accounted for 

36% of the estimated total U.S. yellowfin landings in 1998. U.S. vessels fishing in the northwest Atlantic 

landed an estimated 1,234 mt of bluefin, a decrease of 99 mt compared to 1997. Provisional skipjack 

landings increased by 21 mt to 105 mt from 1997 to 1998, estimated bigeye landings decreased by 208 mt 

compared to 1997 to an estimated 928 mt in 1998, and estimated albacore landings increased from 1997 to 

1998 by 249 mt to 830 mt. 

For 1999, the provisional estimate of U.S. vessel landings and dead discards of swordfish was 3,585 mt 

(99 % of these are longline landings and discards). This estimate is somewhat lower than the estimate of 

3,660 mt for 1998. Decline in U.S. landings of swordfish from the 1990 level was at least in part due to 

U.S. implementation of quotas. The 1999 stock assessment shows a potential reward for these fishermen 

who have been subject to increasingly restrictive management measures. With a rebuilding plan in place, 

it is hoped that the strong year classes of young swordfish will be protected throughout their lives and 

15
stock size will begin to increase. Anecdotal evidence indicates more small swordfish are being 

encountered by pelagic longline fishermen throughout the Atlantic Ocean. 

The U.S. longline fleet has historically accounted for a small percentage of total Atlantic landings of HMS 

(Table 4). Even including U.S. discards for bluefin tuna, swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin, and sailfish, 

the U.S. percentage still remains around 5 % of all longline landings reported to the International 

Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 

16
Table 4: Estimated International Longline Landings of HMS, Other than Sharks, for All Countries in 

the Atlantic: 1995-1998 (mt ww)*. Source: SCRS, 2000. 

1996 1997 1998 1999 

Swordfish (N.Atl + S. Atl) 31438 30375 24203 25695 

Yellowfin Tuna (W. Atl)** 8569 8505 8181 10943 

Bigeye Tuna 74880 68198 70302 77356 

Bluefin Tuna (W. Atl.)** 528 382 764 914 

Albacore Tuna (N. Atl + S. Atl) 23044 22324 20936 24936 

Skipjack Tuna*** 26 60 89 13 

Blue Marlin (N. Atl. + S. Atl.)  3577 3626 2390 2522 

White Marlin (N. Atl. + S. Atl.)** ** 1171 942 831 833 

Sailfish (W. Atl.)**** 341 209 830 405 

Total 143,574 134,621 128,526 143,617 

U.S. Longline Catch (from U.S. Natl. 

Report, 2000)# 5767.3 8931.7 7194.3 8362-8483 

U.S. Longline Catch as Percentage of 

Longline Total in Atlantic 

4.0 6.6 5.6 5.8-5.9 

* landings include those classified by the SCRS as longline landings for all areas 

**Note that the U.S. has not reported participation in the E. Atlantic yellowfin tuna fishery since 1983 and has not 

participated in the E. Atl bluefin tuna fishery since 1982. 

***includes longline and trawl catches for all countries throughout the Atlantic Ocean 

****includes U.S. dead discards 

# includes swordfish longline discards and bluefin tuna discards 

2.2.1 Swordfish Fishery 

Swordfish are primarily taken by pelagic longline, with minimal catches by harpoon, handline, and rod and 

reel. Under a limited access program effective July 1, 1999, 573 vessels were permitted to land swordfish 

as of March 23, 2000; 244 of these permits are for directed longline fishing for swordfish and 123 permits 

are for directed swordfish fishing with handgear. A few of these vessels fish in the South Atlantic Ocean 

(south of 5o

 N latitude). During 1993-1996, between 4,074 and 4,551 mt of swordfish were either landed 

or caught and discarded. In 1998 and 1999, the United States was limited to 29% of the North Atlantic 

total allowable catch (TAC), which is a base quota of 2,398.6 mt dw (dressed weight). The pelagic 

longline fishery operates year-round in all pelagic waters of the U.S. EEZ and beyond (see Figure 4), and 

currently accounts for approximately 98% of the U.S. domestic swordfish landings. About 16-31% of 

U.S. swordfish landings are harvested on the Grand Banks. NMFS believes that U.S. fishing effort on 

the Grand Banks is likely capped, due to limited access and upgrading restrictions, and has decreased. 

The NMFS Pelagic Logbook Newsletter reports that 22 U.S. boats fished on the Grand Banks in 1996 

17
and 1997 (making 710 and 762 sets, respectively), 15 boats and 618 sets in 1998. Beideman (2001, pers. 

comm.) reported that in the 1990s there were more than 60 (longline) vessels fishing the Grand Banks, 

while only 10-12 vessels fished there in 2000. It appears, therefore, that pelagic longline effort in the 

Grand Banks has steadily decreased over the past few years. 

Incidental catches by fishing gears other than pelagic longline and handgear are restricted to incidental 

commercial retention limits of 2 to 5 swordfish per trip depending on gear type, and are counted against 

Figure 4 NMFS Statistical Areas for the Pelagic Longline Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna and 

Sharks. (Geographic areas used in summaries of pelagic logbook data from 1992 - 1998. 

Source: Cramer and Adams, 2000). 

the incidental catch quota. Incidental landings are made by otter trawl vessels fishing for squid, mackerel, 

and butterfish (the primary prey species sought by swordfish). 

2.2.2 Atlantic Tuna Fishery (other than bluefin) 

Target species for the Atlantic tuna fishery include yellowfin, bigeye, north Atlantic albacore, and 

Atlantic skipjack. The directed fisheries for Atlantic tunas are limited by regulation to pelagic longline, rod 

and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit gear, and purse seine nets. The May 28, 1999, final rule implementing 

18
the HMS FMP prohibited the use of pelagic driftnets for targeting tuna. In 1999, there were 22,967 

vessels permitted to participate in Atlantic tuna fisheries, including 6,827 general category vessels, 13,147 

angling category vessels, 2,457 charter/headboat category vessels, 450 pelagic longline vessels, 48 

harpoon category vessels, and 5 purse seine vessels. Total landings in all regions by all gear types 

combined ranged from 5,199.3 to 8,131.3 mt between 1993 and 1996. Of the tuna landings reported in the 

FMP, yellowfin tuna was by far the dominant species landed, by weight. The pelagic longline fishery 

accounted for between 36% and 65% of the total U.S. Atlantic yellowfin tunas landed, by weight. The 

rod and reel fishery landed between 27% and 63%, with all other gear types combined accounting for 

between 1% and 8% over the 1993-1996 period. 

2.2.3 Bluefin Tuna Fishery 

The commercial fishery includes primarily handgear (rod and reel, harpoon, kegline, and handline) and 

purse seine vessels, and is primarily focused in the mid-Atlantic and New England. While targeting 

bluefin, purse seine vessels operate primarily out of New Bedford and Gloucester. These vessels 

typically operate in New England waters east and southeast of Massachusetts, from mid-August through 

September. U.S. vessels fishing in the northwest Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico) in 1998 landed 

an estimated 1,234 mt of bluefin tuna and discarded dead an estimated 67 mt (total 1,301 mt). About 20% 

(248 mt annual average) of this is landed by purse seine vessels. In 1998, 240 bluefin tuna were landed 

incidentally to other fishing operations, primarily in longline fisheries targeting yellowfin tuna and 

swordfish. Bluefin tuna landed in the incidental category averaged 439 lbs in 1998, down from 448 lbs in 

1997, and 539 lbs in 1996. Bluefin tuna were landed by 100 incidental category permit holders in 1998. In 

1998, only 8% of those vessels landing under the incidental category landed more than 5 fish. Target 

catch requirements on the incidental catch of bluefin tuna are intended to remove any incentive to target 

these bluefin tuna while minimizing dead discards. The annual U.S. allowance for dead discards is 

currently 68 mt. If there are dead discards in excess of this allowance, they must be counted against the 

following year’s quota. If there are fewer dead discards, then half of the under-harvest may be added to 

the following year’s quota while the other half is conserved. 

2.2.4 Shark Fishery 

The directed shark fishery consists of 5 species groups: large coastal sharks (12 species), small coastal 

sharks (4 species), pelagic sharks (5 species), prohibited sharks (19 species) and deepwater/other sharks 

(33 species). The directed fisheries for Atlantic sharks include bottom longline, shark gillnet, and rod and 

reel gear, and are located primarily in the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico. Sharks are also 

caught in pelagic longline gear but the majority of these are caught incidental to other fishing operations, 

although pelagic longlines are sometimes used to target porbeagle and mako sharks. 

The HMS FMP described a limited access program for commercial shark and swordfish fishermen that 

was implemented on July 1, 1999. As of March 23, 2000, there were 280 directed shark commercial 

permits and 598 incidental shark commercial permits. 

The HMS FMP states that nearly all Atlantic commercial shark fishermen operate in the multispecies 

longline fishery. In an effort to rebuild these overfished stocks, in 1997 NMFS reduced the overall 

commercial quota by 50% to 1,285 mt for the large coastal species (LCS) group, established a 1,760 mt 

quota for the small coastal species (SCS) group, and maintained the commercial quota for the pelagic 

species group at 550 mt. 

19
The May 28, 1999, regulations implementing the HMS FMP would have further reduced commercial 

quotas for sharks; however, a court order resulting from a lawsuit challenging the reduced quotas 

prevented their implementation. While this case has been settled, the higher 1997 quotas are still in place 

per the settlement agreement, pending an independent review of the science underlying the quotas. 

The 1999 Shark Evaluation Annual Report indicates that estimates of 1997 landings of large coastal, 

pelagic, and small coastal sharks (which were preliminary at the time the HMS FMP was prepared) have 

been finalized, and provides preliminary estimates of 1998 landings: 2,058 mt dw of large coastal sharks; 

228 mt dw of pelagic sharks; and 287 mt dw of small coastal sharks. Notable revisions indicate that large 

coastal sharks landings in 1997 were approximately 400 mt dw higher than previously reported, and that 

landings in 1998 were approximately 249 mt dw higher than the final 1997 estimates. Additionally, these 

landings represent a 16 mt dw decrease of pelagic sharks, and a 33 mt dw decrease of small coastal 

sharks from 1997 final estimates. The 1999 Shark Evaluation Annual Report states that: 

“Updated catches in numbers for 1997 are estimated to be higher than previously reported 

because complete landings statistics were not available at the time the original estimates were 

derived. Catches in numbers for 1998 are estimated to be about 14% higher than 1997 catches. 

Catch levels higher than the established quota in 1997 and 1998 are attributable to state landings 

after season closures, and Louisiana is the state with the highest landings.” 

A drift gillnet fishery for sharks is prosecuted mainly off the southern tip of Georgia and down the Florida 

Atlantic coast to approximately the West Palm Beach area. The fishery operates year-round, but mostly 

between January and October, alternating between small and large coastals as seasonal distributions and 

quotas permit. Participants in this fishery also participate in the Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery, and 

generally fish for mackerel when possible, fishing for sharks only secondarily. According to Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection trip ticket data, landings in this fishery were 468.6 mt (large and 

small coastal sharks and pelagic species combined) in 1997 and 409.6 mt in 1998. These data include 

bycatch landings, primarily from the Spanish mackerel fishery. No shark gillnet landings data are 

available from Georgia, although this is believed to represent a small fraction of the effort that takes place 

off the Florida coast. 

Carlson and Lee (1999) provided information on catch and bycatch in the shark drift gillnet fishery off 

east Florida during the 1998/1999 right whale calving season (November 15 - March 31) indicating that a 

total of 20 sets on 20 observed vessel trips caught an estimated 2,923 animals. The catch consisted of 12 

species of sharks, 21 species of teleosts and rays, and one species of marine mammal. Two species of 

sharks, blacktip and finetooth, made up 90% by number and 73% by weight of the observed shark catch. 

Bycatch was dominated by crevalle jack, Spanish mackerel, tarpon, cobia, king mackerel, spotted eagle 

ray, and menhaden. 

According to the Highly Migratory Species Division, a group of fishermen (n •6) in Alabama are 

operating a shark gillnet fishery off the coast of that state, using 8 to12-in mesh and > 2,000 yards of net. 

If this fishery does develop, there is little potential for interaction with listed whales, due to their rare 

occurrence in the Gulf (with the exception of sperm whales, which could be impacted if the fishery is 

prosecuted far enough offshore or the occasional whale strays into coastal waters – especially since the 

DeSoto Canyon area, as noted earlier, is a “hot spot” for this species). However, sea turtles would likely 

be impacted at some unquantifiable level. Thus far, the fishery is operating only in state waters and 

20
therefore would fall under the purview of the HMS FMP only if the vessel owner has been issued a 

Limited Access Permit to participate in the shark fishery in federal waters. 

2.3 FMP for the Atlantic Billfish Fishery 

The fishery is recreational only with rod-and-reel gear. The fishing year is from June 1 to May 31. The 

FMP sets reporting and monitoring requirements, caps on annual landings, minimum size of catch, and 

other management measures. The fishery is concentrated from Massachusetts to North Carolina, 

southeast Florida, northern Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. Billfish caught in commercial fisheries 

must be discarded. Since 1988, annual discards, on average, have been approximately 150 mt of Atlantic 

blue marlin and 80 mt of Atlantic white marlin. Annual recreational landings of Atlantic blue marlin have 

been reduced since 1988 by approximately 73% relative to pre-management levels (1980-1988); annual 

white marlin recreational landings have declined by approximately 90% over the same time. 

Summary 

The action considered in this consultation includes the following elements of the HMS fishery. Table 1

lists the general gear restrictions and fishing years established in the FMP. HMS FMP management

measures specific to bycatch reduction include implementation of certain measures other than closures to

reduce bycatch of marine mammals recommended by the ALWTRT and AOCTRP. The FMP also

implements several closures to reduce bycatch: the final rule that closed the Florida Atlantic to longline

fishing year-round and the “Charleston Bump” area from February 1 - April 30 and the DeSoto Canyon

area of the Gulf of Mexico to longline fishing year-round (See Figure 1), and prohibits the use of live bait

for pelagic longline fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, a previous rule implemented the

Northeast closure, effective June 1, 1999, and the October 13 emergency rule implemented the L-shape

closure in the NED effective October 10, 2000 through April 9, 2001 are also part of the action (See

Figure 1). 

This Opinion will evaluate the continued implementation of the existing FMPs and the effects of existing

rules on the fishery. The Opinion considers information regarding significant underestimates of previously

determined incidental take levels, the updated status information on loggerheads and leatherbacks

provided by the SEFSC, the most recent available analyses and studies of pelagic longline gear/sea turtle

interactions, and information on hooked sea turtle mortality using satellite-transmitter equipped turtles,

conducted before and since the June 30, 2000, Opinion was issued. 

The addition of VMS as a tool to monitor the pelagic longline closure areas, though an integral part of the

August 1, 2000, final rule, is not considered part of the proposed action because its implementation is

currently delayed indefinitely by federal court order. 

2.4 Action Area 

Collectively, HMS fisheries are prosecuted throughout the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic 

Ocean and in the high seas areas of the Atlantic. Figure 4 depicts NMFS' statistical sampling areas used 

for reporting of HMS catch to ICCAT. The area in Figure 4 encompasses the areas of the U.S. EEZ and 

the high seas where the U.S. fleet operates. Throughout their range of operation, HMS fisheries may 

affect listed species of sea turtles, therefore, the action area for this Opinion is the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean EEZ and high seas areas depicted in the map in Figure 4. 

21
3.0 STATUS OF AFFECTED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

The following listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are known to occur in the pelagic waters of 

the North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico: 

Endangered 

Blue whale 

Humpback whale 

Fin whale

Northern right whale

Sei whale 

Sperm whale 

Leatherback sea turtle 

Hawksbill sea turtle

Green turtle

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle

Threatened 

Loggerhead sea turtle 

Critical Habitat Designations 

Balaenoptera musculus 

Megaptera novaeangliae 

Balaenoptera physalus 

Eubalaena glacialis 

Balaenoptera borealis 

Physeter macrocephalus 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

Chelonia mydas 

Lepidochelys kempii 

Caretta caretta 

Right Whale [Western North Atlantic Stock] 

(Note: Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population 

which is listed as endangered. Due to the inability to distinguish between these populations away from the 

nesting beach, green turtles are considered endangered wherever they occur in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico waters.) 

Since the action area for this consultation encompasses the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico and the 

Atlantic Ocean and the high sea areas of the Atlantic (Figure 4), it occurs throughout the range of the 

species considered in this Opinion. All the listed species occurring in the action area are highly migratory, 

and the scope of the action area includes all pelagic areas where these species may be found within the 

U.S. EEZ. In addition, international activities occur in the action area. Information on the range-wide 

species status, normally included in a separate section of the Biological Opinion, in this case, is described 

by the baseline factors affecting these species within the action area. Sections on the status of listed 

species and the environmental baseline are combined in this Opinion. 

The HMS pelagic fishery impacts sea turtles to a much larger extent than it does the large whales. When 

the drift gillnet portion of the fishery was still operating, interactions with large whales and the HMS 

fisheries would have been more likely. While whales could become entangled in longlines, it has not been 

recorded by federal observers in the Atlantic fishery. However, a humpback whale was observed 

entangled in the mainline of a Hawaii-based longline vessel (Dollar, 1991) and another was reported 

entangled in longline gear off Lanai (Nitta and Henderson, 1993). In May 1999, a sperm whale 

entanglement was recorded by a NMFS observer on a Hawaii-based swordfish longline vessel. The 

whale broke free of the gear and, presumably, did not suffer serious injury. Endangered whale 

information for species considered in this consultation is summarized annually in Stock Assessment 

Reports required by the MMPA. These assessments include baseline information on human and natural 

impacts on the stocks throughout their range and should be consulted for further information (Waring et 

al., 2000). 

22
Although blue whales and sei whales are found within the action area, there have been no observed 

interactions with fishing gear and only one report of a blue whale trailing line thought to be lobster gear 

(Waring et al. 1999). Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect blue whales or sei 

whales; and they will not be considered further in this Opinion. Although the probability is low given lack 

of observed interactions, North Atlantic right whales, fin whales, humpback whales and sperm whales 

could interact with HMS gear and, consequently, are included in this Opinion. 

The majority of potential impacts from the HMS pelagic fishery are on sea turtles. As part of the 

assessment phase of this consultation, NMFS SEFSC (2001) summarized sea turtle information 

concerning the observed, estimated, incidental, and stranding take levels, as well as sea turtle life stage 

impacted (NMFS SEFSC 2001) for U.S. federal and state activities, as well as foreign activities. These 

numbers must be viewed with caution even though they represent the best information currently available, 

because they are not directly comparable, e.g., some numbers represent observed take, some represent 

extrapolated estimates, and some are stranded animals. Consequently, all these estimates, except the 

extrapolations based on known percent of observer coverage and fishing effort, are likely underestimates 

of true take. Incidental mortality estimates are even more uncertain. 

3.1 Biology and Distribution 

Background information on the range-wide status of these species and a description of critical habitat can 

be found in a number of published documents. General information on the potential for entanglement in 

the gear types used in HMS fisheries is likely to be similar to that summarized in previous consultations on 

the HMS fisheries as noted above, as well as consultations on the Multispecies FMP, including the June 

12, 1986, November 30, 1993, February 18, 1996, and December 13, 1996 (NMFS 1996a) biological 

opinions and the December 21, 1998 monkfish biological opinion. Additional sources include recovery 

plans for sea turtles and sea turtle status documents (NMFS and USFWS 1991, 1992, 1992a, 1995), 

including the Marine Turtle Expert Working Group status reports on Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea 

turtles (TEWG 1998, 2000), Stock Assessments of Loggerhead 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 (NMFS SEFSC 2001), recovery plans for the humpback whale 

(NMFS 1991a) and right whale (NMFS 1991b), and the 1998 marine mammal stock assessment report 

(Waring et al. 1999). Summary information on the biology of these species is provided below. Additional 

background information on right and humpback whales was provided in the species accounts section of 

the May 29, 1997, Opinion and is incorporated herein by reference. The most recent and comprehensive 

update on the status of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles, as well as an extensive summary of the 

effects of the pelagic longline fishery on these sea turtle species, is contained in NMFS SEFSC 2001. 

3.2 Right whale 

Right whales have occurred historically in all the world’s oceans from temperate to subarctic latitudes. 

NMFS recognizes three major populations of right whales: North Pacific, North Atlantic, and Southern 

Hemisphere. NMFS further recognizes two extant subpopulations in the North Atlantic: eastern and 

western. A third subpopulation may have existed in the central Atlantic (migrating from east of Greenland 

to the Azores or Bermuda), but this stock appears to be extinct (Perry et al. 1999). Because of our 

limited understanding of the genetic structure of the entire species, the most conservative approach to this 

species would treat these right whale subpopulations as distinct populations whose survival and recovery 

is critical to the survival and recovery of the species. Consequently, this Opinion will focus on the 

western north Atlantic population of right whales, which occurs in the action area. 

23
The scarcity of right whales is the result of an 800-year history of whaling that continued into the 1960s

(Klumov 1962). Of all the large whales, the northern right whale has the highest risk of extinction in the

near future. Recent data indicate that there are an estimated 300 individuals in the North Atlantic and a

small, unknown number of individuals in the North Pacific. The southern right whale, in contrast, has

shown signs of slow recovery over the past 20 years. Illegal takes by Soviet whaling fleets operating in

the North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere are now known to have continued until as recently as 1980

(Zemsky et al. 1995). Northern right whales have been protected for more than 60 years from the

pressures of whaling, yet most stocks show no evidence of recovery.

Right whales appear to prefer shallow coastal waters, but their distribution is also strongly correlated to

the distribution of their prey (zooplankton). In both northern and southern hemispheres, right whales have

been observed in the lower latitudes and more coastal waters during winter, where calving takes place,

and in higher latitudes during the summer. In summer and fall in both hemispheres, the distribution of right

whales appears linked to the distribution of their principal zooplankton prey (Winn et al.1986). Right

whales in the Gulf of Maine feed on zooplankton, primarily copepods, by skimming at or below the

water’s surface with open mouths (NMFS 1991b, Kenney et al. 1986, Murison and Gaskin 1989, Mayo

and Marx 1990). The western north Atlantic stock of right whales generally occurs in Northwest Atlantic

waters west of the Gulf Stream and is most commonly associated with cooler waters 

(< 21°C). They are not found in the Caribbean and have been recorded only rarely in the Gulf of Mexico.

NMFS designated right whale critical habitat on June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28793 ). These waters, which lie 

within the action area, include the waters of Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel off the coast of 

Massachusetts, and off the coasts of southern Georgia and northern Florida, where the species is 

concentrated at different times of the year. Whales are most abundant in Cape Cod Bay between 

February and April (Hamilton and Mayo 1990; Schevill et al. 1986; Watkins and Schevill 1982), in the 

Great South Channel in May and June (Kenney et al. 1986, Payne et al. 1990), and off Georgia/Florida 

from mid-November through March (Slay et al. 1996). Right whales also frequent the Bay of Fundy, 

Browns and Baccaro Banks (in Canadian waters), Stellwagen Bank, and Jeffrey’s Ledge in the spring 

and summer months, and use mid-Atlantic waters as a migratory pathway between the winter calving 

grounds and their spring and summer nursery/feeding areas in the Gulf of Maine. During the winters of 

1999/2000 and 2000/2001, appreciable numbers of right whales were recorded in the Charleston, SC area. 

Because survey efforts in the mid-Atlantic have been limited, it is unknown whether this is typical or 

whether it represents a northern expansion of the normal winter range, perhaps due to unseasonably 

warm waters. However, historical sighting data uncorrected for effort do show a concentration of 

sightings in this area. In addition, recent satellite tracking efforts have identified individual animals 

embarking on far-ranging foraging episodes not previously known (Knowlton, pers. comm.). 

Since NMFS issued the 1997 biological opinion on HMS fisheries, there has been significant discussion 

regarding attempts to determine the current status and trend of this very small population and to make 

valid recommendations on recovery requirements. As reported in the 1997 Opinion, Knowlton et al. 

(1994) concluded, based on data from 1987 through 1992, that the western North Atlantic right whale 

population was growing at a net annual rate of 2.5% (CV = 0.12). This rate was also used in NMFS’ 

marine mammal Stock Assessment Reports, for example, Blaylock et al. 1995, Waring et al. 1997. Since 

then, the data used in Knowlton et al. (1994) have been re-evaluated, and new attempts to model the 

trends of the western North Atlantic right whale population have been published (e.g., Kraus 1997; 

Caswell et al. 1999) and additional works are in progress (Caswell et al., in prep.; Wade and Clapham, in 

prep). 

24
Recognizing the precarious status of the right whale, the continued threats present in its coastal habitat 

throughout its range, and the uncertainty surrounding attempts to characterize population trends, the 

International Whaling Commission (IWC) held a special meeting of its Scientific Committee from March 

19-25, 1998, in Cape Town, South Africa, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of right whales 

worldwide. The workshop’s participants reviewed available information on the northern right whale, 

including Knowlton et al. (1994), Kraus (1997), and Caswell et al. (1999). After considering this 

information, the workshop attendees concluded that it is unclear whether the western North Atlantic 

subpopulation of the right whale is “declining, stationary, or increasing, and [that] the best estimate of 

current population size is only 300 animals.” Maintaining a conservative stance due to these uncertainties, 

participants concluded that the growth rate of this population “is both low and substantially less than that 

of the southern right whale populations” (IWC 1999). 

The IWC Workshop participants expressed “considerable concern” in general for the status of the 

Western North Atlantic population. Based on recent (1993-1995) observations of near-failure of calf 

production, the significantly high mortality rate, and an observed increase in the calving interval, it was 

suggested that the slow but steady recovery rate published in Knowlton et al. (1994) may not be 

continuing. Workshop participants urgently recommended increased efforts to determine the trajectory of 

this right whale population, and NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center has initiated several efforts to 

implement that recommendation. 

Caswell et al. (1999), using data on reproduction and survival through 1996, determined that the western 

North Atlantic right whale population was declining at a rate of 2.4% per year. One model they used 

suggested that the mortality rate of the right whale population has increased 5-fold in less than 1 

generation. According to Caswell et al. (1999), if the mortality rate as of 1996 does not decrease and the 

population performance does not improve, extinction could occur within 100 years and would be certain 

within 400 years, with a mean time to extinction of 191 years. In the 3 calving seasons following Caswell 

et al.’s (1999) analysis (1998-2000), only 10 calves were known to have been born into the population. 

The 2001 calving season brought good news for those working hard for the protection of right whales. 

Survey crews working off Georgia and Florida observed a record total of 30 calves between December 

and March. 

It should be noted that no information is currently available on the response of the right whale population 

to recent (1997-1999) efforts to mitigate the effects of entanglement and ship strikes. Therefore, it is not 

possible to determine whether the trend through 1996, as reported in Caswell et al. (1999), is continuing. 

Furthermore, results reported in Caswell et al. (1999) suggest that it is not possible to determine that 

anthropogenic mortalities alone are responsible for the decline in right whale survival. However, they 

conclude that reduction of anthropogenic mortalities would significantly improve the species’ survival 

probability. Given the uncertainty regarding effects of natural phenomena such as demographic and 

environmental stochasticity, which can influence the northern right whale population -- and assuming that 

the right whale population, is in fact, declining -- it is impossible to determine whether the western North 

Atlantic right whale population has reached the point where it would continue to decline even if all humaninduced mortalities ceased. 

At the 1998 IWC workshop, an inter-sessional steering group was established to review Caswell et al. 

(1999) and several other ongoing assessment efforts to identify the best and most current available 

scientific information on population status and trends. The IWC Scientific Committee met in May 1999 

and discussed the steering group’s report. Committee members noted that there were several potential 

25
negative biases in Caswell et al. (1999) but agreed that the results of the study should be considered in 

management actions. 

For the purposes of this Opinion, until the new status and trend information has been thoroughly reviewed 

for assimilation into NMFS management programs, NMFS will continue to adopt the risk averse 

assumption that the northern right whale population is declining. 

3.2.1 General human impacts and entanglement 

The major known sources of anthropogenic mortality and injury of right whales include entanglement in 

commercial fishing gear and ship strikes. Right whales may also be adversely affected by habitat 

degradation, habitat exclusion, acoustic trauma, harassment, or reduction in prey resources due to trophic 

effects resulting from a variety of activities including the operation of commercial fisheries. 

Based on photographs of catalogued animals from 1959 - 1989, Kraus (1990) estimated that 57% of right 

whales exhibited scars from entanglement and 7% from ship strikes (propeller injuries). This work was 

updated by Hamilton et al. (1998) using data from 1935 through 1995. The new study estimated that 

61.6% of right whales exhibit injuries caused by entanglement, and 6.4 % exhibit signs of injury from 

vessel strikes. Hamilton et al. (1998) also reported that the increase in entanglement scarring since 1989 

is a significant trend which is not attributable to increases in sighting effort or population size. In addition, 

several animals have apparently been entangled on more than one occasion. Some right whales that have 

been entangled were subsequently involved in ship strikes. These scarring percentages are primarily 

based on sightings of free-swimming animals that initially survive the impact which resulted in the scar. 

Because some animals may drown or be killed immediately, the actual number of interactions may be 

higher, particularly for ship strikes, as these events are most often fatal. 

Many of the reports of right whale mortality cannot be attributed to a particular source. The following 

deaths or injuries were reported between 1996 and January 2001. (These numbers should be viewed as 

absolute minimum numbers; the total number of deaths and injuries cannot be estimated): 

1996: One right whale was killed by a ship strike off coastal Georgia; a second right whale was killed by 

a ship, stranding in the vicinity of Gloucester, MA, after having been entangled in 1995. In addition 

to these mortalities, there were two confirmed reports of right whales becoming entangled in 

fishing gear. One of these was deemed to be a “serious injury” (i.e., one that was likely to 

contribute to subsequent mortality of the animal). 

1997: Another right whale was killed by a ship strike in the Bay of Fundy, and there were 8 confirmed 

reports of whale entanglements. Six of the entanglements were reported in Canadian waters and 

2 in U.S. waters; it should be noted that we only know where 2 of the 8 entanglements occurred 

(one in U.S. and one in Canadian waters), and one of the reports may represent a resighting of an 

earlier entanglement. Three of these entanglements were deemed “serious injuries”. 

1998: Two adult female right whales were discovered in a weir off Grand Manan Island in the Bay of 

Fundy on July 12, 1998, and were released two days later; no residual injuries of concern were 

reported. On July 24, 1998, the disentanglement team removed line from around the tail stock of 

a right whale which was originally seen entangled in the Bay of Fundy on August 26, 1997. This 

same whale, apparently debilitated from the earlier entanglement, became entangled in lobster pot 

gear twice in one week in Cape Cod Bay in September 1998. The gear from the latter two 

26
entanglements was completely removed, but line from the 1997 entanglement remained in the 

animal’s mouth. On August 15, 1998, a right whale was observed entangled in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence; the animal apparently freed itself of most of the gear, but some gear may remain. 

1999: Two right whale mortalities were documented, including an adult female found floating near 

Truro, Massachusetts, that was towed to the beach for necropsy. Based on the necropsy, 

scientists concluded that the whale died from complications resulting from injuries caused by a 

ship strike. In the fall, a second adult female died of complications caused by entanglement. Four 

other right whale entanglements were confirmed in 1999. There were several attempts to 

disentangle two of the whales. A whale sighted in the Bay of Fundy in June was nearly 

completely disentangled; a small piece of line remained in the mouth. 

2000: A right whale identified as #2701 was found floating dead 10 miles SE of Block Island, RI on 

January 19, 2000. Although entangling gear (line) was seen around the tail stock, cause of death 

is uncertain. NMFS was unable to retrieve the carcass for examination due to extreme winter 

storms. Several other right whale entanglements were reported in 2000 as well, but 

disentanglement personnel met with little success in relocating/disentangling these animals so it is 

unclear how many animals were involved. 

2001: Three animals have been documented dead. A newborn right whale was spotted dead off the 

Florida coast in February and it may have been struck by a ship. The second was a calf sighted 

and photographed floating dead by a passenger on a sport fishing boat off the coast of South 

Carolina in mid-March. The carcass was not recovered. The carcass of a young male right 

whale (25 feet long) was found March 17 on an island beach off Virginia. A multi-agency team 

necropsied the calf and took biological samples. The calf had several deep cuts consistent with 

injuries from a boat propellor. The biological samples are being analyzed to determine whether 

the external wounds were the cause of death and whether there were other contributing factors. 

A final report will be issued with findings as to the cause of death. This is the third confirmed 

right whale mortality in 2001. 

3.3 Humpback whale 

Humpback whales feed in the northwestern Atlantic during the summer months and migrate to calving 

and mating areas in the Caribbean. Five separate feeding areas are utilized in northern waters after their 

return; one of which, the Gulf of Maine feeding population, lies within U.S. waters and is within the action 

area of this consultation. Most of the humpbacks that forage in the Gulf of Maine visit Stellwagen Bank 

and the waters of Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays. Sightings are most frequent from mid-March 

through November between 41°N and 43°N, from the Great South Channel north along the outside of 

Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge (CeTAP 1982), and peak in May and August. Small 

numbers of individuals may be present in this area year-round, including the waters of Stellwagen Bank. 

Katona and Beard (1990) summarized information gathered from a catalogue of photographs of 643 

individuals from the western North Atlantic population of humpback whales. These photographs indicated 

reproductively mature western North Atlantic humpbacks winter in tropical breeding grounds in the 

Antilles, primarily on Silver and Navidad Banks, north of the Dominican Republic. The primary winter 

range also includes the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico (see NMFS 1991a). In general, it is believed that 

calving and copulation take place on the winter range. Calves are born from December through March 

and are about 4 meters at birth. Sexually mature females give birth approximately every 2 to 3 years. 

27
Sexual maturity is reached between 4 and 6 years of age for females and between 7 and 15 years for 

males. Size at maturity is about 12 meters. 

Swingle et al. (1993) identified a shift in distribution of juvenile humpback whales in the nearshore waters 

of Virginia, primarily in winter months. Those whales using this mid-Atlantic area that have been 

identified were found to be residents of the Gulf of Maine feeding group, suggesting a shift in distribution 

that may be related to winter prey availability. Studies conducted by the Virginia Marine Science 

Museum indicate that these whales are feeding on, among other things, bay anchovies and menhaden. 

Researchers theorize that juvenile humpback whales, which are unconstrained by breeding requirements 

that result in the migration of adults to relatively barren Caribbean waters, may be establishing a winter 

foraging area in the mid-Atlantic (Mayo pers. comm.). In concert with the increase in mid-Atlantic whale 

sightings, strandings of humpback whales have increased between New Jersey and Florida since 1985. 

Strandings were most frequent during September through April in North Carolina and Virginia waters, and 

were composed primarily of juvenile humpback whales of no more than 11 meters in length (Wiley et al. 

1995). Six of 18 humpbacks (33 %) for which the cause of mortality was determined were killed by 

vessel strikes. An additional humpback had scars and bone fractures indicative of a previous vessel strike 

that may have contributed to the whale's mortality. Sixty percent of those mortalities that were closely 

investigated showed signs of entanglement or vessel collision (Wiley et al. 1995). 

Since the 1997 Opinion on HMS, new information has become available on the status and trends of the 

humpback whale population, although there are still insufficient data to determine population trends for the 

Western North Atlantic stock (Waring et al. 1997). The current rate of increase of the North Atlantic 

humpback whale population has been estimated at 9.0% (CV=0.25) by Katona and Beard (1990) and at 

6.5% by Barlow and Clapham (1997). Palsboll et al. (1997) studied humpback whales through genetic 

markers to identify individual humpback whales in the northern Atlantic Ocean. Using breeding ground 

samples from 1992–1993, Palsboll et al. (1997) estimated the North Atlantic humpback whale population 

at 4,894 (95% confidence interval 3,374 - 7,123) males and 2,804 females (95% confidence interval 1,776 

4,463), for a total of 7,698 whales. However, since the sex ratio in this population is known to be 1:1 

(Palsboll et al. 1997), the lower figure for females is presumed to be a result of sampling bias or some 

other cause for partitioning of the sampling. Photographic mark-recapture analyses from the YONAH 

(Years of the North Atlantic Humpback) project gave an ocean-basin-wide estimate of 10,600 (95% c.i. 

= 9,300 - 12,100) and an additional genotype-based analysis yielded a similar but less precise estimate of 

10,400 (95% c.i. = 8,000 - 13,600) (Smith et al. 1999). The estimate of 10,600 is regarded as the best 

available estimate for this population. The minimum population estimate for the North Atlantic humpback 

whale population is 10,019 animals (CV=0.067) (Waring et al. 1999). 

The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) recommended that NMFS identify the Gulf of Maine 

feeding stock as the management stock for this population in U.S. waters, although a population estimate 

for the Gulf of Maine portion of the population is not available at this time. Stock identity of the juveniles 

found in the Mid-Atlantic is also unknown at this time. The NEFSC is funding a study to determine stock 

identity of these individuals. The results from this work will assist NMFS in determining whether multiple 

management units are necessary for the U.S. East Coast. 

3.3.1 General human impacts and entanglement 

The major known sources of anthropogenic mortality and injury of humpback whales include 

entanglement in commercial fishing gear and ship strikes. Humpback whales may also be adversely 

28
affected by habitat degradation, habitat exclusion, acoustic trauma, and harassment resulting from a 

variety of activities including the operation of commercial fisheries. 

Based on photographs of the caudal peduncle of humpback whales, Robbins and Mattila (1999) estimated 

that at least 48% -- and possibly as many as 78% -- of animals in the Gulf of Maine exhibit scarring 

caused by entanglement. Several animals have apparently been entangled on more than one occasion. 

These estimates are based on sightings of free-swimming animals that initially survive the scarring 

encounter. Because some animals may drown immediately, the actual number of interactions may be 

slightly higher. Following is a summary of recent documented cases of human interaction. 

Many of the reports of mortality cannot be attributed to a particular impact source. The following 

injury/mortality events are those reported from 1996 to the present for which impact source was 

determined. These numbers should be viewed as absolute minimum numbers; the total number of 

mortalities and injuries cannot be estimated but is believed to be higher. 

1996 Three humpback whales were killed in collisions with vessels and at least 5 were seriously injured 

by entanglement in the same year. 

1997 Three confirmed humpback whale entanglements were reported. Stranding records from January 

through December 1997 for the U.S. Atlantic coast include seven stranded/dead floating 

humpback whales. Two of these mortalities were attributed to ship strikes. 

1998 Fourteen confirmed humpback whale entanglements resulting in injury (n=13) or mortality (n=1) 

were reported. One of the animals with entanglement injuries stranded dead, but the role of the 

entanglement in the whale’s death has not been determined. Three of the injured animals were 

completely disentangled, one partially disentangled, one partially disentangled and later shed the 

remaining gear, and one shed the gear without assistance from the disentanglement team. One 

injury from a vessel interaction was reported in 1998; the whale was seen several times after the 

injury, which exhibited some healing. Three incidents of dead floating humpback whales were 

also reported in 1998; however, cause of death has not been determined for any of these animals. 

1999 Nine humpback entanglements were reported to the Center for Coastal Studies whale 

disentanglement team in 1999, including one mortality. This does not include Canadian 

entanglements. 

2000 Preliminary data indicate that there were 16 possible human interactions (15 fishery interactions + 

1 ship strike) and 13 whales for which no signs of entanglement or injury were sighted or 

reported. Of the 15 possible recorded cases of fishery interactions, 14 were alive, of which 1 

was successfully disentangled and another was seen at a later date apparently free of gear. 

These data have not yet been fully analyzed to determine causes of mortality (in cases which 

resulted in death). 

2001 Up to February 12, 2001, of 4 humpback whale mortalities reported to the stranding network there 

were 2 human interactions – 1 fishery interaction which was released alive with no gear attached 

and 1 ship strike which resulted in a mortality. The third animal was a floater which was not 

recovered and the fourth had no signs of entanglement or injury sighted or reported. 

3.4 Fin Whale 

29
The fin whale is ubiquitous in the North Atlantic and occurs from the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean 

Sea northward to the edges of the arctic ice pack (Waring et al. 1999). The overall pattern of fin whale 

movement is complex, consisting of a less obvious north-south pattern of migration than that of right and 

humpback whales. Based on acoustic recordings from hydrophone arrays, however, Clark (1995) 

reported a general southward “flow pattern” of fin whales in the fall from the Labrador/Newfoundland 

region, south past Bermuda, and into the West Indies. The overall distribution may be based on prey 

availability. This species preys opportunistically on both invertebrates and fish (Watkins et al. 1984). As 

with humpback whales, they feed by filtering large volumes of water for the associated prey. Fin whales 

are larger and faster than humpback and right whales and are less concentrated in nearshore 

environments. Due to these traits, fin whales are less prone to entanglements than are right and 

humpback whales, but because they do occur in many of the same areas, the potential exists. 

Hain et al. (1992) estimated that about 5,000 fin whales inhabit the northeastern United States continental 

shelf waters. Shipboard surveys of the northern Gulf of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy targeting harbor 

porpoise for abundance estimation provided an imprecise estimate of 2,700 (CV=0.59) fin whales (Waring 

et al. 1997). 

3.4.1 General human impacts and entanglement 

Of 18 fin whale mortality records collected between 1991 and 1995, 4 were associated with vessel 

interactions, although the proximal cause of mortality was not known. 

1996 Three reports of ship strikes were received, although this was only confirmed as cause of death 

for 1 of the incidents. One entanglement report was received in 1996. 

1997 At least five reports of entangled fin whales were received by NMFS. Four fin whales were 

reported as having stranded in the period from January 1, 1997, to January 1, 1998, in the 

Northeast Region; the cause of death was not determined for these animals. 

1998 One ship strike mortality was documented in the Virginia-North Carolina border area. One 

entanglement mortality was reported in September 1998. 

1999 Three entanglements were reported to the Center for Coastal Studies disentanglement team. 

2000 Preliminary data indicate 2 finback whale mortalities; 1 was an apparent shipstrike (data have not 

yet been formally reviewed to determine cause of death and whether observed injuries were preor post-mortem, but the animal had broken ribs and vertebral processes). No signs of 

entanglement or injury were sighted or reported for the second animal. 

2001 Through February 12, 2 dead finback whales were reported, both of which were possibly involved 

in ship strikes. (One had a broken jaw and the other displayed bruising and broken bones.) 

3.5 Sperm whale 

The sperm whale is the largest of the toothed whales, reaching a length of 18.3 m in males and 12.2 m in 

females (Odell 1992). Sperm whales are noted for their ability to make prolonged, deep dives. Large 

adult males have been observed diving over 3.3 km deep in dives lasting almost an hour and a half, with 

an average dive time of approximately 40 minutes (Watkins et al. 1993). Sperm whales feed primarily on 

30
medium to large-sized mesopelagic squids, Architeuthis and Moroteuthis. Sperm whales, especially 

mature males in higher latitude waters, also take significant quantities of large demersal and mesopelagic 

sharks, skates, and bony fishes (Clarke 1962, 1980). They may catch their food by: lying suspended and 

relatively motionless near the ocean floor and ambushing prey; attracting squid and other prey with 

bioluminescent mouths; or stunning prey with ultrasonic sounds. Sperm whales occasionally suffocate 

after becoming entangled in deep-sea cables that wrap around their lower jaw, and odd objects (e.g., 

stones, rubber boots, buckets, and boards) have been found in their stomachs, suggesting that animals may 

at times cruise the ocean floor with open mouths. Sperm whales may ingest food with a sucking motion 

of the tongue; stomach contents reveal little evidence that lower jaw and teeth are used to grasp or chew 

prey (Würsig et al. 2000). 

Females and juveniles form pods that are restricted mainly to tropical and temperate latitudes (between 

50/N and 50/S) while the solitary adult males can be found at higher latitudes (between 75/N and 75/S) 

(Reeves and Whitehead, 1997). In the western North Atlantic they range from Greenland to the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Caribbean. 

For the purposes of management, the IWC defines four stocks: the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, the 

Northern Indian Ocean, and Southern Hemisphere. However, Dufault’s (1999) review of the current 

knowledge of sperm whales indicates no clear picture of the worldwide stock structure of sperm whales. 

In general, females and immature sperm whales appear to be restricted in range, whereas males are 

found over a wider range and appear to make occasional movements across and between ocean basins 

(Dufault 1999). Sperm whales prefer waters along outer continental shelves with a water depth of 600 m 

or more. They are uncommon in waters less than 300 m deep (Rice 1989), however, they are 

occasionally found in depths less than 100 m (Winn 1982). The best estimate of sperm whales in the 

western North Atlantic is 4,597 (NMFS in press). 

Sperm whales have been sighted in the Gulf of Mexico in every season, with sighting rates peaking in the 

fall (Mullin et al. 1994). There may be a distinct stock of sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

(Schmidly 1981, Fritts 1983, Hansen et al. 1995 as cited in Perry et al. 1999). Abundance estimates 

place the average size of this stock at 530 individuals (Hansen et al. 1995). There is no trend in 

population size discernable from estimates of abundance over time (Waring et al. 1997 and references 

within). Sperm whale sightings recorded from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) vessel Oregon II from 1991 - 1997 are concentrated just beyond the 100 m depth contour in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, east of the Mississippi River Delta. Recent studies conducted jointly by 

researchers from NMFS and Texas A&M indicate that these offshore waters are an important area for 

Gulf sperm whales. In fact, researchers with Texas A & M believe that the area should be considered as 

critical habitat for sperm whales (R. Davis, pers. comm.), as it is the only known breeding and calving 

area in the Gulf, for what is believed to be an endemic population. 

Sperm whale populations are often organized into 2 types of groupings: breeding schools and bachelor 

schools. Older males are often solitary (Best 1979). Breeding schools consist of females of all ages and 

juvenile males. The mature females ovulate April through August in the Northern Hemisphere. During 

this season one or more large mature bulls temporarily join each breeding school. A single calf is born at 

a length of about 4 meters after a 15 month gestation period. A mature female will produce a calf every 

3-6 years. Females attain sexual maturity at the mean age of 9 years and a length of about 9 m. Males 

have a prolonged puberty and attain sexual maturity at about age 20 and a body length of 12 m. Bachelor 

schools consist of maturing males who leave the breeding school and aggregate in loose groups of about 

31
40 animals. As the males grow older they separate from the bachelor schools and remain solitary most of 

the year (Best 1979). 

3.5.1 General human impacts and entanglement 

The sperm whale was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1973. The primary factor for the species= 

decline that precipitated ESA listing was commercial whaling. Sperm whales were hunted in America 

from the 17th century through the early 1900s, but the exact number of whales harvested in the 

commercial fishery is not known (Townsend 1935). The IWC estimates that nearly a quarter-million 

sperm whales were killed worldwide in whaling activities between 1800 and 1900 (IWC 1969). With the 

advent of modern whaling the larger rorqual whales were targeted. However as their numbers 

decreased, greater attention was paid to smaller rorquals and sperm whales. From 1910 to 1982 there 

were nearly 700,000 sperm whales killed worldwide from whaling activities (IWC Committee for Whaling 

Statistics 1959-1983). Since the ban of nearly all hunting of sperm whales, there has been little evidence 

that human-induced mortality or injury is significantly affecting the recovery of sperm whale stocks (Perry 

et al. 1999; Waring et al. 1997; Blaylock et al. 1995). 

Few instances of injury or mortality of sperm whales due to human impacts have been recorded in U.S. 

waters. Like sei whales, sperm whales typically inhabit waters further offshore than most U.S. 

commercial fisheries operate. Documented takes primarily involve offshore fisheries such as the offshore 

lobster pot fishery and pelagic driftnet and longline fisheries. Sperm whales have learned to depredate 

sablefish from longline gear in the Gulf of Alaska and toothfish from longline operations in the South 

Atlantic Ocean. No direct injury or mortality has been recorded during hauling operations, but lines have 

had to be cut when whales were caught on them (Ashford and Martin 1996). Sperm whales are also 

struck by ships; although no information is available on recent confirmed cases in U.S. waters. Due to 

the offshore distribution of this species, interactions that do occur are less likely to be reported than those 

involving right, humpback, and fin whales occurring in nearshore areas. 

Because of their generally more offshore distribution and their benthic feeding habits, sperm whales are 

less subject to entanglement than are right or humpback whales. Sperm whales have been taken in the 

pelagic drift gillnet fishery for swordfish, and could likewise be taken in the shark drift gillnet fishery on 

occasions when they may occur more nearshore, although this likely does not occur often. Although no 

interaction between sperm whales and longlines have been recorded in the U.S. Atlantic, as noted above, 

interactions between sperm whales and longlines for sable fish have been noted in Alaska waters. 

Preliminary data for 2000 indicate that of 10 sperm whales reported to the stranding network (9 dead and 

1 injured) there was 1 possible fishery interaction, 1 ship strike (wounded with bleeding gash on side) and 

8 animals for which no signs of entanglement or injury were sighted or reported. No sperm whales have 

stranded or been reported to the stranding network to date in 2001. 

3.6 Loggerhead turtle 

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

Indian Oceans and are the most abundant species of sea turtle occurring in U.S. waters. Loggerhead sea 

turtles concentrate their nesting in the north and south temperate zones and subtropics, but generally avoid 

nesting in tropical areas of Central America, northern South America, and the Old World (Magnuson et 

al. 1990). The two largest known nesting aggregation of loggerhead sea turtles occur on Masirah and 

Kuria Muria Islands in Oman and along the southeast U.S. The loggerhead nesting aggregation on 

32
Masirah Island is estimated at a minimum of 30,000 nesting females each year. This is the only large

nesting colony of loggerheads in Oman and is the largest known aggregation of this species in the world

(Ross and Barwani 1982). 

In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the gulf

coast of Florida. The Turtle Expert Working Group (1998, 2000) recognized at least four genetically

distinct loggerhead nesting subpopulations in the western North Atlantic and southeastern U.S. and

recommended that they be considered independent demographically, consistent with the definition of a

distinct vertebrate population segment (59 FR 65884-65885, December 21, 1994; 61 FR 4722-4725

February 7, 1996) and of a management unit (NMFS SEFSC 2001). A fifth subpopulation was identified

in NMFS SEFSC 2001. Although NMFS has not completed the administrative processes necessary to

formally recognize populations or subpopulations of loggerhead sea turtles, these sea turtles are generally

grouped by their nesting locations. This is also consistent with recovery criteria which are seperated state

by state. Based on the most recent reviews of the best scientific data on the population genetics of

loggerhead sea turtles and analyses of their population trends (TEWG 1998, 2000; NMFS SEFSC 2001),

NMFS treats these genetically distinct loggerhead turtle nesting aggregations as distinct subpopulations

whose survival and recovery is critical to the survival and recovery of the species. 

The subpopulations are divided geographically as follows: (1) a northern nesting subpopulation, occurring

from North Carolina to northeast Florida at about 29o

 N (approximately 7,500 nests in 1998); (2) a south

Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring from 29o

 N on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast

(approximately 83,400 nests in 1998); (3) a Florida panhandle nesting subpopulation, occurring at Eglin Air

Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida (approximately 1,200 nests in 1998); (4) a

Yucatán nesting subpopulation, occurring on the eastern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (Márquez 1990)

(approximately 1,000 nests in 1998) (TEWG 2000, Table 11); and (5) a Dry Tortugas nesting

subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida (approximately 200

nests per year) (NMFS SEFSC 2001).

The importance of maintaining these subpopulations in the wild is shown by the many examples of

extirpated nesting assemblages in the world. Natal homing to the nesting beach provides the genetic

barrier between these subpopulations, preventing recolonization by turtles from other nesting beaches. 

Recent fine-scale analysis of mtDNA work from Florida rookeries indicate that population separations

begin to appear between nesting beaches separated by more than 100 km of coastline that does not host

nesting (Francisco et al. 2000); and tagging studies are consistent with these findings (Richardson 1982,

Ehrhart 1979, LeBuff 1990, CMTTP). Nest site relocations greater than 100 km occur, but generally are

rare ( Ehrhart 1979; LeBuff 1974, 1990; CMTTP; Bjorndal et al. 1983).

The loggerhead sea turtles in the action area represent differing proportions of these five Western North

Atlantic subpopulations, as well as unidentified subpopulations from the eastern Atlantic. This Opinion

considers these subpopulations for the analysis, with particular emphasis on the northern subpopulation of

loggerhead sea turtles. The continental shelf areas of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico include

foraging habitat for benthic animals. Although the northern subpopulation produces only about 9% of the

loggerhead nests in the Western North Atlantic as a whole, a higher proportion of this subpopulation are

found in foraging areas from the Scotian Shelf to Georgia compared to the south Florida animals. 

Between 24% and 46% of the loggerhead sea turtles in this area are from the northern subpopulation 

(NMFS SEFSC 2001; Bass et al. 1999, 1998; Norrgard, 1995; Rankin-Baransky, 1997; Sears 1994, Sears

et al. 1995). In the Carolinas, the northern subpopulation is estimated to make up from 25% to 28% of

the loggerheads (NMFS SEFSC 2001; Bass et al. 1999, 1998). About 10% of the loggerhead sea turtles

33
in foraging areas off the Atlantic coast of central Florida are from the northern subpopulation (Witzell et 

al. in review). In the Gulf of Mexico, most of the loggerhead sea turtles in foraging areas are from the 

South Florida subpopulation, although the northern subpopulation may represent about 10% of the 

loggerhead sea turtles in the western gulf (Bass et al. 1999). 

Loggerheads reported captured in the pelagic longline fishery in the open ocean are mostly pelagic 

juveniles, although the size range does overlap pelagic stages with small benthic juveniles. (NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). Recent studies have suggested that not all loggerhead sea turtles follow the model of 

circumnavigating the North Atlantic Gyre as pelagic immatures, followed by permanent settlement into 

benthic environments. Some may not totally circumnavigate the north Atlantic. Some of these turtles 

may either remain in the pelagic habitat in the north Atlantic longer than hypothesized or they may move 

back and forth between pelagic and coastal habitats (Witzell in prep.). Laurent et al. (1998) proposed 

that between the strict oceanic pelagic stage and the benthic stages, immature turtles may live through an 

immature coastal stage in which they switch between pelagic and benthic foods and habitats. Also, some 

animals in the open ocean are probably adults, as they are known to make migrations between foraging 

grounds and nesting beaches across open ocean waters and benthic juveniles have been reported to 

migrate well offshore seasonally (Epperly et al. 1995, Shoop and Kenney 1992, Mullin and Hoggard 

2000). 

In the Mediterranean Sea, about 45 - 47% of the pelagic loggerheads are from the western Atlantic 

subpopulations, including 2% from the northern subpopulation, while the remainder originated from the 

Mediterranean nesting beaches (Laurent et al. 1998). In the vicinity of the Azores and Madeira 

Archipelagos, about 17-19% of the pelagic loggerheads are from the northern subpopulation, about 71­

72% are from the South Florida subpopulation, and about 10-11% are from the Yucatán subpopulation 

(Bolten et al. 1998). The turtles from the Azores samples were dipnetted from the ocean's surface and 

represent a mixture of pelagic animals. The SEFSC report notes that these animals are smaller than those 

taken on pelagic longlines; although, if there is no sorting in the pelagic environment based on natal origin 

then these smaller animals still represent the same genetic mix that might be found in the larger animals. 

Consequently, these results can be applied to animals caught by the U.S. longline fleet in the North 

Atlantic, i.e, 19% of the loggerhead turtles captured would be expected to be from the northern 

subpopulation. 

Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead a 

pelagic existence in the North Atlantic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years. However, as noted above, studies 

have suggested that some of these turtles may either remain in the pelagic habitat in the north Atlantic 

longer than hypothesized or they may move back and forth between pelagic and coastal habitats (Witzell 

in prep.). Turtles in this life history stage are called “pelagic immatures” and are best known from the 

eastern Atlantic near the Azores and Madeira and have been reported from the Mediterranean as well as 

the eastern Caribbean (Bjorndal et al. in press). Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature 

loggerheads reach 40-60 cm straight-line carapace length they recruit to coastal inshore and nearshore 

waters of the continental shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

Benthic immature loggerheads, the life stage following the pelagic immature stage, have been found from 

the Scotian Shelf off Maine to southern Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in northeastern 

Mexico (C. Ryder, NEFSC, pers. comm., R. Márquez-M., pers. comm.). Large benthic immature 

loggerheads (70-91 cm) represent a larger proportion of the strandings and in-water captures (Schroeder 

et al. 1998) along the south and western coasts of Florida as compared with the rest of the coast Benthic 

immature loggerheads foraging in northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward in the fall as 

34
water temperatures cool (Epperly et al. 1995; Keinath 1993; Morreale and Standora 1999; Shoop and

Kenney 1992), and migrate northward in spring. Past literature gave an estimated age at maturity of 21­

35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985; Frazer et al. 1994) and the benthic immature stage as lasting at least

10-25 years. However, NMFS SEFSC (2001) reviewed the literature and constructed growth curves

from new data, estimating ages of maturity among the four models ranging from 20-38 years and benthic

immature stage lengths from 14-32 years.

Adult loggerhead sea turtles have been reported throughout the range of this species in the U.S. and

throughout the Caribbean Sea. As discussed in the beginning of this section, they nest primarily from

North Carolina southward to Florida with additional nesting assemblages in the Florida Panhandle and on

the Yucatán Peninsula. Non-nesting, adult female loggerheads are reported throughout the U.S. and

Caribbean Sea; however, little is known about the distribution of adult males who are seasonally abundant

near nesting beaches during the nesting season. Aerial surveys suggest that loggerheads (benthic

immatures and adults) in U.S. waters are distributed in the following proportions: 54% in the southeast

U.S. Atlantic, 29% in the northeast U.S. Atlantic, 12% in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and 5% in the

western Gulf of Mexico (TEWG 1998).

Based on the data available, it is difficult to estimate the size of the loggerhead sea turtle population in the

U.S. or its territorial waters. There is, however, general agreement that the number of nesting females

provides a useful index of the species’ population size and stability at

this life stage. Nesting data collected on index nesting beaches in the U.S. from 1989-1998 represent the

best data set available to index the population size of loggerhead sea turtles. However, an important

caveat for population trends analysis based on nesting beach data is that this may reflect trends in adult

nesting females but not reflect overall population growth rates. Given this caveat, between 1989 and

1998, the total number of nests laid along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts ranged from 53,014 to 92,182

annually, with a mean of 73,751.

Based on an average of 4.1 nests per nesting female and an average remigration interval of 2.5 years;

(Richardson et al., 1978), Murphy and Hopkins (1984) have indirectly estimated the number of adult

females in the entire population. The equation is (number of nests/4.1 * 2.5) and the result is an adult

female population of 44,970. On average, 90.7% of these nests were from the south Florida

subpopulation, 8.5% were from the northern subpopulation, and 0.8% were from the Florida Panhandle

nest sites. There is limited nesting throughout the Gulf of Mexico west of Florida, but it is not known to

which subpopulation these nesting females belong. The number of nests in the northern subpopulation

from 1989 to 1998 ranged from 4,370 to 7,887, with a 10-year mean of 6,247 nests. With each female

producing an average of 4.1 nests in a nesting season, the average number of nesting females per year in

the northern subpopulation was 1,524. Assuming an average remigration rate of 2.5 years, the total

number of nesting and non-nesting adult females in the northern subpopulation is estimated as 3,810 adult

females (TEWG, 1998, 2000).

The status of this northern population based on number of loggerhead nests has been classified as stable

or declining (TEWG 2000). Another consideration adding to the vulnerability of the northern

subpopulation is that NMFS scientists estimate, using genetics data from Texas, South Carolina, and North

Carolina in combination with juvenile sex ratios from those states, that the northern subpopulation

produces 65% males, while the south Florida subpopulation is estimated to produce 80% females (NMFS

SEFSC 2001). 

35
The NMFS SEFSC report (2001) summarizes trend analyses for number of nests sampled from beaches

for the northern subpopulation and the south Florida subpopulation and concluded that from 1978-1990, the

northern subpopulation has been stable at best and possibly declining (less than 5% per year). From 1990

to the present, the number of nests in the northern subpopulation has been increasing at 2.8-2.9%

annually; however, there are confidence intervals about these estimates that include no growth (0%). 

Over the same time frame, the south Florida population has been increasing at 5.3-5.4% per year from

1978-1990, and increasing at 3.9-4.2% since 1990.

From a global perspective, the southeastern U.S. nesting aggregation is a critical component of this

species. It is second in size only to the nesting aggregations in the Oman and represents about 35 and 40

% of the nesting of this species globally. The status of the Oman nesting beaches has not been evaluated

recently, but they are located in a part of the world that has a history of periodic, disruptive, events (e.g.,

political upheavals, wars, and catastrophic oil spills). The resulting risk facing this nesting aggregation and

these nesting beaches is cause for considerable concern (Meylan et al. 1995).

3.6.1 Status and Trends 

There is general agreement that the number of nesting females provides a useful index of the species’ 

population size and stability at this life stage, even though there are uncertainties in estimating the overall 

population size. Nesting data collected on index nesting beaches in the U.S. from 1989-1998 represent 

the best data set available to index the population size of loggerhead sea turtles. However, an important 

caveat for population trends analysis based on nesting beach data is that this may reflect trends in adult 

nesting females but not overall population growth rates. Adult nesting females often account for less than 

1% of total population numbers (NMFS SEFSC 2001). Interpretation of trend data from nesting beaches 

for marine turtles is complicated over the short-term, given the species long age to sexual maturity and 

non-annual reproduction. The difficulties in relying on short-term nesting data to discern population trends 

is well illustrated by examining 34 years of nesting survey data from Little Cumberland Island, Georgia 

(Figure 5, Dahlen et al, 2000). When the data are apportioned into approximate decade-long intervals, as 

shown, conclusions of a stable nesting population can be drawn for each segment. However, when 

viewed in the context of the complete 34 year period, the trend is clearly downward and particularly 

severe. The importance of long-term survey data cannot be overestimated and a precautionary approach 

must be employed when long-term data are lacking or incomplete. 

The recovery plan for this species (NMFS and USFWS 1991) states that southeastern U.S. loggerheads 

can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 years, adult female populations in Florida are 

increasing and there is a return to pre-listing annual nest numbers of 

800 in North Carolina, 10,000 in South Carolina, and 2,000 in Georgia. This equates to approximately 

3,100 nesting females per year at 4.1 nests per female per season and a total population of about 7,800 

adult females, with a 2.5 year remigration rate. Earlier, this Opinion provided estimates of the size of the 

adult female northern subpopulation of loggerheads (comprising females nesting from Amelia Island, 

Volusia County, Florida northward), based on nesting data from 1989-1998, at 3,810 adult females. In 

other words, at this gross level of analysis, levels of nesting and population sizes in the northern 

subpopulation may be slightly less than half of the recovery plan goals. Per its stated recovery goal, the 

nesting Florida subpopulation is increasing. 

36
Figure 5: Long-term nesting data from Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, 1964-1997. Data source: 

Dahlen et al, 2000. 

The TEWG (1998, 2000) concluded that the nesting trend for the northern subpopulation of loggerheads is 

stable or declining. The meta-analysis described in NMFS SEFSC 2001 report, however, suggests that, 

after 1989, the nesting activity for the northern subpopulation was increasing 2.8 to 2.9% per year but 

there are confidence intervals around these estimates that include no growth (The south Florida 

subpopulation is increasing 3.9 to 4.2% per year.) However, NMFS SEFSC (2001) cautions that “it is an 

unweighted analysis and does not consider the beaches’ relative contribution to the total nesting activity of 

the subpopulation and must be interpreted with some caution.” For example, South Carolina accounts for 

over half the total northen subpopulation nesting, and decreases in South Carolina nesting strongly 

affected the conclusions of TEWG (1998, 2000). In the meta-analysis, however, only a single South 

Carolina beach was used; and, although it has annual nestings of around 1,000, the proportional change in 

nesting at that beach was given equal weight to proportional changes at beaches with around 10 nests per 

year. Furthermore, although the analysis was limited to data from beaches where the effort was believed 

to have been relatively constant over time, this assumption of consistent effort may not always be true. 

Several published reports have discussed the problems facing long-lived species that delay sexual maturity 

(Crowder et al. 1994). In general, these reports concluded that animals that delay sexual maturity and 

reproduction must have high, annual survival as juveniles through adults to ensure that enough juveniles 

survive to reproductive maturity and then reproduce enough times to maintain stable population sizes. 

This general concept can be applied to sea turtles, as shown in several studies (Crouse et al. 1987, 

Crowder et al. 1994, Crouse 1999). However, this would mean it would be equally long periods of time 

before benefits from protection would also be seen; the long benthic juvenile stages (24 and 33 years in 

37
models) means a long time before these are translated into increasing numbers of nesting females on the 

beach. Heppell et al. (in prep.) specifically showed that the growth of the loggerhead sea turtle 

population was particularly sensitive to changes in the annual survival of both juvenile and adult sea turtles 

and that the adverse effects of the pelagic longline fishery on loggerheads from the pelagic immature 

phase appeared critical to the survival and recovery of the species. Crouse (1999) concluded that 

relatively small changes in annual survival rates of both juvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles will 

adversely affect large segments of the total population. NMFS SEFSC (2001) concluded that juvenile 

stages have the highest elasticity and maintaining or decreasing current sources of mortality in those 

stages will have the greatest impact on maintaining or increasing population growth rates. 

3.6.2 Threats from Natural Causes 

Loggerhead sea turtles face numerous threats from natural causes. The 5 known subpopulations of 

loggerhead sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic and southeast U.S. are subject to fluctuations in the 

number of young produced annually because of natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, as well as 

human-related activities. There is a significant overlap between hurricane seasons in the Caribbean Sea 

and northwest Atlantic Ocean (June to November) and the loggerhead sea turtle nesting season (March 

to November). Hurricanes can have potentially negative effects on the survival of eggs in sea turtle 

nests. However, they are normally restricted to small coastal areas In 1992, Hurricane Andrew affected 

turtle nests over a 90-mile length of coastal Florida. All of the eggs incubating at the time were destroyed 

by storm surges on beaches that were closest to the eye of this hurricane (Milton et al. 1994). On Fisher 

Island near Miami, Florida, 69 % of the eggs did not hatch after Hurricane Andrew, probably because 

they were inundated by the storm surge. A portion of the nests from the northern subpopulation were 

destroyed by hurricanes which made landfall in North Carolina in the mid to late 1990s. Sand accretion 

and rainfall that result from these storms can appreciably reduce hatchling success. 

3.6.3. Threats from Human Activities 

Some anthropogenic mortality that contributed to loggerhead declines, prior to listing under the ESA in 

1978, has been mitigated over the years. These and other undocumented factors may be responsible for 

potentially increasing trends in nesting females seen since 1990 that appear in the NMFS SEFSC (2001) 

meta analysis for the northern subpopulation of loggerheads. For example, direct takes of eggs and 

nesting females were prohibited and actions were taken in state waters to close fisheries for various 

reasons (e.g., sturgeon fisheries using large mesh gillnets in S. C., Florida prohibition on entangling nets). 

A summary of recent stranding trends provided in NMFS SEFSC (2001) notes that from 1998-2000, 

strandings decreased in traditionally high stranding zones on the Atlantic coast but doubled to historic 

levels along the southern Florida Gulf Coast and in the Florida keys, possibly due to a persistent red tide. 

A number of anthropogenic impacts were identified by NRC (1990) and NMFS & USFWS (1991) for 

loggerhead sea turtles, but baseline analysis is complicated by the fact that these impacts (other than 

drowning in bottom trawls) are largely unquantified. The known sources of impact were included in 

NMFS SEFSC (2001) Appendix 2. These fall into several categories that impact sea turtles in the marine 

environment, both domestically and internationally: trawl fisheries, gillnet fisheries, hook and line fisheries, 

pelagic longline fisheries, pound nets, fish traps, lobster pots, whelk pots, long haul seines and channel 

nets, as well as non-fishery impacts such as power plants, marine pollution including marine debris, and 

direct harvest of eggs and adults in foreign countries, oil and gas exploration, development, and 

transportation, underwater explosions, dredging, offshore artificial lighting, marina and dock construction 

and operation; boat collisions, and poaching. On their nesting beaches in the U.S., loggerhead sea turtles 

38
are threatened with beach erosion, armoring, and renourishment; artificial lighting; beach cleaning; 

increased human presence; recreational beach equipment; exotic dune and beach vegetation; predation by 

species such as fire ants, raccoons (Procyon lotor), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), opossums 

(Didelphus virginianus); and poaching. Some of these threats are discussed in more detail below. A 

more thorough description of anthropogenic mortality sources is provided in the TEWG reports (1998, 

2000) and in NMFS SEFSC (2001). 

Although sea turtle nesting beaches are protected along large expanses of the northwest Atlantic coast (in 

areas like Cape Canaveral National Seashore and Merritt Island, Archie Carr, and Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuges), other areas along these coasts have limited or no protection. Volusia County, Florida, 

for example, allows restricted beach driving on sea turtle nesting beaches and sea turtle nesting can be 

affected by beach armoring, beach renourishment, beach cleaning, artificial lighting, predation, and 

poaching on unprotected beaches. 

The survival of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles is threatened by a completely different set of threats from 

human activity once they migrate to the ocean. A proportion of the pelagic immature loggerhead sea 

turtles from the western Atlantic circumnavigate the North Atlantic over several years (Carr 1987, 

Bjorndal 1994). During that period, they are exposed to a series of longline fisheries. The U.S. is only 

one of 23 countries fishing in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea with pelagic longlines from 

1990-1997 (Carocci and Majowski 1998). Most of the foreign high seas fisheries in the Atlantic are 

similar to the U.S. in number of fishing days and miles of line per day, with some exceptions, such as the 

Mediterranean fleet which fishes smaller vessels, once per night and close to shore (NMFS SEFSC 

2001). 

Loggerheads are primarily exposed to these fleets in the pelagic juvenile stage. According to observer 

records, an estimated 7,891 loggerhead sea turtles were caught by the U.S. Atlantic tuna and swordfish 

longline fisheries between 1992-1999, of which 66 were released dead ( NMFS SEFSC 2001). However, 

the U.S. fleet accounts for a small proportion (5-8%) of the total hooks fished in the Atlantic Ocean 

compared to other nations, including Taipei, Brazil, Trinidad, Morocco, Cyprus, Venezuela, Korea, 

Mexico, Cuba, U.K., Bermuda, People's Republic of China, Grenada, Canada, Belize, France, and Ireland 

(Carocci and Majkowski 1998). Reports of incidental takes of turtles are incomplete for many of these 

nations (see NMFS SEFSC 2001 for a complete description of take records). For example, bottom set 

lines in the coastal waters of Madeira, Portugal, are reported to take an estimated 500 pelagic immature 

loggerheads each year (Dellinger and Encarnacao 2000). Based on their proportional distribution, the 

capture of immature loggerhead sea turtles in longline fleets in the Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes 

and the Mediterranean Sea will have a significant, adverse effect on the annual survival rates of juvenile 

loggerhead sea turtles from the western Atlantic subpopulations. Considerably more loggerheads than 

leatherbacks are taken in the Mediterranean Sea. Another example is the Mexican fishery in the Gulf of 

Mexico which incidentally captures 5 turtles per 100 trips with mortality estimated at 1.6 turtles per 100 

trips. Adding up the under-represented observed takes per country per year of 23 actively fishing 

countries likely results in an estimate of thousands of animals annually over different life stages. 

In waters off the coastal U.S., the survival of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles is affected by a suite of 

fisheries in federal and state waters (see Effects of the Action, Section 4). Loggerhead turtles are 

captured, injured, or killed in shrimp fisheries off the Atlantic coast; along the southeastern Atlantic coast, 

loggerhead turtle populations were declining in the presence of shrimp fishing off the nesting beaches, 

before the required use of TEDs (Magnuson et al. 1990). The management of shrimp harvest in the Gulf 

of Mexico demonstrates the correlation between shrimp trawling and impacts to sea turtles. Waters out 

39
to 200 nm are closed to shrimp fishing off of Texas each year for approximately a 3-month period (midMay through mid-July) to allow shrimp to migrate out of estuarine waters and sea turtle strandings decline 

substantially during this period (NMFS, STSSN unpublished data). 

Loggerhead sea turtles are captured in fixed pound net gear in the Long Island Sound, in pound net gear 

and trawls for summer flounder and other finfish fisheries in the mid-Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay, in 

gillnet fisheries in the mid-Atlantic and elsewhere, in fisheries for monkfish and for spiny dogfish, and in 

northeast sink gillnet fisheries. Capture rates of sea turtles in the longline fishery are second only to those 

of the U.S. shrimp fishing fleet (Crouse 1999, Magnuson et al. 1990), although shrimping probably does 

not significantly impact immature, pelagic stage loggerheads. 

Although loggerhead sea turtles are most vulnerable to pelagic longlines during their pelagic, immature life 

history stage, there is some evidence that benthic immatures may also be captured, injured, or killed by 

pelagic fisheries. Any loggerhead sea turtles that follow this developmental model of moving back and 

forth between pelagic and coastal habitats could be adversely affected by shark gillnets and shark bottom 

longlines set in coastal waters, in addition to pelagic longlines. 

Virtually all of the pelagic immature loggerheads taken in the Portuguese longline fleet in the vicinity of 

the Azores and Madeira are from western North Atlantic nesting subpopulations (Bolten et al. 1994, 

1998) and about half of those taken in both the eastern and western basins of the Mediterranean Sea are 

from the western North Atlantic subpopulations (Bowen et al. 1993; Laurent et al. 1998). Aguilar et al. 

(1995) estimated that the Spanish swordfish longline fleet, which is only one of the many fleets operating 

in the region, captures more than 20,000 juvenile loggerheads annually, killing an estimated 20-30%. 

Estimated bycatch of marine turtles by the U.S. Atlantic tuna and swordfish longline fisheries, based on 

observer data, was significantly greater than reported in logbooks through 1997 (Johnson et al. 1999; 

Witzell 1999), but was comparable by 1998 (Yeung 1999). Observer records indicate that an estimated 

6,900 loggerheads were captured by the U.S. fleet between 1992-1998, of which an estimated 43 were 

dead (NMFS SEFSC 2001). Aguilar et al. (1995) reported that hooks were removed from only 171 of 

1,098 loggerheads captured in the Spanish longline fishery, describing that removal was possible only 

when the hook was found in the mouth, the tongue or, in a few cases, externally (flippers, etc.); the 

presumption is that all others had ingested the hook. 

From 1981-1990, 397 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured in gill nets set by Italian fishermen 

in the central Mediterranean Sea; mortality was reported to be 73.6%. An additional study estimated 

16,000 loggerheads per year are captured by net with 30% mortality. Observers of the Spanish driftnet 

fishery in the western Mediterranean documented the incidental capture of 30 loggerheads from 1993­

1994, of which one was dead; 236 loggerheads were estimated to have been caught in 1994. Six-hundred 

loggerheads are estimated to have been caught annually by gillnets in Nicaragua. Gillnets set for finfish 

and sharks in Belize are also suspected of catching sea turtles (see NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

Bottom set lines in the coastal waters of Madeira, Portugal, are reported to take an estimated 500 pelagic 

immature loggerheads each year. Adult female loggerheads are taken by hand by the indigenous people 

inhabiting Boavista Island, Cape Verde, Western Africa. In Cuba, loggerheads are commercially 

harvested (see NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

An additional source of mortality is ingestion of marine debris. A summary of marine debris impacts can 

be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 2000) and NMFS SEFSC (2001). 

40
3.7 Leatherback turtle 

The Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) contains a description of the 

natural history and taxonomy of this species (USFWS and NMFS 1992). Leatherbacks 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). Adult leatherbacks forage in temperate and subpolar 

regions from 71/N to 47/S latitude in all oceans and undergo extensive migrations to and from tropical 

nesting beaches between 90/N and 20/S. In the Atlantic Ocean, leatherbacks have been recorded as far 

north as Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada and Norway, and as far south as Uruguay and Argentina 

and South Africa (see NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

Female leatherbacks nest from southeastern United States to southern Brazil in the western Atlantic and 

from Mauritania to Angola in the eastern Atlantic. The most significant nesting beaches in the Atlantic, 

and perhaps in the world, are in French Guiana and Surinam (see NMFS SEFSC 2001). When they leave 

the nesting beaches, leatherbacks move offshore but eventually utilize both coastal and pelagic waters. 

Leatherbacks are deep divers, with recorded dives to depths in excess of 1000 m (Eckert et al. 1989), but 

they will come into shallow waters if there is an abundance of jellyfish nearshore. Leary (1957) reported 

a large group of up to 100 leatherbacks just offshore of Port Aransas, Texas associated with a dense 

aggregation of Stomolophus. They also occur in Buzzard’s Bay and Nantucket and Vineyard Sounds 

during the summer and fall and in Cape Cod Bay and Narragansett Bay, particularly during the fall. 

Shoop and Kenney (1992) summarized 3 years of survey effort from the eastern Atlantic out to the 2000 

m isobath and reported leatherback turtles throughout the study area, both inside and outside the 2000 m 

isobath. A summer seasonal peak in sea turtle density was noted throughout the study area (NMFS 

NEFSC, unpublished data). 

The leatherback is the largest living turtle and it ranges farther than any other sea turtle species, exhibiting 

broad thermal tolerances (NMFS and USFWS 1995). Leatherback turtles feed primarily on cnidarians 

(medusae, siphonophores) and tunicates (salps, pyrosomas) and are often found in association with 

jellyfish. 

Although leatherbacks are a long-lived species (> 30 years), they are somewhat faster to mature than 

loggerheads. Age to maturity estimates for females span from as little as 3-6 years (Rhodin 1985) to 13­

14 years (Zug and Porham 1996). They nest frequently (up to 7 nests per year) during a nesting season 

and nest about every 2-3 years. During each nesting, they produce 100 eggs or more in each clutch and 

thus, can produce 700 eggs or more per nesting season (Schultz 1975). 

3.7.1 Genetics 

Genetic analyses of leatherbacks to date indicate that within the Atlantic basin significant genetic 

differences occur among St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and mainland Caribbean populations (Florida, 

Costa Rica, Suriname/French Guiana) and between Trinidad and the same mainland populations, (Dutton 

et al. 1999) leading to the conclusion that there are at least 3 separate subpopulations of leatherbacks in 

the Atlantic. Much of the genetic diversity is in the relatively small insular subpopulations. 

Genetic analyses indicate that female leatherback turtles nesting in St.Croix/Puerto Rico and those nesting 

in Trinidad differ from each other and from turtles nesting in Florida, French Guiana/Suriname and along 

the South African Indian Ocean coast. Turtles nesting in Florida, French Guiana/Suriname and South 

Africa cannot be distinguished at this time with mtDNA. The largest known nesting aggregation of the 

41
leatherback turtle in the western North Atlantic Ocean occurs in French Guiana. This may be the largest 

nesting aggregation of leatherback turtles in the world (see NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

The analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicate that the loss of the nesting populations from the St. 

Croix region and Trinidad would essentially eliminate most of the detected mtDNA variation throughout 

the Atlantic (Dutton et al. 1999). To date, no studies have been published on the genetic make-up of 

pelagic or benthic leatherbacks in the Atlantic. Compared to current knowledge regarding loggerhead 

populations, the genetic distinctness of leatherback populations is less clear and populations or 

subpopulations of leatherback sea turtles have not been formally recognized based on genetic studies. 

This Opinion, therefore, considers the status of the various nesting populations, as well as the Atlantic and 

worldwide populations. 

The nesting aggregation in French Guiana has been declining at about 15% per year since 1987. From the 

period 1979-1986, the number of nests was increasing at about 15% annually. The number of nests in 

Florida and the U.S. Caribbean has been increasing at about 10.3% and 7.5%, respectively, per year since 

the early 1980’s but the magnitude of nesting is much smaller than that along the French Guiana coast 

(see NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

3.7.2 Status and Trends 

Initial estimates of the worldwide leatherback population were between 29,000 and 40,000 breeding 

females (Pritchard 1971), later refined to approximately 115,000 adult females globally(Pritchard 1982). 

An estimate of 34,500 females (26,200 - 42,900) was made by Spotila et al. (1996), along with a claim 

that the species as a whole was declining and local populations were in danger of extinction (NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). They attribute this to fishery- related mortality but, at least historically, it was due primarily 

to intense exploitation of the eggs (Ross 1979). On some beaches in the Pacific, nearly 100% of the eggs 

laid have been harvested (Eckert 1996). Eckert (1996) and Spotila et al. (1996) record that adult 

mortality has also increased significantly, particularly as a result of driftnet and longline fisheries. The 

Pacific population is in a critical state of decline, now estimated to number less than 3,000 total adult and 

subadult animals (Spotila et al. 2000). The status of the Atlantic population is less clear. In 1996, it was 

reported to be stable, at best (Spotila et al. 1996), but numbers in the Western Atlantic at that writing 

were reported to be on the order of 18,800 nesting females. According to Spotila (pers. comm.), the 

Western Atlantic population currently numbers about 15,000 nesting females, whereas current estimates 

for the Caribbean (4,000) and the Eastern Atlantic (i.e., off Africa, numbering ~ 4,700) have remained 

consistent with numbers reported by Spotila et al. in 1996. Spotila et al. (2000) indicates that between 

1989 and 1995, marked leatherback returns to the nesting beach at St. Croix averaged only 48.5%, but 

that the overall nesting population grew. This is in contrast to a Pacific nesting beach at Playa Grande, 

Costa Rica, where only 11.9% of turtles tagged in 1993-94 and 19.0% of turtles tagged in 1994-95 

returned to nest over the next 5 years. Characterizations of the Pacific population suggest that it has a 

very low likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild under current conditions. However, NMFS 

SEFSC (2001) note that while all these authors have noted dramatic declines in Pacific nesting beaches, 

they have suggested apparently stable or increasing nesting populations in the Atlantic. 

Nest counts are the only reliable population information available for leatherback turtles. Recent declines 

have been seen in the number of leatherbacks nesting worldwide (NMFS and USFWS 1995). Natural 

fluctuations such as an annual cycle or the fact that females may shift their nesting efforts in places like 

Suriname due to erosion at French Guiana, for example, complicate analysis of trends based on that data. 

Another important factor is that nesting trends reflect trends in adult females, a small proportion of the 

42
population, and may not be valid for the rest of the population (NMFS SEFSC 2001). 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. Although leatherbacks occur in all U.S. Atlantic, 

Gulf, and Caribbean waters, it is estimated that about 250 females now visit nesting sites in the U.S. (i.e., 

Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands)(NMFS SEFSC 2001). The primary leatherback nesting 

beaches occur in French Guiana, Suriname, and Costa Rica in the western Atlantic, and in Mexico in the 

eastern Pacific. Although increased observer effort on some nesting beaches has resulted in increased 

reports of leatherback nesting, declines in nest abundance have been reported from the beaches of 

greatest nesting densities. 

The major western Atlantic nesting area for leatherbacks is located in the Suriname-French Guiana transboundary region. Chevalier and Girondot (1998) report that combined nesting in the two countries has 

been declining since 1992. Nesting also occurs on Florida’s east coast. In 1998 the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection reported 351 nests and 146 false crawls on the east coast of Florida. In the 

eastern Caribbean, nesting occurs primarily in the Dominican Republic, the Virgin Islands, and on islands 

near Puerto Rico. Sandy Point, on the western edge of St. Croix, Virgin Islands, has been designated by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for nesting leatherback turtles. 

The current status of nesting populations in French Guiana and Suriname is difficult to interpret because 

these beaches are so dynamic geologically. Schulze (1975) described a 10-year cycle of beach accretion 

and erosion in Guyana that could explain part of the cycle observed in nesting over the last 30 years. 

Chevalier et al. (in press) state that since the mid-1970s leatherback nesting has declined (1987-1992 

mean = 40,950 nests and 1993-1998 mean = 18,100 nests). They state that there is very little shifting in 

nesting from French Guiana and Suriname to other Caribbean sites (there has only been 1 tag recapture 

elsewhere). Numbers are decreasing in Suriname, too. Chevalier et al. (in press) claim that there is no 

human-induced mortality on the beach in French Guiana, and natural mortality of adults should be low. 

There has been very low hatchling success on beaches used for the last 25 years. 

Zug (1996) pointed out that the combination of the loss of long-lived adults in fishery related mortality, and 

the lack of recruitment stemming from elimination of annual influxes of hatchlings because of intense egg 

harvesting, has caused the sharp decline in leatherback populations. The author stated that “the relatively 

short maturation time of leatherbacks offers some hope for their survival if we can greatly reduce the 

harvest of their eggs and the accidental and intentional capture and killing of large juveniles and adults.” 

In summary, the conflicting information regarding the status of Atlantic leatherbacks makes it difficult to 

conclude whether or not the population is currently in decline. Numbers at some nesting sites are up, 

while at others they are down. Data collected in southeast Florida clearly indicate increasing numbers of 

nests for the past twenty years (9.1-11.5% increase), although it is critical to note that there was also an 

increase in the survey area in Florida over time (NMFS SEFSC 2001). At one site (St. Croix), population 

growth has been documented despite large apparent mortality of nesting females; in 1979 the number of 

nests is estimated to be increasing at 7.5% per year ( NMFS SEFSC 2001). However, the largest 

leatherback rookery in the western North Atlantic remains along the northern coast of South America in 

French Guiana and Suriname. While Spotila et al. (1996) indicated that turtles may have been shifting 

their nesting from French Guiana to Suriname due to beach erosion, analyses show that the overall area 

trend in number of nests has been negative since 1987 at a rate of 15.0 - 17.3 % per year (NMFS SEFSC 

2001, Appendix 1). If turtles are not nesting elsewhere, it appears that the Western Atlantic portion of the 

population is being subjected to mortality beyond sustainable levels, resulting in a continued decline in 

numbers of nesting females. 

43
As noted above, there are many human-related sources of mortality for leatherbacks. Due to a 

combination of factors, including the continued harvest of eggs and adult turtles for meat, the effects of 

ocean pollution, it is clear that the endangered leatherback populations of the Atlantic require major 

conservation efforts to ensure their long-term survival and recovery in the wild. 

The U.S. pelagic longline fishery, in combination with the foreign longline fleets and coastal fishery, could 

produce sufficient leatherback mortality to result in decreases evident on South American nesting 

beaches. On the other hand, large removals of eggs alone could produce the same result and would be 

evidenced on the nesting beach quickly. In order to determine the impact of longline fleets, there needs to 

be an apportionment of turtles by nesting beach origin and the mortality rate needs to be quantified which 

cannot be done at the current time (NMFS SEFSC 2001). Other clear concerns for South American 

nesting turtles are impacts on French Guiana and Suriname beaches. Even if the longline takes were 

eliminated, those declines would not likely reverse. On the other hand, if measures to reduce mortality 

occur in French Guiana and Suriname, that alone could be enough to reverse those declines. 

3.7.3 Threats from human activities 

Of the Atlantic turtle species, leatherback turtles seem to be the most susceptible to entanglement in 

fishing gear, such as lobster gear lines and longline gear, rather than swallowing hooks. This susceptibility 

may be the result of attraction to gelatinous organisms and algae that collect on buoys and buoy lines at or 

near the surface, and perhaps to the lightsticks used to attract target species in the longline fishery. They 

are also susceptible to trawl capture. 

Chevalier et al. (in press) indicate that leatherback turtles in French Guiana are threatened by fishing 

(longlines, drift nets, and trawling), pollution (plastic bags and chemicals), and boat propellers. Around 

90% of the nests are laid within 25 km of the Maroni (also “Marowijne” or “Marouini”) River estuary. 

Strandings in 1997, 1998, and 1999 in the estuary were 70, 60, and 100, which Chevalier et al. (in press) 

consider underestimates. Interviews with fishermen direct observation of a 1-km gillnet with 7 dead 

leatherbacks along with STSSN data, indicated that there are large numbers of leatherbacks captured 

incidentally in large mesh nets. 

In French Guiana, protected areas are generally located in nearshore areas while driftnets are set 

offshore. There are no such protected areas off Suriname, and fishing there occurs at the beach. 

Offshore nets soak overnight in Suriname; many boats fish overnight. According to Chevalier et al. (in 

press), the French Guiana government is establishing a working group to deal with accidental capture and 

to enforce the legislation. They will work towards the management of the fishery activity, collaborate 

with Suriname, study the accidental capture by the fishermen, satellite track turtles, and study strandings. 

The main problem appears to be the close proximity of the driftnet fishery to the nesting areas and shrimp 

trawling without TEDs off nesting beaches. Tag return data emphasize the global nature of the 

leatherback and the link between these South American nesters and animals found in U.S. waters. For 

example, a nesting female tagged May 29, 1990, in French Guiana was later recovered and released alive 

from the York River, VA. Another nester tagged in French Guiana on June 21, 1990, was later found 

dead in Palm Beach, Florida (STSSN database, unpublished data). 

Swinkels and van Tienen (in press) state that, from 1995-1999, there was a large increase in leatherback 

nesting in Suriname. There is a nature reserve in Suriname and one in adjacent French Guiana. There 

were increasing population trends observed on 3 beaches but poaching of the nests was 80%. Samsambo 

Beach in Suriname is a very dynamic beach, which has been newly created (by natural events) and now 

44
is a nesting beach. In 1995, very few were poached but Swinkels and Tienen indicate that since that 

time poaching has increased. In 1999 there were > 4,000 nests, of which about 50% were poached. 

Because the beach had been renourished by natural processes over this period, Swinkels and Tienens 

hypothesized that there had been a shift in nesting activity (from other nesting areas). Their alternate 

hypothesis was that the new nesting represented recruitment to the population. 

Leatherbacks are exposed to pelagic fisheries throughout their life cycle. According to observer records, 

an estimated 6,363 leatherback sea turtles were caught by the U.S. Atlantic tuna and swordfish longline 

fisheries between 1992-1999, of which 88 were released dead (NMFS SEFSC 2001). Leatherbacks 

make up a significant portion of takes in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic areas, but are more often 

released alive. The U.S. fleet accounts for 5-8% of the hooks fished in the Atlantic Ocean. Other 

nations, including Taipei, Brazil, Trinidad, Morocco, Cyprus, Venezuela, Korea, Mexico, Cuba, U.K., 

Bermuda, People’s Republic of China, Grenada, Canada, Belize, France, and Ireland also fish in these 

waters (Carocci and Majkowski 1998). Reports of incidental takes of turtles are incomplete for many of 

these nations (see NMFS SEFSC 2001, for a complete description of take records). Adding up the underrepresented observed takes per country per year of 23 actively fishing countries would likely result in 

estimates of thousands of leatherback sea turtles annually over different life stages. 

3.7.3.1 1ngestion of marine debris 

Leatherback sea turtles may be more susceptible to marine debris ingestion than other species due to their 

pelagic existence and the tendency of floating debris to concentrate in convergence zones which adults 

and juveniles use for feeding areas and migratory routes (Lutcavage et al. 1997; Shoop and Kenney 

1992). Investigations of the stomach contents of leatherback sea turtles revealed that a substantial 

percentage (44% of the 16 cases examined) contained plastic (Mrosovsky 1981). Along the coast of 

Peru, intestinal contents of 19 of 140 (13%) leatherback carcasses were found to contain plastic bags and 

film (Fritts 1982). The presence of plastic debris in the digestive tract suggests that leatherbacks might 

not be able to distinguish between prey items and plastic debris (Mrosovsky 1981). Balazs (1985) 

speculated that the object may resemble a food item by its shape, color, size or even movement as it drifts 

about, and induce a feeding response. Although necropsies conducted between 1980 and 1992 by the Sea 

Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) participants showed that leatherbacks were more likely 

to ingest marine debris in the southeastern U.S. than in the northeast, it was noted that leatherbacks also 

consume plastic bags in the northeastern U.S. (Witzell and Teas 1994). However, when data were 

included through 1999, the majority (72%) of leatherbacks that had ingested marine debris or fishing gear 

were found from Virginia through Maine. Of 33 leatherbacks that were necropsied in New York, plastic 

bags were found in 10 animals (Sadove and Morreale 1990 in NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

3.7.3.2 Entanglements 

Sea turtles entangled in fishing gear generally have a reduced ability to feed, dive, surface to breathe or 

perform any other behavior essential to survival (Balazs 1985). They may be more susceptible to boat 

strikes if forced to remain at the surface, and entangling lines can constrict blood flow resulting in 

necrosis. Leatherbacks seem more likely to become entangled in fishing gear than other species. 

Leatherback entanglement in longline fishing gear is discussed in NMFS SEFSC (2001). The fish trap 

fishery, operating in Rhode Island from March through December, is known to capture sea turtles. 

Leatherbacks have been captured alive in large fish traps set off Newport, Rhode Island, most are 

reported to be released alive (Anonymous 1995). 

45
From 1990 - 2000, 92 leatherbacks from New York through Maine were reported entangled in lobster pot 

gear between the months of June and October (NEFSC, unpublished data). There have been two 

additional records of leatherbacks that stranded with lobster gear attached. The leatherbacks become 

entangled in the buoy line and/or ground line, possibly mistaking the buoys for cannonball jellyfish 

(Anonymous 1995). Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York all have active lobster pot 

fisheries which can entangle leatherbacks (Anonymous 1995). Entanglement in lobster pot lines was cited 

as the leading determinable cause of adult leatherback strandings in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts 

(Prescott 1988; R. Prescott pers. comm.). Many of the stranded leatherbacks for which a direct cause of 

death could not be documented showed evidence of rope scars or wounds and abraded carapaces, 

implicating entanglement. 

In the Southeast U.S. mid-Atlantic waters, the blue crab fishery is another potential source of leatherback 

entanglement. In North Carolina, two leatherback sea turtles were reported entangled in a crab pot buoy 

inside Hatteras Inlet (D. Fletcher, pers. comm.). A third leatherback was reported entangled in a crab 

pot buoy in Pamlico Sound off of Ocracoke. This turtle was disentangled and released alive; however, 

lacerations on the front flippers from the lines were evident (D. Fletcher, pers. comm.). Leatherbacks 

become entangled in Florida’s lobster pot and stone crab fisheries also, as documented on stranding 

forms. 

Although not documented as the major cause of leatherback strandings in the U.S. Virgin Islands for the 

time period 1982 to1997 (1 of 5 leatherbacks stranded due to entanglement) (Boulon 2000), leatherbacks 

have been observed with their flippers wrapped in the line of West Indian fish traps (R. Boulon, pers. 

comm.). STSSN leatherback strandings for 1980-1999 documented significantly more strandings as a 

result of entanglement in the northern states (Virginia to Maine; 62%) than southern (Florida’s east coast 

to North Carolina; 18%) or Gulf states (Florida’s west coast to Texas; 19%). The majority (67%) of 

these strandings were the result of being entangled in crab or lobster trap lines; additional sources of 

entanglement included entanglement in fishing line or nets or having a hook in the mouth or flipper. (In 

NMFS SEFSC 2001.) 

Leatherback sea turtles also are vulnerable to capture in gillnets. Gillnet fisheries operating in the 

nearshore waters of the mid-Atlantic states are likely to take leatherbacks since these fisheries and 

leatherbacks may co-occur; however, there is very little quantitative data on capture rate and mortality. 

According to the NMFS NEFSC Fisheries Observer Program, in 1994, 2 live and 2 dead leatherback sea 

turtles were reported incidentally captured in drift gillnets set in offshore waters from Maine to Florida 

(with 56% observer coverage); in 1995, 15 live and 12 dead leatherback sea turtles were reported (70% 

coverage); in 1996, 1 live leatherback was reported (54% coverage); in 1998, 3 live and 2 dead 

leatherbacks were reported (92% coverage). The NMFS NEFSC Fisheries Observer Program also had 

observers on the bottom coastal gillnet fishery which operates in the Mid-Atlantic, but no takes of 

leatherback sea turtles were observed from 1994-1998. Observer coverage of this fishery, however, 

ranged from <1% to 5%. In North Carolina, a leatherback was reported captured in a gillnet set in 

Pamlico Sound at the north end of Hatteras Island in the spring of 1990 (D. Fletcher, pers. comm.). It 

was released alive by the fishermen after much effort. 

Five other leatherbacks were released alive from nets set in North Carolina during the spring months: one 

was from a net (unknown gear) set in the nearshore waters near the North Carolina/Virginia border 

(1985); two others had been caught in gillnets set off of Beaufort Inlet (1990); a fourth was caught in a 

gillnet set off of Hatteras Island (1993); and a fifth was caught in a sink net set in New River Inlet (1993) 

In September of 1995, however, two dead leatherbacks were removed from a large (11-inch) 

46
monofilament shark gillnet set in the nearshore waters off of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina Gillnets set 

in northwest Atlantic coastal waters are reported to routinely capture leatherback sea turtles (Goff and 

Lien 1988; Goff et al. 1994; Anonymous 1996). Leatherbacks often drown in fish nets set in coastal 

waters of Sao Tome, West Africa (Castroviejo et al. 1994; Graff 1995). Gillnets are one of the suspected 

causes for the decline in the leatherback sea turtle population in French Guiana (Chevalier et al. 1999). 

In the waters of coastal Nicaragua, gillnets targeting green and hawksbill turtles also incidentally catch 

leatherback turtles (Lagueux et al. 1998). An estimated 1,000 mature female leatherback sea turtles are 

caught annually off of Trinidad and Tobago with mortality estimated to be between 50-95% (Eckert and 

Lien 1999). Many of the turtles do not die as a result of drowning, but rather because the fishermen 

butcher them in order to get them out of their nets (NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

The National Research Council Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation identified incidental capture in 

shrimp trawls as the major anthropogenic cause of sea turtle mortality (National Research Council 1990). 

Although federal regulations requiring TEDs in trawls were fully implemented in May 1991 and U.S. sea 

turtle strandings have declined since then (Crouse, 

Crowder, and Heppell unpublished data. as cited by Crowder et al. 1995), trawls equipped with TEDs 

are still taking large immature and adult loggerhead and green sea turtles (Epperly and Teas 1999) and 

leatherbacks (Henwood and Stuntz 1987). As leatherbacks make their annual spring migration north, they 

are likely to encounter shrimp trawls working in the nearshore waters off the Atlantic coast. Although the 

Leatherback Contingency Plan was developed to protect migrating leatherbacks from being incidentally 

captured and killed in shrimp trawls, NMFS has also had to implement additional leatherback protections 

outside of the contingency plan, through emergency rules in response to high strandings of leatherbacks in 

Florida and Texas. Because of these high leatherback strandings occurring outside the leatherback 

conservation zone, the lack of aerial surveys conducted in the fall, the inability to conduct required 

replicate surveys due to weather, equipment or personnel constraints, and the possibility that a 2-week 

closure was insufficient to ensure that leatherbacks had vacated the area, NMFS published an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in April 2000 (65 FR 17852-17854, April 5, 2000) indicating that NMFS 

was considering publishing a proposed rule to provide additional protection for leatherback turtles in the 

shrimp fishery. NMFS requested all shrimp trawlers to use TEDs modified to release leatherback sea 

turtles along the east coast of Florida to the Georgia/Florida border through the end of March 2000 

(December 11, 2000 NR00-061). This request had the effect of protecting leatherbacks during the winter 

Florida shrimp season that tend to stay in this area until the start of the spring migration. 

Turtle excluder devices are required in the mid-Atlantic winter trawl fishery for summer flounder in 

waters south of Cape Charles, Virginia; however, these small TEDs can not exclude leatherback sea 

turtles. Although not documented, it is suspected that this and other trawl fisheries may take turtles north 

of Cape Charles where TEDs are not required. In Rhode Island, leatherbacks are occasionally taken by 

trawlers targeting scup, fluke, and monkfish in state waters (Anonymous 1995). It is likely that 

leatherbacks may be taken by trawlers operating off other mid-Atlantic states. Observers onboard shrimp 

trawlers operating in the northeastern region of Venezuela documented the capture of 48 sea turtles, of 

which 6 were leatherbacks, from 13,600 trawls (Marcano and Alio 2000). They estimated annual capture 

of all sea turtle species to be 1,370 with an associated mortality of 260 turtles, or about 19%. (NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). 

3.7.3.3 Poaching 

NMFS SEFSC (2001) notes that poaching of juveniles an adults is still occurring in the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, both juveniles and adults. Four of the five strandings in ST. Croix were the result of poaching 

47
(Boulon 2000). A few cases of fishermen poaching leatherbacks have been reported from Puerto Rico, 

but most of the poaching is on eggs. In Ghana, nearly two thirds of the leatherback sea turtles that come 

up to nest on the beach are killed by local fishermen 

3.8 Green turtle 

Green turtles are distributed circumglobally, mainly in waters between the northern and southern 20o C 

isotherms (Hirth 1971). Green turtles were traditionally highly prized for their flesh, fat, eggs, and shell, 

and fisheries in the United States and throughout the Caribbean are largely to blame for the historical 

decline of the species. 

In the western Atlantic, several major nesting assemblages have been identified and studied (Peters 1954, 

Carr and Ogren 1960, Parsons 1962, Pritchard 1969, Carr et al. 1978). The largest, at Tortuguero, Costa 

Rica, has shown a long-term increasing trend since monitoring began in 1971. The increase is from an 

annual fitted-estimated number of emergences of under 20,000 in 1971 to over 40,000 in 1996. Over 

100,000 emergences occurred in 1995 (Bjorndal et al. 1999b). In the continental United States, green 

turtle nesting occurs on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Ehrhart 1979). Occasional nesting has been 

documented along the Gulf coast of Florida, at southwest Florida beaches, as well as the beaches on the 

Florida Panhandle (Meylan et al. 1995). Most documented green turtle nesting activity occurs on Florida 

index beaches, which were established to standardize data collection methods and survey effort on key 

nesting beaches. The pattern of green turtle nesting shows biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally 

positive trend during the ten years of regular monitoring since establishment of the index beaches in 1989, 

perhaps due to increased protective legislation throughout the Caribbean (Meylan et al. 1995). A longterm in-water monitoring study in the Indian River Lagoon of Florida has tracked the populations of 

juvenile green turtles in a foraging environment and noted significant increases in catch-per-unit effort 

(more than doubling) between the years 1983-85 and 1988-90. An extreme, short-term increase in CPUE 

of ~300% was seen between 1995 and 1996 (Ehrhart et al. 1996). 

Green turtles are herbivores, and feed primarily on sea grasses and macroalgae in shallow bays, lagoons, 

and reefs (Rebel 1974). Some of the principal feeding pastures in the Gulf of Mexico include inshore 

south Texas waters, the upper west coast of Florida, and the northwestern coast of the Yucatan 

Peninsula. Additional important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include Florida, Florida Bay, 

Florida Keys, the Culebra archipelago and other Puerto Rico coastal waters, the south coast of Cuba, the 

Miskito coast of Nicaragua, the Caribbean coast of Panama, and scattered areas along Colombia and 

Brazil (Hirth 1971). The preferred food sources in these areas are Cymodocea, Thalassia, Zostera, 

Sagittaria, and Vallisneria (Babcock 1937, Underwood 1951, Carr 1952, 1954). 

Green turtles were once abundant enough in the shallow bays and lagoons of the Gulf of Mexico to 

support a commercial fishery, which landed over one million pounds of green turtles in 1890 (Doughty 

1984). Doughty reported that the decline in the turtle fishery throughout the Gulf of Mexico occurred by 

1902. Currently, green turtles are uncommon in offshore waters of the northern Gulf, but abundant in 

some inshore embayments. Shaver (1994) live-captured a number of green turtles in channels entering 

into Laguna Madre, in South Texas. She noted the abundance of green turtle strandings in Laguna Madre 

inshore waters and opined that the turtles may establish residency in the inshore foraging habitats as 

juveniles. Algae along the jetties at entrances to the inshore waters of South Texas was thought to be an 

important food source for green turtles tracked via radio-telemetry (Renaud et al. 1995). Transmitterequipped turtles remained near jetties for most of the tracking period. This project was restricted to late 

48
summer months, and therefore may reflect seasonal influences. Coyne (1994) observed increased 

movements of green turtles during warm water months. 

3.9 Hawksbill sea turtle 

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

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. Nesting areas in the 

western U.S. North Atlantic include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. NMFS has designated the 

coastal waters surrounding Mona and Monito Islands, off the west coast of Puerto Rico, as critical habitat 

for hawksbills. Mona Island supports the largest population of nesting hawksbills in the U.S. Caribbean. 

In the northern Gulf of Mexico, a surprising number of small hawksbills are encountered off Texas. Most 

of the Texas records are probably in the 1-2 year class range. Many of the individuals captured or 

stranded are unhealthy or injured (Hildebrand 1983). The lack of sponge-covered reefs and the cold 

winters in the northern Gulf of Mexico probably prevent hawksbills from establishing a strong presence in 

that area. In the wider Caribbean, hawksbill populations are reported to be declining or depleted in 22 of 

the 26 geopolitical units forwhich some status and trend information is available. The only populations 

considered to be increasing in size are those of Mexico and Mona Island, Puerto Rico (Meylan 1999). 

3.10 Kemp’s ridley turtle 

Of the seven extant species of sea turtles of the world, the Kemp's ridley sea turtle has declined to the 

lowest population level. The recovery plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (USFWS and NMFS 1992b) 

contains a description of their natural history, taxonomy, and distribution. Kemp’s ridleys nest in daytime 

aggregations known as arribadas, primarily at Rancho Nuevo, a stretch of beach in Mexico. Most of the 

population of adult females nest in this single locality (Pritchard 1969). When nesting aggregations at 

Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 

40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the early 1970s, the world population estimate of mature female 

Kemp's ridleys had been reduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals. The population declined further through the 

mid-1980s. Recent observations of increased nesting suggest that the decline in the ridley population has 

stopped and there is cautious optimism that the population is now increasing. 

The nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico provide important developmental habitat for juvenile Kemp's 

ridleys. Ogren (1988) suggests that the Gulf coast, from Port Aransas, Texas, through Cedar Key, 

Florida, represents the primary habitat for subadult ridleys in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Stomach 

contents of Kemp's ridleys along the lower Texas coast consisted of a predominance of nearshore crabs 

and mollusks, as well as fish, shrimp, and other foods considered to be shrimp fishery discards (Shaver 

1991). Analyses of stomach contents from sea turtles stranded on upper Texas beaches suggest similar 

nearshore foraging behavior (Plotkin pers. comm.). 

Research being conducted by Texas A&M University has resulted in the intentional live-capture of 

hundreds of Kemp’s ridleys at Sabine Pass and the entrance to Galveston Bay. Between 1989 and 1993, 

50 of the Kemp's ridleys captured were tracked (using satellite and radio telemetry) by biologists with the 

NMFS Galveston Laboratory. The tracking study was designed to characterize sea turtle habitat and to 

identify small and large scale migration patterns. Preliminary analysis of the data collected during these 

studies suggests that subadult Kemp's ridleys stay in shallow, warm, nearshore waters in the northern Gulf 

of Mexico until cooling waters force them offshore or south along the Florida coast (Renaud, NMFS 

Galveston Laboratory, pers. comm.). 

49
In recent years, unprecedented numbers of Kemp's ridley carcasses have been reported from Texas and 

Louisiana beaches during periods of high levels of shrimping effort. NMFS established a team of 

population biologists, sea turtle scientists, and managers, known as the Turtle Expert Working Group 

(TEWG) to conduct a status assessment of sea turtle populations. Analyses conducted by the group have 

indicated that the Kemp’s ridley population is in the early stages of recovery; however, strandings in some 

years have increased at rates higher than the rate of increase in the Kemp’s population (TEWG 1998). 

While many of the stranded turtles observed in recent years in Texas and Louisiana are believed to have 

been incidentally taken in the shrimp fishery, other sources of mortality exist in these waters. These 

stranding events illustrate the vulnerability of Kemp's ridley and loggerhead turtles to the impacts of 

human activities in nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters. 

The TEWG (1998) developed a population model to evaluate trends in the Kemp’s ridley population 

through the application of empirical data and life history parameter estimates. Model results identified 

three trends in benthic immature Kemp’s ridleys. Benthic immatures are those turtles that are not yet 

reproductively mature but have recruited to feed in the nearshore benthic environment, where they are 

available to nearshore mortality sources that often result in strandings. Benthic immature ridleys are 

estimated to be 2-9 years of age and 20-60 cm in length. Increased production of hatchlings from the 

nesting beach beginning in 1966 resulted in an increase in benthic ridleys that leveled off in the late 1970s. 

A second period of increase, followed by leveling, occurred between 1978 and 1989. Hatchling 

production was further enhanced by the cooperative program between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Pesca to increase nest protection. A third period of steady increase, 

which has not leveled off to date, has occurred since 1990 and appears to be due to the greatly increased 

hatchling production and an apparent increase in survival rates of immature turtles beginning in 1990 due, 

in part, to the introduction of TEDs. Adult female ridley numbers have now grown from a low of 

approximately 1,050 females producing 702 nests in 1985, to greater than 3,000 females producing 1,940 

nests in 1995, to greater than 9,000 females producing about 5,800 nests in 2000. 

The TEWG (1998) was unable to estimate the total population size and current mortality rates for the 

Kemp’s ridley population; however, the TEWG listed a number of preliminary conclusions. The TEWG 

indicated that the Kemp's ridley population appears to be in the early stage of exponential expansion. 

Over the period 1987 to 1995, the rate of increase in the annual number of nests accelerated in a trend 

that would continue with enhanced hatchling production and the use of TEDs. Nesting data indicated that 

the number of adults declined from a population that produced 6,000 nests in 1966 to a population that 

produced 924 nests in 1978 and a low of 702 nests in 1985. Thus, the trajectory of adult abundance 

tracks trends in nest abundance from an estimate of 9,600 in 1966 to 1,050 in 1985. The TEWG 

estimated that in 1995 there were 3,000 adult ridleys. The increased recruitment of new adults is 

illustrated in the proportion of neophyte, or first time nesters, which has increased from 6% to 28% from 

1981 to 1989 and from 23% to 41% from 1990 to 1994. The TEWG determined that the data reviewed 

suggested that adult Kemp's ridley turtles were restricted somewhat to the Gulf of Mexico in shallow near 

shore waters, and benthic immature turtles of 20-60 cm straight line carapace length are found in 

nearshore coastal waters including estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. 

The TEWG (2000) identified an average Kemp’s ridley population growth rate of l1.3% per year (95% 

C.I.. slope = 0.096-0.130) since 1985. Increase in hatchling production from 1985-1998 was slightly less, 

9.5% per year. The 1996 and 1997 nest numbers reflected a slower rate of growth, while the increase in 

the 1998 nesting level was much higher, then decreased in 1999, and increased again strongly in 2000. 

The population growth rate does not appear as steady as originally forecasted by the TEWG, but annual 

fluctuations, due in part to irregular remigration intervals, are normal for other sea turtle populations. 

50
Given 2.5 nests per female, if the population continues to grow at 9.6-13% per year, it is projected to 

reach the target of 10,000 nesting females around 2014-2025 (TEWG 2000). 

The area surveyed for ridley nests in Mexico was expanded in 1990 due to degradation of the primary 

nesting beach by Hurricane Gilbert. The TEWG (1998) assumed that the increased nesting observed 

particularly since 1990 was a true increase, rather than the result of expanded beach coverage. Because 

systematic surveys of the adjacent beaches were not conducted prior to 1990, there is no way to 

determine what proportion of the nesting increase documented since that time is due to the increased 

survey effort rather than an expanding ridley nesting range. The annual rate of increase of nests at 

Ranch Nuevo, only from 1985-1999, is 7.9% per year. It is uncertain whether the current rate of increase 

will continue. As noted by TEWG, trends in Kemp’s ridley nesting even on the Rancho Nuevo beaches 

alone suggest that recovery of this population has begun but continued caution is necessary to ensure 

recovery and to meet the goals identified in the Kemp’s Ridley Recovery Plan (TEWG 2000). 

3.11 Critical Habitat (Northern Right Whale) 

The nearshore waters of northeast Florida and southern Georgia were formally designated as critical 

habitat for right whales on June 3, 1994 (59 FR, 28793). These waters were first identified as a likely 

calving and nursery area for right whales in 1984. Since that time, Kraus et al. (1993) have documented 

in this area the occurrence of 74 % of all the known mature females from the North Atlantic population. 

While sightings off Georgia and Florida include primarily adult females and calves, juveniles and adult 

males have also been observed. 

There are 5 well-known habitats used annually by right whales, including (1) coastal Florida and Georgia, 

(2) the Great South Channel, east of Cape Cod, (3) Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays, (4) the Bay of 

Fundy and, (5) Browns and Baccaro Banks, south of Nova Scotia. The first 3 areas occur in U.S. waters 

and have been designated by NMFS as critical habitat (59 FR, 28793). With the exception of the 

southeast U.S. shark gillnet fishery (which is now prohibited from operating within the southeastern 

critical habitat area during the season when right whales are in the area), HMS fisheries do not generally 

co-occur in time and space with these critical habitat areas. However, the AOCTRP recommends that 

NMFS implement regulations prohibiting pelagic longline gear from being deployed in right whale critical 

habitat areas. Although the current lack of such fisheries in these areas is due to the lack of 

concentrations of target HMS fish species, NMFS should strive to implement this recommendation in the 

near future to ensure against potential changes to the current situation. 

3.12 Factors Affecting Sea Turtles and Large Whales in the Atlantic Ocean 

The slow moving right whale appears to be more vulnerable to both vessel strikes and fishery interactions 

than other whale species. Other differences between species generally relate to distributional 

differences. For example, offshore species such as sperm, sei, and blue whales, or leatherback sea 

turtles, may encounter human activities less often than more coastally distributed species such as right and 

humpback whales. Some discrimination is evident between whale and sea turtle species. For example, 

they have different susceptibilities to ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. Other aspects such as 

marine pollution likely cross taxonomic boundaries between reptiles and mammals. The previous section 

detailed some of these differences and below is a description of fisheries and non-fisheries related threats 

to sea turtles and whales in the Atlantic Ocean. These are categorized into federally permitted activities 

(these would require section 7 consultations and include 14 federal fisheries, 1 Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (SMFC) fishery, 4 power plants, numerous Section 10 permits for scientific 

51
research and incidental take, FWS permitted activities on beaches (e.g., beach nourishment, construction, 

sea turtle work), state permitted activities (includes Section 10 permits), non-permitted activities which 

include state fisheries, boat strikes, poaching, beach and coastal lighting, marine debris, and foreign 

activities (fishing with longline, gillnet, set net, hook and line, trawls, harpoon/spear, and beach seines). 

Information/data available on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle interactions relative to these activities 

is available in Appendix II of the NMFS SEFSC (2001) report (attached). 

3.12.1 Federal Actions 

In recent years, NMFS has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects of 

vessel operations and gear associated with federally-permitted fisheries on threatened and endangered 

species in the action area. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability 

of adverse effects of the action on large whales and sea turtles. Similarly, recovery actions NMFS has 

undertaken under both the MMPA and the ESA are addressing the problem of take of whales in the 

fishing and shipping industries. Estimates of incidental take of sea turtles for federal actions considered in 

previous Opinions are summarized briefly in the following pages and in NMFS (2001a). The following 

summary of anticipated incidental take of turtles includes only those federal actions which have 

undergone formal section 7 consultation. 

3.12.1.1 Vessel Operations 

Federal vessel operations in the action area which may interact with listed species include those 

associated with operations of the U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) - which maintain the 

largest federal vessel fleets, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NOAA, and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE). NMFS has identified measures to minimize interactions with listed species 

during formal consultations with the USCG, USN, and COE, and is currently in early phases of 

consultation with the other federal agencies on their vessel operations. NMFS has also included 

restrictions on operations of contract or private vessels associated with COE dredging operations, which 

minimize and/or avoid interactions with listed whales and turtles. 

With these measure in place, NMFS anticipated that no incidental take of listed whales, and only one or 

two sea turtles, would occur annually incidental to the USCG and USN vessel operations. Since the USN 

consultation only covered operations out of Mayport, Florida, and the USCG consultation did not cover 

operations in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS has not yet been requested to consult on the effects of USN or 

USCG vessels interacting with large whales and sea turtles when they are operating in other areas within 

the action area of the HMS Pelagic Fishery. NMFS has not consulted on operations of vessels by other 

federal agencies within the action area (NOAA, EPA, COE) which are engaged in research and/or other 

activities, with the exception of Section 7 consultations completed for research permits. 

Through the section 7 process, where applicable, NMFS has and will continue to recommend measures 

for all these agency vessel operations to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species. For the 

purposes of this consultation, NMFS anticipates that vessels operated by these federal agencies will 

continue to operate in the action area with potential for some level of interaction with listed species. 

Based on information provided concerning those activities which have undergone section 7 consultation, 

most of these interactions are not expected to result in injury or harm. Those vessels operating in 

compliance with NMFS’ recommendations are assumed to significantly avoid and/or minimize the 

potential for interactions with listed species. Refer to the Opinions for the USCG (NMFS 1995, 1996b, 

52
and 1998) and the USN (NMFS 1997a) for detail on the scope of vessel operations for these agencies 

and conservation measures being implemented as standard operating procedures. 

Therefore, while this may have been more of a source of mortality in previous years, very little impact is 

expected on either sea turtles or whales from the activities already covered under Section 7 in the 

foreseeable future. Vessel operations outside federal consultation requirements are being addressed 

through other means that will be discussed later (e.g., private vessel traffic and large whale 

implementation teams). 

3.12.1.2 Military operations 

Military operations include vessel operations and ordnance detonation, that may also adversely affect 

listed species of whales and sea turtles. NMFS’ 1997 Opinion on USN aerial bombing training in the 

ocean off the southeast U.S. coast, involving live ordnance (500 and 1,000-lb bombs), anticipated that up 

to 84 loggerheads, 12 leatherbacks, and 12 greens or Kemp’s ridley, in combination, may be injured or 

killed annually during testing activities (NMFS 1997a). 

The USN has is conducting a one-time ship-shock test for the new SEA WOLF submarine off the 

Atlantic coast of Florida, using 5 submerged detonations of 10,000-lb explosive charges. The test is 

estimated to injure or kill 50 loggerheads, 6 leatherbacks, and 4 hawksbills, greens, or Kemp’s ridleys, in 

combination (NMFS 1996b). The USN has also proposed to conduct a one-time ship-shock testing in 

summer 2001 on the DDG-81 WINSTON CHURCHILL, using 4 submerged detonations of 10,000-lb 

explosive charges. NMFS has anticipated that this testing may lethally take up to 8 sea turtles, and take 

up to 228 sea turtles by acoustic harassment (NMFS 2000b). 

3.12.1.3 Dredging activities 

Dredging associated with the construction and maintenance of federal navigation channels has also been 

identified as a source of mortality to sea turtles. Although listed whales may detect dredging activities, 

they are not likely to interact with the dredge operations. Hopper dredges, which are frequently used in 

ocean bar channels and sometimes in harbor channels and offshore borrow areas, move relatively rapidly 

(compared to sea turtle swimming speeds) and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag 

heads are lifted off the bottom with the dredge pumps still running which entrains turtles from the water 

column. 

U.S. Navy northeast operations requiring dredging at the Dam Neck Naval Facility may take 10 

loggerhead, 1 green and 1 Kemp's ridley. Along the Atlantic coast of the southeastern United States, 

NMFS estimates that annual, observed injury or mortality of sea turtles from hopper dredging associated 

with COE activities may reach 35 loggerheads, 7 greens, 7 Kemp’s ridleys, and 2 hawksbills (NMFS 

1997b). 

Along the north and west coasts of the Gulf of Mexico, COE channel maintenance dredging using a 

hopper dredge may injure or kill 30 loggerhead, 8 green, 14 Kemp’s ridley, and 2 hawksbill sea turtles 

annually (NMFS 1997c). For the eastern Gulf of Mexico, those numbers are 8 loggerhead, 5 

leatherback,5 green, 5 Kemp's and 5 hawksbill. In the Northeast Atlantic, COE dredging activities are 

expected to lethally take 29 loggerhead, 2 leatherback, 7 green, and 6 Kemp's ridley. 

53
In most areas of the United States, annual dredging to accommodate commercial shipping occurs in the 

nearshore approaches to most of the major ports. Dredging may pose a threat to whales due to increased 

vessel traffic. Dredge vessels move back and forth between dredging and dumping sites; although, these 

vessels in general are relatively slow moving. Under ESA section 7 consultations conducted on various 

dredging activities, various measures to mitigate this concern have been implemented, including posting of 

dedicated whale observers in high whale-use areas and seasons. Additionally, dredging may result in 

increased vessel traffic as deepening and/or widening of ports or channels attracts more and larger 

vessels to use these areas. Dredging is responsible for injury and mortality of sea turtles and is also 

mitigated for in many ways under various Opinions conducted on these activities. 

COE and Minerals Management Service (MMS) rig removal activities also adversely affect sea turtles. 

For the COE activities, an incidental take (by injury or mortality) of 1 documented Kemp's ridley, green, 

hawksbill, leatherback, or loggerhead turtle is anticipated under a rig removal consultation for the New 

Orleans District (NMFS 1998b). MMS activities are anticipated to result in annual incidental take (by 

injury or mortality) of 30 sea turtles, including no more than 5 Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill, or 

leatherback turtles and no more than 10 loggerhead turtles, due to MMS’ OCS oil and gas exploration, 

development, production, and abandonment activities. 

3.12.1.4 Domestic Federal Fishery Operations 

Fishing operations using a variety of gear are known to interact with threatened and endangered species 

in the action area. Efforts to reduce the adverse effects of commercial fisheries are addressed through 

both the MMPA take reduction planning process and the ESA section 7 process. Longline, gillnet, set net, 

hook and line, trawls, harpoon/spear, pot gear, pound nets, fish traps and beach seines have been 

documented interacting with either whales or sea turtles or both. Since the federal fisheries are managed 

by NMFS, NMFS’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries is required to complete section 7 consultations on 

decision to approve FMPs which may affect listed species. Following completion of formal section 7 

consultation, NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources has issued biological opinions for the following 

fisheries: American Lobster, Monkfish, Dogfish, Northeast Multispecies, Tilefish, Bluefish, 

Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish, Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog, and Summer Flounder/Scup/ Black Sea Bass, 

Weakfish, Herring, and Sargassum fisheries in the action area. These consultations are summarized 

below; for more detailed information, refer to the respective Opinions. 

The Northeast Multispecies Sink Gillnet Fishery is one of the other major fisheries in the action area of 

this consultation that is known to entangle whales and sea turtles. This fishery has historically occurred 

from the periphery of the Gulf of Maine to Rhode Island in water to 60 fathoms. In recent years, more of 

the effort in this fishery has occurred in offshore waters and into the Mid-Atlantic. Participation in this 

fishery declined from 399 to 341 permit holders in 1993, and is expected to continue to decline as further 

groundfish conservation measures are implemented. The fishery operates throughout the year with peaks 

in the spring and from October through February. Data indicate that gear used in this fishery has 

seriously injured right whales, humpback whales, fin whales, and loggerhead, leatherback and Kemp's 

ridley sea turtles. Waring et al. (1997) reports that 17 serious injuries or mortalities of humpback whales 

from 1991 to 1996 were fishery interactions (not necessarily multispecies gear). Most implicated some 

kind of monofilament similar to that used in the multispecies fishery. Incidental lethal take levels of turtles 

anticipated in this fishery are 10 loggerhead, 4 leatherback, 4 green, and 2 Kemp's ridley. It is often 

difficult to assess gear found on stranded animals or observed at sea and assign it to a specific fishery. 

Only a fraction of the takes are observed, and the catch rate represented by the majority of takes, which 

are reported opportunistically, i.e., not as part of a random sampling program, is unknown. Consequently, 

54
the total level of interaction cannot be determined through extrapolation. Based on new information 

regarding the status of right whales and sea turtle interactions, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the 

Multispecies FMP on May 4, 2000. The new Opinion will evaluate the effects of this fishery on listed 

species and provide new estimates of incidental take. 

The American Lobster Pot Fishery is the largest fixed gear fishery in the action area. This fishery is 

known to take endangered whales and sea turtles. In 1998, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation on the 

federally regulated lobster fishery to consider potential effects of the transfer of management authority 

from the MSA to the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA), the 

implementation of new lobster management actions under the ACFCMA, and recent takes of endangered 

whales in the fishery. The previous formal consultation on the fishery under the MSA (Opinion issued 

December 13, 1996) had reached a jeopardy conclusion for the northern right whale. As a result of the 

RPA included with the 1996 Opinion, an emergency regulation under the MMPA (Emergency Interim 

Final Rule, 62 FR 16108) was published implementing restrictions on the use of lobster pot gear in the 

federal portion of the Cape Cod Bay right whale critical habitat and in the Great South Channel right 

whale critical habitat during periods of expected peak right whale abundance. 

The proposed ACFCMA plan contains measures to limit the number of lobster traps that can be deployed 

during the first two years of the plan, and further trap reduction measures may be chosen as default effort 

reduction measures during subsequent plan years. The reduction in the number of traps fished is 

expected to result in a reduction of entanglement risk. The interaction between the lobster trap fishery 

and endangered whales is addressed in the ALWTRP implemented via an interim final rule November 15, 

1997, followed by a final rule issued February 16,1999. The ALWTRP incorporated the RPA issued with 

the 1996 Opinion and implemented additional restrictions. Because of the greater protection provided by 

the ALWTRP, NMFS substituted the ALWTRP for the RPA issued with the 1996 Opinion and has 

concluded that the lobster fishery in the context of the ALWTRP is likely to adversely affect but is not 

likely to jeopardize the northern right whale. As with the multispecies Opinion noted above, the level of 

incidental take anticipated for this fishery was incorporated within the July 5, 1989, Opinion on the Issuing 

of Exemptions for Commercial Fishing Operations under Section 114 of the MMPA, as detailed above 

(NMFS 1989). Due to new information on the status of right whales and sea turtle interactions, NMFS 

reinitiated consultation on this fishery on June 22, 2000. The new Opinion will evaluate the effects of this 

fishery on listed species and provide new estimates of incidental take. The existing opinion anticipates 

lethal take of 10 loggerhead and 4 leatherback sea turtles. 

The Monkfish Fishery Management Plan was prepared by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils. This fishery uses several gear types which may entangle protected species, and 

takes of shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles have been recorded from monkfish trips. The monkfish gillnet 

sector is included in either the northeast sink gillnet or mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries and is 

therefore regulated by the ALWTRP and the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan. NMFS completed a 

formal consultation on the Monkfish FMP on December 21, 1998, which concluded that the fishery, with 

modification under the take reduction plans, is not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat. The incidental take statement (ITS) provided under this Opinion anticipates up to 6 

incidental takes of loggerhead turtles (no more than 3 lethal), 1 lethal or non-lethal take of a green sea 

turtle, 1 lethal or non-lethal take of a Kemp’s ridley, and 1 lethal or non-lethal take of a leatherback. 

However, based on the potential involvement of this fishery in the recent pulse of sea turtle strandings in 

North Carolina, noted elsewhere in this Opinion, as well as new information on the status of right whales 

and sea turtle interactions, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the Monkfish FMP on May 4, 2000. The 

55
new Opinion will evaluate the effects of this fishery on listed species and provide new estimates of

incidental take.

The Spiny Dogfish Fishery is similar to the monkfish fishery, but uses somewhat smaller mesh gear. 

The most recent Opinion prepared for the FMP for this fishery anticipated 6 takes (no more than 3 lethal)

of loggerheads, and 1 take (lethal or non-lethal) each for Kemp’s ridley, leatherbacks and green sea

turtles. Due to new information on the status of right whales and sea turtle interactions, NMFS also

reinitiated consultation on the Spiny Dogfish FMP on May 4, 2000. The new Opinion will evaluate the

effects of this fishery on listed species and provide new estimates of incidental take.

NMFS recently completed consultation on a new FMP for the Tilefish fishery on March 13, 2001. 

Tilefish are primarily taken by bottom longline gear; although, bottom trawl gear is also utilized. Although

sperm whales have been documented in bottom longline gear in fishing areas outside of the action area,

NMFS does not anticipate any listed whales will be taken in this fishery. Based on information from

fisheries using similar gears in the action area, NMFS anticipated that up to 6 loggerheads and 1

leatherback sea turtle may be incidentally captured in bottom longline or trawl gears associated with the

tilefish fishery on an annual basis.

The Bluefish Fishery operates in the action area using a combination of gillnets (48%), otter trawls

(19%), fish pound nets (7%), hand and troll lines (6%), and haul seines (3%). Based on observations of

incidental take of listed species in other fisheries using similar gear types, NMFS anticipated in its July 2,

1999, Opinion that up 6 loggerhead and 6 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles may be taken on an annual basis in the

bluefish fishery.

The Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish Fishery uses primarily midwater and bottom trawl gear, although pelagic

drift gillnet, pelagic longline/hook-and-line/hand line, purse seine, pot, trap, dredge, pound nets, and bandit

gears are all approved for use under the FMP. NMFS’ April 28, 1999, Opinion anticipated that up to 6

loggerhead, 2 green or Kemp’s ridley, and 1 leatherback sea turtle could be incidentally captured in the

squid/mackerel/butterfish fishery.

The Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fisheries are known to interact with sea turtles. 

While not documented, the gear-types used in this fishery could also entangle endangered whales,

particularly humpback whales. Significant measures have been developed to reduce the take of sea

turtles in summer flounder trawls, and trawls that meet the definition of a summer flounder trawl (which

would include fisheries for other species such as scup and black sea bass), by requiring TEDs in nets in

the area of greatest bycatch off the North Carolina and southern Virginia coast. NMFS is considering a

more geographically inclusive regulation to require TEDs in trawl fisheries that overlap with sea turtle

distribution to reduce the impact from this fishery. Developmental work is also ongoing for a TED that

will work in the flynets used in the weakfish fishery. These fisheries are subject to the requirements of

the ALWTRP for gillnets and lobster pots in the Mid-Atlantic. The anticipated observed annual take

rates for turtles in this multispecies fishery is 15 loggerheads and 3 leatherbacks, hawksbills, greens, or

Kemp’s ridley, in combination annually (NMFS 1997a). 

The Southeast U.S. Shrimp Fishery is known to incidentally take high numbers of sea turtles. Henwood

and Stuntz (1987) reported that the mortality rate for trawl-caught turtles ranged between 21% and 38%,

although Magnuson et al. (1990) suggested Henwood and Stuntz’s estimates were very conservative and

likely an underestimate of the true mortality rate. Since 1990, shrimp trawlers in the southeastern U.S.

are required to use TEDs, which optimally reduce a trawler’s capture rate by 97%. Even so, NMFS

56
estimated that 4,100 turtles may be taken lethally or non-lethally annually by shrimp trawlers operating 

legally under the sea turtle conservation measures, including 650 leatherbacks too big to be released 

through TEDs, 1,700 turtles taken in try nets, and 1,750 turtles (representing a 3% capture rate) that fail to 

escape through the TED (NMFS, 1998d), including large loggerheads. A detailed summary of the U.S. 

shrimp trawl fishery and the Mid-Atlantic winter trawl fishery impacts can be found in the TEWG reports 

(1998, 2000). 

A large proportion of stranded loggerheads and a small proportion of stranded green turtles appear too 

large to fit through the required minimum-sized TED openings in the shrimp trawl fishery and thus it is 

likely that current TEDs have not achieved 97% reduction in capture of large loggerheads and greens, 

and most leatherbacks. The relatively large proportion of stranded loggerhead turtles with dimensions 

greater than the required minimum TED height opening is cause for concern in light of the need to reduce 

mortality on the northern subpopulation of loggerheads (TEWG 1998). Strandings of loggerhead turtles 

with body depths greater than the currently required minimum TED height opening has ranged between 

33% and 47% of the total measured strandings since 1986. In the 3 years preceding September 1999, 

nearly 1,300 stranded loggerhead turtles were deeper bodied than the currently required TED height 

opening. The problem is acute off the nesting beaches of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic 

seaboard (Epperly and Teas 1999). It is also noteworthy that, on average, the number of turtle carcasses 

stranded on ocean-facing beaches may represent, at best, based on evidence obtained via a 3-dimensional 

oceanographic model (Werner et al. 1999), approximately 20% of the total number of available carcasses 

at sea (i.e., of turtles dying at sea). Only those turtles killed very close to the shore may be most likely to 

strand (in NMFS SEFSC 2001). NMFS has recently reinitiated consultation on the Southeast U.S. 

Shrimp Fishery to consider a new TED regulation proposed April 5, 2000, to increase the size of 

openings and reduce mortalities of captured sea turtles. 

The Atlantic Herring Fishery operating in the northeastern U.S. was issued a biological opinion that 

anticipates 6 loggerhead takes of which no more than 3 would be lethal, and 6 lethal takes of Kemp's 

ridleys. 

An Opinion on the NMFS/ASMFC Interjurisdictional FMP for Weakfish was conducted in June 1997. 

Weakfish are caught in the summer flounder fishery and are also fished with flynets. Analyses of the 

NMFS’ observer data showed 36 incidental captures of sea turtles for trawl and gillnet vessels operating 

south of Cape May, New Jersey from April 1994 through December 1996. Of those turtles taken, 28 

loggerheads were taken in trawls that also caught weakfish, and resulted in 2 deaths. Most of the sea 

turtle takes occurred in late fall. In all cases, weakfish landings were second in poundage behind Atlantic 

croaker and summer flounder (NEFSC, unpub. data). The Opinion on the federal portion of the fishery 

anticipates 20 lethal takes of loggerheads and 2 lethal takes of Kemp's ridleys. 

In the Sargassum Fishery, NMFS has also anticipated that juvenile sea turtles will be taken. In its June 

21, 1999, Opinion, NMFS anticipated that up to 30 neonate/immature loggerhead and no more than 1 

neonate/pelagic immature leatherback, hawksbill, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles will be taken on an 

annual basis during the harvest of Sargassum. 

3.12.1.5 Other Federal Actions 

Power Plants impact sea turtles entering coastal or inshore areas by entrainment in the cooling-water 

systems. At the St. Lucie nuclear power plant at Hutchinson Island, Florida, large numbers of green and 

loggerhead turtles have been captured in the seawater intake canal in the past several years. Annual 

57
capture levels from 1994-1997 have ranged from almost 200 to almost 700 green turtles and from about

150 to over 350 loggerheads. Almost all of the turtles are caught and released alive; NMFS estimates the

survival rate at 98.5% or greater (see NMFS 1997e). 

An Opinion completed in January 2000 estimates that the operations at the Brunswick Steam Electric

Plant in Brunswick, North Carolina, may take 50 sea turtles in any combination annually, that are released

alive. NMFS also estimated the total lethal take of turtles at this plant may reach 6 loggerhead, 2 Kemp’s

ridley, or 3 green turtles annually. 

An Opinion completed in June 1999 on the operations at the Crystal River Energy Complex in Crystal

River, Florida, estimated the level of take of sea turtles in the plant’s intake canal may reach 55 sea turtles

with an estimated 50 being released alive biennially. Opinions were also issued for the Oyster Creek and

Salem and Hope Nuclear generating stations that anticipated 40 loggerhead takes (8 lethal), 7 Kemp's

ridleys (3 lethal) and 8 greens (2 lethal).

It is important to note that the large majority of captures in power plant facilities on the U.S. east coast do

not result in serious injury or mortality since most of the plants have implemented procedures specifically

to release turtles unharmed.

Other federally permitted activities affecting loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles are detailed in

NMFS SEFSC, 2001, Appendix II and include a number of research activities, the large majority of which

are not lethal. Very little data was available from US FWS on various activities they permit based on

their sea turtle jurisdiction on beaches. However, as they are also monitoring activities such as beach

renourishment through Section 7 consultation, it would be expected that the impacts of such activities

would be minimal.

3.12.2 State or Private Actions 

3.12.2.1 Private and Commercial Vessels 

Private and commercial vessels operate in the action area of this consultation and also have the potential 

to interact with whales and sea turtles. For example, shipping traffic in Massachusetts Bay is estimated 

at 1,200 ship crossings per year with an average of 3 per day. More than 280 commercial fishing vessels 

fish on Stellwagen Bank in the Gulf of Maine, and sportfishing contributes more than 20 vessels per day 

from May to September. In Massachusetts Bay alone, about 20 whale watch companies representing 40­

50 boats conduct several thousand trips from April to September, with the majority of effort in the 

summer season. More than 280 commercial vessels fish on Stellwagen Bank. Sportfishing contributes 

more than 20 vessels per day from May to September. In addition, an unknown number of private 

recreational boaters frequent Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Similar traffic and more exists for 

many other ports, some larger, within the scope of this consultation which overlap with whale high-use 

areas. The invention and popularization of new technology resulting in high speed catamarans for ferry 

services and whale watch vessels operating in congested coastal areas contribute to the potential for 

impacts from privately-operated vessels. 

Various initiatives have been planned or undertaken to expand or establish high-speed watercraft service 

in the northwest Atlantic, including 1 service between Bar Harbor, Maine, and Nova Scotia with a vessel 

operating at higher speeds than established watercraft service. The Bar Harbor–Nova Scotia high speed 

ferry conducted its first season of operations in 1998. The operations of these vessels and other high58
speed craft may adversely affect threatened and endangered whales and sea turtles, as discussed 

previously with private and commercial vessel traffic in the Action Area. NMFS and other member 

agencies of the Northeast Implementation Team for the Recovery of the Northern Right Whale will 

continue to monitor the development of the high speed vessel industry and its potential threats to listed 

species and critical habitat. Recent whale strikes resulting from interaction with whale watch boats and 

recreational vessels have also been recorded. 

Wiley et al. (1995) showed that in the mid-Atlantic area (between Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, and Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina), of the stranded humpback whales for which the cause of death was 

determinable, 30% of the mortalities were attributed to vessel strikes and 25% had injuries consistent with 

entanglement in fishing gear. This indicates that vessel interactions are having an impact upon whale 

populations along this portion of the coast, as well as in right whale concentration areas. Because most of 

the whales involved in these interactions are juveniles, areas of concentration for young or newborn 

animals are particularly important to protect. This also raises concerns that, with such mortality focused 

on one age class of the population, that future recruitment to the breeding population may be affected. 

The ports of Jacksonville and Port Everglades, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Wilmington, Delaware; 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; and Boston, Massachusetts support some of the 

country’s strongest maritime economies. Commercial shipping traffic in Massachusetts Bay is estimated 

at 1,200 ship crossings per year with an average of 3 per day. About 17 million tons of waterborne cargo 

pass through the Port of Jacksonville, Florida which receives about 1,600 vessels each year moving 

between the U.S. and South America, Europe, and the Caribbean. About 4.8 million tons (short tons) 

pass through the Port of Wilmington, Delaware which receives about 400 vessels each year. About 56 

million tons of waterborne cargo passed through the Port of New York in 1998. About 1.3 million tons of 

general cargo, 1.5 million tons of bulk cargo, and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargo pass through the Port 

of Boston, Massachusetts, which receives more than 62 ship calls, 350 container vessels, and 1,700 bulk 

cargo vessels each year. In addition, about 60 cruise vessels sail from the Port of Boston each year. 

(Note: data derived from the internet websites of each of the named ports) 

In southeastern waters, shipping channels associated with Jacksonville and Port Canaveral, Florida, bisect 

the area that contains the most concentrated whale sightings within right whale critical habitat. These 

channels and their approaches serve commercial shipping ports and two military bases. All of these 

channels require periodic maintenance dredging by the COE (and at times, more extensive dredging is 

conducted to support port expansion or to allow for larger military vessels). These commercial ports are 

growing, with the port of Jacksonville, one of the busiest ports on the east coast, undergoing major 

expansion along with several other east coast ports vying for designation as “megaports” to attract 

Panamanian ex-vessel traffic. Expansion of these ports requires section 7 consultations. 

In addition to commercial traffic and recreational pursuits, private vessels participate in high- speed 

marine events concentrated in the southeastern United States that are a particular threat to sea turtles, 

and occasionally to marine mammals as well. The magnitude of these marine events is not currently 

known. NMFS and the USCG are in early consultation on these events, but a thorough analysis has not 

been completed. The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) also reports many records of 

vessel interaction (propeller injury) with sea turtles off coastal states such as New Jersey and Florida, 

where there are high levels of vessel traffic. 

Ship strikes have been identified as a significant source of mortality to the Western Atlantic stock of right 

whales (Kraus 1990) and are also known to impact all other endangered whales. Specifically, commercial 

59
and private vessels may affect humpback, fin, sperm, and right whales. Small vessel traffic also kills or 

injures threatened and endangered sea turtles in the action area. NMFS expects this commercial traffic 

into and out of these ports to continue into the foreseeable future. The best scientific and commercial 

data available provide no specific information on what risk this level of commercial traffic poses to 

endangered whales in the action area, but NMFS would expect this level of commercial traffic to pose a 

risk of ship strikes that would continue to kill or seriously injure whales in numbers similar to those 

observed between 1994 and 1999 (1 dead blue whale, 1 dead sei whale, 2 dead fin whales, and at least 6 

dead right whales). 

3.12.2.2 State Fishery Operations 

Several coastal state fisheries are known to incidentally take listed species, but information on these 

fisheries is sparse (NMFS 2001a). Although few of these state regulated fisheries are currently 

authorized to incidentally take listed species, several state agencies have approached NMFS to discuss 

applications for a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit. Since NMFS’ issuance of a section 

10(a)(1)(B) permit will require formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA, the effects of these 

activities will be considered in future section 7 consultation. Although the past and current effects of 

these fisheries on listed species is currently not determinable, NMFS believes that ongoing state fishing 

activities may be responsible for seasonally high levels of observed strandings of sea turtles on both the 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Most of the state data is based on extremely low observer coverage or sea 

turtles were not part of data collection; thus, this data provides insight into gear interactions that could 

occur but is not indicative of the magnitude of the overall problem. The following state by state summary 

is based on research that is summarized in NMFS SEFSC (2001) and only records sea turtles. 

It is important to recognize that these estimates are based on varied levels of observer effort (some 

extremely low), differences in observer program priorities, varying levels of information provided to 

NMFS by the states, and varying levels of sophistication in data collection and database management 

techniques. Therefore, these values do not provide a reliable estimate of the magnitude of take and are 

considered significant underestimates of actual take. 

Massachusetts fisheries include: bottom trawl fishery (1 loggerhead was observed taken), lobster pot 

fishery (85 stranded leatherbacks linked to this fishery), pound net (weir) fishery (no data), pound net (1 

leatherback was observed taken), gill net (1 loggerhead was observed taken), non-shrimp trawl (1 green 

was observed taken), fish trap (1 loggerhead and 1 leatherback were observed taken), hook and line (1 

loggerhead was observed taken). 

Rhode Island fisheries include: bottom trawl ("occasional" loggerhead), gill nets (no data), large fish 

traps (11 leatherbacks and 1 Kemp’s ridley were reported taken), lobster pots (7 leatherback were 

reported taken), pound nets (2 observed leatherbacks), non-shrimp trawl (1 leatherback were observed 

taken). 

Connecticut fisheries: no data on listed species bycatch available, but bottom trawl, gill net, and lobster 

pot fisheries operate in state waters. 

New York: fisheries consist of bottom trawl, pound nets, gillnets, fish trap, non-shrimp trawl, lobster pot 

and set nets. Of these, the pound net fishery has taken 144 loggerheads, 43 Kemp's ridleys and 52 green 

turtles, all unharmed. There have been 12 reports of leatherback entanglements with lobster in New 

60
York. The rest of the fisheries combined only show observed interactions of 1-2 turtles each from any 

number of species. 

New Jersey: has a list of fisheries similar to NY, no data was available for the bottom trawl or gill net 

fisheries, pound net captures were observed for 16 loggerheads. 

Delaware: no data were available on the horseshoe crab fishery, gillnet fishery or fish traps for sea turtle 

take, but 9 loggerheads and 3 greens were observed in non-shrimp trawls, 12 loggerheads in hook and line 

fisheries in Delaware Bay, and 2 in driftnets. 

Maryland: no data were available for bottom trawl, gillnet, or hook and line fisheries operating in the 

state, but 4 green and 3 Kemp’s ridley turtles were reportedly taken in pound net fisheries and 1 

loggerhead was taken in (non-shrimp) trawl fisheries. 

Virginia: the pound net fishery has 82 observed loggerhead takes (1 dead) and 6 green (0 dead), hook 

and line, non-shrimp trawl and gill net fisheries records show 1-2 observations of loggerhead takes. 

According to NMFS records for the Marine Mammal Exemption Program, which governed marine 

mammal/fishery interactions prior to the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, interactions between 

humpback whales and menhaden purse seines have occurred in the past. It is not known whether injury 

or mortality resulted nor where the interactions occurred. 

North Carolina: the pound net fishery has been observed for years and has probably some of the most 

complete data; a total of 2898 loggerheads were estimated to have been caught (156 observed), 0 were 

dead, 531 estimated ridleys, and 221 estimated greens. Hook and line fishery observed takes are 70 

loggerheads, 1 leatherback, 3 Kemp's ridley, 22 green, 0 dead; seine and long haul seine net observations 

included 15 loggerheads, 1 Kemp's ridley; the next highest fisheries are the shrimp trawl (22 loggerheads, 

2 dead; 2 Kemp's ridley and 5 green); and non -shrimp trawls which also had observations of loggerheads 

(53, 6 dead). No data on sea turtles takes were available on beach seine fisheries, stop net fishery, purse 

seine fishery, fish traps, eel pots, shrimp pots; although, observed takes of humpback whales have been 

recorded by NEFSC in the beach seine fishery. Crab pot fisheries and pelagic longline had a few 

observations of sea turtle takes. Gillnet fisheries in North Carolina are diverse and extensive, and include 

a large recreational component in addition to the commercial component. One humpback whale mortality 

was documented in a sink gillnet targeting spot and croaker. 

South Carolina has relatively few fisheries: gillnet, whelk trawling, hook and line and shrimp trawl. Few 

data are available regarding interactions between listed species and these fisheries. The gillnet fishery 

includes a small shad fishery which is phasing out, and a recreational component. A few loggerheads 

were observed taken in both the gillnet and trawl fisheries. 

Georgia also has relatively few fisheries: shrimp bait fishery, whelk fishery, blue crab fishery, shrimp 

trawl, hook and line, with a few loggerhead and green turtle reported as have been taken. 

Florida has a long list of state fisheries including: hook and line, fish trap, try net, shrimp trawl, nonshrimp trawl, longline, cast net, and set net. These fisheries have observations of relatively few turtles, 

the majority loggerheads, with the exception of the hook and line fisheries which have 7 loggerhead (1 

dead), 30 green and 4 Kemp's ridley in the Atlantic and 1 green, and 7 loggerhead (1 dead), 1 green and 

20 Kemp's ridley in the Gulf. The set net fishery had the next largest number of observations, 12 green 

turtles, recorded as alive. 

61
Alabama has shrimp trawl incidental captures, but relatively little data are available. Mississippi and

Louisiana have shrimp and non shrimp trawl fisheries, and gillnets; most recorded takes are of Kemp's

ridleys (12) in shrimp trawls in Louisiana.

Texas supports hook and line, gillnetcast net, seine net, set net, trotline, shrimp trawl, non-shrimp trawl,

and try net fisheries. The hook and line fisheries took 387 Kemp's ridley turtles, killing 91 of them.

The most obvious conclusion from the above list of sea turtle and whale interaction reports is the paucity

of data available on interactions and also the significant potential for impacts on listed species from state

fisheries. This is particularly true for whales, which may carry gear long distances before they are

documented as entangled, making it difficult to determine where the interaction occurred. To address

these data gaps, several state agencies have initiated observer programs to collect information on

interactions between listed species and certain gear types. Other states have closed nearshore waters to

gear-types known to have high encounter rates with listed species. Depending on the fishery in question,

many state permit holders also hold federal permits; therefore, existing section 7 consultations on federal

fisheries may address some of the state fishery impacts. Impacts of state fisheries on endangered

whales are being addressed, as appropriate, through the MMPA take reduction development process. For

example, the ALWTRP addresses the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, which is largely prosecuted in

state waters. NMFS is also actively participating in a cooperative effort with ASMFC to standardize

and/or implement programs to collect information on level of effort and bycatch in state fisheries. When

this information becomes available, it can be used to refine take reduction plan measures in state waters. 

With regard to whale entanglements, vessel identification is occasionally recovered from gear removed

from entangled animals. With this information, it is possible to determine whether the gear was deployed

by a federal or state permit holder and whether the vessel was fishing in federal or state waters.

In addition to the lack of data, other trends emerge from these summaries; certain gear types may have

high levels of sea turtle takes, but very low rates of serious injury or mortality. For example, the hook and

line takes rarely result in death, but trawls and gillnets frequently do. Leatherbacks seem to be

susceptible to a more restricted list of fisheries, while the hard shelled turtles, particularly loggerheads,

seem to appear in data on almost all of the state fisheries.

In 1998, East Coast states from Maine through North Carolina began implementing regulations pursuant to

the Year 1 requirements of Amendment 3 to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s

Coastal Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ASMFC 1997). The proposed federal

ACFCMA plan is designed to be complementary to the ASMFC plan, and the two plans are similar in

structure. Regulations will be geared toward reducing lobster fishing effort by 2005 to reverse the

overfished status of the resource. States in the 6 coastal areas must implement regulations according to a

compliance schedule established in Amendment 3. Effort reduction measures will be similar to those

proposed in the federal ACFCMA plan. Several states have implemented trap caps for 1998. Further

trap limits, which the compliance schedule requires for Area 1 and the Outer Cape Lobster Management

Area in 1999, will generate some localized risk reduction for protected species in those areas. If all states

elect to implement a significant trap reduction program, the overall entanglement risk would be

substantially reduced. Vessels fishing in state waters will be required to comply with MMPA take

reduction plan regulations designed to reduce entanglement risk to whales.

Early in 1997, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts implemented restrictions on lobster pot gear in the

state water portion of the Cape Cod Bay critical habitat during the January 1 - May 15 period to reduce

the impact of the fishery on right whales. The regulations were revised prior to the 1998 season. State

62
regulations impact state permit holders who also hold federal permits, although effects would be similar to 

those resulting from federal regulations during the January 1 - May 15 period. Massachusetts has also 

implemented winter/spring gillnet restrictions similar to those in the ALWTRP and the MSA for the 

purpose of right whale and/or harbor porpoise conservation. Lobster pots are fished in areas outside of 

Massachusetts where sea turtles and the depleted stock of bottlenose dolphin are present. Entanglement 

has been documented for both species. 

The North Carolina Observer program documented 33 flynet trips from November through April of 1991­

1994 and recorded no turtles caught in 218 hours of trawl effort. However, a NMFS- observed vessel 

fished for summer flounder for 27 tows with an otter trawl equipped with a TED and then fished for 

weakfish and Atlantic croaker with a flynet that was not equipped with a TED. They caught 1 

loggerhead in 27 TED-equipped tows and 7 loggerheads in 9 flynet tows without TEDs. In addition, the 

same vessel using the flynet on a previous trip took 12 loggerheads in 11 out of 13 observed tows 

targeting Atlantic croaker. A slight potential exists for interaction between this fishery and humpback 

whales, particularly in the mid-Atlantic, but no documentation of such interactions is available. 

Other bottom trawl fisheries that are suspect for the incidental capture of sea turtles are the horseshoe 

crab fishery in Delaware (Spotila et al. 1998) and the whelk trawl fishery in South Carolina (S. Murphy, 

pers. comm. to J. Braun-Mcneill, November 27, 2000) and Georgia (M. Dodd, pers. comm. to J. BraunMcNeill, December 21, 2000). In South Carolina, the whelk trawling season opens in late winter and 

early spring when offshore bottom waters are > 55oF. One criterion for closure of this fishery is water 

temperature: whelk trawling closes for the season and does not reopen throughout the state until 6 days 

after water temperatures first reach 64oF in the Fort Johnson boat slip. Based on the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources Office of Fisheries Management data, approximately 6 days will 

usually lapse before water temperatures reach 68oF, the temperature at which sea turtles move into state 

waters (D. Cupka, pers. comm.). From 1996-1997, observers onboard whelk trawlers in Georgia 

reported a total of 3 Kemp's ridley, 2 green and 2 loggerhead sea turtles captured in 28 tows for a CPUE 

of 0.3097 turtles/100ft net hour. As of December 2000, TEDS are required in Georgia state waters when 

trawling for whelk. A loggerhead was reported captured in a Florida try net (W. Teas, pers. comm.). 

A detailed summary of the gillnet fisheries currently operating along the mid- and southeast U.S. Atlantic 

coastline, that are known to incidentally capture loggerheads, can be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 

2000). Although all or most nearshore gillnetting is prohibited by state regulations in state waters of South 

Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, gillnetting in other states’ waters and in federal waters 

does occur. Of particular concern are the nearshore and inshore gillnet fisheries of the mid-Atlantic 

operating in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and 

North Carolina state waters and/or federal waters. Incidental captures in these gillnet fisheries (both 

lethal and non-lethal) of loggerhead, leatherback, green and Kemp's ridley sea turtles have been reported 

(W. Teas, pers. comm., J. Braun-McNeill pers. comm.). In addition, illegal gillnet incidental captures 

have been reported in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Texas (NMFS 2001a). 

Georgia and South Carolina prohibit gillnets for all but the shad fishery. This fishery was observed in 

South Carolina for one season by the NMFS SEFSC (McFee et al. 1996). No takes of protected species 

were observed. Florida banned all but very small nets in state waters, as has the state of Texas. 

Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have also placed restrictions on gillnet fisheries within state waters 

such that very little commercial gillnetting takes place in southeast waters, with the exception of North 

Carolina. 

63
Gillnetting activities in North Carolina associated with the southern flounder fishery have recently been 

implicated in large numbers of sea turtle mortalities. NMFS closed part of Pamlico Sound to the setting of 

gillnets targeting southern flounder in fall 1999 after the stranding of relatively large numbers of 

loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles on inshore beaches. NMFS also closed the waters north of 

Cape Hatteras to 38° N., including the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to large (> 6 inch stretched) mesh 

gillnets for 30 days in mid-May 2000 due to the large numbers of loggerhead strandings in North Carolina, 

and will continue to implement such proactive measures as necessary. A large proportion of these 

stranded loggerheads was assumed to be from the northern subpopulation. This assumption is partly 

supported by analyses conducted by Bass et al. (1999) on genetic samples collected from sea turtles 

stranding on U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shores. The northern subpopulation accounted for 25-28% 

of the animals that stranded off the Carolinas, and 46% of the animals sampled that stranded in the 

northernmost area sampled, Virginia (TEWG 2000). Most recently, on October 27, 2000, the North 

Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) closed waters in the southeastern portion of the Pamlico 

Sound as a result of elevated takes by the commercial large-mesh flounder gillnet fishery. The NCDMF 

and NMFS had just agreed on details of a section 10 permit of the ESA for the founder fishery just prior 

to the closure. The fishery was closed when anticipated incidental take levels were met for green sea 

turtles. The NCDMF estimated that there were 50 loggerheads captured at the time of closure and that 

44 of those had been drowned (NMFS 2001a). 

Pulses of elevated sea turtle strandings occur with regularity in the Mid-Atlantic area, particularly along 

North Carolina through southern Virginia in the late fall/early spring, coincident with sea turtle migrations. 

For example, in the end of April through early May, 2000, approximately 300 turtles, mostly loggerheads, 

stranded north of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Gillnets were found with four of the carcasses. These 

strandings are likely caused by state fisheries as well as federal fisheries, although not any one fishery has 

been identified as the major cause. Fishing effort data indicate that fisheries targeting monkfish, dogfish, 

and bluefish were operating in the area of the strandings. Strandings in this area represent at best, 7-13% 

of the actual nearshore mortality (Epperly et al. 1996). Studies by Bass et al. (1998), Norrgard (1995) 

and Rankin-Baransky (1997) indicate that the percentage of northern loggerheads in this area is highly 

over-represented in the strandings when compared to the ~ 9% representation from this subpopulation in 

the overall U.S. sea turtle nesting populations. Specifically, the genetic composition of sea turtles in this 

area is 25-54% from the northern subpopulation, 46 - 64% from the South Florida subpopulation, and 3­

16% from the Yucatan subpopulation. The cumulative removal of these turtles on an annual basis would 

severely impact the recovery of this species. 

The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network has documented record-setting levels of sea turtle 

strandings in North Carolina and Florida in recent years. For example, the total number of strandings in 

North Carolina for 1999 was 2.3 times the average annual strandings from 1980 to 1999. The total 

number of Kemp’s ridley strandings in 1999 was 7 times the average annual for the same time period. 

The number of strandings in 2000 is greater than 1999 with a preliminary total of 766, including 78 

Kemp’s ridleys and 17 leatherbacks. During the spring of 2000, there were two stranding events 

involving unprecedented numbers of turtles, along the Outer Banks in Dare and Hyde counties. 

During the first stranding event, a total of 71 turtles (69 loggerheads and 2 Kemp’s ridleys) washed 

ashore on the ocean-facing beaches between Rodanthe and Ocracoke from April 14-17, 2000. There 

were no externally obvious signs of death on the turtles. Necropsies on 12 loggerheads and 2 Kemp’s 

ridleys revealed that the turtles had excellent fat stores and were probably in good health prior to their 

deaths. A few of the turtles had been feeding on nearshore, benthic species, but most had empty guts, 

suggesting that they were in a migratory, rather than foraging, mode. The uniform state of decomposition 

64
of the turtles indicated that they had likely all died suddenly within a short period of time, probably no

more than a few days before stranding on the beach. Large amounts of sargassum weed blew ashore,

coincident with the turtle strandings, and considered indicative of the movement of warm Gulf Stream

waters close to shore.

A second stranding event began on May 3. From May 3-8, approximately 209 additional sea turtles (3

Kemp’s ridleys, the rest loggerheads) were found dead on ocean beaches between Oregon Inlet and

Hatteras Inlet. Virtually all were severely decomposed, suggesting that they had been dead at sea for at

least several days before stranding. Four of the carcasses were entangled in fishing gear: Three

loggerheads carried pieces of gillnet with a mesh size of 12 inches (30.48 cm) stretched, and one

loggerhead was carrying gillnet with a mesh size of 10 inches (25.4 cm) stretched.

The stranding events along the Atlantic coast represent only a fraction of the actual at-sea mortality. The

causes are multiple, including state and federal fisheries, disease and cold stunning.

Pound nets are a passive, stationary gear that are known to incidentally capture loggerhead sea turtles in

Massachusetts (R. Prescott pers. comm.), Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland (W. Teas pers. comm.),

New York (Morreale and Standora 1998), Virginia (Bellmund et al. 1987) and North Carolina (Epperly et

al. 2000). Although pound nets are not a significant source of mortality for loggerheads in New York 

(Morreale and Standora 1998) and North Carolina (Epperly et al. 2000), they have been implicated in the 

stranding deaths of loggerheads in the Chesapeake Bay from mid-May through early June (Bellmund et 

al. 1987). The turtles were reported entangled in the large mesh (>8 inches) pound net leads (NMFS 

2001a). 

Incidental captures of loggerheads in fish traps set in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New

York, and Florida have been reported (W. Teas, pers. comm.). Although no

incidental captures have been documented from fish traps set in North Carolina and Delaware

(Anon 1995), they are another potential anthropogenic impact to loggerheads and other

sea turtles. Lobster pot fisheries are prosecuted in Massachusetts (Prescott 1988), Rhode Island

(Anon 1995), Connecticut (Anon 1995) and New York (S. Sadove, pers. comm.). Although they are

more likely to entangle leatherback sea turtles, lobster pots set in New York are also known to entangle

loggerhead sea turtles. No incidental capture data exist for the other states. Long haul seines and

channel nets in North Carolina are known to incidentally capture loggerhead and other sea turtles in the

sounds and other inshore waters(J. Braun-McNeill, pers. comm.). No lethal takes have been reported

(NMFS 2001a).

Observations of state recreational fisheries have shown that loggerhead, leatherback, and green sea

turtles are known to bite baited hooks, and loggerheads frequently ingest the hooks. Hooked turtles have

been reported by the public fishing from boats, piers, and beach, banks, and jetties and from commercial

fishermen fishing for reef fish and for sharks with both single rigs and bottom longlines (NMFS 2001). A

detailed summary of the known impacts of hook and line incidental captures to loggerhead sea turtles can

be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 2000).

3.12.3 International Factors 

3.12.3.1 International Fisheries 

Humpback whales are found internationally in feeding areas in the Gulf of St Lawrence, Newfoundland 

& Labrador and western Greenland, as well as Iceland and northern Norway, including off Bear Island 

65
and Jan Mayen (Waring et al. 2000). On their winter migration, humpbacks from the Gulf of Maine 

Stock are found throughout the Antillean arc, from Puerto Rico to the coast of Venezuela. Therefore, 

some impacts on the population could come from international sources, including shipping, fisheries, and 

marine pollution. Humpback whale entanglements occur in relatively high numbers in Canadian waters. 

Reports of collisions with fixed fishing gear set for groundfish around Newfoundland averaged 365 

annually from 1979 to 1987 (range 174-813). An average of 50 humpback whale entanglements (range 

26-66) were reported annually between 1979 and 1988 and 12 of 66 humpback whales that were 

entangled in 1988 died (Lien et al. 1988). 

Although more coastally oriented compared to some of the large whale species, right whales have been 

reported as far north as the Scotian shelf and several long distance movements have been recorded for 

individuals identified off Iceland, arctic Norway, Newfoundland, the Labrador Basin, and southeast of 

Greenland (Waring et al. 2000). Consequently, as with humpbacks, some impacts on the population could 

come from international sources, including shipping, fisheries, and marine pollution. Right whale 

entanglements are known to occur in Canadian waters, although not as frequently as for humpback 

whales. Ship strike records in Canadian waters have occurred at 0.4 per year (based on 1994-1998 data) 

and for fisheries interactions 1.0 per year (Waring et al., 2000). Many entanglements observed in U.S. 

waters may have originated in Canadian waters. Unless gear is specifically marked and such marks are 

documented, it is often impossible to determine the origin of the gear. 

Less is known about fin whales and sperm whales than humpbacks and right whales. Waring et al. 

(2000) report that there is likely a deep ocean component to fin whale distribution, and those occurring in 

the U.S. Atlantic EEZ undergo migrations into Canadian waters, open ocean areas, and perhaps even 

subtropical or tropical regions. The sperm whales occupying the eastern U.S. Atlantic EEZ likely 

represents only a fraction of the total stock and their offshore distribution is thought to be commonly 

associated with the Gulf Stream edge and other features. Impacts in international waters in the north are 

probably affecting different social groupings than seen off the northeast U.S. and include more social 

groups of females and calves/juveniles. Whaling records include catches near West Greenland, the 

Azores, Madeira, Spain, Spanish, Morocco, Norway, the British Isles, and the Faroes. Because of their 

offshore distribution, sperm whales are less likely to be impacted overall by human activities (Waring et 

al. 2000). However, longline gear was found on a dead sperm whale, wound tightly about its jaw; its 

country of origin is not known. 

Whale populations/stocks protected under the ESA are impacted by fisheries and ship traffic in 

international waters, but the magnitude is currently unquantifiable. For right, humpback and fin whales, 

the contribution of international impacts to the baseline are likely not as important as the coastal impacts 

that occur in U.S. waters (with the exception of Canada) because of the amount of time they spend in 

coastal U.S. and Canadian waters. Information is so sparse on sperm whales that it is difficult to 

speculate, but given their distribution, impacts from international sources are likely similar to U.S. impacts. 

For sea turtle species in the Atlantic, international activities, particularly fisheries, are significant factors 

impacting populations. The U.S. and 26 other nations participate in longline fishing throughout the western 

North Atlantic Ocean and the relative proportion of total hooks fished by the U.S. fleet is small compared 

to the cumulative total hooks fished by foreign fleets. As with U.S. fleets, sea turtles are incidentally 

captured in foreign fleets (NMFS SEFSC 2001). Takes of pelagic juvenile loggerheads in U.S. and 

international longline fisheries as a whole are large and, although the mortality rate cannot be quantified, 

NMFS SEFSC (2001) concludes that it could alter population trends. Some information is available on 

international gillnet fisheries. Incidental capture in gillnets in the central Mediterranean Sea (set by Italian 

66
fishermen) took 397 loggerheads between 1981-1990, with a maximum of 73.6% mortality rate. Another 

study estimated 16,000 loggerheads per year with a 30% mortality. The Spanish driftnet fishery in the 

western Mediterranean documented 236 loggerheads between 1993-1994, one dead. There is a directed 

fishery for green and hawksbill turtles in Nicaragua, but an estimated 600 loggerheads are also caught 

each year. Leatherbacks, are also taken in Nicaragua and an estimated 1000 mature female leatherbacks 

are incidentally captured annually off Trinidad and Tobago with a 50 - 95 % mortality rate. Gillnets set 

for finfish and sharks in Belize catch sea turtles, and of 500-800 turtles sold annually in Belize, 30% may 

be loggerheads. Additional information on the impacts of international fisheries is found in NMFS SEFSC 

(2001). NMFS estimates that thousands of sea turtles of all species are incidentally caught and a 

proportion of them killed incidentally or intentionally annually by international activities. The impact of 

international fisheries is a significant factor in the baseline inhibiting sea turtle recovery. 

3.12.3.2 Other International factors 

Significant anthropogenic impacts threaten nesting populations of all species in areas outside of the U.S. 

This impacts include poaching of eggs, immatures and adults as well as beach development problems. 

There are other more indirect factors, for a complete list refer to NMFS SEFSC (2001). 

3.12.4 Other factors influencing the Environmental Baseline 

3.12.4.1 Marine Pollution 

A number of activities that may indirectly affect listed species in the action area of this consultation 

include discharges from wastewater systems, dredging, ocean dumping and disposal, aquaculture, 

recreational fishing, and anthropogenic marine debris. The impacts from these activities are difficult to 

measure. Where possible, however, conservation actions are being implemented to monitor or study 

impacts from these sources. For example, extensive monitoring is being required for a major discharge in 

Massachusetts Bay (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority) in order to detect any changes in habitat 

parameters associated with this discharge. Close coordination is occurring through the section 7 process 

on both dredging and disposal sites to develop monitoring programs and ensure that vessel operators do 

not contribute to vessel-related impacts. 

Sources of pollutants in Atlantic and Gulf coastal regions include atmospheric loading of pollutants such as 

PCBs, storm water runoff from coastal towns, cities and villages, runoff into rivers emptying into the bays, 

groundwater and other discharges, and river input and runoff. Nutrient loading from land based sources 

such as coastal community discharges is known to stimulate plankton blooms in closed or semi-closed 

estuarine systems. The effects on larger embayments is unknown. Although pathological effects of oil 

spills have been documented in laboratory studies of marine mammals and sea turtles (Vargo et al. 1986), 

the impacts of many other anthropogenic toxins have not been investigated. 

Coastal runoff and river discharges carry large volumes of petrochemical and other contaminants from 

agricultural activities, cities and industries into the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico have more sites with high contaminant concentrations than other areas of the coastal United 

States, due to the large number of waste discharge point sources. Although these contaminant 

concentrations do not likely affect the more pelagic waters of the action area, the species of turtles 

analyzed in this Opinion travel between nearshore and offshore habitats and may be exposed to and 

accumulate these contaminants during their life cycles. 

67
An extensive review of environmental contaminants in turtles has been conducted by Meyers-Schöne and 

Walton (1994); however, most information relates to freshwater species. High concentrations of 

chlorobiphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in the eggs of the freshwater snapping turtle, Chelydra 

serpentina, have been correlated with population effects such as decreased hatching success, increased 

hatchling deformities and disorientation (Bishop et al. 1991, 1994). 

Very little is known about baseline levels and physiological effects of environmental contaminants on 

marine turtle populations (Witkowski and Frazier 1982, Bishop et al. 1991). There are a few isolated 

studies on organic contaminants and trace metal accumulation in green and leatherback sea turtles 

(Davenport and Wrench 1990, Aguirre et al. 1994). Mckenzie et al. (1999) measured concentrations of 

chlorobiphenyls and organochlorine pesticides in marine turtles tissues collected from the Mediterranean 

(Cyprus, Greece) and European Atlantic waters (Scotland) between 1994 and 1996. Omnivorous 

loggerhead turtles had the highest organochlorine contaminant concentrations in all the tissues sampled, 

including those from green and leatherback turtles. It is thought that dietary preferences were likely to be 

the main differentiating factor among species. Decreasing lipid contaminant burdens with turtle size were 

observed in green turtles, most likely attributable to a change in diet with age. Sakai et al. (1995) found 

the presence of metal residues occurring in loggerhead turtle organs and eggs. More recently, Storelli et 

al. (1998) analyzed tissues from 12 loggerhead sea turtles stranded along the Adriatic Sea (Italy) and 

found that characteristically, mercury accumulates in sea turtle livers while cadmium accumulates in their 

kidneys, as has been reported for other marine organisms like dolphins, seals and porpoises by Law et al. 

(1991). Research is needed on the short- and long-term health and fecundity effects of chlorobiphenyl, 

organochlorine, and heavy metal accumulation in sea turtles. 

Generally, right whales and humpback whales do not use southeastern waters for feeding. Therefore,

most of the effects from pollution would be expected in the northern summer feeding areas for these

species. However, sea turtles nest primarily in the southeastern United States, and early life stages and

breeding individuals of these species are likely to be impacted by pollution in these areas, as well as in the

Northeast. Necropsies of hatchlings and juveniles show that young turtles commonly consume plastics

and tar balls (STSSN stranding data base).

Oil spills from tankers transporting foreign oil, as well as the illegal discharge of oil and tar from vessels

discharging bilge water will continue to affect water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. Cumulatively, these

sources and natural oil seepage contribute most of the oil discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. Studies of

floating tar sampled during the 1970s, when bilge discharge was still legal, concluded that up to 60% of

the pelagic tars sampled did not originate from the northern Gulf of Mexico coast. 

An additional source of mortality that has not been adequately assessed is the ingestion and long-term

effects of anthropogenic marine debris by pelagic turtles. Preliminary indications are that

approximately 15% of pelagic post-hatchling loggerheads from Florida beaches have ingested plastics and

approximately 46% have ingested tar within the first few weeks of pelagic foraging (n=168)

(Witherington, in review). Plastic and rubber latex debris is regularly found in the stomachs of

necropsied stranded sea turtles. Of 1,710 turtles necropsied between 1980 and 1992, 11.5% had ingested

debris, including plastic pieces and balloons: a greater proportion of loggerheads were affected than were

Kemp’s ridleys, and in both species the percentage impacted by digested debris was highest in the Gulf of

Mexico (Witzell and Teas 1994). 

Marine debris will likely persist in the action area despite of MARPOL prohibitions. In Texas and Florida,

approximately half of the stranded turtles examined, in two studies limited to pelagic animals, have

68
ingested marine debris (Plotkin and Amos 1990; Bolten and Bjorndal 1991). Of 43 dead stranded green 

turtles examined by Bjorndal et al. (1994), 24 had ingested some sort of debris. Although fewer 

individuals are affected, entanglement in marine debris may contribute more frequently to the death of sea 

turtles. A summary of marine debris impacts can be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 2000). 

3.12.4.2 Natural biotoxins 

Geraci et al. (1989) identified bioaccumulation of the neurotoxin responsible for paralytic shellfish 

poisoning (saxitoxin) in mackerel consumed by humpback whales as the possible cause of mortality of 14 

humpbacks which stranded between November of 1987 and January of 1988. No saxitoxin was identified 

in plankton or shellfish sampled in Massachusetts waters at the time of the mortality. The authors suggest 

the neurotoxin could have been transported by mackerel obtaining the toxin from planktonic sources in the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence, the spawning ground for mackerel. While a similar multiple mortality of large 

whales has not been observed, the authors suggest individual mortalities caused by the biotoxin would go 

unnoticed. The reason for the multiple mortalities in the winter of 1987 and 1988 has not been explained, 

although they may have been related to a shift in the normal diet of humpbacks due to the lack of sand 

lance in the bays the previous summer. 

3.12.4.3 Disease 

An unknown disease is posing a new threat to loggerhead sea turtles. Between the period of September 

2000 to January 2001, 45 debilitated and 95 dead loggerhead turtles have been found in south Florida 

between Indian River and Charlotte Counties, elevating stranding data for this period to more than 3 times 

the previous 10-year average (Foley, pers. comm., 2000). These numbers may represent only 10 to 20 % 

of the turtles that have been affected by this disease because many dead or dying turtles likely never 

wash ashore. If the agent responsible for debilitating these turtles remains in Florida, the scope of this die 

off may increase substantially. In addition, if the agent is infectious, nesting females could spread the 

disease throughout the range of the adult loggerhead population. Symptoms of the unknown disease 

include extreme lethargy and pneumonia. Of those found alive, even with extensive care, many of them 

have died and none have fully recovered. The cause of the disease has yet to be determined but potential 

causes include bacteria, virus, or exposure to some toxin. 

3.12.4.4 Research and Enhancement 

Both FWS and NMFS have issued several section 10(a)(1)(A) permits authorizing the take of listed 

whales and turtles in the action area for research and enhancement purposes (see Appendix II, NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). For turtles, these permits include activities such as capture, tagging, relocation, collection 

of blood samples, movement and treatment of injured turtles, behavioral studies, transport and possession 

of live turtles, and captive display. Although the conduct of these activities will disturb or harass several 

sea turtles, the effects of these activities on sea turtles are anticipated to be largely beneficial and no 

serious injury or mortalities are anticipated. Permits for research and enhancement of whales include 

activities such as photo-identification, tagging, biopsy, behavioral studies, and studies of blubber thickness. 

As with sea turtles, research and enhancement activities may disturb or harass whales, but no serious or 

long-term impacts are anticipated. 

3.12.4.5 Nesting Beach Impacts 

69
Beachfront development, lighting and beach erosion control all are ongoing activities along the Gulf and 

Atlantic coasts. These activities potentially reduce or degrade sea turtle nesting habitats or interfere with 

hatchling movement to sea. Nocturnal human activities along nesting beaches may also discourage sea 

turtles from nesting sites. The extent to which these activities reduce sea turtle nesting and hatchling 

production is unknown. However, more and more coastal counties are adopting stringent protective 

measures to protect hatchling sea turtles from the disorienting effects of beach lighting. 

3.12.5 Conservation and Recovery Activities 

A number of activities are in progress that ameliorate some of the potential threat (impact) from the 

aforementioned activities. Education and outreach are considered one of the primary tools to reduce the 

threat of impact from private and commercial vessels. The USCG has provided education to mariners on 

whale protection measures and uses their programs such as radio broadcasts and notice to mariner 

publications to alert the public to potential whale concentration areas. The USCG is also participating in 

international activities (discussed below) to decrease the potential for commercial ships to strike a whale. 

In addition, outreach efforts for fishermen under the ALWTRP are increasing awareness and fostering a 

conservation ethic among fishermen that is expected, in the long term, to help reduce overall probability of 

adverse impacts in the environmental baseline from these commercial fishing activities. 

Numerous recovery activities are being implemented to decrease the level of impacts from private and 

commercial vessels in the action area. These include the early warning system (EWS), other activities 

recommended by the Northeast Recovery Plan Implementation Team for the Right and Humpback Whale 

Recovery Plans and Southeast Recovery Plan Implementation Team for the Right Whale Recovery Plan, 

and NMFS regulations. 

3.12.5.1 The Northeast and Southeast Early Warning Systems 

Due to concern over potential collisions between right whales and hopper dredges operating in designated 

critical habitat for right whales in southeast waters, monitoring requirements were placed on the COE and 

resulted, in the 1980s, in the first regular aerial survey flights for right whales in waters off the Southeast 

United States. These surveys evolved over the years and, since late 1993/early 1994, have been officially 

sponsored by NMFS, the USCG, USN, and COE, and became known as early warning systems (EWS). 

The surveys were designed as daily reconnaissance flights to detect the presence of whales in and around 

a number of busy southeast shipping ports, USN vessel and submarine bases, and COE dredging sites, in 

order to alert vessels of the whales’ presence and prevent potential whale/vessel collisions. The EWS, 

with the assistance of the USN and USCG, has evolved a sophisticated communication network which 

alerts not only dredges and military vessels in the area, but provides broadcasts to mariners via NAVTEX, 

NOAA Weather Radio, and other means, and even contacts vessels directly via radio when urgently 

necessary to prevent imminent collision. 

Using the SEUS aircraft survey program as a model, efforts were initiated in 1996 to develop a similar 

program in the Cape Cod Bay and the Great South Channel in late winter and early spring. The program 

is a cooperative effort by NMFS, the USCG, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries, the Massachusetts 

Environmental Trust, the Center for Coastal Studies, the USN and MASSPORT (the Boston port 

authority). As a result of recommendations by the ALWTRT, a similar EWS, known as the “Sighting 

Advisory System,” was established in the Northeast in late 1996. NMFS has the ability under the ESA to 

impose emergency regulations which may be used to protect unusual congregations of right whales. 

Through a fax-on-demand system, fishermen can obtain sighting reports and, in some cases, can make 

70
necessary adjustments in fishing practices to decrease the potential for entanglements. The

Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a key collaborator in the 1996-1997 effort and expanded the effort

during the 1997-1998 season. The USCG has played a key role in this effort, providing both air and sea

support. The State of Maine and the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans have expressed

interest in conducting this type of EWS along their coastal waters. It is expected that other potential

sources of sightings such as the USN may contribute to this effort. The NMFS Maine ALWTRP

Coordinator is also working with local aquaria to collect whale sightings from fishing vessels in the Gulf of

Maine. All this cooperation will increase the chance of success of this program in diverting potential

impacts in the environmental baseline. 

3.12.5.2 The Northeast and Southeast Whale Recovery Implementation Teams 

In order to address the known impacts to right and humpback whales described in the Recovery Plan, 

NMFS established the Northeast and Southeast Recovery Plan Implementation Teams (NEIT and SEIT). 

The Recovery Plans describe steps to reduce human impacts to levels that will allow the two species to 

recover and rank the various recovery actions in order of importance. The Implementation Teams 

provide advice to the various federal and state agencies or private entities on achieving these national 

goals within their respective regions. The teams both agreed to focus primarily on habitat and vessel 

related issues and rely on the take reduction plan process under the MMPA for reducing takes in 

commercial fisheries. 

As part of NEIT activities, a Ship Strike Workshop was held in December 1996 to inform the shipping 

community of their need to participate in efforts to reduce the impacts of commercial vessel traffic on 

right whales. The workshop summarized current research efforts using new shipboard and moored 

technologies as deterrents, and a report was given on ship design studies currently being conducted by the 

New England Aquarium and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This workshop increased 

awareness among the shipping community and has further contributed to reducing the threat of ship 

strikes of right whales. In addition, a Cape Cod Canal Tide Chart that included information on critical 

habitat areas and the need for close watch during peak right whale activity was distributed widely to 

professional mariners and ships passing through the canal. A radio warning was transmitted by Canal 

traffic managers to vessels transiting the Canal during peak Northern right whale activity periods. Followup meetings were held with New England Port Authority and pilots to notify commercial ship traffic to 

keep a close watch during peak right whale movement periods. At the request of the SEIT, the NEIT 

ship strike subcommittee expanded to include the Southeast. Additional ship strike meetings have been 

held with industry in the Southeast, mid-Atlantic, and Northeast and progress is being made to develop a 

vessel management strategy to greatly reduce potential whale/vessel interactions. In addition to its ship 

strike prevention activities, the SEIT established a GIS subcommittee and is progressing with work to 

analyze right whale sightings, vessel traffic information, and pertinent environmental data in order to better 

understand right whale distribution patterns in southeast waters and ultimately prevent human interactions 

with these whales. 

3.12.5.3 The Whale Disentanglement Network 

The Center for Coastal studies (CCS), under NMFS authorization, has responded to numerous calls to 

disentangle various whales entrapped in gear since 1984, and has developed considerable expertise in 

whale disentanglement. NMFS has supported this effort financially since 1995. The ALWTRP identifies 

whale disentanglement as an important component of the take reduction plan. As a result, NMFS greatly 

increased funding for this network, purchasing equipment caches to be located at strategic spots along the 

71
Atlantic coastline, supporting training for fishermen and biologists, purchasing telemetry equipment, etc. 

This has resulted in a greatly expanded capacity for disentanglement along the entire Atlantic seaboard, 

including offshore areas. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) developed with the U.S. Coast Guard 

ensure their participation and assistance in the disentanglement effort. As a result, NMFS believes that 

many whales which may otherwise have succumbed to complications from entangling gear, are being set 

free to survive the ordeal. 

3.12.5.4 Reducing Potential for Vessel Related Impacts 

As part of recovery actions aimed at reducing vessel related impacts, NMFS published a proposed rule in 

August 1996 restricting vessel approach to right whales (61 FR 41116) to distances outside of 500 yards 

in order to minimize human-induced disturbance. The Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale 

identified disturbance as one of the principal human-related factors impeding right whale recovery (NMFS 

1991b). Following public comment, NMFS published an interim final rule in February 1997 codifying the 

regulations. With certain exceptions, the rules prohibit both boats and aircraft from approaching any right 

whale closer than 500 yards. The regulations are consistent with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 

approach to regulations for right whales. These are expected to reduce the potential for vessel collisions 

inherent in the environmental baseline. 

In April 1998, the USCG submitted, on behalf of the United States, a proposal to the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) requesting approval of a mandatory ship reporting system in two areas off 

the east coast of the United States. The USCG worked closely with NMFS and other agencies on 

technical aspects of the proposal. The proposal was submitted to the IMO’s Subcommittee on Safety and 

Navigation for consideration and submission to the Marine Safety Committee at IMO and approved in 

December 1998. The system will require all vessels over 300 tons to report to a shore-based station, 

thereby prompting a return message which provides precautionary measures to be taken to reduce the 

likelihood of a ship strike and locations of recent right whale sightings. The reporting system was initially 

implemented on July 1, 1999. The USCG and NOAA are playing important roles in helping to implement 

the system. 

3.12.5.5 Measures to Reduce Impacts from Sound Sources 

NMFS and the U.S. Navy have been working cooperatively to establish a policy for monitoring and 

managing Acoustic Impacts from Anthropogenic Sound Sources in the marine environment. Acoustic 

impacts can include temporary or permanent injury, habitat exclusion, habituation, and disruption of other 

normal behavior patterns. It is expected that the policy on managing anthropogenic sound in the oceans 

will provide guidance for programs such as the use of acoustic deterrent devices in reducing marine 

mammal-fishery interactions and review of federal activities and permits for research involving acoustic 

activities. The Office of Naval Research hosted a meeting in March 1997 to develop scientific and 

technical background for use in policy formulation. NMFS hosted a workshop in September 1998 to 

gather technical information which will support development of new acoustic criteria. 

3.12.5.6 Measures to Reduce the Impacts of Aquaculture and Recreational Fishing 

Aquaculture is currently not concentrated in whale high-use areas, but some projects have begun in Cape 

Cod Bay Critical Habitat and in other inshore areas off the Massachusetts and New Hampshire coast. 

Acknowledging that the potential for impacts is currently unknown, NMFS is coordinating research to 

measure habitat related changes in Cape Cod Bay and is ensuring through the section 7 process that these 

72
facilities do not contribute to the entanglement potential in the baseline. Many applicants have agreed to 

alter the design of their facilities to minimize or eliminate the use of lines to the surface that may entangle 

whales and/or sea turtles. 

Recreational fishery interactions: Loggerheads, greens, and Kemp’s ridleys are known to bite a baited 

hook, frequently ingesting the hook. Hooked turtles have been reported by the public fishing from boats, 

piers, and beach, banks, and jetties. Necropsies have revealed hooks internally which often were the 

cause of death. An investigation of injuries and mortalities related to fish hook ingestion is underway at 

the NMFS Laboratory, Galveston, Texas, and NMFS currently is exploring adding questions about 

encounters with sea turtles to intercept interviews of recreational fishermen conducted by the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department and under the auspices of the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics 

Surveys conducted throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. NMFS is also 

considering questioning recreational fishermen aboard headboats throughout the southeast U.S. Atlantic 

and the Gulf of Mexico to quantify their encounters with sea turtles (TEWG 2000). A detailed summary 

of the impact of hook and line incidental captures on loggerhead sea turtles can be found in the TEWG 

reports (1998, 2000). 

3.12.5.7 Measures to Reduce Incidental Takes of Sea Turtles in Commercial 

Fisheries 

NMFS implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of sea 

turtles in commercial fisheries. In particular, NMFS has required the use of TEDs in southeast U.S. 

shrimp trawls since 1989 and in summer flounder trawls in the mid-Atlantic area (south of Cape Charles, 

Virginia) since 1992. It has been estimated that TEDs exclude 97% of the turtles caught in such trawls. 

Regulations have been refined over the years to ensure that TED effectiveness is maximized through 

proper placement and installation, configuration (e.g., width of bar spacing), floatation, and more 

widespread use. Analyses by Epperly and Teas (1999) indicate that the minimum requirements for the 

escape opening dimensions are too small, and that as much as 47% of the loggerheads stranding annually 

along the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico were too large to fit through existing openings. On April 

5, 2000, NMFS published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require larger escape openings 

(65 FR 17852). It is expected that the new TED requirements incorporating larger escape openings, 

when implemented, presumably no later than the fall of 2001, will have a significant effect on reducing 

shrimp trawl mortality of large, sexually mature loggerhead sea turtles and will contribute to the eventual 

recovery of the collective southeastern U.S. loggerhead population. 

In 1993 (with a final rule implemented 1995), NMFS established a Leatherback Conservation Zone to 

restrict shrimp trawl activities off the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, to the North Carolina/Virginia 

border. This provides for short-term closures when high concentrations of normally pelagically distributed 

leatherbacks are recorded in more coastal waters where the shrimp fleet operates. This measure is 

necessary because, due to their size, adult leatherbacks are larger than the escape openings of most 

NMFS-approved TEDs. This rule was originally established because of coastal concentrations of 

leatherbacks which sometimes appear during their spring northward migration, but the rule was also 

recently implemented in the fall of 1999 off the coast of northern Florida due to unseasonable 

concentrations there. Leatherback TEDs were also required off the coast of Texas in the spring of 2000 

due to unusual numbers of leatherback strandings. 

NMFS is also working to develop a TED which can be effectively used in a type of trawl known as a 

flynet, which is sometimes used in the mid-Atlantic and northeast fisheries to target sciaenids and bluefish. 

73
Limited observer data indicate that takes can be quite high in this fishery. A prototype design has been 

developed, but testing under commercial conditions has not yet been achieved. 

The Massachusetts Environmental Trust and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries have 

funded several projects to investigate fixed fishing gear and potential modifications to reduce the risk of 

entanglement to whales. These projects are an important complement to the NMFS research effort and 

have yielded valuable information on the entanglement problem. The Trust has also funded research on 

right whales in the Cape Cod Bay critical habitat area. 

NMFS closed part of Pamlico Sound to the setting of gillnets targeting southern flounder in fall 1999 after 

the strandings of relatively large numbers of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles on inshore 

beaches. This is a state-regulated fishery. NMFS also closed the waters north of Cape Hatteras to 38° 

N., including the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, to large (> 6 inch stretched) mesh gillnets for 30 days in 

mid-May 2000 due to the large numbers of loggerhead strandings in North Carolina, and will continue to 

implement such proactive measures as necessary. A large proportion of these stranded loggerheads was 

assumed to be from the northern subpopulation. This assumption is partly supported by analyses 

conducted by Bass et al. (1999) on genetic samples collected from sea turtles stranding on U.S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico shores. The northern subpopulation accounted for 25-28% of the animals that 

stranded off the Carolinas, and 46% of the animals sampled that stranded in the northernmost area 

sampled, Virginia (TEWG 2000). Most recently, on October 27, 2000, the North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) closed waters in the southeastern portion of the Pamlico Sound as a result of 

elevated takes by the commercial large-mesh flounder gillnet fishery. The NCDMF and NMFS had 

agreed on details of a section 10 permit of the ESA for the founder fishery just prior to the closure. The 

fishery was closed when anticipated incidental take levels were met for green turtles. The NCDMF 

estimated that there were 50 loggerheads captured at the time of closure and that 44 of those had been 

drowned (NMFS SEFSC 2001, Part 1). 

In addition, NMFS has been active in public outreach efforts to educate fishermen regarding sea turtle 

handling and resuscitation techniques. In addition to making this information widely available to all 

fishermen, in July and August 2001 NMFS conducted a series of workshops with longline fishermen to 

discuss bycatch issues, including protected species, and to educate them regarding handling and release 

guidelines. Meetings were conducted in Silver Spring, MD; Fairhaven, MA; Gloucester, MA, Islandia, 

NY; Barnegat Light, NJ; Manteo, NC; and Cape Canaveral, FL. NMFS intends to continue these 

outreach efforts and hopes to reach all fishermen participating in the pelagic longline fishery over the next 

1 to 2 years. 

3.12.5.8 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Activities 

There is an extensive network of sea turtle stranding and salvage network (STSSN) participants along the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that not only collects data on dead sea turtles, but also rescues and 

rehabilitates any live stranded turtles. In most states, the STSSN is coordinated by state wildlife agency 

staff, although some state stranding coordinators are associated with academic institutions. Data 

collected by the STSSN are used to monitor stranding levels and compare them with fishing activity in 

order to determine whether additional restrictions on fishing activities are needed. These data are also 

used to monitor incidence of disease, study toxicology and contaminants, and conduct genetic studies to 

determine population structure. All of the states that participate in the STSSN are collecting tissue for 

and/or conducting genetic and ageing studies to better understand the population dynamics of the small 

subpopulation of northern nesting loggerheads. These states also tag turtles when live ones are 

74
encountered (either via the stranding network through incidental takes or in-water studies). Tagging 

studies help provide an understanding of sea turtle movements, longevity, reproductive patterns, etc. 

Synthesis of the Environmental Baseline 

To evaluate effects of the proposed action (see Effects of the Action, Section 4), the environmental 

baseline must involve more than a list of impacts. Some general conclusions need to be drawn about 

species trends and potential for progress towards recovery beyond the conditions that led to species listing 

under the ESA. 

The combination of federal, state and private actions, plus international activities, as well as natural 

factors, may cause effects to protected species that could prevent or slow a species' recovery, depending 

on its current trends and whether the baseline is improving. Designation of critical habitat, proactive 

approaches by other federal agencies (i.e., COE has limited dredging in southeastern channels to periods 

when turtles are not concentrated in the channels; USCG has implemented marine mammal procedures as 

normal operating instructions for vessel operators), participation by state, federal agencies, and the private 

sector in recovery plan implementation activities, the section 7 process, individual state action, are all 

contributing to mitigating potential cumulative effects on listed species. 

Although most of the individual and synergistic effects of these existing factors in the environmental 

baseline on sea turtle and marine mammal populations cannot be quantified, the magnitude and duration of 

any these effects on individual species has varied greatly. Any combination of factors, discussed above, 

which have resulted in multiple mortalities have reduced each species’ reproduction by reducing the 

number of adults that reproduce in a population, reducing the number of young an adult will produce in a 

time interval or a lifetime, increasing the time it takes for an adult to reproduce, increasing the number of 

years that pass before adult females return to breed, reducing the survival of young, or decreasing the 

number of young that recruit into the adult population. These effects are more obvious for species such 

as the right whale, whose population numbers are so small that very few mortalities can have significant 

impacts on survival and recovery. But effects are not as obvious for less known species such as fin 

whales, or for species that are not recovered to the criteria set forth in recovery plans but have an 

increasing population trend (e.g., humpback whales for at least some populations). 

The latest trend identified from the best scientific information available for right whales is that the 

population is in a decline. In addition, as noted earlier, the extremely small population size makes it very 

susceptible to the slightest perturbation in numbers. Fishery and ship-related mortality must continue to be 

reduced to meet survival and recovery goals. Humpback whales present a brighter picture. Current 

trend data suggest that the Gulf of Maine stock is steadily increasing, consistent with the trend in the 

North Atlantic population overall. Insufficient data are available to estimate population trends for fin 

whales and sperm whales. Until more information is available, threats to total recovery are still present 

from fishing and ship strikes and must continue to be minimized until recovery goals are met. While 

conservation activities also continue under the MMPA, many fisheries are still listed as having more than 

a negligible impact on these large whales stocks. 

These individual and synergistic effects would be even greater in whales that bear only one young at a 

time and mature late. Their ability to replace themselves evolved in an environment with little natural 

adult mortality. Human impacts, as discussed herein, occur at a much higher rate than natural adult 

mortality. Coupled with the devastating reductions in initial population sizes by commercial whaling, these 

factors have made for a slow recovery. 

75
Significant improvements in the environmental baseline are necessary for all of the species considered in 

this Opinion to ensure their survival and recovery in the wild. As discussed earlier, the potential for a 

turtle egg to develop into a hatchling, into a juvenile, and finally into a sexually mature adult will vary 

among species, and populations, and will be affected by the threats faced during each life stage. Females 

killed prior to their first successful nesting will have contributed nothing to the overall maintenance or 

improvement of the species’ status. Anthropogenic mortality to females (or males) prior to the end of 

their reproductive life results in a serious loss of reproductive potential to the population. 

Increased mortality of leatherback turtles at the egg and early life history stages due to habitat 

degradation on nesting beaches has likely impacted the leatherback’s ability to maintain or increase its 

numbers by limiting the number of individuals that survive to sexual maturity. Likewise, mortalities of 

adult female loggerheads captured in commercial fishing gear have resulted in long-term reductions in the 

future reproductive output of loggerhead turtles. The age at sexual maturity of loggerheads may be as 

high as 35 years, while green turtles may not reach maturity until 30-60 years (in Crouse, 1999). Upon 

reaching maturity, female sea turtles generally lay between 100-130 eggs per clutch, minimally 2-3 

clutches per year, every 2-4 years. Thus, in general, a female sea turtle will lay between 200-390 eggs 

per season every 2-4 years. Loss of individual subadult female turtles due to any one of the factors 

discussed above, therefore, will have long-term effects on that species reproduction. The loss of 

individual female turtles would magnify these effects. 

To better characterize cumulative impacts, NMFS recently modeled population trends and impacts for 

mortalities of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in the action area (NMFS SEFSC 2001). The 

population trends were calculated using nesting females; and, therefore, estimates of individual 

contribution of various mortality factors do not directly enter the calculation. As discussed earlier, this 

analysis concluded that the best available scientific information indicates that the northern subpopulation 

has been stable at best, possibly declining (i.e., 0 to -5% rate), based on nesting beach data for 1978-1990. 

Data from 1990 to the present indicate that nests have been increasing annually (2.8 to 2.9%). However, 

caution must be used when reviewing any one time segment, rather than a long time series as discussed 

and graphically illustrate in Section 3.6.1. This is why the recovery plans require a 25-year trend. 

Therefore, based on ESA guidance and the NMFS SEFSC (2001) review, for the purpose of this 

consultation, the northern subpopulation would be assumed to be at best stable, possibly declining. The 

Florida numbers have been increasing steadily over the longer time period (1978-1990) and have leveled 

off to 3.9 to 4.2% since 1990. Some scientists are currently speculating that while dramatic declines have 

been seen in nesting Pacific leatherbacks, the populations in the western Atlantic are apparently stable or 

increasing. However, after reviewing the leatherback population trends in the Atlantic from best available 

information, NMFS SEFSC (2001) concluded that conflicting information regarding their status makes it 

difficult to conclude whether or not the population is in decline. Nesting at some beaches is up, down at 

others. Again, it is important to remember the importance of long-term consistent data to verifying trends 

as noted above. 

While not considered in the latest stock assessment (NMFS SEFSC 2001) because this analysis was 

specifically conducted for species most prevalent in longline bycatch, information on green, hawksbill, and 

Kemp’s ridley turtles was summarized earlier. Green turtles are showing increasing trends at most sites; 

most hawksbill populations are suspected or known to be in decline, while Kemp’s ridley data are 

suggesting that the decline has stopped and there is cautious optimism that the population is increasing. 

76
NMFS SEFSC (2001) summarized the best available scientific information on what is known about the 

effects of human activities on the loggerhead and leatherback populations (many would also affect green, 

Kemp’s ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles in areas in which they co-occur with the activity), but even with 

the best available information, was unable to quantify all if it. Even for those activities where quantitative 

values were available, they are not directly comparable (some represent estimates, some are observed, 

observations are at different levels of effort, etc.). Therefore, it is not possible to simply sum these values 

to arrive at some total estimate of numbers of turtles, even a minimum one. Instead, NMFS SEFSC 

(2001) looked at the impact of various mortality levels on sea turtle life stages to evaluate the pelagic 

longline activity in terms of the life stage it impacts the most. For example, to address the combined 

mortalities of pelagic loggerheads only, NMFS SEFSC (2001) estimated that an increase in pelagic 

juvenile loggerhead survival of 10% within the north Atlantic basin annually would be necessary to move 

the population trajectories from stable to increasing or from declining to slightly increasing. This is 

discussed in more detail in Sec 8.1.2 and the technical document should be consulted in its entirety for the 

complete explanation. The models considered both the more conservative view that populations are 

stable/declining to the optimistic view that the northern subpopulation is increasing. However, even 

without such a quantifiable estimate of each individual mortality factor, it is obvious that thousands of sea 

turtles of all species are being taken annually from various activities, with varying levels of associated 

mortality. This means that many of the factors contributing to their original listing have not yet been 

alleviated, particularly fishing-related mortality, a priority recovery activity. Therefore, minimizing takes of 

sea turtles in all fishery-related activities, based on their contribution to the baseline, is still imperative, 

including federal and state fisheries. As noted in the recovery plan, efforts need to continue until 25 years 

of trend data show an increase. 

Given the current status of threatened and endangered species in the action area, and the magnitude of 

known and suspected mortalities affecting these species, it is reasonable to assume that the combined 

effects of factors existing in the environmental baseline have hindered the recovery of all of the species 

considered in this Opinion. 

4.0 Effects of the Proposed Action 

Pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, federal agencies are directed to ensure that their activities are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. In the Description of the Action section of this Opinion, NMFS provides 

an overview of the fisheries, particularly the distribution and timing of fisheries that use gear that impacts 

threatened and endangered species. In the Status of the Species section of this Opinion, NMFS provides 

an overview of the threatened and endangered species that are likely to be adversely affected by fisheries 

authorized under the HMS FMP. In this section of the Opinion, NMFS assesses the probable direct and 

indirect effects of a proposal to continue authorizing the existing HMS fisheries on threatened and 

endangered species and designated critical habitat. The fisheries authorized under the HMS FMP are 

likely to adversely affect listed species through gear interactions, primarily entanglement and hooking, 

which may injure or kill individual animals. 

In this section of biological opinions, NMFS assesses the probable direct and indirect effects of the 

fisheries authorized under the HMS FMP on threatened and endangered species and designated critical 

habitat. The purpose of this assessment is to determine if it is reasonable to expect that the fisheries can 

be expected to have direct or indirect effects on threatened and endangered species that appreciably 

reduce their likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild or appreciably diminish the value of 

designated critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of threatened and endangered species in the 

77
wild. This section begins with a discussion of approaches to jeopardy assessments, the evidence available 

for our assessment, and the assumptions NMFS made to overcome limits in the information available for 

the consultation. 

4.1. Approach to the Assessment 

Regulations implementing section 7(a)(2) of the ESA require biological opinions to evaluate the direct and 

indirect effects of federal actions to determine if it would be reasonable to expect them to appreciably 

reduce listed species' likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild by reducing their reproduction, 

numbers, or distribution (16 U.S.C. '1536; 50 CFR 402.02). Section 7 of the ESA and its implementing 

regulations also require biological opinions to determine if federal actions would appreciably diminish the 

value of critical habitat for the survival and recovery of listed species (16 U.S.C. '1536; 50 CFR 402.02). 

NMFS generally approaches jeopardy analyses in three steps. The first step identifies the probable direct 

and indirect effects of an action on the physical, chemical, and biotic environment of the action area. The 

second step determines the reasonableness of expecting threatened or endangered species to experience 

reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribution in response to these effects. The third step determines 

if any reductions in a species' reproduction, numbers, or distribution (identified in the second step of our 

analysis) can be expected to appreciably reduce a listed species' likelihood of surviving and recovering in 

the wild. Jeopardy analyses compare reductions in a species’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the 

wild associated with a specific action with the species’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild 

that was established in the Status of the Species section of an Opinion. Jeopardy analyses also consider 

the importance of the action area to a listed species and the effects of other human actions and natural 

phenomena (that were summarized in the Environmental Baseline) on a species’ likelihood of surviving 

and recovering in the wild. As a result, jeopardy analyses in biological opinion distinguish between the 

effects of a specific action on a species’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild and a species’ 

background likelihood of surviving and recovering given the full set of human actions and natural 

phenomena that threaten a species. 

An extensive number of published studies relate the effects of human activities to a species’ reproduction, 

numbers, and distribution and relate those changes to a species likelihood of surviving and recovering in 

the wild. Generally, human activities can reduce a species’ reproduction by reducing the number of adults 

that reproduce in a population, reducing the number of young an adult will produce in a time interval or a 

lifetime, increasing the time it takes for an adult to reproduce, increasing the number of years that pass 

before an adult females returns to breed, reducing the survival of young, or decreasing the number of 

young that recruit into the adult population (Andrewartha and Birch 1954, Caughley and Gunn 2000, Ebert 

1999). Human activities can reduce a species’ numbers by killing individual members of the species 

(immediately or over time), reducing the numbers of individuals born into a population, reducing the 

number of individuals that immigrate into a population, or increasing the number of individuals that 

emigrate from a population (Burgman et al. 1993, Caughley and Gunn 2000). Human activities can reduce 

a species’ distribution by reducing its population size or density in ways that cause the species to abandon 

parts of its range (Fowler and Baker 1991). 

The third step in jeopardy analyses — relating reductions in a species’ reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution (described in the first two steps) to reductions in the species’ likelihood of surviving and 

recovering in the wild — is the most difficult step because (a) the relationship is not linear; (b) to persist 

over geologic time, most species have evolved to withstand some level of variation in their birth and death 

rates without a corresponding change in their likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild; (c) our 

78
knowledge of the population dynamics of other species and their response to human perturbation is usually 

too limited to support anything more than rough estimates. Nevertheless, jeopardy analyses must 

distinguish between anthropogenic reductions in a species’ reproduction, numbers, and distribution that 

can reasonably be expected to affect the species’ likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild from 

other (natural) declines. 

Analyses to determine if an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat that has been 

designated for listed species follow a similar pattern. The first step identifies the probable direct and 

indirect effects of an action on the physical, chemical, and biotic environment of the action area. The 

final step of adverse modification analyses determines the reasonableness of expecting these effects to 

appreciably reduce the value of critical habitat for the species likelihood of surviving and recovering in the 

wild (when compared with the baseline). 

PROVIDING SPECIES THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT 

Statistics provides two points of reference for analyzing data, information, or other evidence to test 

hypotheses: (1) analyzing data to minimize the chance of concluding that there was an effect from an 

activity or treatment that is being analyzed when, in fact, there was no effect or (2) analyzing data to 

minimize the chance of concluding that there was no effect when, in fact, there was an effect. These 

two points of reference are called “errors”: the difference between them is that the first minimizes what 

is called Type I error while the second minimizes what is called Type II error (see Cohen 1987). 

Unfortunately, for most analyses, minimizing one type of error increases the risk of committing the other 

type of error. The concept of error is important for jeopardy analyses because Type II error places listed 

species at greater risk of extinction. 

Analyses contained in biological opinions can minimize the likelihood of concluding that an action reduced 

a listed species’ likelihood of surviving or recovering in the wild (or no effect on the value of critical 

habitat that has been designated for a listed species) when, in fact, no reduction occurred (Type I error) 

or the analyses can minimize the likelihood of concluding that an action did not reduce a listed species 

likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild when, in fact, a reduction occurred (Type II error). To 

comply with direction from the U.S. Congress to provide the “benefit of the doubt” to threatened and 

endangered species [House of Representatives Conference Report No. 697, 96th Congress, Second 

Session, 12 (1979)], jeopardy analyses are designed to avoid concluding that actions had no effect on 

listed species or critical habitat when, in fact, there was an effect (Type II error). This approach to error 

may decrease risks to listed species and designated critical habitat, but increases the risk of concluding 

that there was an effect when, in fact, no effect occurred. 

4.2 Scope of the Analyses 

This biological opinion treats sea turtle and whale populations in the Atlantic Ocean as distinct from the 

Pacific Ocean populations for the purposes of this consultation. This approach is supported by 

interagency policy on the recognition of distinct vertebrate populations (Federal Register 61: 4722-4725). 

To address specific criteria outlined in that policy, sea turtle populations in the Atlantic basin are 

geographically discrete from populations in the Pacific basin, with limited genetic exchange (see NMFS 

and USFWS 1998a). This approach is also consistent with traditional jeopardy analyses: the loss of sea 

turtle populations in the Atlantic basin would result in a significant gap in the distribution of each turtle 

species, which makes these populations biologically significant. Finally, the loss of these sea turtle 

populations in the Atlantic basin would dramatically reduce the distribution and abundance of these 

79
species and would, by itself, appreciably reduce the entire species’ likelihood of surviving and recovering 

in the wild. 

These analyses in this Opinion are based on an implicit understanding that the sea turtles and whales 

considered in this Opinion are threatened with global extinction by a wide array of human activities and 

natural phenomena; we have outlined many of those activities in the Status of the Species section of this 

Opinion. NMFS also recognizes that some of these other human activities and natural phenomena pose a 

much larger and more serious threat to the survival and recovery of sea turtles and whales (and other 

flora and fauna) than the HMS fisheries. Further, NMFS recognizes that sea turtles will not recover 

without addressing the full range of human activities and natural phenomena — for turtles, patterns of 

beach erosion, predation on turtle eggs, and turtle captures, injuries, and deaths in international fisheries 

and other State, federal, and private activities, for whales, other commercial fisheries and shipping — that 

could cause these animals to become extinct in the foreseeable future (USFWS and NMFS 1997). 

Nevertheless, this Opinion focuses solely on whether the direct and indirect effects of the HMS fisheries 

managed under the HMS FMP can be expected to appreciably reduce the listed sea turtles’ and whales 

likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild by reducing their reproduction, numbers, or distribution. 

NMFS will consider the effects of other actions on threatened and endangered turtles as a separate issue. 

As stated previously, jeopardy analyses in biological opinion distinguish between the effects of a specific 

action on a species’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild and a species’ background likelihood 

of surviving and recovering given the full set of human actions and natural phenomena that threaten a 

species. 

4.3. Information Available for the Assessment 

Detailed background information on the status of these species and critical habitat has been published in a 

number of documents including recent status reviews of sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1995, USFWS 

1997); recovery plans for the eastern Pacific green turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998a), U.S. Pacific 

populations of hawksbill sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1998b), loggerhead sea turtle (NMFS and 

USFWS, 1991), leatherback sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1992), and U.S. Pacific populations of oliveridley sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1998c); and reports on interactions between sea turtles and gear 

used in pelagic fisheries (Bolten et al. 1996). In addition, Crouse et al. (1987), Crowder et al. (1994), 

Heppell (1998), Heppell et al. (1996, 1999, and 2000) published results from population models, sensitivity 

analyses, and elasticity analyses for various species of marine turtles, although most models are based on 

data on loggerhead sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Recently, NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) issued a stock assessment of loggerhead 

and leatherback sea turtles that included population assessments for these turtles in the Atlantic (NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). These analyses included estimates of the nesting abundance and trends, estimation of vital 

rates, population modeling and projections of population status under various scenarios, evaluation of 

genetic relationships between populations, assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on 

leatherbacks and loggerheads and evaluation of available data on other anthropogenic effects on these 

populations. Additionally, the document reviews the scientific literature on previous evaluations of status, 

trends and biological parameters of Atlantic loggerheads and leatherbacks. The NMFS’ SEFSC (2001) 

assessment was reviewed by three independent experts [Center for Independent Experts (CIE) 2001]. 

As a result, the SEFSC’ stock assessment report, the reviews of it and the body of scientific literature 

upon which these documents were derived form the primary basis for the jeopardy determinations in this 

opinion. 

80
In addition to these published sources of information, the results of several workshops provided additional 

information to support this consultation. From August 31- September 1, 1999, NMFS held a workshop in 

Miami to discuss ways of monitoring the number of turtles taken and killed in the pelagic longline fisheries 

in the two ocean basins and to discuss steps that could be taken to reduce the takes. The resulting report 

(Kleiber and Boggs 2000) lists recommendations for collecting these data. Other workshops and expert 

working group meetings have been held since that workshop. The Working Group on reducing turtle 

bycatch in the Hawaii longline fishery held its first meeting in Los Angeles in September 2000 and its 

second meeting in San Diego, California. A NMFS-pelagic longline fishery workshop to discuss methods 

of reducing bycatch of sea turtles was held in Silver Spring, Maryland in January 2001. These workshops 

were used to obtain information and data directly from fishermen in order to collect “first-hand” 

information useful in developing research plans for mitigation procedures. 

Despite this published and unpublished information, there are many gaps in scientific knowledge of the 

biology and ecology of sea turtles, including aspects of th their life history, population dynamics, and their 

response to environmental and other variables. The National Research Council (1990) identified some of 

these limits and recommended research on a wide array of variables, including age at reproductive 

maturity, age-specific rates of survivorship and fecundity, distribution, and migration. Wetherall (1996, in 

Bolten et al. 1996) further described limitations in the current understanding of sea turtle ecology and 

concluded that population models have limited predictive capacity and would have to rely on untested 

critical assumptions. Bolten et al. (1996) concluded that it will take many years to develop quantitative 

models that can provide precise guidance for management decisions. Pritchard (1996) concluded that 

humans do not currently have enough life history data on sea turtles to construct models that can be used 

for predictive purposes. As a result of these limits, quantitative models of the effects of changes in 

abundance, reproductive success, and other vital rates on a sea turtle’s likelihood of surviving and 

recovering in the wild must be interpreted with care. For example, because of sample sizes and the 

statistical design of previous studies, quantitative estimates of the effects of human activities on 

loggerhead turtles throughout the entire Atlantic Basin are more reliable than trying to estimate the effects 

of a single human activity. 

Determining the scope and magnitude of impacts of any fishery on sea turtle populations is complicated by 

the fact that all sea turtles lead an oceanic existence during most of their life history. There are broad 

gaps in human knowledge of sea turtles in the marine environment due to the difficulties in studying them 

away from their nesting beaches. Recent technological developments in satellite telemetry and genetic 

analyses are rapidly expanding our knowledge on the movements and habits of sea turtles in the marine 

environment, but much remains unknown. In contrast, at certain nesting beaches, reasonably good 

ecological data exist for the breeding stages of sea turtles when adult females, eggs, and hatchlings are 

accessible. Leatherback and olive ridley turtles are the most pelagic turtle species, often inhabiting waters 

well offshore. Other turtle species, such as green and loggerhead turtles, primarily inhabit coastal waters 

as adults, but spend varying stages of their immature lives in the open ocean. Adults of these species 

regularly undertake breeding migrations over deep water. 

TURTLE MORTALITY ESTIMATES 

Earlier assessments of the effects of longline fisheries on sea turtles have demonstrated that turtles are 

captured, injured, and killed from interactions with fishing gear. However, NMFS has no precise 

estimates of the percentage of sea turtles that are injured, seriously injured, or die from these interactions. 

These estimates are central to this analysis, but the scientific community, fishing industry, and 

conservation community have not agreed on a common approach to these estimates. 

81
In its June 30, 2000, Opinion on the Atlantic HMS Fisheries, NMFS used mortality estimates that were 

derived primarily from Aguilar et al. (1995). After the release of NMFS’ June 2000 Opinion on the HMS 

fisheries, Musick (2001) analyzed data collected by NMFS observers and summarized by Hoey (2000), 

observer reports from 2000, and data from other longline fisheries around the world. Based on his 

analyses, he challenged NMFS’ conclusions and concluded that “it appears that hooking mortality rates of 

loggerheads may be within the range of 3.3 to 8.6%, and hooking mortality of leatherbacks in this fishery 

may be nil.” 

In response to questions that had been raised about the mortality estimates NMFS used in its June 2000 

Opinion (for example, questions raised by Musick and others), NMFS tasked its Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center to conduct a more detailed analysis of the information available on sea turtles injuries and 

mortalities resulting from interactions with longline gear (including all of the information contained in 

Musick 2001). This was analysis was peer reviewed and published as a SEFSC technical document. 

Concurrently, the NMFS Assistant Administrator requested that the Office of Protected Resources 

evaluate available information on sea turtle injury and provide advice on criteria. On January 4, 2001, 

NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources issued a memorandum that revised the criteria for determining 

injury to sea turtles as a result of interactions with longline gear (NMFS 2001b). That memorandum 

concluded that, other than Dr.Musick’s review, all studies of sea turtle mortalities in longline fisheries in 

the western Pacific Ocean, eastern Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea produced mortality 

estimates that ranged between 34 and 42%. The memorandum noted that all of the sea turtles that were 

represented in mortality studies had received treatments that would increase their probable survival (for 

example, hooks were often removed, turtles were disentangled, and animals were allowed to recuperate 

on deck); animals that did not receive those treatments would be expected to have higher mortality rates. 

As a result of these analyses, NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources recommended classifying 50% of 

longline interactions with all species of sea turtles as lethal and classifying 50% as non-lethal (see NMFS’ 

January 04, 2001, memorandum and Appendix 4 of NMFS SEFSC 2001 for a complete review and 

analysis of relevant research and recommendations). 

Since this issue was crucial to evaluating the impacts of longline fishing sea turtles, and in order to further 

refine the broad categories summarized in the January 4, 2001 memorandum, the Assistant Administrator 

asked for further discussion. On February 16, 2001, the directors of NMFS’ Offices of Science and 

Technology, Protected Resources, and Sustainable Fisheries reviewed the recommendations contained in 

the January 4, 2001, memorandum and the data supporting those recommendations. Based on that 

review, these senior science and policy experts concluded that these classifications could be further 

refined based on the best information available in the scientific and commercial literature and supported 

the following recommendations on sea turtle mortalities: (1) sea turtles that are entangled in gear, but not 

hooked, and that are released with no trailing line and visible injuries would not be expected to suffer any 

mortalities; (2) sea turtles that are externally hooked, including mouth hooks that do not penetrate mouth 

tissues, would be expected to have a 27% mortality rate; (3) sea turtles that were hooked in mouth tissues 

or that ingest hooks would have a 42% mortality rate. This Opinion adopts the mortality estimates from 

the February 16, 2001, memorandum. 

4.4. Effects of the Proposed Fisheries 

4.4.1. U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery 

As discussed in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this Opinion, the U.S. pelagic longline 

fishery for Atlantic highly migratory species primarily targets swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or bigeye tuna in 

82
various areas of the North Atlantic Ocean in different seasons. Other target species include dolphin 

(which are caught incidental to the HMS fisheries), albacore tuna, pelagic sharks including mako, 

thresher, and porbeagle sharks, as well as several species of large coastal sharks. Although this gear can 

be modified (i.e., depth of set, hook type, etc.) to target either swordfish, tunas, or sharks, like other hook 

and line fisheries, it is a multi-species fishery. 

The lines used to target swordfish are generally deployed at sunset and hauled in at sunrise to take 

advantage of swordfish nocturnal, near-surface feeding habits. The lines used to target tuna are generally 

set in the morning, deeper in the water column, and hauled in the evening. Except for vessels of the 

distant water fleet which undertake extended trips, fishing vessels preferentially target swordfish during 

periods when the moon is full to take advantage of increased densities of swordfish near the surface. 

Pelagic longline gear is composed of several parts, as shown in Figures 2 and 3 of this Opinion. 

Swordfish sets and mixed target sets are buoyed to the surface with floats, have few hooks between 

floats, and are relatively shallow. Tuna sets use a different type of float placed much further apart when 

compared to lines targeting swordfish. Compared with swordfish sets, tuna sets have more hooks per 

foot between the floats and the hooks are set much deeper in the water column (> 109 meters). The 

hooks are also different for each type of fish targeted by longline gear. Swordfish sets generally use “J” 

hooks and tuna sets use “tuna” hooks, which are more curved than “J” hooks. In addition, tuna sets use 

only bait while swordfish fishing uses a combination of bait and lightsticks. 

Longline fisheries generally affect sea turtles by entangling or hooking the turtles in fishing gear. Turtles 

that become entangled in longline gear may drown when they are forcibly submerged or they may be 

injured by the entangling lines. Turtles that are hooked by longline gear can be injured or killed, depending 

on whether they are hooked internally or externally and whether the hook sets deep in their tissue. In 

addition to these immediate effects, longline gear can have long-term effects on a turtle’s ability to swim, 

forage, migrate, and breed, although these long-term effects are difficult to monitor or measure. The 

following discussions summarize the direct and indirect effects of longline gear on sea turtles and will be 

followed by a discussion of the probable responses of turtle populations to those effects. 

4.4.1.1. Estimated Number of Turtles Taken in the Fisheries 

Sea turtle bycatch estimates from observations of bycatch in the pelagic longline component of the 

swordfish/tuna/shark fishery number in the thousands. Estimates of the number of turtles taken incidental 

to the fisheries in the April 23, 1999 Opinion on the HMS fisheries (Scott and Brown 1997) were revised 

and updated by estimates provided in Johnson et al. (1999) and Yeung (1999) for NMFS’ June 30, 2000, 

Opinion on the HMS Fisheries. The most recent estimates of number of turtles incidentally taken in the 

HMS fisheries were estimated using a delta lognormal method of preferred pooling order (quarter, year, 

area). Total estimated take reported for loggerheads, over the period 1992 - 1999, was 7,891, with a 

lower confidence interval of 3,835 and an upper confidence interval of 18,805 for the 8-year period(See 

NMFS SEFSC 2001; for full discussion of the method). Totals for the most recent year available (1999) 

yield an estimate of 991 loggerheads taken (95% CI = 510 - 2,089). 

For leatherbacks, an estimated total of 6,363 turtles were taken incidental to the fisheries between 1992­

1999, with lower and upper confidence limits of 2,491 and 17,614, respectively. For 1999, an estimated 

1,012 leatherbacks were taken (95% confidence interval = 410 - 2,786). Of the 7,891 loggerhead and 

6,363 leatherback turtles estimated from observer records to have been captured by the U.S. Atlantic and 

83
tuna longline fisheries from 1992-1999, 66 loggerhead and 88 leatherbacks were estimated to have been 

released dead (NMFS 2001; see Table 5 on the following page). 

As discussed in the Turtle Mortality Estimates discussion in the introduction to this section of the 

Opinion, NMFS assumes that (1) sea turtles that are entangled in gear, but not hooked, and are released 

with no trailing line and visible injuries would not be expected to suffer any mortalities; (2) sea turtles that 

are externally hooked, including mouth hooks that do not penetrate mouth tissues, would be expected to 

have a 27% mortality rate; (3) sea turtles that are hooked in mouth tissues or that ingest hooks would 

have a 42% mortality rate. 

4.4.1.2. Geographic Distribution of Interactions Between Longline Fisheries and Turtles 

Most interactions between the U.S. longline fleet and loggerhead and leatherback turtles occur 

from the Mid-Atlantic Bight northward (Witzell 1999). Observer data, however, revealed greater 

loggerhead interactions in the Caribbean in 1992 and equally numerous leatherback interactions in the 

Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico in some years (Yeung et al. 2000). 

84
Pelagic longline gear most commonly catches loggerhead and leatherback turtles (See Table 5). Witzell 

(1999) summarized turtle catch from logbook data (1992 - 1995) for U.S. Atlantic sets targeting swordfish 

and tuna, or both. The Northeast Distant Area (NED) accounted for 70% of the loggerhead and 47% of 

the leatherback captures that were reported north of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. June through November 

were the peak months for reported captures. A review of observer reports for sets targeting all species 

between 1990 - 1996, yielded similar results (Hoey 1998). The NED accounted for 75% of the 

loggerhead and 40% of the leatherback captures for all sampling areas. The NED also was the only area 

where interactions of 4 or more turtles occurred on a single set (Hoey and Moore 1999). July through 

November were the predominant months for turtle captures (Hoey 1998). 

Analyses of the latest bycatch data show that the Northeast Distant (NED) captures the greatest 

numbers of loggerhead and leatherback turtles, with the highest numbers of captures occurring in the 3rd 

quarter of the year at the height of fishing effort. Given the relatively low levels of effort in the NED 

when compared with the NEC, longline fisheries in the NED capture high numbers of sea turtles. 

Analyses of the observed data suggest that the timing and spatial distribution of the fishery have a greater 

Table 5. Annual summed observed and delta-lognormal estimates of total marine turtle 

bycatch and the subset that were dead when released in the U.S. pelagic longline 

fishery (CL= confidence limit; CV =coefficient of variation) 

observe estimate estimate 

d d upper lower d upper lower 

species year catch catch95% CL 95% CL CV dead 95% CL 95% CL CV 

loggerhead 92 6 293 1149 78 0.79 0 

loggerhead 93 23 417 1414 142 0.69 9 46 2 1 

loggerhead 94 88 1344 2392 859 0.3 31 158 6 1 

loggerhead 95 129 2439 4542 1405 0.33 0 

loggerhead 96 13 917 2713 322 0.6 2 10 0 0.98 

loggerhead 97 17 384 1281 124 0.68 0 

loggerhead 98 15 1106 3225 395 0.59 1 5 0 0.98 

loggerhead 99 64 991 2089 510 0.39 23 117 5 1 

leatherback 92 28 914 2716 353 0.6 88 449 17 1 

leatherback 93 66 1054 2603 463 0.49 0 

leatherback 94 42 837 2433 328 0.59 0 

leatherback 95 61 934 2093 520 0.43 0 

leatherback 96 10 904 2074 231 0.44 0 

leatherback 97 7 308 1498 66 0.96 0 

leatherback 98 4 400 1411 120 0.72 0 

leatherback 99 45 1012 2786 410 0.55 0 

green 92 10 87 266 29 0.62 30 154 6 1 

green 93 2 31 158 6 1 0 

green 94 2 33 169 6 1 0 

green 95 1 40 205 8 1 0 

green 96 0 16 60 4 0.76 2 10 0 0.98 

green 98 0 14 52 4 0.75 1 5 0 0.98 

hawksbill 92 1 20 102 4 1 0 

hawksbill 97 1 16 82 3 1 0 

hawksbill 98 1 17 87 3 1 0 

Kemp's Ridley 92 0 1 5 0 0.98 0 

Kemp's Ridley 94 1 26 133 5 1 0 

Kemp's Ridley 97 1 22 112 4 1 0 

unidentified 92 1 26 133 5 1 0 

unidentified 93 2 31 158 6 1 0 

unidentified 94 2 34 173 7 1 0 

unidentified 95 4 171 587 85 50 0.7 0 
influence on bycatch than effort or gear (NMFS SEFSC 2001) 

Analyses of recent NMFS unpublished observer data for 2000 reveals that 87 sea turtles (34

leatherbacks, 48 loggerheads, and 5 unidentified turtles) were observed taken by the pelagic longline fleet

in 2000, resulting in zero observed mortalities, with approximately 4% observer coverage overall. Seventy

percent (61) of the interactions occurred in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Twenty-eight of the interactions

occurred in the NED (Northeast Distant), 14 occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, 10 occurred in the

Northeast Coastal, 10 occurred in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, 8 each in South Atlantic Bight and Florida East

Coast, and 5 occurred in the North Central Atlantic.

4.4.1.3. General effects of longline fishing on sea turtles 

Longline gear has two general effects on sea turtles: sea turtles become entangled in longline gear or they 

can become hooked. The sections that follow discuss the characteristics of longline gear that affect sea 

turtles and the nature of those effects. 

4.4.1.3.1. Effects of forced submergence 

Sea turtles can be forcibly submerged by longline gear, through a hooking or entanglement event, and the 

turtle maybe unable to reach the surface to breathe. This can occur at any time during the set, including 

the setting and hauling of the gear, and generally occurs when the sea turtle encounters a line that is too 

short to reach the surface or is too heavy to be brought up to the surface by a swimming sea turtle. For 

example, a sea turtle that is hooked on a 3-meter branchline attached to a mainline set at depth by a 6­

meter floatline will generally not be able to swim to the surface unless it has the strength to drag the 

mainline approximately 3 more meters (discussed further below). 

Turtles hooked by longline gear will sometimes drag the clip, attached to the branchline, along the 

mainline. If this happens, the potential exists for a turtle to become entangled in an adjacent branchline 

which may have another species hooked such as a shark, swordfish, or tuna. According to observer 

reports, most of the sharks and some of the larger tuna such as bigeye are still alive when they are 

retrieved aboard the vessel, whereas most of the swordfish are dead. If a turtle were to drag the 

branchline up against a branchline with a live shark or bigeye tuna attached, the likelihood of the turtle 

becoming entangled in the branchline is greater. If the turtle becomes entangled in the gear, then the 

turtle may be prevented from reaching the surface. Also, if a turtle drags the dropperline next to a 

floatline, the turtle may wrap itself around the floatline and become entangled. 

Sea turtles that are forcibly submerged by longline gear undergo respiratory and metabolic stress that can 

lead to severe disturbance of acid-base balance. Most voluntary dives by sea turtles appear to be aerobic, 

showing little if any increases in blood lactate and only minor changes in acid-base status (pH level of the 

blood). Sea turtles that are stressed as a result of being forcibly submerged through hooking or 

entanglement in a line rapidly consume oxygen stores. This triggers an activation of anaerobic glycolysis 

and subsequently disturbs the acid-base balance, sometimes to lethal levels. It is likely that the rapidity 

and extent of the physiological changes that occur during forced submergence are functions of the 

intensity of struggling as well as the length of submergence (Lutcavage and Lutz 1997). In a field study 

examining the effects of shrimp trawl tow times and sea turtle deaths, there was a strong positive 

correlation between the length of time of the tow and sea turtle deaths (Henwood and Stuntz 1987). 

86
Sea turtles forcibly submerged for extended periods of time show marked, even severe, metabolic 

acidosis as a result of high blood lactate levels. With such increased lactate levels, lactate recovery times 

are long (even as much as 20 hours). This indicates that turtles are probably more susceptible to lethal 

metabolic acidosis if they experience multiple captures, because they would not have had time to process 

lactic acid loads (in Lutcavage and Lutz 1997). Presumably, however, a sea turtle recovering from a 

forced submergence would most likely remain resting on the surface (given that it had the energy stores 

to do so), which would reduce the likelihood of being recaptured by a submerged longline. Recapture 

would also depend on the condition of the turtle and the intensity of fishing pressure in the area. NMFS 

has no information on the likelihood of recapture of sea turtles by the U.S. Atlantic longline fishery, 

Hawaii-based longline fishery, or other fisheries. However, in the Atlantic Ocean, turtles have been 

reported as captured more than once by longline vessels (on subsequent days), as observers reported 

clean hooks already in the jaw of captured turtles. Such multiple captures were thought to be most likely 

on 3 or 4 trips that had the highest number of interactions (Hoey 1998). In areas of turtle concentrations 

(e.g., Mediterranean Sea, Grand Banks) turtles have been reported to have been hooked from 2 to 8 

times (Panou et al. 1991, Gramentz 1989, Argano et al. 992, Witzell 1999, Hoey and Moore 1999; in 

NMFS SEFSC 2001, Part 3, Chap.5 ). This not only compounds mortality estimates, it complicates efforts 

to estimate the number of turtles captured in the fishery. Current bycatch estimates do not take into 

consideration that an animal may be captured multiple times, which could lead to an unquantifiable, though 

probably small, amount of overestimation of sea turtle take. 

Respiratory and metabolic stress due to forcible submergence is also correlated with additional factors 

such as size and activity of the sea turtle (including dive limits), water temperature, and biological and 

behavioral differences between species, and will therefore also affect the survivability on a longline. For 

example, larger sea turtles are capable of longer voluntary dives than small turtles, so juveniles may be 

more vulnerable to the stress of forced submergence than adults. During the warmer months, sea turtles’ 

routine metabolic rates are higher, which may magnify the effects of stress associated with entanglement 

or hooking on the turtles. In addition, disease factors and hormonal status may also play a role in anoxic 

survival during forced submergence. Any disease that causes a reduction in the blood oxygen transport 

capacity could severely reduce a sea turtle’s endurance on a longline, and since thyroid hormones appear 

to have a role in setting metabolic rate, they may also play a role in increasing or reducing the survival 

rate of an entangled sea turtle (in Lutz and Lutcavage 1997). Turtles necropsied following capture (and 

subsequent death) by longline vessels in the Pacific fishery were found to have pathologic lesions. Two 

of seven turtles examined (both leatherbacks) had lesions severe enough to cause probable organ 

dysfunction, although whether or not the lesions predisposed these turtles to being hooked could not be 

determined (Work 2000). As discussed further in the leatherback and loggerhead subsections below, 

some sea turtle species are better equipped to deal with forced submergence. 

Although a low percentage (typically < 1%) of turtles that are captured by longliners actually are reported 

dead, sea turtles can drown from being forcibly submerged. Such drowning may be either “wet” or 

“dry.” In the case of dry drowning, a reflex spasm seals the lungs from both air and water. With wet 

drowning, water enters the lungs, causing damage to the organs and/or causing asphyxiation, leading to 

death. Before death due to drowning occurs, sea turtles may become comatose or unconscious. Studies 

have shown that sea turtles that are allowed time to stabilize after being forcibly submerged have a higher 

survival rate. This of course depends on the physiological condition of the turtle (e.g., overall health, age, 

size), time of last breath, time of submergence, and environmental conditions (e.g., sea surface 

temperature, wave action, etc.) at the time of submergence (NRC 1990). Turtles which survive initial 

forced submergence and are released from longline gear may not recover and could die shortly 

thereafter. 

87
Reports of sea turtles being drowned during interactions with longline gear are rare (Budi, Shawhan, pers. 

comm. 2000; Hoey 1998; Yeung 2000). Between 1992-1999, 4,032 longline sets were observed, of which 

429 (-11%) caught turtles. Most of the turtles caught in longline gear were either loggerheads or 

leatherbacks. Table 6 shows numbers and species of marine turtles caught in longline sets observed 

between 1992-1999 (NMFS 2001). The number of dead turtles is a subset of the total number caught. If 

these data are corrected for percent observer coverage (see NMFS SEFSC 2001 for computations), an 

average of 986 loggerhead and 795 leatherback turtles were captured in the fishery each year from 1992 

to 1999, of which 8 and 11, respectively, were dead. 

Table 6. Total observed turtles caught and number recovered dead in the pelagic longline 

fishery for swordfish and tunas, 1992-1999 

Species Caught Dead Sets 

Loggerhead turtle 355 4 198 

Leatherback turtle 263 1 201 

Green turtle 15 2 11 

Hawksbill turtle 3 0 3 

Kemp’s ridley turtle 2 0 2 

Unidentified 14 0 14 

The green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley turtles reportedly captured in the longline fishery were probably 

misidentified (NMFS SEFSC 2001). They were probably loggerhead turtles, which are the most common 

hard-shelled turtles taken in the fishery (Hoey 1998; Witzell 1999: in NMFS 2001). Information from 

these data for 1999 indicates that, of 45 leatherback, 64 loggerhead, and 3 unidentified turtles observed 

taken by the U.S. swordfish fleet; 1 loggerhead turtle was dead when it was brought aboard (NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). 

Aguilar (1995) reports only 4 turtles were dead (of a total of 1,098 loggerheads hooked) when hauled 

onboard during longline sets by Spanish fishermen in the Mediterranean during July-September 1990 and 

June-August 1991. Spanish longline hooks are typically fished at about 25 m depth, compared to U.S. 

Atlantic longline depths of approximately 75-100 m. The low mortality estimates of sea turtles that have 

been reported to have been killed (through drowning) during interactions with the U.S. and Spanish fleets 

does not consider post-interaction effects on individuals that are injured during those interactions or the 

effect of those injuries on their longevity or reproductive success. 

4.4.1.3.2. Effects of entanglement 

Sea turtles are particularly prone to entanglement as a result of their body configuration and behavior. 

Records of stranded or entangled sea turtles reveal that fishing debris can wrap around the neck or 

flipper, or body of a sea turtle and severely restrict swimming or feeding. Over time, if the sea turtle is 

entangled when young, the fishing line will become tighter and more constricting as the sea turtle grows, 

cutting off blood flow, causing deep gashes, some severe enough to remove an appendage. Sea turtles 

have also been found trailing gear that has been snagged on the bottom, or has the potential to snag, thus 

anchoring them in place (Balazs 1985; Hickerson, pers. comm. 2001). 

88
Sea turtles have been found entangled in branchlines (gangions), mainlines and floatlines. Longline gear is 

fluid and can move according to oceanographic conditions determined by wind and waves, surface and 

subsurface currents, etc.; therefore, depending on both sea turtle behavior, environmental conditions, and 

location of the set, turtles can become entangled in longline gear. If sea turtles become entangled in 

monofilament line (mainline, gangion or float line) the gear can inflict serious wounds, including cuts, 

constriction, or bleeding anywhere on a turtle’s body. In addition, entangling gear can interfere with a 

turtle’s ability to swim or impair its feeding, breeding, or migration. Sea turtles that are entangled in the 

longline fishery are most often entangled around the neck and foreflippers, and, in the case of leatherback 

turtles, are often found snarled in mainlines, floatlines, and branchlines (e.g., Hoey 2000). 

4.4.1.3.3. Effects of hooking 

In addition to being entangled in a longline, sea turtles are also injured and killed by being hooked. 

Hooking can occur as a result of a variety of scenarios, some of which will depend on foraging strategies 

and diving and swimming behavior of the various species of sea turtles. For example, olive ridley turtles 

have been found with bait in their stomachs after being hooked, suggesting that they were attracted to bait 

and attacked the hook. 

Leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles forage on tunicates, particularly pyrosomas — the socalled “fiery bodies,” which radiate light at night. If lightsticks are used on longline gear set at night to 

attract species like swordfish, sea turtles could mistake the lightsticks for their preferred prey and get 

hooked externally or internally. Witzell (1999) suggested that leatherbacks are attracted to the lightsticks 

used by vessels targeting swordfish, perhaps mistaking the light sticks for bioluminescent gelatinous prey 

and then becoming entangled in the line. However, analyses using observer data indicated that sea turtle 

(both loggerhead and leatherback) interactions were not positively correlated with the use of lightsticks 

(Hoey 1998 ; Kleiber 2000). 

Sea turtles are either hooked externally — generally in the flippers, head or beak — or internally, where 

the animal has attempted to forage on the bait, and the hook is ingested into the gastro-intestinal tract, 

often a major site of hooking (E. Jacobson in Balazs et al. 1995). Table 7 (below) summarizes recent 

data on the location and number of sea turtles that were hooked in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery in 

1999 and 2000. Table 7 was used to get an estimate of how many turtle would be expected to be lightly 

hooked, deeply hooked, or entangled which has implications for the level of injury and mortality of turtles 

interacting with the fishery, which ultimately is important for assessing the effects of the action. The 

number of turtles in each category was divided by the total number of turtles (n) for that species for the 

two years of data. For hooked turtles the “not hooked” column was simply subtracted from the total. In 

both years, the percentage of loggerhead turtles hooked in longline gear (61.2 and 58.1% of all turtles 

hooked in 1999 and 2000, respectively) was larger than the percentage of leatherback turtles (35.9 and 

36.1% of all turtles hooked, respectively). In both years, of the two turtle species, a greater percentage of 

loggerhead turtles were hooked in their beak or mouth (72.7 and 82.1% of all turtles observed hooked in 

their beak or mouth in 1999 and 2000, respectively) or had ingested the hook (100 and 93.8%, 

respectively)1

. The “hooked in beak or mouth” values were calculated without including the “head or 

1 The observer data presented in Table 7, the best available, does not distinguish between 

turtles hooked in the hard parts of their beaks and mouths from those that were hooked in 

soft tissue, which made it difficult to fully apply the post-hooking mortality estimates 

recommended in NMFS January 14, 2001, memorandum. Turtles hooked in beak and 

89 
beak” column in the last column of Table 7 (A separate code in observer data). If you add these values 

to the total, only the 2000 figure changes (83.9); if you add the “unknown other” to this as well, you get 

78.9 and 81.2, respectively. The most accurate value adds the head and beak category because review 

of observer comments for those animals reveals that they are comparable to “beak and mouth” records. 

In contrast, a greater percentage of leatherback turtles were hooked in the flippers (84.2 and 81.3% of all 

turtles observed hooked in their flippers in 1999 and 2000, respectively). NMFS would expect this general 

pattern to continue in future interactions between the longline fishery and sea turtles. 

Table 7: The location of hooks observed on leatherback and loggerhead turtles in the 

longline fishery (from Appendix 3, NMFS 2001) 

1999 Hook Location 

Species 

beak or 

mouth flipper 

head or neck 

(external) 

throat or 

esophagus 

(ingested) 

not 

hooked 

unknown 

beak or 

mouth 

carapace 

or 

plastron 

unknown 

other 

head or 

beak n 

Leatherback 1 16 1 0 8 9 0 10 0 45 

Loggerhead 8 3 2 10 1 37 0 3 0 64 

Unknown 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 

Total 11 19 3 10 9 46 0 14 0 112 

Percentages 0.0982 0.1696 0.0268 0.0893 0.0804 0.4107 0.0000 0.1250 0.0000 

2000 Hook Location 

Species 

beak or 

mouth flipper 

head or neck 

(external) 

throat or 

esophagus 

(ingested) 

not 

hooked 

unknown 

beak or 

mouth 

carapace 

or 

plastron 

unknown 

other 

head or 

beak n 

Leatherback 4 13 3 0 1 0 5 6 0 32 

Loggerhead 23 3 0 15 0 0 0 6 3 50 

Unknown 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 5 

Total 28 16 3 16 1 1 5 14 3 87 

Percentage 

s 0.3218 0.1839 0.0345 0.1839 0.0115 0.0115 0.0575 0.1609 0.0345 

The greatest concern is for turtles that have ingested hooks. Like most vertebrates, the digestive tract of 

the sea turtle begins in the mouth, through the esophagus, and then dilates into the stomach. The 

esophagus is lined by strong conical papillae, which are directed caudally towards the stomach (White 

1994). The presence of these papillae, coupled with the fact that the esophagus snakes into an S-shaped 

bend distal to the esophagus, make it difficult to see hooks, especially if they have been deeply ingested. 

Because of a turtle’s digestive structure, deeply-ingested hooks are also very difficult to remove from a 

turtle’s mouth without seriously injuring the turtle. A turtle’s esophagus is attached firmly to underlying 

tissue; therefore, if a turtle swallows a hook and tries to free itself or is hauled by a vessel, the hook can 

pierce the turtle’s esophagus or stomach and can pull organs from their connective tissue. These injuries 

can cause the turtle to bleed internally or can result in infections, both of which can kill the turtle. 

mouth were assumed to fall into the 27% mortality category. 

90 
 If a hook does not lodge into or pierce a turtle’s digestive organs, it can pass through to the turtle’s colon 

or it can pass through the turtle entirely (E. Jacobson in Balazs et al. 1995; Aguilar et al. 1995). In such 

cases, sea turtles are able to pass hooks through the digestive tract with little damage (Work 2000). Of 

38 loggerheads deeply hooked by the Spanish Mediterranean longline fleet and subsequently held in 

captivity, six loggerheads expelled hooks after 53 to 285 days (average 118 days) (Aguilar et al. 1995). If 

a hook passes through a turtle’s digestive tract without getting lodged, the hook probably has not harmed 

the turtle. Tissue necrosis that may have developed around the hook may also get passed along through 

the turtle as a foreign body (E. Jacobson in Balazs et al. 1995). 

As discussed in the introduction to this section of this Opinion, NMFS has reviewed the scientific and 

commercial information available on sea turtle mortalities associated with interactions with longline gear in 

the western Pacific Ocean, eastern Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming the mortality 

rates in the memorandum, 27% of the loggerhead turtles hooked in their beak or mouth and 27% of the 

leatherback turtles that were hooked in their flippers coded in table 7 would be expected to die. Based on 

that policy, 42% of the loggerhead turtles that ingested hooks would be expected to die. Again, NMFS 

would expect this pattern to continue in future interactions between the longline fishery and sea turtles -­

the percentage of type of interaction identified in table 7 and the mortality rates identified in the February 

2001 memorandum will be used to analyze the effects of this action on loggerhead sea turtles in Section 

6.1 and leatherback sea turtles in section 6.2. 

4.4.1.4. Factors contributing to the likelihood of an interaction with the longline fishery 

The following subsections describe aspects of longline fishing, including gear characteristics as well as 

environmental conditions, that may contribute to the likelihood of sea turtle interactions with this fishery. 

4.4.1.4.1. Gear 

Floats: Sea turtles may be attracted to the floats used on longline gear. Sea turtles have been observed 

associating with manmade structures significantly more frequently than with natural objects, perhaps 

related to turtles’ affinity for 3-dimensional objects. Turtles also show a preference for objects floating 

horizontally and nearly submerged and are strongly attracted to brightly colored objects (Arenas and Hall 

1992). Floats typically used during swordfish-style sets are bright orange, bullet-shaped, and slightly 

submerged. Tuna-style sets generally use larger cylindrical inflatable buoys and floats, and these also are 

typically orange in color (L. Enriquez, pers. comm., January 2001). An analysis of observer data from 

the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fleet found that the proximity of the gangion to a floatline had a strong, 

significant effect on turtle catch rates. For hauls that captured loggerhead turtles, 45% of the loggerhead 

turtles that were caught were on the hooks nearest a floatline, even though those hooks only represented 

20% of the hooks set. The remaining 80% of the gangions set farther from the floatlines accounted for 

55% of the loggerhead captures. The results are similar for leatherbacks: 49% of leatherbacks that were 

caught were on the hooks nearest the floatline, which composed only 17% of the hooks set (NMFS 

SWFSC, unpubl. data). This effect may be explained by turtles being attracted to the buoys and the 

marine life that assembles under them. The hooks closest to the floatlines would also be shallower than 

the hooks farther away, so it is also possible that these results reflect a depth effect, or an interaction of 

shallow depth and proximity to a surface attractor. 

Bait: Sea turtles may also be attracted to the bait used on a longline. Four olive ridleys necropsied after 

being taken dead by Hawaii-based longliners were found with bait in their stomachs (Work 2000). 

91
Loggerheads are routinely taken by U.S. and Spanish longline fishermen using various baits. In addition, a 

leatherback was documented ingesting squid bait on swordfish longline gear. 

Lightsticks: Lightsticks are often used by longliners targeting swordfish in order to attract the swordfish 

to the bait. Skillman and Balazs (1992) speculate that the lightsticks may initially attract leatherbacks as 

was seen in the Spanish longline fleet example (above) by simulating natural prey. Preliminary findings 

by Lohmann (2000) indicate that glowing lightsticks are attractive to young, pelagic stage loggerhead 

turtles, whereas unbaited hooks are not. Whether lightsticks attract swordfish directly or whether they 

attract baitfish, which in turn attract the swordfish, is not entirely clear; however, fishermen report higher 

takes of swordfish when they use lightsticks. Lightsticks are generally attached to every other branchline, 

approximately a meter above the hook. Sea turtles foraging at night may be attracted to the lightsticks, 

confusing them for prey. Researchers studying the prey and foraging habits of sea turtles have reported 

the ingestion of pyrosomas, the so-called “fiery bodies,” by leatherbacks, loggerheads, and olive ridleys; 

however, there is little information on the actual ingestion of lightsticks by sea turtles. Several authors 

have suggested that the use of lightsticks contributes to the incidental take of sea turtles in pelagic longline 

fisheries (Witzell and Cramer 1995; Price 1995). Examination of logbook data indicated that catch per 

unit effort for leatherbacks and loggerheads doubled with the use of lightsticks (Witzell and Cramer, 

1995). However, Hoey’s 1998 analysis of Atlantic pelagic longline observer data from 1990 - 1996 

indicated that lightstick use had little bearing on levels of sea turtle bycatch. Statisticians have not been 

able to find any correlation between sea turtle take and the proximity of a lightstick to the hook or 

branchline that the turtle was hooked on or entangled in. For the Hawaii longline fishery, Skillman and 

Kleiber (1998) and Kleiber (2000, draft) were unable to predict turtle capture based on lightstick use. 

The use of lightsticks was associated with a number of other more significant predictor variables, e.g., 

latitude and fishing for swordfish (Skillman and Kleiber 1998). Preliminary results of a study on the 

response of post-hatchling loggerheads to light sticks indicate that the turtles were strongly attracted to 

glowing green lightsticks and were weakly attracted to glowing yellow Coghlan lightsticks (Lohmann 

2000). Methodology developed for testing these animals needs to be applied to older animals. 

4.4.1.4.2. Effects of hook styles on hook ingestion 

A variety of fishhook styles are used in the pelagic longline fisheries (D. Lee, pers. comm. 2000 in NMFS 

SEFSC 2001). Boats may fish several styles of hooks at any one time depending on target species and 

hook availability. The swordfish fishery uses traditional “J” style hooks while the tuna fishery uses circle 

hooks. From July to December, 2000, researchers experimented with different styles of hooks in the 

commercial, Azores longline fishery in the Azores Islands to determine their effect on sea turtles 

incidentally captured in the fishery. 

The experiment consisted of 93 longline sets, each set consisting of 1,500 hooks baited with squid. The 

target species were swordfish and blue sharks. Three hook types were tested: straight “J”(Mustad 

#76800 D 9/0), reversed/offset “J” (30/0-32/0) (Mustad #76801 D 9/0), and circle (Mustad #39960 ST 

16/0). The hooks were alternated along the set and because there were 8 hooks between buoys, the 

relationship between hook type and hook position on the gear varied. The order of gear set was: large 

buoy with radar reflector, 4 small buoys, large buoy, four small buoys, large buoy with reflector, etc.(A. 

Bolten, pers. comm.). The branchline (gangion) length, including leader, was 14 m and they were spaced 

45 m apart along the mainline. Buoy lines were 5.4-14.4 m long: line length on the large buoy with radar 

reflector was 14.4 m, large buoy line length was 10.8 m, and the line length on the small buoys was 5.4 or 

10.8 m, depending on fishing conditions, and was determined by the captain. A single 25.4-m vessel was 

used throughout the experiment. 

92
The experimental fishery caught 232 loggerhead, 4 leatherback, and 1 green turtle. The CPUE for all 

species combined was estimated at 1.7 turtles/1,000 hooks. There was no significant difference in the 

total numbers of turtles caught by each hook type (Chi-square test, p=0.136). However, there was a 

significant difference among the 3 hook types in the percentage of turtles hooked in their throats (Chisquare test, p<0.001): 

Percent Hooked in the Throat: Standard “J” Hook 57% 

Offset “J” Hook 46% 

Circle Hook 11% 

During the experiment, more turtles tended to be caught on hooks closest to buoys, but there was no 

significant effect of hook position along the mainline on turtle bycatch (Chi-square test, p = 0.515). 

Based on this experiment, there is a clear relationship between the type of hook and sea turtle injuries. 

The experiment also suggests that the location of hooking can be changed by changing the type of hook. 

The relationship between circle hooks and lower levels of seriously injured sea turtles was an encouraging 

result of the experiment. Assuming that turtles that swallow hooks are less likely to survive an interaction 

than turtles that are hooked in their mouths, circle hooks would reduce the number of turtles ingesting 

hooks (although they would not reduce the number of turtles hooked) and would reduce the number of 

turtles that die from injuries caused by ingesting hooks. Additionally, the position of the hook in the mouth 

differed with hook type. The “J” style hook, when embedded in the mouth, was more likely to be in the 

upper jaw, possibly damaging the soft palate just beneath the brain case. The circle hook, on the other 

hand, was more likely to be embedded in the hard, lower jaw, where injury likely would be less. Thus, 

positioning of the hook in the turtle’s mouth has survival implications (A. Bolten, pers. comm.). 

Although the results of these initial experiments with circle hooks were promising, their use is being 

debated for a variety of reasons. Changing from “J” to circle hooks may adversely affect the catching 

success for target species, particularly for the swordfish fleet. In the Azores experiment, there was a 

significant difference among the hook types in the numbers of swordfish caught (Chi-square test, p < 

0.001). The circle hook caught 262 swordfish and the “J” hook caught 381 swordfish (a 31.1% 

reduction). In addition, several fishermen have commented that it is much more difficult to remove a 

circle hook from a turtle’s mouth than the commonly used “J” hook, because circle hooks are easier to 

swallow, and fishermen could unintentionally aggravate hooking injuries while attempting to remove circle 

hooks (Beideman, Budi, pers. comms. 2001). Furthermore, preliminary results with deeply hooked and 

lightly hooked (on “J” hooks) satellite tagged sea turtles in Hawaii and the Azores seem to indicate no 

significant difference in post-release tracks of the differently hooked turtles. 

4.4.1.4.3. Effects of trailing gear 

Trailing line (i.e., line that is left on a turtle after it has been captured and released), particularly line 

trailing from an ingested hook, poses a serious risk to sea turtles. Line trailing from an ingested hook is 

likely to be swallowed, which may occlude the gastrointestinal tract, preventing or hampering foraging, 

leading to eventual death. Sea turtles that swallow the monofilament that is still attached to an embedded 

hook may suffer from the “accordion effect” described by Mediterranean sea turtle researchers, usually 

fatal, whereby the intestine, perhaps by its peristaltic action in attempting to pass the unmoving 

monofilament line through the alimentary canal, coils and wraps upon itself (Pont, pers. comm. 2001). 

Trailing line may also become snagged on a floating or fixed object, further entangling a turtle and 

93
potentially slicing its appendages which may affect its ability to swim, feed, avoid predators, or reproduce. 

Observers on longline vessels that have captured (hooked) a turtle are directed to clip the line as close to 

the hook as possible in order to minimize the amount of trailing gear. This is difficult with larger turtles, 

such as the leatherback, which often cannot practicably be brought on board the vessel. This is also 

difficult in inclement weather, when such action might place the observer or the vessel and its crew at 

risk. Because less than 5% of trips carry observers in the U.S. Atlantic-based pelagic longline fishery, 

there may be many sea turtles released with trailing gear; although, U.S. fishermen indicated that they 

make every effort to safely remove as much trailing gear as possible (Beideman, Budi; pers. comms. 

2001). 

Analyses of fishery observer logs for the 4th quarter of 2000 for the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery 

shows that of 21 turtles hooked, hooks were removed from 5 turtles (24%), line was clipped from the 

hooks of 4 turtles (19%), and the remaining 12 turtles (57%) were released with varying lengths of 400-lb 

test monofilament, ranging from 1 to 6 feet, still trailing from the hook (mean = 3.25 ft) (NMFS SERO 

unpubl. data). 

4.4.1.4.4. Environmental conditions 

Environmental conditions may also play a large part in whether or not a sea turtle interacts with longline 

gear. Sea turtles in the open ocean are often found associated with oceanographic features such as 

fronts and driftlines, areas often indicating high productivity. In addition, sea turtles also appear to 

associate with particular sea surface temperatures. As mentioned in more detail later, species such as 

loggerheads have been tracked moving along convergent ocean fronts, in waters with sea surface 

temperatures of 17° C and 20° C (Polovina et al. 2000). Swordfish are caught by longliners in association 

with frontal zones where ocean currents or water masses meet to create turbulence and sharp gradients 

of temperature and salinity. Swordfish also make vertical migrations through the water column, rising 

near the surface at night from deep waters. Thus, while searching for concentrations of swordfish, 

longline vessels set their gear across these temperature gradients ("breaks") indicative of intersecting 

water masses, and when sea turtles are associated with these fronts, interactions are more likely. 

4.4.2. Bottom Longline Fishery for Sharks in Southeastern U.S. 

Bycatch data for the bottom longline fishery predominantly targeting sharks in the southeastern U.S. were 

previously unavailable. However, an observer program conducted by the Gulf and South Atlantic 

Fisheries Development Foundation recorded incidental takes of sea turtles in this fishery (Branstetter and 

Burgess1997). Between 1994 and 1996, a total of 408 sets were observed, comprising 4.1 million hook 

hours. The total effort in this fishery is unknown; however, the sharks landed via observed vessels 

represented between 2% and 5% of all sharks landed. According to Branstetter (NMFS, St. Petersburg, 

FL, pers. comm.), about 50 vessels land the majority of the quota and the fishery generally operates in 10 

- 20 fathoms. About 50 – 55% of the total landings are recorded in Florida, followed by North Carolina 

and Louisiana at 20% each, Texas at about 1 - 2%, and most of the remainder is from the mid-Atlantic. 

In the 408 sets observed, 25 loggerheads were taken and released live and another 6 were recorded dead 

(implying a mortaltiy rate of 19%). Eleven of these turtles were taken between South Carolina and 

Northeast Florida (South Atlantic Bight), 16 in the Florida Gulf and 4 in North Carolina. Additionally, 2 

leatherbacks were entangled and released alive, 1 in the South Atlantic Bight area and 1 off North 

Carolina. Preliminary data from this observer program in 1998 indicate that out of 106 sets observed, 2 

94
loggerheads and 1 unidentified turtle were taken and released alive in that year (Branstetter, NMFS, St. 

Petersburg, FL, pers. comm.). 

Between August 1995 and December 2000, scientists from the NMFS Laboratory in Pascagoula, 

Mississippi, aboard NOAA fishery research vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and 

Caribbean, conducted 1,424 bottom longline sets for sharks, setting approximately 1,424 miles of longline 

gear and 14,240 hooks. One loggerhead was captured and had drowned. 

Observed sets in this fishery are presumed to represent between 2 and 5% of total shark landings. 

Correcting for observer coverage suggests that between 620 - 1,550 loggerheads could be taken in this 

fishery over 3 years, or 207 - 517 annually (19% of which would be 40 - 99 turtles). This approach may 

over-estimate the interaction, because these estimates are based on total shark landings, which make it 

difficult to reach definitive conclusions. 

According to the HMS FMP, the rebuilding plan for the shark fishery which reduces quotas and limits 

access, among other measures, can be expected to reduce the level of effort in this fishery. If the 

rebuilding plan reduces the effort, the numbers of turtles captured and killed in this fishery should 

decrease as well. 

4.4.3. Pelagic Drift Gillnet Fishery 

The pelagic drift gillnet portion of the Atlantic swordfish fishery was prohibited during an emergency 

closure that began in December 1996, extended through May 31, 1997, and subsequently extended 

through July 31, 1998. An extensive environmental assessment was prepared to evaluate this fishery 

from both fisheries and protected species perspectives, to identify measures to be implemented for the 

longline and drift gillnet fisheries. The Northeast swordfish drift gillnet segment was reopened on August 

1, 1998, and a total of 10 trips were reported. An additional two drift gillnet trips targeting tuna took place 

in September using a net with smaller mesh. 

The final rule to close the entire swordfish drift gillnet fishery was published on January 27, 1999 (64 FR 

4055), and a Notice of Availability for the draft comprehensive FMP for the whole pelagic fishery was 

published on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57093). Under the HMS FMP, this gear-type was prohibited for 

the harvest of tuna to prevent expanding the use of this gear in other fisheries. The number of turtles and 

marine mammals captured in this fishery was high and included a number of large whales. Prohibiting 

this gear has significantly reduced the potential for jeopardy to right whales, and eliminated one source of 

injury and mortality of humpback whales, sperm whales and sea turtles. 

4.4.4. Southeast Shark Drift Gillnet Fishery 

For the Southeast shark drift gillnet fishery, unpublished data from the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission for shark gillnet landings from the coast of Florida from Nassau County to 

Broward County indicate that in 1998, of vessels targeting sharks (defined as those reporting landings of 

>500 lbs), a total of 706,510 lbs of shark were landed in 278 trips along the Florida east coast. In 1999, a 

total of 706,510 lbs of shark were landed in 265 trips. 

In southeast waters where right whales may occur, the ALWTRP prohibits most drift gillnet activity for 

sharks. Provided that a vessel carries an observer, gillnetting is allowed in a small area off the east coast 

of Florida (from the City of Sebastian south) where right whales are not likely to occur in federal waters 

95
because of the proximity of the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. An exemption is also granted for strike 

netting for sharks under these rules, provided the captain/vessel uses a spotter pilot, fishes only during the 

daytime, does not set gear within 3 nm of a right whale sighting, and carries an observer. Seventeen 

strike net trips have been observed to date (1999-2001), with no reports of interactions with threatened or 

endangered species. 

Prior to implementing the ALWTRP, 121,559 lbs of shark were landed in 194 gillnet trips which took 

place between November 15, 1996, and March 31, 1997. Ninety percent of these landings were caught 

by 13 fishermen landing 500 lbs or more of shark/trip, in 48 trips, indicating that these data represent shark 

as the target species (rather than bycatch landings). Implementation of the ALWTRP in July, 1997, 

subsequently closed the area from Savannah, Georgia, to Sebastian, Florida, to shark gillnetting from 

November 15, 1997, to March 31, 1998. 

Landings data for this period indicate that six gillnet fishermen landed shark, but only one of these 

fishermen arranged for an observer despite a 100% observer coverage requirement. Data through 

January 1999 from Florida indicate that 88 gillnet trips landed sharks and that 13 different fishermen 

landed sharks during the 1998 portion of the right whale calving season when restrictions on shark gillnet 

fishing are in place (November 15 - December 31). None of these fishermen called to arrange for an 

observer during that time period, although 4 of them called and took observers beginning January 1999. 

Florida data indicate only one fisherman may have actually targeted sharks between November 15, 1998, 

and January 31, 1999, suggesting that efforts to educate fishermen about the call-in requirement may have 

been effective. The 1999-2000 season went smoothly, with fishermen regularly reporting their intentions 

to fish, even after observers were no longer available. 

Nine sets were observed outside of the right whale season in 1998, but no sea turtle takes were observed. 

Fifty-three sets were observed in 1999; 70 sets in 2000. Since 1993, 5 loggerhead turtles have been 

captured in the fishery (1 was killed), 14 leatherback turtles have been captured (2 were killed and the 

condition of 2 others is unknown), and 1 hawksbill turtles was captured and released; the animal was 

comatose and is considered dead (Carlson 2001, unpub. data). All reports of leatherback turtles being 

captured in the fishery since 1993 (14 were captured, 2 were killed) occurred since January 18, 2001. At 

the same time that leatherback were reported as having been captured in the shark gillnet fishery, 3 

leatherback stranded in the area of the shark drift gillnet fishery. One of these stranded animals was an 

adult male with abrasions around his shoulders, which are consistent with entanglement in gillnet gear. A 

necropsy concluded that the abrasions occurred prior to his death. 

It is difficult to determine the frequency of interactions between the gillnet fishery and leatherback turtles. 

Leatherbacks begin nesting as early as February along the Florida east coast. In 2001, the first nest was 

documented on March 3 at Melbourne Beach. Considering the rarity of leatherbacks on fishing grounds 

for this fishery – an average of only 45-50 females nest in Florida each year – the documented take in the 

shark drift gillnet fishery, especially during a time when reproductive females are present, could have 

serious effects of this breeding population’s likelihood of surviving and recovering. 

Nevertheless, this fishery does not seem likely to interact with leatherback turtles every year, or the 

interaction will probably reflect surface temperature patterns and prey conditions or a change in fishing 

practices that could increase the number of interactions. Pelagic coelenterates (Scyphozoa and 

Siphonophora) are a major component in the diet of leatherback turtles (Den Hartog 1980, Den Hartog 

and Van Nierop 1984) and the occurrence of turtles often corresponds to concentrations of jellyfish 

(Leary 1957, Fritts et al. 1983, Collard 1990, Grant et al. 1996, James 2000: in NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

96
Therefore, high abundances of the jellyfish (Aurelia) in the fishing area may attracted the turtles and 

increase the likelihood of interactions between the turtles and the fishery. 

The HMS FMP prohibits shark drift gillnet fishing without an observer onboard; which is believed to 

strengthen the provisions of the ALWTRP. Since issuance of the June 30, 2000, Opinion, 100% observer 

coverage of the shark gillnet fishery has been maintained during right whale calving season, as required in 

lieu of a vessel monitoring system (VMS). 

NMFS believes that measures discussed above will reduce the chances of a right whale becoming 

entangled in gear associated with the HMS fisheries; if a whale is entangled, the presence of observers 

increases the likelihood that the disentanglement network would be notified in time to release and 

disentangle the whale before it is seriously injured. NMFS believes that a monitoring system such as 

VMS could also ensure compliance with the closure, leaving only a remote possibility of even 

encountering a right whale, much less entangling one, outside the closed area. A review of the observer 

data for the 1999/2000 right whale calving season indicates that all observed vessels complied with the 

closure. Implementing a shark drift gillnet VMS would eliminate the requirement for 100% coverage in 

this fishery. 

4.4.5. Bluefin Tuna Purse Seine Fishery 

The bluefin tuna purse seine fishery is currently listed as a category III fishery under the MMPA. Purse 

seines are set when a school of fish is located, then the vessel pays out the net in a circle around the 

school. This affords considerable control over what is encircled by the net and the net does not remain 

set in the water for an appreciable amount of time. This fishery was observed in 1996, with close to 

100% coverage. Six pilot whales, one humpback whale and one minke whale were observed as encircled 

by the nets during the fishery. All were released alive or dove under the net and escaped before it was 

pursed. Additionally, unpublished data from NMFS Northeast Region’s entanglement data base indicate 

that 3 humpback whale entanglements were attributed to this fishery in 1985. All were considered injured 

(undefined), but all were released and resighted. 

4.4.6. Harpoon/Handline/Rod-and-reel Gear Fisheries 

The harpoon/handline/rod-and-reel gear fisheries are listed as category III fisheries under the MMPA 

because of their low likelihood of interacting with marine mammals. Although NMFS has received a few 

reports of whales becoming entangled in handline and harpoon gear, further investigation into the incidents 

suggests that the whales were not injured during the entanglement or were able to easily disentangle 

themselves. 

Turtles have also been known to be captured in rod-and-reel fisheries at relatively low rates. Recreational 

hook-and-line fisheries have been known to capture and kill sea turtles, including Kemp’s ridley turtles. 

Between 1993 and 1995, 170 Kemp’s ridley turtles interacted with recreational hook-and-line gear; 

resulting in 18 dead, stranded turtles, 51 rehabilitated turtles (5 of which died during rehabilitation), and 96 

turtles that were released by fishermen (Cannon and Flanagan 1996). 

Similarly, NMFS public sighting database for North Carolina reports interactions between hook-and-line 

gear and sea turtles from 1988-1996 (NMFS, unpub. data). These data include records of 98 turtles 

hooked, including 65 loggerhead, 3 green, 12 Kemp’s ridley, 3 leatherback, and 15 unidentified turtles. All 

97
turtles were released alive but the condition and status of these turtles after their release remains 

unknown. 

4.4.7. AOCTRP and Pelagic Longline Fishery Overlap With Whale Distribution 

The regulations implementing the HMS FMP include measures implementing provisions of the Atlantic 

Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (AOCTRP), i.e., a requirement that fishermen move after an 

interaction, a 1-year limit on the length of gear set in the mid-Atlantic statistical area, limited entry, and 

education/outreach. Currently, the pelagic longline fishery does not generally overlap in time or space 

with right whale distribution. Additionally, NMFS has no records of observed large whale entanglements 

in pelagic longline gear; although, due to low levels of observer coverage, it is possible that interactions go 

unrecorded. NMFS’ entanglement database from its northeast region includes records of 5 accounts of 

humpback whales having been entangled in longline gear of various types (some were released alive by 

fishermen). 

Requiring fishermen to move after an interaction with a sea turtle as well as with a marine mammal 

(movign for both species is now required by regulations implementing the HMS FMP), is intended to 

mitigate for the contiguous distribution of marine mammal and sea turtle takes noted in the observer data 

set. If fishermen comply with this provision, according to industry representatives familiar with the 

observer data set, there could be up to a 40% reduction in levels of serious injury and mortality of 

strategic stocks of marine mammals. Hoey (1998) noted that for the NED fishing area, 68.1% of all 

loggerheads observed entangled in pelagic longline gear were caught on sets with other loggerheads. For 

leatherbacks, 31.7% were caught on sets with other leatherbacks. Thus, HMS’ adoption of this measure 

as a requirement could substantially decrease incidental take levels with both marine mammals and sea 

turtles. However, as NMFS noted in the HMS FMP, requiring fishermen to move will be extremely 

difficult to enforce. NMFS is hopeful that some fishermen may comply voluntarily, and that with the 

continued promotion of protected species conservation through the educational outreach/workshop efforts 

discussed below, an increased level of compliance with this requirement may be achieved. However, 

without an observer onboard there is no way to ensure that fishermen will comply with this provision. It is 

also unclear what the extent of movement should be – a move in the wrong direction (likely towards 

warmer water) could lead to even higher probability of interacting with protected species. 

Fisherman education and other outreach efforts should help fishermen to become more aware of, and 

sympathetic to, conservation matters relating to their fishery and to gain a deeper understanding of how 

their fishing activities affect the marine environment. Also, through a better understanding of protected 

species biology and habits, dehooking, disentanglement, and resuscitation techniques, etc., fishermen can 

learn how to decrease their level of impact on protected species. The Captain’s Report (Hoey and 

Moore 1999) outlines several measures that should be quite effective at not only reducing sea turtle take 

rates, but also should improve the fish catch composition with respect to target species vs. bycatch 

species and undersized swordfish. Developing fisherman support and understanding of these concepts 

could lead to actions on the captains’ parts which should substantially minimize the incidental take levels 

for sea turtles. Although it is impossible at this point to estimate how much these outreach efforts may 

impact incidental take levels, it is hoped that a measurable difference will be achieved. Certainly, the 

recent NMFS-sponsored sea turtle-longline industry gear workshops and working group meetings have 

served to underscore the importance of significantly reducing sea turtle interactions in order for the 

fishery to continue. NMFS believes that, at a minimum, such outreach efforts will foster better 

communications and understanding and cooperation between the fishermen and NMFS protected species 

management personnel, which may result in meaningful levels of decrease in protected species bycatch. 

98
Another provision of the AOCTRP is a 1-year limit on the length of gear set in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (to 

24 nm from Aug 1 – Nov 30). This provision is also difficult to analyze in terms of potential levels of 

bycatch reduction. As the HMS FMP notes, of those vessels observed in 1996 and 1997, the average 

length of mainline fished by pelagic longline fishermen was 20.3 miles and 21.7 miles, respectively. 

Additionally, the HMS FMP states that some fishermen have indicated they would offset any losses due 

to this requirement by re-rigging their gear to maintain the same number of hooks per set but on shorter 

line. If this measure results in effort reduction, as previously believed by AOCTRT members, then lower 

bycatch numbers may result. However, if this restriction on length of gear does not change the total level 

of effort in the fishery, then little to no change in take rates for sea turtles would be expected. Although 

the 1-year effective date for this requirement has passed, the resulting data have not yet been examined 

to assess its effectiveness. 

4.4.8. Effects of the Live Bait Prohibition and Area Closures 

There is no information available to determine the possible effects of the prohibition on live bait that were 

adopted as a measure to protect billfish and swordfish. However, the practice and prohibition extend only 

to the Gulf of Mexico, where turtle bycatch rates are generally lower than in the NED, NEC, and MAB 

sampling areas; therefore this provision is not likely to have much effect, if any, on sea turtle bycatch. If 

visual cues predominate in attracting a sea turtle to gear (e.g., lightstick attraction), this prohibition may 

help decrease sea turtle bycatch levels. 

The results of analyses of the effects of the Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon 

closures, which were implemented in the HMS FMP to reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fisheries, 

under an assumption of no redistribution of effort and an assumption of random redistribution of effort 

(NMFS 2000a). The first analyses, that assumed that effort would not redistribute after a closure, 

suggest that the number of turtles captured in the fishery would decline by about 1.89%; the latter 

analyses that assumed that effort would redistribute randomly suggests that turtle bycatch would increase 

by a maximum of 7.13%. 

In addition, the DeSoto Canyon, Florida East Coast, and Charleston Bump closures can be expected to 

increase the number of leatherback turtles captured and injured in this fishery as fishing effort 

redistributes away from the closed areas. The combined redistribution of effort model for the combined 

Gulf of Mexico and southeast U.S. Atlantic coast areas, predicts not more than a 7% increase in turtle 

takes could result, although NMFS considers even this amount of change is unlikely (NMFS 2000a). 

However, to err on behalf of the species, NMFS uses this estimate in this analysis. The increase in turtle 

interactions predicted by the effort redistribution model would increase the number of leatherback and 

loggerhead turtles released unharmed by 190, with the remainder of the impact resulting in an increase of 

4 turtles injured and only 1 turtle killed, both based on fishermen logbook reports (NMFS 2000a). 

Based on these analyses, the Gulf of Mexico (DeSoto Canyon) closure would have little effect on the 

number of sea turtle captured in these fisheries. Most or all of the change will result from the combined 

Atlantic closures. In particular, it appears that the number of turtles injured or killed (as opposed to the 

number captured) may be elevated by the proposed Atlantic closures. 

4.4.9. Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) Closed Area 

In June 1999, the HMS FMP closed a 1° X 6° block within the MAB area to the pelagic longline fishery 

to minimize discards of bluefin tuna in the fishery. The closure was analyzed by NMFS with respect to 

99
possible effects on sea turtles. The analysis was performed on a 4° X 4° block at 36° - 40° N and 70° ­

74° W, which was the original proposal. A displacement model analysis showed that the change in the 

number of sea turtles caught in the fishery, due to associated shifts in effort in the longline fishery, 

depended on the year the data had been collected. 

Shifts in effort and estimates of sea turtle take levels were examined for 3 different data sets: 1992-1995 

(collectively), 1996, and 1997. The resulting sea turtle take estimates increased 9% (over expected 

bycatch levels without redistribution) due to the projected redistribution in effort using the 1997 data set, 

decreased 7% using the 1996 data set, and increased 8% using the combined data set for 1992- 1995. 

Without controlling for effort between years but simply taking a mean change in take per year and 

assuming an 8% increase per year in each of the years from 1992-1995 (which may not be valid 

assumptions, particularly if turtle interactions are highly dependent on the environmental conditions, as 

potentially indicated by comparing 1996 vs. 1997 data sets ), a gross estimate of the mean annual change 

in sea turtle bycatch resulting from the MAB closure, based on the HMS modeling results, would be a 6% 

increase in overall levels of turtle caught in the fishery. These data were not reported for specific turtle 

species, so the effect of shifting effort on particular turtle species is unknown. 

The closure that was implemented shifts the area slightly (2°) westward of the area analyzed, but restricts 

it to a 1° latitudinal band. This lateral compression of the closed area is likely to prevent much of the 

predicted effort shift into the Grand Banks area, and therefore may reduce subsequent increases in sea 

turtle takes in this high bycatch area. The final FMP did not become effective until just before this 

seasonal fishery was to open, so it is doubtful that it had any effect in 1999. 

4.4.10. The Proposed Requirement to Use VMS in the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

The requirement to use VMS in pelagic longline fisheries is on hold and being reevaluated as a result of 

the September 25, 2000, ruling by the Court of the District of Columbia. If this requirement is 

implemented, it should facilitate monitoring of the proposed management measures, encourage greater 

compliance, and may even provide valuable data on entanglements. These measures, therefore, may 

slightly reduce sea turtle bycatch, and provide information which could be used in preventing or reducing 

effects of entanglements in the future (e.g., through gear development strategies or other measures). 

Extension of the VMS requirement into the shark drift gillnet component of the HMS fisheries is also 

currently under study and, if implemented, could further enhance overall bycatch reduction efforts. 

4.4.11. The Proposed Shark Drift Gillnet Fishery Off Alabama 

A proposed shark drift gillnet fishery which would use 8 to 12-in mesh, $ 2,000 yard nets and operate off 

the coast of Alabama, if prosecuted, would add to an unknown degree to the current take levels analyzed. 

It is possible that fishermen prohibited from longlining would continue to fish in the closure area, using 

gillnets to target sharks. If this occurs, elevated incidental take levels for protected species, including 

proportionately more lethal takes of sea turtles, could result. However, this fishery would be stateregulated and would not fall under the jurisdiction of the HMS FMP unless fishermen were also permitted 

to fish for sharks in federal waters. 

100
5. Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably 

expected to occur in the action area. 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. 

Cumulative effects from unrelated, non-federal actions occurring in the northwest Atlantic may affect sea 

turtles, marine mammals, and their habitats. Stranding data indicate marine mammals and sea turtles in 

Atlantic waters die of various natural causes, including cold stunning (in the case of sea turtles), as well as 

human activities, such as incidental capture in state fisheries, ingestion of or entanglement in debris, ship 

strikes, and degradation of nesting habitat. The cause of death of most marine mammals and turtles 

recovered by the stranding network is unknown. 

Numerous fisheries in State waters along the Atlantic coast have been known to adversely affect 

threatened and endangered sea turtles and marine mammals. The past and present impacts of these 

fisheries have been discussed in the Environmental Baseline section of this biological opinion. Most of 

these fisheries will be prosecuted concurrent with the fisheries prosecuted under the Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan and can be expected to continue into the future. The future 

effects of these fisheries will be discussed in this section of this Opinion. 

5.1. Trawls 

Numerous trawl fisheries in State waters along the Atlantic coast have adversely affected threatened and 

endangered sea turtles in the past and can be expected to adversely affect sea turtles in the future. A 

detailed summary of the impacts of the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery and the Mid-Atlantic winter trawl 

fishery can be found in TEWG (1998, 2000) and NMFS SEFSC (2001). Other bottom trawl fisheries that 

may impact sea turtles are the horseshoe crab fishery in Delaware (Spotila et al. 1998) and the whelk 

trawl fishery in South Carolina (S. Murphy, pers. comm. to J. Braun-Mcneill, November 27, 2000) and 

Georgia (M. Dodd, pers. comm. to J. Braun-McNeill, December 21, 2000). In South Carolina, the whelk 

trawling season opens in late winter and early spring when offshore bottom waters are > 55oF. One 

criterion for closure of this fishery is water temperature: whelk trawling closes for the season and does 

not reopen throughout the state until 6 days after water temperatures first reach 64oF in the Fort Johnson 

boat slip. Based on the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Office of Fisheries 

Management data, approximately 6 days will usually lapse before water temperatures reach 68oF, the 

temperature at which sea turtles move into state waters (D. Cupka, pers. comm.). From 1996-1997, 

observers onboard whelk trawlers in Georgia reported a total of 3 Kemp's ridley, 2 green and 2 

loggerhead sea turtles captured in 28 tows for a CPUE of 0.3097 turtles/100ft net hour. As of December 

2000, TEDS are required in Georgia state waters when trawling for whelk (Ibid.). 

The North Carolina Observer program documented 33 flynet trips from November through April of 1991­

1994 and recorded no turtles caught in 218 hours of trawl effort. However, a NMFS- observed vessel 

fished for summer flounder for 27 tows with an otter trawl equipped with a TED and then fished for 

weakfish and Atlantic croaker with a flynet that was not equipped with a TED. They caught 1 

loggerhead in 27 TED-equipped tows and 7 loggerheads in 9 flynet tows without TEDs. In addition, the 

same vessel using the flynet on a previous trip took 12 loggerheads in 11 out of 13 observed tows 

targeting Atlantic croaker. A slight potential exists for interaction between this fishery and humpback 

whales, particularly in the mid-Atlantic, but no documentation of such interactions is available for this 

consultation. 

101
In the future, we would expect these fisheries to continue at current levels of effort, and would expect the 

fisheries to capture, injure, or kill similar numbers of loggerhead turtles. 

5.2. Hook and Line 

In addition to trawl fisheries managed by States along the Atlantic coast, numerous hook and line fisheries 

have also adversely affected threatened and endangered sea turtles in the past and can be expected to 

adversely affect sea turtles in the future. Loggerheads are known to bite a baited hook, frequently 

ingesting the hook. Leatherbacks and greens also bite baited hooks. Hooked turtles have been reported 

by the public fishing from boats, piers, and beach, banks, and jetties and from commercial fishermen 

fishing for reef fish and for sharks with both single rigs and bottom longlines. A detailed summary of the 

impact of hook and line incidental captures to loggerhead sea turtles can be found in the TEWG reports 

(1998, 2000) and NMFS SEFSC (2001). 

In the future, we would expect recreational hook and line fisheries to continue at current levels of effort, 

and would expect the fisheries to capture, injured, or kill similar numbers of loggerhead, leatherback, and 

green turtles. 

5.3. Pound Nets 

Pound nets are a passive, stationary gear that are known to incidentally capture loggerhead sea turtles in 

Massachusetts (R. Prescott pers. comm.), Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland (W. Teas pers. comm.), 

New York (Morreale and Standora 1998), Virginia (Bellmund et al. 1987) and North Carolina (Epperly et 

al. 2000). Although pound nets are not a significant source of mortality for loggerheads in New York 

(Morreale and Standora 1998) and North Carolina (Epperly et al. 2000), they have been implicated in the 

stranding deaths of loggerheads in the Chesapeake Bay from mid-May through early June (Bellmund et 

al. 1987). The turtles were reported entangled in the large mesh (>8 inches) pound net leads. (see 

NMFS 2001). 

In the future, we would expect State-managed pound net fisheries to continue at current levels of effort, 

and would expect the fisheries to capture, injured, or kill similar numbers of loggerhead turtles. 

5.4. Gillnets 

A detailed summary of the gillnet fisheries currently operating along the mid- and southeast U.S. Atlantic 

coastline that are known to incidentally capture loggerheads can be found in the TEWG reports (1998, 

2000) and NMFS SEFSC (2001). Although all or most nearshore gillnetting in state waters of South 

Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas is prohibited by state regulations, gillnetting in other 

states’ waters and in federal waters does occur. Of particular concern are the nearshore and inshore 

gillnet fisheries of the mid-Atlantic that operate in state and federal waters off Rhode Island, Connecticut, 

New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Incidental captures in these 

gillnet fisheries (both lethal and non-lethal) of whales and loggerhead, leatherback, green and Kemp's 

ridley sea turtles have been reported (W. Teas, pers. comm.; J. Braun-McNeill pers. comm.). In addition, 

illegal gillnet incidental captures have been reported in South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Texas. 

In the future, we would expect gillnet fisheries in mid-Atlantic coastal States to continue at current levels 

of effort, and would expect the fisheries to capture, injured, or kill similar numbers of loggerhead, 

102
leatherback, green, and Kemp’s ridley turtles. With the information available during the writing of this 

opinion, it is impossible to quantify the effects of these fisheries on sea turtles. 

5.5. Other U.S. Fisheries 

Incidental captures of loggerheads in fish traps set in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and 

Florida have been reported (W. Teas, pers. comm.). Although no incidental captures have been 

documented from fish traps set in North Carolina and Delaware (Anon 1995), they are another potential 

anthropogenic impact to loggerheads and other sea turtles. Lobster pot fisheries are prosecuted in 

Massachusetts (Prescott 1988), Rhode Island (Anon 1995), Connecticut (Anon 1995) and New York (S. 

Sadove, pers. comm.). Although they are more likely to entangle leatherback sea turtles, lobster pots set 

in New York are also known to entangle loggerhead sea turtles (Ibid.). We have no data on the number 

of turtles incidentally captured in these fisheries in other states. Long haul seines and channel nets in 

North Carolina are known to incidentally capture loggerhead and other sea turtles in the sounds and other 

inshore waters(J. Braun-McNeill, pers. comm.). We have no reports of turtle mortalities associated with 

this fishery (NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

Humpback whale entanglements occur in relatively high numbers in Canadian waters. Reports of 

collisions with fixed fishing gear set for groundfish around Newfoundland averaged 365 annually from 

1979 to 1987 (range 174-813). An average of 50 humpback whale entanglements (range 26-66) were 

reported annually between 1979 and 1988 and 12 of 66 humpback whales that were entangled in 1988 

died (Lien et al. 1988). Right whale entanglements also occur in Canadian waters, although not as 

frequently as for humpback whales. Many entanglements observed in U.S. waters may have originated 

in Canadian waters. Unless gear is specifically marked and such marks are documented, it is often 

impossible to determine the origin of the gear. 

5.6 Vessel Interactions 

Wiley et al. (1995) showed that in the mid-Atlantic area (between Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, and Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina), of the stranded humpback whales for which the cause of death was 

determinable, 30% were attributed to ship strikes and 25% to injuries consistent with entanglement in 

fishing gear. This indicates that vessel interactions are having an impact upon whale populations along 

this portion of the coast, as well as in right whale concentration areas. Because most of the whales 

involved in these interactions are juveniles, areas of concentration for young or newborn animals are 

particularly important. This also raises concerns that, with such mortality focused on one age-class of the 

population, future recruitment to the breeding population may be affected. 

Ship strikes have been identified as a significant source of mortality to the Western Atlantic stock of right 

whales (Kraus 1990) and are also known to impact all other endangered whales. Specifically, commercial 

and private vessels may affect humpback, fin, sperm, and right whales. Small vessel traffic also kills or 

injures threatened and endangered sea turtles in the action area. 

The ports of Jacksonville and Port Everglades, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Wilmington, Delaware; 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; and Boston, Massachusetts support some of the 

country’s strongest maritime economies. Commercial shipping traffic in Massachusetts Bay is estimated 

at 1,200 ship crossings per year with an average of 3 per day. About 17 million tons of waterborne cargo 

pass through the Port of Jacksonville, Florida which receives about 1,600 vessels each year moving 

between the U.S. and South America, Europe, and the Caribbean. About 4.8 million tons (short tons) 

103
pass through the Port of Wilmington, Delaware which receives about 400 vessels each year. About 56 

million tons of waterborne cargo passed through the Port of New York in 1998. About 1.3 million tons of 

general cargo, 1.5 million tons of bulk cargo, and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargo pass through the Port 

of Boston, Massachusetts, which receives more than 62 ship calls, 350 container vessels, and 1,700 bulk 

cargo vessels each year. In addition, about 60 cruise vessels sail from the Port of Boston each year. 

(See internet websites for each named port.) 

In southeastern waters, shipping channels associated with Jacksonville and Port Canaveral, Florida, bisect 

the area that contains the most concentrated whale sightings within right whale critical habitat. These 

channels and their approaches serve commercial shipping ports and two military bases. All of these 

channels require periodic maintenance dredging by the Corps of Engineers and, at times, more extensive 

dredging is conducted to support port expansion or to allow for larger military vessels. These commercial 

ports are growing, with the port of Jacksonville, one of the busiest ports on the east coast, undergoing 

major expansion along with several other east coast ports vying for designation as “megaports” to attract 

Panamanian ex-vessel traffic. Expansion of these ports requires section 7 consultations. 

In Massachusetts Bay alone, about 20 whale watch companies comprising 40-50 boats conduct several 

thousand trips from April to September, with the majority of effort in the summer season. More than 280 

commercial vessels fish on Stellwagen Bank. Sportfishing contributes more than 20 vessels per day from 

May to September. In addition, an unknown number of private recreational boaters frequent 

Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. 

It is possible that the combination of these activities may cause sublethal effects to protected species that 

could prevent or slow a species' recovery; such effects are currently unknown. Various initiatives have 

been planned or undertaken to expand or establish high-speed watercraft service in the northwest 

Atlantic, including one service between Bar Harbor, Maine, and Nova Scotia with a vessel operating at 

higher speeds than established watercraft service. The Bar Harbor–Nova Scotia high speed ferry 

conducted its first season of operations in 1998. The operations of these vessels and other high-speed 

craft may adversely affect threatened and endangered whales and sea turtles. NMFS and other member 

agencies of the Northeast Implementation Team for the Recovery of the Northern Right Whale will 

continue to monitor the development of the high-speed vessel industry and its potential threats to listed 

species and critical habitat. Recent whale strikes resulting from interaction with whale watch boats and 

recreational vessels have also been recorded. 

NMFS expects commercial traffic into and out of these ports to continue into the foreseeable future. The 

best scientific and commercial data available provide no specific information on the degree of risk this 

level of commercial traffic poses to endangered whales in the action area, but this level of commercial 

traffic is expected to pose a risk of ship strikes that would continue to kill or seriously injure whales in 

numbers similar to those observed between 1994 and 1999: 1 dead blue whale, 1 dead sei whale, 2 dead 

fin whales, and at least 6 dead right whales. 

5.7 Dredging 

In most areas of the U.S., annual dredging to accommodate commercial shipping occurs in the nearshore 

approaches to most of the major ports. Dredging may pose a threat to whales due to increased vessel 

traffic. This entails dredge vessel movement back and forth between dredging and dumping sites. 

However, these vessels in general are relatively slow moving and, under ESA section 7 consultations 

conducted on various dredging activities, various measures to mitigate this concern have been 

104
implemented, including posting of dedicated whale observers in high whale-use areas and seasons. 

Additionally, dredging may result in increased vessel traffic as deepening and/or widening of ports or 

channels attracts more and larger vessels to use these areas. Dredging is responsible for injury and 

mortality of sea turtles and is the subject of a number of mitigation measures contained in various 

Opinions conducted on these activities. 

5.8 Pollutants, Oil, and Marine Debris 

These factors are described in the environmental baseline and are very difficult to assess and quantify, 

but all would be expected to continue into the foreseeable future. They would be expected to continue to 

contribute to the habitat and physiological stresses on these populations (see NMFS SEFSC, 2001 and 

environmental baseline for more detail). This category of potential effects includes atmospheric loading 

of pollutants such as PCBs, storm water runoff from coastal towns, groundwater discharges, and river 

input and runoff, nutrient loading from land-based sources such as coastal community discharges, 

bioaccumulation of the neurotoxins, oil spills from tankers, illegal discharge of oil and tar from vessels 

discharging bilge water and marine debris that will persist in the action area despite MARPOL 

prohibitions. 

6.0 Integration and Synthesis of Effects 

In the Approach to the Assessment section of this Opinion, it was noted that the jeopardy analysis 

proceeds in three steps: (1) identification of the probable direct and indirect effects of an action on the 

physical, chemical, and biotic environment of the action area; (2) determination of whether there is 

reasonable expectation that threatened or endangered species will experience reductions in reproduction, 

numbers, or distribution in response to these effects; and (3) determination of whether any reductions in a 

species' reproduction, numbers, or distribution (identified in the second step) can be expected to 

appreciably reduce a listed species' likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild. 

The Status of Affected Species, Critical Habitat, and Environmental Baseline section of this Opinion 

discusses the natural and human-related phenomena that caused populations of listed species to become 

threatened or endangered and may continue to place their populations at high risk of extinction. 

The present section of this Opinion examines the physical, chemical, and biotic effects of the fisheries 

associated with the Atlantic HMS FMP to determine (a) if those effects can be expected to reduce the 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of threatened or endangered species in the action area, (b) 

determine if any reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribution would be expected to reduce the 

species’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild, and (c) if a reduction in a species’ likelihood of 

surviving and recovering in the wild would be appreciable. 

6.1. Integration and Synthesis of Effects on Loggerhead Turtles 

The proposed U.S. HMS fisheries can be expected to capture, injure, or kill loggerhead sea turtles. Most 

of the loggerhead turtles that would be harmed incidental to the prosecution of fisheries under the HMS 

FMP would be affected by longline fisheries. Most interactions between the U.S. longline fleet and 

loggerhead and leatherback turtles would continue to occur from the Mid-Atlantic Bight northward 

(NMFS SEFSC 2001), particularly the Northeast Distant statistical area. The highest number of 

interactions would be expected to occur in the 3rd quarter of the year. 

105
Based on previous patterns of interactions between the fishery and sea turtles, the U.S. pelagic longline 

fishery would be expected to capture, on average, about 986 loggerhead turtles annually2

 in the Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean, and Atlantic Ocean. Most of these turtles would be in the pelagic, immature stage of 

their lives. Genetics analyses of 16 loggerhead turtles caught on the Grand Banks indicated that the 

animals shared haplotypes with animals nesting in the southeastern U.S., as well as in Mexico and Greece 

(Encalada et al. 1998 in NMFS SEFSC 2001). Unfortunately, the small sample size makes it difficult to 

determine the proportional contribution of the different nesting aggregations to the loggerhead turtles 

caught in the HMS fisheries. However, if loggerhead turtles caught in the HMS fisheries are captured in 

proportion to their distribution on foraging grounds in the north Atlantic Ocean, then about 71-72% of the 

turtles caught in the longline fishery would be from the South Florida nesting aggregation, 17-19% would 

be from the northern nesting aggregation, and 10-11% would be from the Quintana Roo, Mexico nesting 

aggregation (see Status of the Species section for relative distribution of loggerhead turtles). 

Loggerhead turtles would be expected to be captured through several interactions with longline gear. 

Table 8 below summarizes these based on type of interaction and expected mortality. In Section 

4.4.1.3.1, data from 1992-1999 were averaged, resulting in an annual average estimate of 986 loggerhead 

incidentally taken in the longline fishery. Table 7 and accompanying text in section 4.4.1.3.3 explained the 

percentages expected to be hooked or captured in various ways based on 1999 and 2000 data. Combining 

this information in a calculation with expected percent for mortality based on the interaction type from the 

February 16, 2001 policy memo, provides an estimate of the number of turtles expected to be killed or 

injured annually. The average number of loggerhead turtles that have been estimated as taken incidental 

to the fisheries between 1992 and 1999 (986 loggerheads) is first multiplied by a percent derived from the 

numbers in Table 7 and the result is them multiplied by the percent mortality expected for that category. 

Table 8. Estimates of loggerheads by interaction type. 

Avg. 986 

loggerheads 

taken 

annually 

Observed 

loggerheads 

1999 

Observed 

loggerheads 

2000 

‘99 Annual 

estimate for 

this 

category 

(#turtles) 

‘00 Annual 

estimate for 

this 

category 

(#turtles) 

‘99 Annual 

mortality 

estimate for 

category 

(#turtles) 

‘00 Annual 

mortality 

estimate for 

category 

(#turtles) 

ingested 

(42% mort.) 

10/64(16%) 15/50 (30%) 158 296 66 124 

beak/mouth 

(27% mort.) 

44/64 (69%) * 26/50 (52%) # 680 513 184 138 

beak/mouth 

(42% mort) 

44/64 (69%) * 26/50 (52%) # 680 513 286 215 

* “beak or mouth” category plus 36 from unknown beak or mouth”-these were added in because observer 

comments list 35 of these hook in mouth, 1 hooked in beak. One turtle spit hook which was not included in estimate. 

2

This estimate was derived by dividing the total number of loggerhead turtles that have been estimated as 

taken incidental to the fisheries between 1992 and 1999 by 8 (the number of years used to derive the estimate). See 

discussion of estimated incidental capture rates in section 4.4.1.1. 

106 
#“beak or mouth” category plus 3 from “head or beak” as observer comments show these as hooked in 

beak. 

Two scenarios are given for “beak/ mouth” because data is not exact enough to determine if hooking was in 

the internal soft tissue of mouth –the distinction in the policy memo between 27 and 42%. 

In addition, the DeSoto Canyon, Florida East Coast, and Charleston Bump closures can be expected to

increase the number of turtles captured and injured in this fishery as fishing effort redistributes away

from the closed areas. The combined redistribution of effort model for the combined Gulf of Mexico and

southeast U.S. Atlantic coast areas, not more than a 7% increase in turtle takes could result from a

redistribution in fishing effort, although NMFS considers even this amount of change is unlikely (NMFS

2000a). However, to err on behalf of the species, NMFS uses this estimate in this analysis. The increase

in turtle interactions predicted by the effort redistribution model shows an increase in the number of

loggerhead turtles taken by 69, resulting in 10 mortalities, based on logbook reports and estimates provided

in the FSEIS (NMFS 2000a).

The bottom longline fishery for sharks could capture as many as 207 to 517 turtles each year (Section

4.4.2), killing as many as 40 to 99 turtles. The U.S. shark drift gillnet fishery, which has had inconsistent

observer coverage, can be expected to capture small numbers of loggerhead turtles. Harpoon, handline,

and rod-and-reel fisheries, which have had no observer coverage, can be expected to capture small

numbers of loggerhead turtles over a 5- or 10-year period, although some years may pass with no

interactions at all. A small fraction of the loggerhead turtles captured in these fisheries will be injured,

seriously injured, or killed.

Summary of Effects on Loggerhead Turtles. 

It is reasonable to expect that the proposed Atlantic HMS fisheries (longline, shark drift gillnet, and

redistribution from closures) could capture as many as 1417 pelagic, immature loggerhead turtles in a

year (based on the average of 1999, 2000 data and an average of high and low mortality rates based on

type of hooking interaction) and could kill as many as 381 of them (this is an average estimate based on

only two years data, NMFS would expect the actual number of loggerhead turtles killed in a particular

year to be less than or greater than this estimate). Assuming that some of these turtles would be female,

NMFS would also conclude that these deaths would reduce the species’ reproduction in addition to

reducing their numbers.

Trend information on loggerhead sea turtles indicates that the Florida subpopulation had increased at

about 5% per year from 1978-1990, but this growth rate appears to have slowed to about 4% per year

since 1990 (NMFS SEFSC 2001). Conversely, the northern population of loggerhead turtles is relatively

small and is either stable or declining (TEWG 1998, 2000; NMFS SEFSC 2001). The number of nests in

the northern subpopulation from 1989 to 1998 ranged from 4,370 to 7,887 with a 10-year mean of 6,247

nests. With each female producing an average of 4.1 nests in a nesting season, the average number of

nesters per year in the northern subpopulation was 1,524 (range 1066-1924). The total nesting and

non-nesting female population may be estimated by factoring in an average re-migration rate of 2.5 years

for an average estimate of 3,810 adult females in the northern subpopulation (range 2,665 - 4,810)

(TEWG 1998, 2000). 

Over the long term (for example, the amount of time it would take for a hatchling born this year to recruit

into the adult population) capturing and killing this many loggerheads given those nester numbers would be

expected to appreciably reduce the loggerhead sea turtles’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the

107
wild, particularly given the status and trend of loggerhead turtle populations in the Atlantic basin. When

added to the number of sea turtles that are injured or killed through other human activities, including other

federal and state fisheries, these injuries and mortalities would be expected to have population-level

effects. When considered cumulatively, the annual death or injury of these numbers of turtles would be

even more significant: in the time if would take for a hatchling to recruit into the adult population (about 25

years), the fisheries would be expected to injure more than 21,000 loggerhead turtles, killing more than

9,000 of them. 

Removing these numbers of pelagic, immature loggerhead turtles from nesting populations would be

expected to appreciably reduce the population’s growth rate. This would be particularly true for the

northern nesting subpopulation. NMFS’ SEFSC (2001) modeled the effects of changes in the survival

rates of pelagic juvenile loggerhead turtles on population trajectories. Based on these models, decreases

in pelagic juvenile survival reduce or negate the benefits of increased survival of small, benthic loggerhead

turtles (which is being achieved using turtle exclusion devices); if the survival rates of a population’s

pelagic, immature loggerheads decreased by 10%, the population would decline (NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

This would appreciably diminish this population’s likelihood of surviving in the wild, although it is

impossible to quantify the magnitude of this effect. Given the size of loggerhead turtle populations in the

western Atlantic Ocean, particularly the northern subpopulation, and the effects of other fisheries and

sources of mortalities on the various nesting aggregations, this would appreciably reduce the population’s

size and reproductive capacity in a way that would be expected to appreciably decrease this population’s

likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild.

6.2. Integration and Synthesis of Effects on Leatherback Turtles 

Based on past patterns, the proposed U.S. HMS fisheries can be expected to capture, injure, or kill 

leatherback sea turtles. Most of the leatherback turtles that would be harmed incidental to the 

prosecution of fisheries under the HMS FMP would be affected by longline fisheries. The highest 

numbers of leatherbacks taken in HMS fisheries would occur in the fall in the pelagic longline component 

in the Northeast Distant, although substantial numbers of leatherback turtles are captured in the MidAtlantic Bight, Northeast Coastal, and the Gulf of Mexico statistical areas. 

Based on data from previous interactions between the U.S. pelagic longline fishery and sea turtles, the 

fishery would be expected to capture an average of 796 leatherback turtles annually3

. Leatherback turtles 

captured or killed in the longline fishery off the northeastern U.S. would probably have carapace lengths 

less than 100 cm, while those captured or killed off the southeast U.S., the Gulf of Mexico, and the 

Caribbean could be any length. 

The greatest percentage of these leatherback turtles would be hooked in their flippers, head, neck, 

carapace, or plastron (38%) with smaller percentages hooked in beak or mouth (20%) (See Table 9). In 

addition, the DeSoto Canyon, Florida East Coast and Charleston Bump closures can be expected to 

increase the number of turtles captured and injured in this fishery if fishing effort redistributes away from 

3 This estimate was derived by dividing the total number of leatherback turtles that have been 

estimated as taken incidental to the fisheries between 1992 and 1999 and dividing that value by 8 

(the number of years used to derive the estimate). See section 4.4.1.1 for estimated incidental 

capture rates. 

108 
the closed areas. Under the combined redistribution of effort model, a 7% increase in leatherback turtle 

takes could occur. That increase could be a high as 56 turtles annually with 4 mortalities. 

The bottom longline fishery for sharks could capture about 13 to 34 leatherback turtles each year. No 

leatherback turtle takes have been recorded in the tuna purse seine fishery, the harpoon fishery, or other 

hand gear fisheries. Rod-and-reel fisheries, in general, rarely interact with leatherbacks, and no such 

interactions have specifically been documented in HMS fisheries. 

It is reasonable to expect that HMS Fisheries combined could capture as many as 875 leatherback turtles 

annually, killing as many as 183 of them (based on the average of 1999, 2000 data and an average of high 

and low mortality rates based on type of hooking interaction--these are average estimates--NMFS would 

expect the actual number of leatherback turtles killed in a particular year to be less than or greater than 

this estimate). Assuming that some of these turtles would be female, NMFS would also conclude that 

these deaths would reduce the species’ reproduction in addition to reducing their numbers. 

The largest known nesting aggregation of the leatherback turtles in the western North Atlantic Ocean 

occurs in French Guiana (NMFS SEFSC 2001). This may be the largest nesting aggregation of 

leatherback turtles in the world and has been declining at about 15% per year since 1987. From 1979 to 

1986, the number of nests in this aggregation increased at about 15% annually. The number of nests in 

Florida and the U.S. Caribbean has been increasing at about 10.3% and 7.5%, respectively, per year since 

the early 1980s but the magnitude of nesting is much smaller than that along the French Guiana coast. 

Given that Atlantic Ocean subpopulations exhibit the same life history characteristics and that longline 

fisheries are not likely to discriminate between subpopulations, then it is expected that if longline fishing 

were causing the declines in French Guiana, declines would be measured in other nesting subpopulations. 

While the longline fishery, both U.S. and foreign, and the U.S. shrimp trawl fishery may not be the 

immediate cause in declines in nesting in French Guiana, the number of leatherback turtles captured and 

killed in these fisheries would be expected to contribute to these declines. 

In addition, the mortality rate of adult, female leatherback turtles has increased over the past ten years, 

decreasing the number of nesting females. Any mortalities in the U.S. longline fishing would be expected 

to have the same effects on all leatherback turtle nesting aggregations in the western North Atlantic 

Ocean, regardless of the beach or origin (NMFS SEFSC 2001). 

Table 9. Estimates of leatherbacks by interaction type. 

Avg. 796 

leatherback 

s taken 

annually 

Observed 

leatherback 

s 

1999 

Observed 

leatherbacks 

2000 

‘99 Annual 

estimate for 

this 

category 

(#turtles) 

‘00 Annual 

estimate for 

this 

category 

(#turtles) 

‘99 Annual 

mortality 

estimate for 

category 

(#turtles) 

‘00 Annual 

mortality 

estimate for 

category 

(#turtles) 

external * 

(27% mort.) 

17/45 (38%) 21/32 (66%) 302 525 82 142 

beak/mouth 

(27% mort.) 

9/45(20%) # 4/32 (12%) 159 96 43 26 

beak/mouth 

(42% mort) 

9/45 (20%) # 4/32(12%) 159 96 67 40 

* includes flipper, head or neck (ext) carapace or plastron 

109 
# includes 1 from beak or mouth plus 8 from “unknown beak or mouth” as observer form comments showed one spit hook. 

Therefore, killing as many as 183 of leatherback sea turtles in HMS fisheries could be contributing to 

declines in leatherback turtle populations in the western Atlantic Ocean. The cumulative, long-term 

effects of these losses over the time it would take the survivors of the current (2001) cohort of eggs to 

recruit into the adult, breeding population (approximately 9 years) would mean that up to1647 leatherback 

turtles could be killed in interactions with the HMS fisheries during this period. Additionally, absolute 

populations are relatively small. Spotila et al. (1996) have estimated the French Guiana/Suriname nesting 

female population at 5,100- 9,500 per year; and Caribbean populations at 1,400 to 1,800 nesters per year. 

Over the long term (for example, the amount of time it would take for a hatchling born this year to recruit 

into the adult population) these injuries and mortalities would be expected to appreciably reduce the 

leatherback sea turtles’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild, particularly given the status and 

trend of leatherback turtle populations in the Atlantic basin. In the time if would take for a hatchling to 

recruit into the adult population (about 9 years), the fisheries would be expected to injure more than 4,437 

leatherback turtles, killing more than 1,600 of them. Removing these numbers of leatherback turtles from 

declining populations would be expected to appreciably reduce the population’s growth rate, which would, 

in turn, reduce the population’s ability to recover from decline. This would appreciably diminish this 

population’s likelihood of surviving in the wild, although it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of this 

effect. Given the trend of leatherback turtle populations in the western Atlantic Ocean and the effects of 

other fisheries and sources of mortalities on the various nesting aggregations, this would appreciably 

reduce the population’s size and reproductive capacity in a way that would be expected to appreciably 

increase this population’s risk of extinction. 

6.3. Integration and Synthesis of Effects on Other Sea Turtles 

Most reports of green, Kemp’s ridley, or hawksbill turtles being captured or killed in the pelagic longline 

fishery are probably misidentifications (Witzell 1999), so it is difficult to assess the effects of this fishery 

on these turtle species. While some of these species may be captured or killed in the pelagic longline 

fisheries, their numbers appear to be very small. We would not expect more than 35 individuals of these 

species to be captured in the proposed HMS fisheries in a given year. 

NMFS has no reports of Kemp’s ridley or green turtles being captured in any other Atlantic HMS 

fisheries; although, one hawksbill turtle was captured in the shark drift gillnet fishery in March 2001. 

These species have been captured in rod-and-reel fisheries, but not those associated with species covered 

by the HMS FMP. Because so few of these species are captured in the HMS fisheries, we do not 

believe the fisheries would be expected to reduce their reproduction, numbers, or distribution. Therefore, 

the HMS fisheries would not be expected to appreciably reduce their likelihood of surviving and 

recovering in the wild. 

6.4 Integration and Synthesis of Effects on Whales 

The information available at this time indicates that pelagic longline interactions with large whales are rare 

and, to date, no serious injuries or mortalities of large whales have been recorded. Areas of large whale 

concentration do not generally coincide with HMS fishing areas, particularly the more coastally-distributed 

right and humpback whales. Fin and sperm whales are rarely involved in entanglements. If HMS 

closures redistributed fishing effort into areas that are not currently fished, this could be a cause for 

concern. However, this is not likely to occur, especially in the case of right whales, because to differing 

110
habitat preferences between these whales and the fish species targeted by HMS fisheries. The shark 

gillnet fishery does have potential for interaction, but NMFS believes that the existing provisions of the 

ALWTRP minimize this potential to the point of only a very remote possibility. 

Because interactions between vessels and gear involved in HMS fisheries and threatened and endangered 

whales are rare, NMFS does not expect the proposed fisheries would reduce the reproduction, numbers, 

or distribution of threatened or endangered whale species in the action area. Because the proposed HMS 

fisheries would not be expected to reduce the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of listed whales, the 

fisheries would not be expected to reduce the whales’ likelihood of surviving or recovering in the wild. 

6.5. Right Whale Critical Habitat 

Actions that may adversely affect the value of designated critical habitat for the northern right whale are 

evaluated separately in biological opinions, regardless of whether right whales are present within the 

critical habitat when the adverse effects occur. The proposed HMS fisheries may diminish the value of 

the critical habitat that has been designated for the northern right whale in two ways: (a) the distribution 

and relative abundance of gear associated with the proposed fisheries may diminish the value of critical 

habitat by increasing the risk of entanglements and mortalities and (b) the fishery may diminish the value 

of designated critical habitat by reducing the availability of right whale prey within critical habitat. 

However, as right whales feed primarily on copepods, the latter is highly unlikely. 

The areas designated as critical habitat for right whales in the Northeast (including portions of Cape Cod 

Bay, Stellwagen Bank, and the Great South Channel) are not currently frequented by participants in HMS 

fisheries. As discussed above, the Atlantic Offshore Take Reduction Team recommended closure of 

right whale critical habitat areas to pelagic driftnet and longline gear, to prevent future expansion of effort 

into these currently unfished areas. NMFS has partially addressed this recommendation by prohibiting 

pelagic driftnet as an allowable gear-type in swordfish and tuna fisheries. Because there is currently little 

or no overlap between right whales and HMS fisheries in these northeast critical habitat areas, no effect 

is expected. 

The area designated as critical habitat for right whales in the Southeast overlaps with the area in which 

the Southeast U.S. shark drift gillnet fishery is prosecuted. Concern regarding increased risk of 

entanglement and mortality was addressed in the HMS FMP, minimizing the likelihood that the fishery will 

appreciably diminish the value of designated critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the 

northern right whale, by implementing the shark fishery time-area closure and the 100% observer 

requirement of the May 27, 1997, Opinion (or VMS alternative provided under the June 30, 2000, 

Opinion). This assumes that the risk of the fishery co-occurring with right whales is greatly diminished, 

and that the presence of observers (when and where the fishery is allowed to operate) will both help to 

avoid an entanglement, as well as ensure that disentanglement experts are contacted immediately in the 

unlikely event that any right whales are entangled. Because this 100% observer requirement was not 

fully implemented in 1999, combining a lower level of observer coverage with VMS monitoring would 

ensure compliance with the closed areas when observers are unavailable, as well as provide insurance 

that all shark gillnet effort in the area is monitored. Monitoring compliance with the closure provision via 

VMS and, other than lower-level observer coverage for monitoring purposes, requiring observers only on 

those vessels electing to fish with strike nets in the closure area would still ensure that the primary calving 

area is free of shark gillnet gear except when used in strike fashion using spotter planes and in the 

presence of observers who would still be able to ensure disentanglement experts would be contacted in 

111
the unlikely event of an entanglement. No fishermen so far have elected to fish in the closed area with 

the strike (i.e., run-around gillnet) method. 

The Florida East Coast and Charleston Bump longline closures off the southeastern U.S. encompass the 

southeastern right whale critical habitat and surrounding areas where right whales have been sighted 

during the winter calving season; therefore, this action will further lessen the potential for entanglement 

risk of longline gear to right whales or overwintering humpbacks. 

The availability of right whale prey (copepods) is not a concern in the Southeast and copepod abundance 

would not be expected to be affected by the HMS fisheries. Also, right whales do not feed extensively 

while on the southern end of their migratory cycle. Thus, the HMS fisheries are not expected to 

appreciably diminish the value of designated critical habitat by reducing the availability of right whale prey 

within critical habitat. 

7.0 Conclusion 

After reviewing the current status of the northern right whale, the humpback, fin and sperm whales, and 

leatherback, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, the environmental baseline for 

the action area, the effects of the continued operation of the fisheries managed under the Atlantic HMS 

FMP, the record of compliance with requirements of previous Opinions on HMS fisheries, and probable 

cumulative effects, it is NMFS’ biological opinion that: 

(1) continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the leatherback sea turtle and the loggerhead sea turtle; and 

(2) continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery may affect, but is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, sperm whale, 

or Kemp’s ridley, green, or hawksbill sea turtle; and 

(3) continued operation of the Southeast drift gillnet fishery for sharks, the bottom longline fishery, the 

purse seine fishery, and the harpoon, hand gear, rod and reel, etc. fisheries in the Atlantic may 

adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale, 

humpback, fin, or sperm whales, or Kemp’s ridley, green, loggerhead, hawksbill or leatherback 

sea turtles; and 

(4) components of the Atlantic HMS fisheries are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat designated for the right whale. 

8.0 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

This Opinion has concluded that the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fisheries for Swordfish, Tuna, and Shark, in 

the U.S. Atlantic, as proposed, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles. The clause “jeopardize the continued existence of” means “to engage in an 

action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of 

both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or 

distribution of that species” (50 CFR §402.02). 

Regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR §402.02) define reasonable and prudent 

alternatives (RPAs) as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that: (1) can be 

implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) can be implemented 

consistent with the scope of the action agency's legal authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and 

112
technologically feasible; and (4) would, NMFS believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued 

existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

This biological opinion concluded that fisheries prosecuted under the HMS FMP, particularly the pelagic 

longline fishery, are likely to jeopardize loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. To address the adverse 

effects to loggerhead and leatherback populations, NMFS must undertake management measures and 

other conservation measures, as necessary, to reduce both the number of loggerhead and leatherbacks 

that are incidentally captured, injured or killed in pelagic longline fisheries and the expected impacts from 

such fisheries to an extent that the likelihood of jeopardy is avoided and authorization of longline fishing 

activities prosecuted under the HMS Atlantic FMP can continue. The following describes the context and 

considerations upon which NMFS developed an RPA to avoid jeopardy for loggerhead and leatherback 

turtles as a result of the continued operation of the HMS Atlantic longline fishery. 

Throughout this Opinion, NMFS has recognized that threatened and endangered sea turtles face a risk of 

global extinction because of a wide array of human activities and natural phenomena. NMFS also 

recognizes that other human activities and natural phenomena, such as the number of turtles killed by 

foreign fleets, pose a much larger and more serious threat to the survival and recovery of sea turtles than 

U.S. HMS fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean. Further, this Opinion recognizes that sea turtles will not 

recover without addressing the full range of human activities and natural phenomena that could cause 

these animals to become extinct in the foreseeable future. 

The best method of reducing the numbers of sea turtles captured, injured, or killed in the U.S. HMS 

fisheries may be area closures where interaction rates are highest. In their review of existing data, 

NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center analyzed the effectiveness of targeted, small area closures 

for reducing the number of sea turtle captured by the U.S. fleet concluded that only comprehensive, large 

area closures would be effective (NMFS SEFSC 2001). However, implementing area closures could 

increase the number of turtles captured and killed in longline fisheries in the north Atlantic Ocean. The 

majority of turtles captures by the U.S. fleet occur in high sea areas that can also be fished by foreign 

vessels. Other fishing nations are not likely to adopt area closures imposed by NMFS and NMFS has no 

legal authority and limited leverage to compel other nations to implement closures. As a result, the tuna 

and swordfish quota that is not caught by U.S. vessels might be reassigned to another ICCAT country, 

which would increase the effort of foreign vessels in areas closed to the American fleet which could 

increase the number of turtles captured and killed in the fishery. Nonetheless, closure of a large area to 

HMS fisheries immediately eliminates the bycatch attributable to those vessels, and allows those individual 

turtles the chance to survive to adulthood and reproduce. 

To prevent these potential negative effects of management measures that only affect U.S. longline 

vessels, NMFS must develop and implement additional measures that can be also implemented by the 

large, foreign fleets that fish the North Atlantic Ocean. Fishing tactics and modified gear configurations – 

technical solutions – that allow longline vessels from all fleets to continue to catch target species 

effectively are likely to be "exportable" solutions. The situation with TEDs in shrimp fisheries is an 

excellent model for the development and export of technical bycatch reduction measures. Since the 

development of TEDs and their required use in domestic shrimp fisheries, NMFS has transferred TED 

technology to other shrimping nations in the Atlantic and around the world. 

8.1. Reductions in the Mortality of Pelagic Juvenile Turtles in the Atlantic Basin that are 

Required to Recover the Species 

113
Analyses of sea turtle populations in the Atlantic Ocean, NMFS’ SEFSC concluded that an increase in

pelagic juvenile survival of 10%, throughout the Atlantic Basin, would be necessary to move population

trajectories from approximately stable to increasing or from declining to approximately stable. To achieve

a 10% increase in annual survival, these analyses concluded that annual mortalities must be decreased

correspondingly (for more detailed information on derivation of this value refer to the bar graphs in the

NMFS SEFSC (2001) document in Part III, Chapter 6 , Figures 4 and 16, that graphically illustrate the

modeling results). Under the most optimistic scenario (that does not consider future effects of TED reg

changes), the population is projected to decline or remain stable when the juvenile survival is not increased

above the base case that assumes a stable population distribution. 

Annual mortality, however, can be considered to have two components: natural mortality, which cannot be

changed, and anthropogenic mortality, which can be affected by management actions. The SEFSC

models can be used to determine the total pelagic juvenile annual mortality rates, but the proportion of

natural vs. anthropogenic mortality in the pelagic stage has not been studied. In the coastal environment,

however, the SEFSC report has estimated the total annual mortality affecting benthic stage loggerheads is

reduced 30% by the use of TEDs in the shrimp fishery. Since shrimping is the single largest source of

anthropogenic mortality in the coastal environment, it appears that a reasonable estimate of the proportion

of natural to anthropogenic mortality for benthic stage turtles would be 70:30. 

As far as the level of impact of longline fishing, Atlantic ocean-basin wide, on pelagic loggerheads, it is

similar to the shrimp scenario in that longline fishing is probably the single largest source of mortality

impacting this life stage. Because it is on a similar order of magnitude with the level of impact of coastal

shrimp trawling on benthic stages, based on the qualitative comparison that each is the largest industrial

fishery in terms of effort in the turtles’ pelagic and benthic habitats, respectively, and each is the largest

source of anthropogenic turtle captures in the pelagic and benthic environments, 30% is a reasonable

estimate in both cases. Using this estimate, the levels of decrease in anthropogenic, pelagic mortality that

must be achieved to increase total pelagic survival by 10% were calculated for various model scenarios

and are displayed in Table 10.

Th data in Table 10 are based on growth models 3 and 4 as models 1 and 2 were not considered

appropriate. Growth models 3 and 4 are based on a new growth curve for benthic loggerheads that better

represents the overall loggerhead growth rates for the southeast U.S. (a combination of both the southern

and northern nesting populations) than the growth curves used in other models. Model 3 assumes that

animals in the model recruit to the next growth stage at the minimum-size-to-stage (more rapid growth). 

Model 4 assumes that animals in the model recruit to the next growth stage at the average-size-to-stage

(less rapid growth). Both models incorporate the best new information. Model 4 may be more

representative of the northern nesting population which likely has slower individual growth

rates than the southern population. Within these models, pelagic juvenile survival was calculated,

assuming a stable population distribution as the base case. 

Models 1 and 2 used the annual stage survival rates from Frazer (1987) with assumptions of minimum size

to stage and average size to stage, respectively. When the pelagic immature survival rate was solved for

in Model 2, it produced an impossible result. NMFS SEFSC (2001) did not carry forward any further

analysis of Model 2 in its assessment of the impact of pelagic longline fishery on loggerhead sea turtles. 

For model 1, the growth curve on which it is based had a relatively poor fit with the observed size

structure of stranded sea turtles and also did not match well with other published growth curves for

loggerheads. Therefore, models 3 and 4 are the best choice for consideration of magnitude of basinwide

change in anthropogenic mortality needed to effect an overall change in population trajectory.

114
Table 10: Change in Anthropogenic Mortality of Pelagic Juvenile Loggerheads Required to Increase their 

Survival by 10% 

Pelagic Survival Increase from 

0% to +10% 

Pelagic Survival Increase from 

-10% to 0% 

Model 3, lambda = 0.97* -52% -45% 

Model 4, lambda = 0.97 -68% -56% 

* Survival rates for the various model scenarios extracted from Snover (pers. comm.). Lambda is the population growth rate per 

unit of time; when a population’s lambda is 0.97, it is declining by about 3.0% per unit of time. 

The main point of this discussion is that while the 10% reduction is a basin wide target, the models 

illustrate that a reduction in mortality of the life stage most affected by the U.S. longline fishery, the 

pelagic juvenile stage, must be achieved to reach recovery goals. The selection of an appropriate target 

specific to the longline fishery in isolation could not be quantified by the NMFS SEFSC (2001). The 

selection of management actions based on this target and ESA guidance is described in the next section 

8.1.2. Selection of Management Targets for the RPA to Reduce the Bycatch of Sea Turtles 

NMFS has analyzed observer data associated with the pelagic longline fisheries prosecuted under the 

HMS FMP to identify patterns that could be changed to avoid the adverse effects that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback turtles through the continued operation 

of the pelagic longline fishery. Management actions should first try to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of 

interactions between the fishery and sea turtles. For those interactions that cannot be avoided, 

management actions should reduce the likelihood of sea turtles being injured or killed during or as a result 

of the interaction. These reductions must be made so that this fishery is no longer appreciably reducing 

the likelihood of survival and recovery of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. The best available 

scientific information shows that a 55% reduction in anthropogenic mortality of pelagic juvenile 

loggerheads is necessary to remove the appreciable effect of this fishery on sustainability and recovery of 

Atlantic loggerheads, taking into account reductions already being made on the other major source of 

mortality to loggerheads that impacts benthic life stages, the shrimp fishery. The reduction in 

anthropogenic mortality needed for leatherbacks could not be quantified. 

8.2 Specific Elements of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

To comply with its obligation to remove jeopardy, NMFS must take action to reduce the impacts of the 

U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery on loggerhead and leatherback turtles. As previously discussed, the 

ESA requires that any RPA must remove the jeopardy posed to leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles by 

the operation of the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet. Alternatives that ensure that the proposed pelagic 

longline fisheries prosecuted under the Atlantic HMS FMP are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species might not ensure that these species will recover in the wild and may not 

prevent other human activities from causing their ultimate extinction. The RPA is designed to reduce the 

effects of the pelagic longline fisheries, associated with the HMS FMP only, to such a degree that the 

effects are not likely to appreciably reduce these turtles’ likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild. 

What follows is a single RPA, consisting of several sub-elements, that must be implemented in its entirety 

to avoid jeopardizing listed species. 

115
8.2.1. Closure of the NED Area to U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishing 

NMFS must commence rulemaking immediately upon issuance of this opinion to promulgate regulations 

that close the entire NED area to fishing with pelagic longline gear for U.S. vessels. These regulations 

must become effective no later than July 15, 2001. 

The largest number of interactions between the fishery and sea turtles occur in the Northeast Distant and 

Northeast Coastal geographical areas. This first element of the alternative eliminates potential 

interactions between the fishery and sea turtles by closing the area with the greatest impacts, the 

Northeast Distant geographical area to vessels using pelagic longline gear. Based on estimates from 1999 

observer data, this closure would reduce the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles captured in the 

fishery by 51 % and 49%, respectively, each year (NMFS SEFSC, 2001; Yeung et al., 2000). Based on 

logbook data from 1997-1999, this closure would reduce the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles 

captured in this fishery by 76% and 65%, respectively, assuming no redistribution of the fishing effort 

displaced out of the NED. If that fishing effort redistributes randomly across the remaining open areas, 

the number of loggerhead turtles captured by the fishery would be reduced by 75%; the number of 

leatherback turtles captured by the fishery would be reduced by 63% based on logbook data. Even 

assuming that all of the fishing effort that occurred in the NED area shifts into the area with one of the 

third highest bycatch rates, the Northeast Coastal area, the number of takes per year would still be 

reduced by 67 % for loggerheads and 58% for leatherbacks, based on the logbook data (K. BrewsterGeisz, pers. comm.). The reduction in takes in the nED, in conjunction with the expected reduction in 

takes resulting from the RPAs addressing gear modifications, approaches the estimated levels of 

reduction needed throughout the basin, and thus work even when applied to the HMS fisheries alone. This 

approaches the levels needed throughout the basin and, therefore, would be expected to work when 

applied to the HMS fisheries alone. In other words, if you use Table 10 as the basis for change in 

anthropogenic mortality of pelagic juvenile loggerheads required to increase their survival by 10%, the 

level identified by the NMFS SEFSC (2001) analysis as needed to change the population trajectory, the 

average of the 2 models is 55%. However, as noted above m, the relationship is not a linear one. 

Therefore, as the jeopardy conclusion was made on continued operation of this fishery over 25 years, 

decreasing mortality in this fishery annually by that amount would mean that there was no longer an 

appreciable reduction in survival and recovery of loggerhead sea turtles from this action in the long term. 

Smaller time area closures are not sufficient in the long term because of annual variation in distribution of 

both turtles and fishing operations. As gear developments or dynamic management alternatives become 

available, the necessity for a large closure could change. 

Subsequent elements of the following reasonable and prudent alternative supplement this closure by 

reducing the catch rate and the number of sea turtles that are injured or killed during or as a result of 

interactions with the proposed HMS fisheries. In combination, this reasonable and prudent alternative 

should reduce the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles captured and killed in this fishery to levels 

that would decrease the contribution of these fisheries to reductions in the likelihood that these sea turtles 

will survive and recover in the wild 

8.2.2. Gear Modifications outside the NED Area 

8.2.2.1. Restrictions on hook attachment relative to floatlines on pelagic 

longline gear 

116
NMFS must commence rulemaking immediately upon issuance of this opinion to promulgate final 

regulations in the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet that prohibit the setting of gangions adjacent to floatlines. 

These regulations must be published no later than July 15, 2001, with a delayed effective date of August 1, 

2001. Specifically, gangions may not be attached next to floatlines nor to the mainline except at a distance 

from the attachment point of the floatline to the mainline, along the mainline, of twice the length of the 

average gangion length in the set. The primary purpose of this measure is to decrease the potential for 

turtles to become hooked. 

Hooks that are beneath or adjacent to floatlines have a much higher sea turtle catch rate than hooks one 

or more positions away from the floatline (Kleiber 2001, NMFS SWFSC, unpubl. report). In observer 

data from the Hawaii fleet, hooks nearest the floatline caught 45% of all loggerheads, but only 

represented 19% of the hooks fished on sets that caught loggerheads. Hooks nearest the floatline caught 

49% of all leatherbacks, but only represented 17% of the hooks fished on sets that caught leatherbacks. 

Eliminating hooks in this position could, theoretically, reduce takes of leatherbacks and loggerheads by as 

much as 49% and 45%, respectively. Such a result is unlikely, however, as turtles might still be caught on 

the hooks set farther from the floatline. The hook nearest the floatline is 2 to 2.4 times more likely to 

catch sea turtles than the hook one position from the floatline. That hook, in turn, is 5.7 to 7 times more 

likely to catch sea turtles than the hooks two or more positions from the floatline. If we assume that 

fishermen keep the number of hooks in a set constant after removing the hook adjacent to the floatline 

(i.e. effort remains constant) and if the gear is configured so that the shift in effort is into more hooks one 

position from the floatline, which have a higher turtle catch rate, the catch efficiency of those hooks is still 

half or less of the hooks adjacent to the floatline. Therefore, NMFS believes it is reasonable to expect 

that the effect of prohibiting gangions adjacent to floatlines would be a reduction in turtle captures by 

around 20%. The 45% of loggerheads and 49% of leatherbacks that were formerly captured on the hook 

adjacent to the floatline may still be available for capture on nearby hooks, but those hooks are less than 

half as efficient, so half of those turtles would still be reasonably expected to escape, yielding a 

mathematical capture reduction of 22% for loggerheads and 24% for leatherbacks. 

8.2.2.2. Restriction on gangion length in shallow pelagic longline sets 

NMFS must commence rulemaking immediately upon issuance of this opinion to promulgate final 

regulations in the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet that require that, in shallow longline sets, the length of the 

gangion be greater than the length of the floatline. This must be published no later than July 15, 2001, with 

a delayed effective date of August 1, 2001. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that hooked turtles 

have sufficient slack line to be able to reach the surface and avoid drowning. Specifically, for longline 

sets in which the combined length of the floatline plus the gangion is 100 meters or less, the length of the 

gangion must be at least 110% the length of the floatline. The purpose of this measure is to prevent injury 

and mortality to turtles that become hooked No quantitative estimate of this measure can be made a this 

time. 

8.2.2.3. Requirement to use corrodible hooks and crimps 

By August 1, 2001, NMFS must identify criteria for, and assess the commercial availability of, corrodible 

hooks and crimps that are the most effective at reducing post-hooking injury. NMFS believes it is likely 

that some currently commercially-available gear will have desirable corrosion characteristics for both 

effective fishing and eventual dissolution and expulsion by hooked turtles. By December 31, 2001, NMFS 

must promulgate final regulations that require participants in pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic to use 

only corrodible hooks and crimps determined to be effective at reducing impacts to turtles. If no 

117
commercial hooks or crimps are identified that meet the criteria, then NMFS must begin development of 

such hooks and crimps and implement regulations to require their use no later than March 1, 2002. This 

measure should substantially improve the survival of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles that are 

hooked, when external hooks cannot be removed or when hooks are deeply taken and no attempts to 

remove the hook can be made. 

8.2.3. Implementation of Additional Gear Modifications or Fishing Practices and Reopening of the NED Area 

Recognizing that the U.S. domestic longline fisheries are a small segment of the total amount of longline 

fishing that occurs in the Atlantic Ocean, NMFS believes that research to develop or modify gear 

technologies and fishing strategies to reduce capture rates of sea turtles throughout the Atlantic Ocean 

would improve the status of sea turtles. Developing gear technologies or fishing strategies that are 

capable of significantly reducing the likelihood of capturing turtles or dramatically reducing the immediate 

or delayed mortality rates of captured turtles are needed to minimize the effects of domestic and 

international longline fishing vessels. In order to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery of sea 

turtle populations in the Atlantic Ocean, NMFS shall work with federal and non-federal researchers to 

develop innovative strategies and measures to diminish the adverse effects of commercial fishing 

operations on sea turtle species. By developing new technologies, NMFS will be in a better position to 

develop and cultivate open and collaborative dialogue and action within the international fishing community 

to improve the status of listed sea turtles throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Improving the status of listed 

sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean would reduce the effect of the U.S. HMS fisheries on these species. 

In order to achieve this goal, NMFS shall conduct experiments as necessary and appropriate to modify 

existing gear to (1) reduce the likelihood of interactions between fishing gear and sea turtles and (2) 

dramatically reduce immediate and delayed mortality rates of turtles captured in the fisheries (e.g., visual 

or acoustic cues, dyed bait, hook type). Research funded or implemented by NMFS must receive a 

research and enhancement permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(a) of the ESA. NMFS shall conduct 

section 7 analyses on the issuance of any such permits. The goal of any research shall be to use robust 

experimental assessments to develop technologies or methods that would achieve the goals outlined in the 

preceding paragraph and remain economically and technically feasible for fishermen to implement. 

Upon completion of the aforementioned research and its final analysis, NMFS Highly Migratory Species 

Division must promptly conduct a rulemaking to require the adoption of complementary bycatch reduction 

measures that, in concert with the bycatch reduction measures required by this Opinion and the June 30, 

2000, Opinion, have been shown to achieve overall sea turtle mortality reductions of at least 55%. This 

rulemaking must be completed before pelagic longline vessels are allowed to fish within the NED area, 

other than as participants in permitted scientific research. 

9.0 Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the ESA and protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of 

endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. Take is defined as to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of 

an otherwise lawful activity. 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 taking under 

118
the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the reasonable and prudent measures and terms 

and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement. 

Section 7(b)(4)(c) of the ESA specifies that in order to provide an incidental take statement for an 

endangered or threatened species of marine mammal, the taking must be authorized under section 

101(a)(5) of the MMPA. Since no incidental take of listed marine mammals is expected or has been 

authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, no statement on incidental take of endangered whales 

is provided and no take is authorized. Nevertheless, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF) must 

immediately (within 24 hours, if communication is possible) notify the NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources (F/PR) should a take of an endangered whale occur. 

9.1 Amount or extent of take 

NMFS believes that the following levels of incidental take may be expected to occur as a result of the 

proposed action and the implementation of the RPA. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their 

implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might 

otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take 

is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and 

review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. F/SF must immediately provide an explanation 

of the causes of the taking and review with F/PR the need for possible modification of the reasonable and 

prudent measures. 

As noted previously, the number of green and Kemp's ridley that Scott and Brown (1997) and Johnson et 

al. (1999) estimated to have been taken in the fishery probably resulted from misidentifications (Hoey 

1998, Witzell 1999). It also is likely that the hawksbill reported in Yeung (1999) was misidentified 

(Witzell, pers. comm.). In subsequent years, sampling must confirm which species are caught by the 

fishery (see Terms and Conditions 4(a)) and be addressed in the analysis. 

9.1.1. Pelagic Longline Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna, and Shark 

Sea turtles that may be taken as the result of the experimental fishery or supplemental research activities 

to develop bycatch reduction techniques in U.S. waters or aboard U.S. fishing vessels are not considered 

in this incidental take statement. For sea turtle research under U.S. jurisdiction (and including the high 

seas) that would require an ESA Section 10(a)(1)(a) permit, a separate incidental take statement 

specifically developed for that permit would govern. For overseas activities in waters of foreign nations, 

the requirements of the ESA would not apply. 

The implementation of the closed areas at DeSoto Canyon, Florida East Coast, and the Charleston Bump 

were previously estimated, based on logbook data, to increase sea turtle takes by about 7% because of 

effort redistribution. Under the RPA, however, effort redistribution into the NED Area, with its high 

bycatch rates, is prevented by the closure in the RPA. If the effort that is displaced out of the HMS 

closed areas randomly redistributes across all other available fishing areas, the increase in sea turtle 

bycatch is reduced to 5% (Sutter, pers. comm., 2001). The estimates of Yeung et al. (2000) for 1999, 

increased by 5%, would translate to 503 loggerheads and 546 leatherbacks captured outside the NED 

Area. The RPA also contains an element that is expected to reduce sea turtle bycatch by around 20% 

(see RPA 3 for further discussion). The specified annual anticipated take is based upon these closures as 

well as the anticipated reduction from the RPA gear modifications. In this Opinion, the impacts from post 

hooking mortality were assessed as a proportion of the total estimated take ranging from 27 - 42%, 

119
depending on the location of the hook. Pelagic longline vessels will be monitored through observers at

coverage levels that should produce relatively robust sea turtle bycatch estimates. The anticipated

incidental take levels for the pelagic longline fishery are:

Leatherback sea turtles – 438 turtles estimated captured per calendar year,

Loggerhead sea turtles – 402 turtles estimated captured per calendar year

Green, Hawksbill, and 

Kemp's ridley turtles (combined) – 35 turtles estimated captured per calendar year

9.1.2 Remaining HMS Fisheries 

The recent HMS management measures and the RPA affect only the pelagic longline portion of the HMS 

fisheries, so the levels of incidental take that were anticipated in previous Opinions on HMS fisheries are 

not expected to change as the result of management measures. Therefore, anticipated levels of incidental 

take for other HMS fisheries generally remain unaltered (as listed below). New information from the 

shark drift gillnet observer program in 2001 has been incorporated in establishing the incidental take levels 

for that fishery. In addition, according to the most recent information available, a shark gillnet fishery may 

be forming off Alabama. Levels of incidental take for shark gillnet gear anticipated under this Opinion 

were formed without consideration of this additional effort. If additional effort takes place in this fishery 

under the purview of NMFS (i.e., fishermen who hold a limited access permit for sharks), it must be 

monitored, and appropriate incidental take levels incorporated into a reinitiated opinion. 

9.1.2.1. Southeast U.S. Shark Drift Gillnet Fishery 

Based on limited observer data available, NMFS anticipates that continued operation of this fishery will 

result in the capture of twenty (20) loggerhead sea turtles, four (4) leatherbacks, of which no more than 

two (2) are lethal, two (2) Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, two (2) green sea turtles, and two (2) hawksbill sea 

turtles annually. These limits represent the number of total estimated takes (that is, after extrapolating 

across total effort levels) anticipated for this fishery. 

9.1.2.2. Bottom Longline Fishery for Sharks 

Based on the limited observer data available, NMFS anticipates that continued operation of this fishery 

will result in the capture of twelve (12) loggerhead sea turtles, two (2) leatherback, two (2) Kemp’s 

ridley, two (2) green, and two (2) hawksbill sea turtles annually. Because total effort levels in this fishery 

are unavailable, these limits represent the number of total observed takes anticipated (i.e., no 

extrapolation across total effort levels). If total effort levels are made available such that total estimates 

of take are possible, this level of incidental take will be revised accordingly. 

9.1.2.3. Other HMS Fisheries 

Since potential for take in other HMS fisheries is low, NMFS anticipates that continued operation of 

additional HMS fisheries (i.e., tuna purse seine, harpoon/hand gear fisheries, hook-and-line, etc.) will 

result in documented takes of no more than three (3) sea turtles, of any species, in combination, per 

calendar year. 

9.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

120
Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires that when an agency action is found to comply with section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA and the proposed action may incidentally take individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a 

statement specifying the impact of any incidental taking. It also states that reasonable and prudent 

measures necessary to minimize impacts, and terms and conditions to implement those measures be 

provided and must be followed to minimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the federal agency or 

applicant that complies with the specified terms and conditions is authorized. 

The reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions are specified as required by 50CFR § 

402.14 (i)(1)(ii) and (iv) to document the incidental take by HMS fisheries and to minimize the impact of 

that take on sea turtles. These measures and terms and conditions are non-discretionary, and must be 

implemented by NMFS in order for the protection of section 7(o)(2) to apply. NMFS has a continuing 

duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If NMFS fails to adhere to the 

terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms, and/or fails to retain 

oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) 

may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of the incidental take, the F/SF must report the progress of the 

action and its impact on the species to NMFS as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR 

402.14(i)(3)]. 

NMFS believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to monitor 

and minimize take of listed species considered in this Opinion: 

(a) NMFS must implement educational programs for fishers which are aimed at reducing the 

potential for serious injury or mortality of hooked turtles. 

2. NMFS must ensure that monitoring of HMS fisheries will (1) detect adverse effects resulting 

from HMS fisheries, (2) assess the actual level of incidental take in comparison with the 

anticipated incidental take documented in this opinion, (3) detect when the level of anticipated 

incidental take is exceeded, (4) collect improved data from each protected species encountered, 

and (5) determine the effectiveness of reasonable and prudent measures and their implementing 

terms and conditions. 

9.3 Terms and Conditions 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, NMFS must comply with the 

following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above 

and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

121
9.3.1. Terms and Conditions for the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

(a) Observer coverage. As in previous consultations, 5% coverage in the pelagic longline fishery is 

still required. The observer coverage must be distributed according to a stratified random 

sampling scheme that will adequately sample the fishery to determine levels of protected species 

takes. At a minimum, the regime must ensure that sampling occurs annually at a statistically 

reliable level of coverage within all statistical areas fished. If necessary to comply with 

agreements with ICCAT or to achieve adequate sampling for either HMS or protected species, 

this scheme may be separate from or supplemental to the HMS sampling program. 

(b) Reporting Lethal Take. NMFS’ HMS Management Division must require vessel captains to 

report any turtles that are dead when they are captured or that die during capture to SEFSC 

Observer program within 48 hours, of returning to port. 

(c) Mid-Atlantic Bight Analysis. In the draft FMP, NMFS committed to analyzing the effects (on 

marine mammal bycatch only), of limiting the length of pelagic longline gear in the Mid-Atlantic 

Bight area to 24 nm. NMFS must also analyze effects of this restriction on resulting bycatch of 

sea turtles. This analysis must be completed by December 31, 2001. 

(d) Sea Turtle Injury Workshop. NMFS must conduct a workshop to address the issue of sea turtle 

injury and post-hooking mortality which result from interactions with longline gear. 

9.3.2. Terms and Conditions for the SE Shark Drift Gillnet Fishery 

(a) VMS vs. Observer Coverage. VMS may be used as an alternative to the previous 100% 

observer coverage requirement; however, VMS cannot be used to replace observer monitoring 

for any strike-netting effort which may take place within the Southeast right whale calving ground 

closure area; and observer coverage necessary to monitor incidental take levels for sea turtles 

must be maintained year-round. NMFS F/SF should investigate new VMS technologies and 

incorporate advances, such as video technology, if practicable. Eventually, good video technology 

could possibly eliminate or at least greatly reduce the need for observers. 

(b) Actions upon Sighting of a Whale. With respect to the Southeast shark gillnet/strikenet fishery, 

the April 23, 1997, Opinion required that regulations be promulgated to prohibit setting gear in this 

fishery within 3 nm of a listed whale sighting and, if a whale is sighted within that range, require 

nets or lines to be hauled back immediately. Both the observer and the vessel operator will be 

responsible for sightings of whales. If any listed whale is taken in gear, the vessel operator must 

cease all fishing activities immediately and contact NMFS (Southeast Regional Office). This 

requirement was partially fulfilled via the May 1999 rule implementing the HMS FMP. However, 

current ALWTRP and HMS regulations do not specify the party responsible for sighting whales, 

nor do they clearly indicate that the vessel operator must contact NMFS and cease fishing in the 

event of any take of listed whales. NMFS F/PR must ensure that the ALWTRP is amended 

accordingly, and F/SF must adopt this provision as a requirement under the FMP, the next time 

these rules are revised. 

(c) Fisherman Education. NMFS must ensure the outreach coordinators described in 9.3.4(c) work 

to ensure all shark gillnet fishermen are educated on gear handling techniques and protocols to 

deal with entanglements and protected species in general, to reduce the potential for serious injury 

122
or mortality should an entanglement occur. Recommendations from the ALWTRP should be 

followed in the development of these programs. Full implementation of this alternative will help 

avoid jeopardy because, although it may not prevent an entanglement, the potential for serious 

injury or mortality would be significantly reduced. 

(d) Accurate Effort Reporting. NMFS must provide F/PR, Northeast and Southeast Regions with 

accurate effort data for all gillnet effort (regardless of type) directed at sharks. This is necessary 

to better determine actual effort levels in the gillnet components (e.g., strike and driftnet) of the 

fishery in order to better understand how much gillnet effort occurs in this area, in general (for 

improved sea turtle take estimates), to better understand what effort levels may still be occurring 

in the area during right whale season, and to facilitate monitoring of compliance with requirements 

under the ALWTRP and the FMP regarding mandatory 100% observer coverage of the fishery 

(or the VMS alternative outlined above) during right whale season. This must be provided 

annually. 

(e) Observer Coverage. Observer coverage is required and shall be sufficient to produce 

statistically reliable results to evaluate the impact of the fishery on sea turtles, including 

appropriate seasonal coverage. Observers will collect information to: (i) facilitate the 

understanding of the dynamics of the interaction with sea turtles; (ii) evaluate possible 

relationships between gear type/fishing strategies and turtle interactions; and (iii) better 

understand the population structure, status, and life history of turtles incidentally taken by the 

fishery. Quarterly and annual reports summarizing protected species bycatch data collected for 

this fishery shall be prepared and disseminated in a timely fashion to the Northeast and Southeast 

Regions and F/PR. Annual reports shall include extrapolations of total take for each species 

across the entire fishery (see 4 (g) below for details). 

(f) Jellyfish Reporting. Observers must report any turtle take and/or high densities of jellyfish 

within 24 hours to the SEFSC Observer Program Coordinator, who in turn must provide this 

information to the Southeast Region, F/PR and F/SF. 

(g) Net Checking. It is customary in the shark fishery for fishermen to check the length of the net 

every 0.5 -2 hrs with a spotlight to check the net and catch. Fishermen must be instructed to look 

for sea turtles and marine mammals during those checks and remove any protected species from 

the net immediately. Continuing education of fishermen to ensure implementation of this condition 

will be accomplished by the outreach coordinators identified in term and condition 4(c) below. 

9.3.3. Terms and Conditions for the Bottom Longline Fishery for Sharks 

(a) Observer Coverage. NMFS must continue to implement an observer program, or ensure that 

financial support is provided to fund an external program such as the previous MARFIN-funded 

study, to monitor incidental takes of listed species in the bottom longline fishery for sharks. 

(b) Accurate Effort Estimates. Within 12 months of the signature date of this biological opinion, 

NMFS must implement a mechanism for estimating total effort levels in this fishery in order to 

provide accurate estimates of sea turtle bycatch. Quarterly and annual reports summarizing 

protected species bycatch data collected for this fishery shall be prepared and disseminated in a 

timely fashion to the Northeast and Southeast Regions and F/PR. Annual reports shall include 

estimates of total take for each species across the entire fishery (see 4 (f) below for details). 

123
9.3.4. Terms and Conditions Applicable to All HMS Fisheries 

(a) Observer data collection. NMFS observers must record information on the condition of sea 

turtles and marine mammals when released as well as describe in detail the interaction with the 

gear (e.g., for longline interactions: entangled (where, and to what extent), ingested hook, internal 

or external hook). Photographs must be taken to confirm species identity and release condition. 

Collection of these data are critical to accurately monitor incidental take levels and assess 

mortality levels of sea turtles in this fishery. NMFS must ensure that when protected species are 

taken, dealing with each animal (e.g., resuscitating, tagging/scanning for tags, collecting a full 

suite of samples [per instruction of the SEFSC sea turtle coordinator], and releasing, etc.) must be 

the observer’s sole priority. 

(b) Observer collection of tissues for genetic sampling. Within 3 months from the signature date 

of this Opinion, NMFS must ensure that observers associated with the HMS fisheries collect 

tissue samples from sea turtles caught in the fisheries and ensure that these tissue samples are 

analyzed to determine the genetic identity of individual turtles caught in the fishery. To fulfill this 

requirement, NMFS must ensure that observers associated with the HMS fisheries are equipped 

with the tools, supplies, training, and instructions to collect and store tissue samples and that the 

NEFSC and SEFSC are funded to analyze those samples. 

(c) Fisherman Outreach. The April 1997, May 1999, and June 2000 Opinions required outreach via 

fisherman workshops. A number of such workshops were held, but attendance was low and they 

did not seem to be an effective outreach tool for this particular fishery. Therefore, in lieu of these 

fisherman workshops, NMFS must finance, and work with the Northeast and Southeast Regions 

and F/PR in developing and supporting, an outreach program to be implemented by a Protected 

Species Outreach Coordinator. Outreach efforts must include dockside fisher education 

patterned after the Northeast Region’s ALWTRP outreach program, including production and 

distribution of outreach materials, staff assistance/expertise as needed in development of outreach 

materials, and education and encouragement of fishermen to use the suite of take reducing 

parameters outlined in the reasonable and prudent alternatives above, as well as any new 

ideas/developments which appear worthy of implementation. Development of an approach must 

be conducted, in consultation with F/PR and the Northeast and Southeast Regions, by December 

31, 2001. 

(d) Fisherman collection of tissues for genetic sampling. To supplement the effectiveness of the 

observer tissue collection effort, NMFS must create a training mechanism whereby vessel 

captains in HMS fisheries may be trained and receive authorization to collect tissue samples from 

incidentally captured sea turtles for use in genetic analyses. Within 3 months from the signature 

date of this Opinion, NMFS must develop a training program and publish a notice in the Federal 

Register, advising fishermen of the requirements of the training program and how to receive 

training. Vessel captains who successfully complete the training program will be provided with 

the necessary tools and supplies to collect samples and will receive a written authorization to 

collect samples, along with such other restrictions and requirements as may be deemed 

necessary. Tissue collection under the conditions of the written authorization (i.e., NMFS 

certification of completion of the training program) are authorized takes, as part of the incidental 

take statement of this Opinion. 

124
(e) Sea Turtle Resuscitation. NMFS must continue to distribute appropriate sea turtle resuscitation 

and handling techniques found in 50 CFR part 223.206(d)(1), as follows: 

“Resuscitation must be attempted on sea turtles that are comatose or inactive but not 

dead by placing the turtle on its breastplate (plastron) and elevating its hindquarters 

several inches for a period of 1 hour up to 24 hours. The amount of the elevation 

depends on the size of the turtle; greater elevations are needed for larger turtles. Sea 

turtles being resuscitated must be shaded and kept wet or moist. Those that revive and 

become active must be released over the stern of the boat only when trawls are not in 

use, when the engine gears are in neutral position, and in areas where they are unlikely to 

be recaptured or injured by vessels.” 

By September 15, 2001, NMFS must issue a regulation requiring that all vessels permitted for 

HMS fisheries post the sea turtle guidelines for safe handling in longline interactions inside the 

wheelhouse (to ensure that the owner passes it on to the captains and that it can be referred to as 

needed). Continuing education of fishermen to ensure full implementation of this condition will be 

accomplished by the outreach coordinators identified in term and condition 4(c) above. 

(f) Reporting. A report must be submitted on a calendar quarter basis to PR, the Southeast Region, 

and SF. The report must provide the following information on each sea turtle take: species, date 

and location of interaction, target catch, tag identification (if appropriate) whether photographs or 

genetic samples were taken. NMFS must also provide an annual report of sea turtle take 

estimates based on observed takes. The report must provide species specific take estimates as 

well as an overall estimate of total sea turtle take. This report must also include data on the 

condition of each individual sea turtle, in order to obtain better data on the level of impact that this 

fishery may be having with respect to post-release survival. These data should include 

information on where the animal was hooked or otherwise entangled, depths of imbedded hooks, 

and actual written comments by the observers. In this regard, observer data coordinators must 

consult with F/PR and the Northeast and Southeast Regions to ensure data collected is sufficient 

in detail to accomplish this goal. The report must be forwarded to the Chief of the Endangered 

Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland, and copied to the 

Chiefs of the Northeast and Southeast Region Protected Resources Divisions. 

10.0 Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of 

the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened 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 develop 

information. 

(1) In-water Abundance Studies. In order to better understand sea turtle populations and the 

impacts of incidental take in HMS fisheries, NMFS should support in-water abundance estimates 

of sea turtles to achieve more accurate status assessments for these species and improve our 

ability to monitor them. 

(2) Population Viability Analyses. Once reasonable in-water estimates are obtained, NMFS should 

also support population viability analyses or other risk analyses of the sea turtle populations 

125
affected by HMS fisheries. This will help improve the accuracy of future assessments of the 

effects of different levels of take on sea turtle populations. 

(3) International Fisherman Education. NMFS should ensure that the Sea Turtle Handling 

Guidelines are translated into several languages (e.g., Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Greek), 

printed, and distributed throughout the longline fisheries operating in the North Atlantic and 

Mediterranean in order to enhance survival of all turtles/subpopulations hooked, even those taken 

by foreign countries (as these fisheries all impact U.S. nesting populations). 

(4) International Negotiations. NMFS should focus efforts on the broader impacts that occur to 

loggerhead and leatherback populations throughout the Atlantic by using its available legal 

authorities (e.g., Sec. 202(h) of the MSFCMA and Sec. 609(a) of Public Law 101-162) to pursue 

bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles with other 

nations whose commercial longline fleets may affect sea turtles. NMFS, in partnership with the 

U.S. Department of State, should make every effort to use existing bilateral and multilateral 

mechanisms, to which the U.S. is a party, to focus the actions of those mechanisms on the 

problem of sea turtle-longline bycatch. Such existing multi-lateral mechanisms may include 

ICCAT, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Committee on Fisheries (FAO/COFI), the 

nascent Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, the Asia 

Pacific Fisheries Commission, and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific. Potential additional 

mechanisms include the Indian Ocean Regional MOU for the Conservation and Management of 

Sea Turtles. NMFS has already requested (in September 2000) and conducted (in February 

2001) consultations with the Department of State under section 202(h) of the MSA to develop an 

international sea turtle-longline bycatch reduction strategy. In addition, NMFS should pursue 

similar avenues to promote international sea turtle conservation in general, but with particular 

emphasis on protecting leatherback sea turtles in the Guianas on their nesting beaches and from 

incidental capture in coastal gillnet and trawl fisheries. 

NMFS should support a workshop to bring together international longline fishery experts (industry or 

governmental), from those nations with major longline fishing effort. The goal of such a workshop would 

be to assemble information on international rates of sea turtle interactions, exchange ideas on bycatch 

reduction measures, stimulate international research on sea turtle-longline interactions, and promote the 

development of binding international mechanisms to address sea turtle-longline interactions. NMFS and 

its governmental partners should subsequently make every effort to place the issue of sea turtle-longline 

interactions on the agenda of, and hold negotiations/discussions at, a major international body such as 

FAO/COFI or ICCAT. As the experimental fisheries yield results on the effectiveness of various 

bycatch reduction techniques, NMFS must share those results with other longline fishing nations and 

encourage the adoption of those measures that prove effective. If adoption of measures by foreign fleets 

to a degree that would assure the survival of loggerhead and leatherback turtles in the North Atlantic is 

deemed to be unlikely with existing international mechanisms, NMFS should seek additional legislative 

authority to address the threat of international longline fisheries to sea turtles, similar to section 609(b) of 

Public Law 101-162. 

(5) Scientific Experiments. NMFS should undertake, in consultation and cooperation with the 

domestic pelagic longline fleet, a cooperative research program to develop and evaluate the 

efficacy of new technologies and changes in fishing practices. This program should commence 

by August 1, 2001 and should be completed within three fishing seasons (i.e., by January 2004). 

126
Fishing Vessel-Based Research in the NED Area 

The primary aspect of the scientific experiment should be the utilization of domestic fishing vessels as 

cooperative research platforms in the NED statistical sampling area. Participating U.S. longline vessels 

that fish in the NED must carry observers, and they must fish their gear in a specified, pre-determined 

manner designed to test one or more variables affecting sea turtle bycatch. Vessels that refuse to carry 

observers, that are not equipped to safely carry observers, or that refuse to fish their gear according to the 

experiment, should not be allowed to participate in the scientific experiment. The NED Area is the only 

area used by the U.S. fleet that is likely to yield the high level of turtle interactions required to test the 

effectiveness of bycatch reduction measures. 

Research Plan for the NED Scientific experiment 

Prior to July 1, 2001, NMFS should develop a research plan for the NED scientific experiment. The 

research plan for the fishery should comply with the following four conditions: (1) the target mortality 

reduction rate for a measure, or measures taken in combination, is 55% (the mean value for reduction of 

anthropogenic mortality from Table 10), compared to current standard fishing practices, for loggerheads 

and leatherbacks; (2) the duration of the experiment is no more than 3 years; (3) all measures tested must 

be “exportable.” That is, they must be easily described (such as in a regulation), they must be 

enforceable, they should preserve target species catch to the greatest extent possible, and they must be 

broadly applicable to fishing in different environments; and (4) the 55% reduction target in sea turtle 

mortality rates for the North Atlantic Ocean may be achieved by reducing the catch rates of turtles or by 

improving their post-hooking survival. Bycatch reduction, though, should be the primary emphasis of the 

experiment. As stated before, successfully quantifying post-hooking survival and changes in it brought 

about by different treatments is very difficult and expensive. In addition, experimentation with treatable 

factors that affect mortality may raise ethical problems. For example, withholding an effective treatment 

(e.g., leaving a turtle entangled when the line could be easily removed) in order to assess the associated 

mortality would not be acceptable, whereas trying to distinguish the differential survival between animals 

that are already injured (e.g., deeply hooked vs. lightly hooked) may be acceptable. 

Experimental Design and Management 

A mechanism should be developed to include the fishing industry in developing the experimental design

and in the management and oversight of the experiment. Analyses have been conducted and give

guidance on the amount of sampling in the NED that is likely to be necessary to test bycatch reduction

measures of varying effectiveness. These analyses, along with the number of participating vessels, will

determine the number of parameters that can be tested and should be considered in selecting and

prioritizing the measures to be tested. 

Interim Analyses

Within 3 months of the completion of each fishing season (i.e., before April 2002, April 2003, and April

2004), NMFS should analyze the results of the previous years' scientific experiment for the effects of all

the tested parameters on sea turtle and target species catch rates. It is expected that the research plan

would be flexible and may be changed as results come in during the course of the experiment. 

Completion of the NED Scientific experiment 

If management measures are developed that achieve or exceed the target of 55% bycatch reduction 

before the end of the 3-year period, the scientific experiment should not be discontinued prematurely. 

The scientific experiment should be used to continue to develop additional measures that may allow 

greater sea turtle take reductions, greater flexibility in selecting among take reduction options, and greater 

preservation or enhancement of target species catch rates. 

127
Supplementary Research 

To supplement the NED scientific experiment and maximize its chances for success, NMFS should

conduct additional research directed at understanding and reducing sea turtle-longline interactions. NMFS

should consider the possibility of using turtles in captivity to conduct preliminary investigations that may

focus field research. Captive turtles may be used, for example, to investigate chemical or visual

repellents, bait preferences, feeding behaviors, and attraction or aversion to different color light sticks. 

At-sea research, aboard research vessels or contracted fishing vessels, may be appropriate for

conducting research projects focused at sea turtle behavior questions or for preliminary feasibility trials of

gear modifications. Finally, NMFS should consider sponsoring or conducting experimental work in foreign

longline fishing fleets. This work may also establish the basis for future collaboration on international

approaches to reduce sea turtle-longline interactions. 

(7) Effectiveness of MARPOL. NOAA/NMFS should meet with representatives of the U.S. Coast 

Guard to determine what benefits, if quantifiable, have accrued since the signing of the MARPOL 

agreement limiting pollution and dumping at sea; and explore ways with the Coast Guard to make 

this agreement more effective and to improve compliance through enforcement and outreach. 

11. Reinitiation of Consultation 

This concludes formal consultation on the continued operation of the Atlantic HMS fisheries, as regulated 

by the HMS FMP and the Billfish FMP, as amended. 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 affect 

listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered (i.e., proposed quota 

reduction and limited access rules are changed), (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in a 

manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the Opinion, or 

(4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. If 

the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, NMFS F/SF must immediately request reinitiation of 

formal consultation. 

128