UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCENationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationNATIONALMARINEFISHERIESSERVICESoutheastRegionalOffice26313thAvenueSouthSt.Petersburg,Florida33701-5505(727)824-5312;FAX(727)824-5309http:!/sero.nmfs.noaa.covF/SER31:NB C 192012Mr.DonaldW.KinardChief,RegulatoryDivisionU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersP.O.Box4970Jacksonville,FL32232-0019Re:12USACESAJGeneralPermitsRenewalDearMr.Kinard:EnclosedistheNationalMarineFisheriesService’s(NMFS’)biologicalopinionbasedonourreviewoftheimpactsassociatedwiththerenewalandrevisionoftheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersJacksonvilleDistrict’s(USACE)RegionalGeneralPermits(RGP5)SAJ-5,SAJ-12,SAJ-13.SAJ-14,SAJ-17,SAJ-20,SAJ-33,SAJ-34,SAJ-46,SAJ-72andProgrammaticGeneralPermits(PGPs)SAJ-9landSAJ-96forusethroughoutthestateofFlorida.Theopinionanalyzestheproject’seffectsonseaturtles(loggerhead,leatherback,Kemp’sridley,hawksbill,andgreen);smalitoothsawfish;Johnson’sseagrass;sturgeon(Gulf,shortnose,andAtlantic);corals(elkhornandstaghorn);anddesignatedcriticalhabitatforJohnson’sseagrass,smalltoothsawfish,Gulfsturgeon,andelkhornandstaghorncorals,andisbasedonproject-specificinformationprovidedbytheUSACEandNMFS’reviewofpublishedliterature.ItisNMFS’biologicalopinionthattheaction,asproposed,islikelytoadverselyaffectbutisnotlikelytojeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofseaturtles(loggerhead,leatherback,Kemp’sridley,hawksbill,andgreen)andislikelytoadverselyaffectbutisnotlikelytodestroyoradverselymodifycriticalhabitatforsmalltoothsawfishandJohnson’sseagrass.WelookforwardtofurthercooperationwithyouonotherUSACEprojectstoensuretheconservationandrecoveryofourthreatenedandendangeredmarinespecies.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisconsultation,pleasecontactNicoleBailey,consultationbiologist,at(727)824-5336,orbye-mailatNicole.Bailey@noaa.gov.Sincerely,RoyE.Crabtree,Ph.D.RegionalAdministratorEnclosureFile:15l4-22.F.4Ref:F/SERJ2O11/01939EndangeredSpeciesAct-Section7ConsultationBiologicalOpinionAgency:UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers,JacksonvilleDistrictApplicant:UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers,JacksonvilleDistrictActivity:12USACESAJGeneralPermitsRenewalConsultingAgency:NationalMarineFisheriesServiceSoutheastRegionalOfficeProtectedResourcesDivision(F/SERJ2O11/01939)DEC192012DateIssued:_______________________________ApprovedBy:‘icrii&RoyE.Crabtree,Ph.D.RegionalAdministrator1.ConsultationHistory52.DescriptionoftheProposedAction73.StatusofListedSpeciesandCriticalHabitat424.EnvironmentalBaseline1085.EffectsoftheAction1186.CumulativeEffects1227.JeopardyAnalysisandDestructionlAdverseModificationAnalysis1258.Conclusion1359.IncidentalTakeStatement13610.ConservationRecommendations13611.ReinitiationofConsultation13812.LiteratureCited13813.AppendixA16614.AppendixB18112 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Celsius
CWA Clean Water Act CHEU Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit CPUE Catch per Unit Effort DERM Department of Environmental Resource Management DMV Department of Motor Vehicles DPS Distinct Population Segment DWH Deep Water Horizon
EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council HMS Highly Migratory Species ICW Intracoastal Waterway
ITS Incidental Take Statement MHWL Mean High Water Line

MLW Mean Low Water

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Ocean and Atmospheric Association NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSED National Sawfish Encounter Database
NWA DPS Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment
NWP Nationwide Permit OHWL Ordinary High Water Line PGP Programmatic General Permit PDC Project Design Criteria RGP Regional General Permit
SAJ South Atlantic Jacksonville
SARBO South Atlantic Re gional Biological Opinion SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SPGP IV-RI State Programmatic General Permit IV-RI
TED Turtle Excluder Device USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service3 Background

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Ac t (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §1531 et

seq .), requires that each federal agency ensure th at any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the con tinued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse m odification of critical ha bitat of those species. When the action of a federal agency may affect a protected species or its critical habitat, that agency is required to consult w ith either the National Marine Fi sheries Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), depe nding upon the protected sp ecies that may be
affected.

Consultations on most listed marine species and their designated critical habitat are conducted between the action agency and NMFS. Consultati ons are concluded after NMFS determines the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critica l habitat or issues a biological opinion (“opinion”) that determines whether a proposed action is lik ely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally-listed specie s, or destroy or adversely modify federallydesignated critical habitat. The opinion also states the amount or extent of listed species incidental take that may occur and develops non- discretionary measures that the action agency
must take to reduce the effect s of said anticipated/authorized take. The opinion may also recommend discretionary conservation measures . No incidental destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat may be authori zed. The issuance of an opinion detailing NMFS’ findings concludes ESA Section 7 consultation.

This document represents NMFS’ opinion based on our review of impacts associated with the renewal and revision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonvill e District’s (USACE) Regional General Permits (RGPs) SAJ-5, SAJ-12, SAJ-13, SAJ-14, SAJ-17, SAJ-20, SAJ-33, SAJ-34, SAJ-46, SAJ-72 and Programmatic Genera l Permits (PGPs) SAJ-91 and SAJ-96 for use throughout the state of Florida. Activities covered under these genera l permits include the installation and/or repair or repl acement of specific types of doc ks, piers, and minor structures; maintenance dredging; transmission line installa tion; boat ramps; and shoreline protection.

This opinion analyzes project effects on sea turtles (loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, and green); smalltooth sawfish; Johns on’s seagrass; sturgeon (Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic); corals (elkho rn and staghorn); and designated crit ical habitat for Johnson’s seagrass, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, and elkhorn and staghorn corals in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. The analysis begins with a descri ption of the types of the actions covered under the general permits and the action area in which they can occur, how the projects will be reviewed, and the requirements they must meet to be perm itted. This is followed by the status of listed species and critical habitat with in the action area, the environmen tal baseline conditions of the action area, and an analysis of the effects of th e proposed action on species likely to be affected. A discussion of cumulative effects precedes the je opardy analysis, which is based on the status of the affected species and on the information presen ted in the environmental baseline, effects of the action, and cumulative effects se ctions of this opinion. Last, we present our conclusions and conservation recommendations. This opinion is based on project information provided by the
USACE. NMFS also utili zed published literature.4 Programmatic Consultations

NMFS and the USFWS have developed a range of techniques to streamline the procedures and time involved in consultations for broad agency programs or numerous similar activities with well-understood predictable effects on listed species and critical habitat. Some of the more common of these techniques and the requirement s for ensuring that streamlined consultation procedures comply with Section 7 of the ESA a nd its implementing regulations are discussed in the October 2002 joint Services memorandum, Alternative Approaches fo r Streamlining Section 7 Consultation on Hazardous Fuels Treatment Projects (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/MemosLe tters/streamlining.pdf; see also, 68 FR 1628 (January 13, 2003)). Provided below is a generalized discussion about programmatic consultations. The specific requirements set forth for this programmatic consultation are provided in Section 2.

Programmatic consultations can be used to evalua te the expected effect s of groups of related agency actions expected to be implemented in the future, where specifics of individual projects such as project location are not definitively know n. It is important to note that the term programmatic is defined differently by NMFS when discussing a programma tic consultation than it is by the USACE when discus sing a programmatic general permit (see Section 2.2). According to NMFS, a programmatic consultation must identify project design criteria (PDCs) or standards that will be applic able to all future projects implemented under the consultation document. PDCs serve to prevent adverse effects to listed species, or to limit adverse effects to predictable levels that will not jeopardize the cont inued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habita t, at the individual project leve l or in the aggregate from all projects implemented under the programmatic opinion. Programmatic consultations allow for streamlined project-specific cons ultations because much of the e ffects analysis is completed up front in the programmatic consu ltation document. At the project -specific consultation stage, a proposed project is reviewed to determine if it can be implemented according to the PDCs, and to evaluate or tally the aggreg ate effects that will have resu lted by implementing projects under the programmatic consultation to date, including the proposed project. The following elements should be included in a programma tic consultation to ensure its consistency with ESA Section 7 and its implementing regulations:

1. PDCs to prevent or limit future adverse eff ects on listed species and critical habitat;

2. Description of the manner in which projects to be implemented under the programmatic consultation may affect listed sp ecies and critical habitat and evaluation of expected level of effects from covered projects;

3. Process for evaluating expected, and tracking ac tual aggregate or ne t additive effects of all projects expected to be implemente d under the programmatic consultation. The programmatic consultation document must demo nstrate that when the PDCs are applied to each project, the aggregate e ffect of all projects will not adversely affect listed species or their critical habitat, or will not jeopardi ze species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat, as applicable;5 4. Procedures for streamlined project-specific consultation. As disc ussed above, if an approved programmatic consultation document is sufficiently detail ed, project-specific consultations ideally will consist of cert ifications and concurrences between action agency biologists and consulting agency bi ologists, respectively. An action agency biologist or team will provide a description of a proposed project, or batched projects, and a certification that the project(s) will be implemented in accordance with the PDCs. The action agency also provides a description of anticipated project-sp ecific effects and a tallying of net effects to date resulting fr om projects implemented under the program, and
certification that these effects are consistent with those anticipated in the programmatic consultation document. If a project is likel y to result in prohibited take of a listed species, a project-specific incidental take st atement must be developed. The consulting agency biologist reviews the submission and pr ovides concurrence, or adjustments to the project(s) necessary to bring it (them) into compliance with the programmatic consultation document. The project-specific co nsultation process must also identify any effects that were not considered in the pr ogrammatic consultation. Finally, the projectspecific consultation procedures must provide contingencies for pr oposed projects that cannot be implemented in accordance with th e PDCs; full stand-alone consultations may be performed on these projects if they are too dissimilar in nature or in expected effects from those projected in the pr ogrammatic consultation document.

5. Procedures for monitoring projects and validating effects predictions; and

6. Comprehensive review of the pr ogram, generally conducted annually.

1. Consultation History

In May 2011, we received multiple requests for c onsultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on the renewal and revision of the USACE’s ge neral permits. Through discussions with the USACE, it was determined that these permits shoul d be grouped into two separate consultations based on whether the general permit allows construc tion within or outside of critical habitat. This resulted in grouping SAJ-5, SAJ-12, SAJ- 13, SAJ-14, SAJ-18, and SAJ-46 together since these general permits exclude work within crit ical habitat. SAJ-17, SAJ-20, SAJ-33, and SAJ-34 would be grouped in a separate consultation, si nce these general permits all include piling
structures and are allowed within critical habitat in Florida. These permits were originally issued in the mid-1970s and have been renewed every fi ve years since then. The USACE determined that all of these proposed genera l permits may affect but are not likely to adversely affect five species of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and st urgeon (Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic). The USACE determined that the general permits that allow construction in critical habitat also may affect but are not likely to affect smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, and Johnson’s seagrass critical ha bitat. The USACE also determin ed that of the general permits under review in this consultation, only SAJ-17 may affect but is not likel y to adversely affect elkhorn or staghorn coral critical habitat. NMFS did not concur with the USACE’s not likely to adversely affect determinations; therefore, we initiated formal consultation on May 16, 2011.

However, formal consultation was delayed while the details regarding procedures for monitoring projects, validating effects predic tions, and reporting requirements as required by the PDCs were6 resolved between the two agencies. During th is time period, the USAC E and NMFS coordinated the reissuance of the State Programmatic Gene ral Permit (SPGP IV-R1), which gives general authority to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to administer
SPGP IV-R1 on behalf of the USACE for several types of in-water co nstruction activities throughout the state of Florida. Since many of the actions covered under the SPGP IV-R1 are similar in nature to those covered under these ge neral permits, their renewal was delayed so that the requirements for SPGP IV-R1 and these general permits could be consistent.

On May 26, 2011, the USACE stated that the nu mber of projects permitted under SAJ-17 during the last permit do not reflect actual impacts to Acropora critical habitat. These projects are typically “boat lifts, boat whips, davits, etc.” and are placed “only in canals” (pers. comm. S. Santos, USACE to N. Bailey, NMFS).

On July 15, 2011, NMFS received a request for consultation for SAJ-72.

On September 16, 2011, the USACE requested consu ltation on SAJ-72 for pr ojects in Citrus County. They requested this permit be added to the combined programmatic consultation for general permits not allowed within critical habitat.

On October 26, 2011, the USACE decided to withdr aw its request for consultation on SAJ-18 and to let this general permit expire.

On November 7, 2011, the following general permits expired: SAJ- 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 34, and 46.

On November 28, 2011, USACE agreed to add a PDC to SAJ-17 excluding impacts to Acropora
critical habitat essential features.

On December 21, 2011, NMFS completed its opin ion for SPGP IV-RI (NMFS tracking number F/SER/2009/05980).

On January 26, 2012, NMFS received a request for c onsultation on SAJ-91 for in-water work in the City of Cape Coral.

On February 2, 2012, NMFS sent a request for information to the USACE for SAJ-91. NMFS noted that bulkheads, riprap placement, and ma intenance dredging had been removed from this general permit renewal.

On May 31, 2012, NMFS and the USACE met with the City of Cape Coral and local congressional representatives to discuss SA J-91. During this meeting, we outlined the informational requirements to complete consultati on. The City of Cape Coral agreed to provide
additional information.

On June 8, 2012, NMFS and the USACE met to discu ss the reinitiation of all of their general permits. It was decided that th e most logical approach to anal yzing these permit renewals would be to group all of the expired and expiring permits into one pr ogrammatic consultation. This would include a number of general permits alrea dy in review by NMFS that had been grouped.7 In addition, SAJ-91 and SAJ-96 would be added to the combined group. This new programmatic consultation will now include SAJ- 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 33, 34, 46, 72, 91, and 96.

On June 13, 2012, we sent USACE a formal requ est for information letter regarding questions discussed during the May 31, 2012, meeting for SAJ-91.

On July 3, 2012, NMFS received a request for co nsultation for SAJ-96 for in-water construction in Pinellas County. The USACE requested that this consultation be included in the present programmatic consultation.

On July 17, 2012, we met with the City of Ca pe Coral to discuss our progress on SAJ-91 and informed the City that it would be grouped with the rest of the general permits in this programmatic consultation. This meeting wa s attended by staff members from the USACE, NMFS, City of Cape Coral, Lee County, local in dustry leaders from the Cape Coral Construction Industry Association and Honc Ma rine, staff from Representati ve Connie Mack’s office, and staff from Senator Marco Rubio’s office. During this meeting, the USACE stated that an ESA Section 7(a)(2)-7(d) memo would be provide d to extend for SAJ-91 beyond the scheduled expiration date of the general permit to allow fo r completion of the NMFS opinion. It was also
decided to add construction of bul kheads back into the SAJ-91 general permit. Bulkheads were included as part of the action in the last issuance of SAJ-91 bu t had been removed from this proposed re-issuance. The USACE stated th at a new public notice for SAJ-91 would be necessary to address the cha nge in the proposed action.

On July 20, 2012, the USACE sent NMFS an e-mail confirming that bulkheads would be included in proposed action for SAJ-91.

On September 27, 2012, the USACE posted th e updated the public notice for SAJ-91.

On September 28, 2012, NMFS requested additional information regarding the pilings activities associated with these general permits.

On October 9, 2012, the USACE sent an e-mail to NMFS, the City of Cape Coral, Lee County, and the offices of Representative Connie Mack and Senator Marco Rubio stating that the Section 7(a)(2)-7(d) memo would not be pr ovided to the City of Cape Coral to continue SAJ-91 past the expiration date of October 12, 2012. Ther efore, the general permit would expire.

2. Description of the Proposed Action

2.1 Authorities Under Which the Action will be Conducted

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the US ACE has authority to issue general permits 1 (regional, programmatic, and nationwide) for any category of projects that are substantially similar in nature, and result in no more than mi nimal adverse effects on the environment, either individually or cumulatively. S ection 10 of the Rivers and Harbor s Act authorizes all structures

1 The term “general permit” is defined at 33 CFR 322.2(f) and 33 CFR 323.2(h). PGPs are a type of general permit, and are defined at 33 CFR 325.5(c)(3).8 or work in navigable water of the United States while Section 404 of the Clean Water Act covers the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States. The USACE uses a combination of all three types of these general permits when authorizing activities within the state of Florida, provided it has been determined that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and cu mulatively minimal (see 33 CFR 325.2(e) and 33 CFR Part 330).
PGPs are used to avoid unnecessa ry duplication of the regulatory control exercised by another Federal, state, or local agency. All general pe rmits are valid for a maximum of five years (33 CFR 325.2(e)(2)), and must be reev aluated prior to reissuance. Below is a description of the three types of general permits used by the USAC E to authorize activities within the state of
Florida.

1. Regional General Permit: RGPs are a type of general permit specific to a given region (in this case, Florida). Within the state of Florida, USACE staff individually review permit applications to determine if it meet s the PDCs defined by an RGP. All RGPs require an applicant to submit a prec onstruction notification and cannot begin construction until they have received a written verification from the USACE that their project is authorized in a ccordance with the terms and conditions of the RGP. The following RGPs under NMFS purview are used w ithin the state of Fl orida: SAJ-5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 33, 34, and 46.

2. Nationwide permits: NWPs are a type of general perm it issued for activities that occur throughout the United States. The USACE auth orizes activities in Florida under NWPs when the permit specific conditions are met th en the specified activities can take place
without the need for an indi vidual or regional permit. These NWPs were reissued and published under the federal registry date d February 12, 2012, and became effective March 19, 2012.

3. Programmatic general permits: PGPs are a type of general permit issued by the USACE that authorize, for the purposes of S ection 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, certain activities that are also regulated by another federal, tribal, state, or local regulatory authority. The purpos e of PGPs is to improve the regulatory process for applicants, enhance environmental protection, reduce unnecessary duplicative procedures and evalua tions, and make more efficient use of limited resources. In this case, the USACE provides delegated authorization to the following agencies to permit activities under the listed permit: SAJ-91 provides administrative limited authority to the City of Cape Coral, SAJ-96 provides ad ministrative limited au thority to Pinellas County, SAJ-42 provides administrative limite d authority to Miami-Dade County, and SPGP IV-RI provides administ rative limited authority to Florida’s Department of
Environmental Protection.

The USACE retains the authorit y to modify, suspend, or revoke any PGP when the USACE believes that appropriate protecti on is not being afforded to the environment or any other aspect of the public interest, or when the USACE conc ludes that adverse environmental effects are more than minimal, either individually or cumulatively. Additionally, the USACE always retains its authority to require an individual USACE permit in a ny given case for any particular project, even if the project otherwise meets all the requirements of the PGP. The USACE exercises this authority when it concludes that the processing of an individual USACE permit is necessary to protect the environm ent or any other aspect of the public interest, or when impacts9 are more than minimal, either individually or cumulatively. Last, the USACE retains the full range of its enforcement authority and options wher e it believes that a project does not comply with the terms or conditions of the PGP, regardless of whether the project has been permitted by the federal, tribal, state, or local regulatory authority. Implementing regulations for permits issued by the USACE can be found at 33 CFR 320-332.

Individual permits: If a project is not covered by an RGP, NWP, or PGP because the effects of the action will be more than minor in nature or if the project needs an additional level of review, then it is addressed as an individual permit. Individual permits include authorization that is issued following a case-by-case evaluation by the US ACE for a specific structure or work in accordance with the procedures of this regulation and 33 CFR Part 325, and a determination that the proposed structure or work is in the public in terest pursuant to 33 CFR Part 320. Individual permits require Section 7 coordination with NMFS for projects involving in-water work that may affect listed species under our purview.

2.2 Types of Projects

This opinion addresses the reissu ance of 12 USACE general permits listed in Table 1, which give general authority for several in -water construction ac tivities throughout the state of Florida. Every in-water construction activity permitted under the conditions of these permits is subject to non-discretionary requirements that avoid or re duce the potential effect s of permitted activities on listed species. Permits issued have a 5-year expiration date (maximum) from the date of issuance. The number of times that each permit wa s used to authorize ac tivities during the last renewal period is provided below (see Table 1) w ith a breakdown of how often it was issued in
critical habitat. This is follo wed by a description of the activiti es authorized under each general permit. These general permits will be re-issued for 5 years with an comprehensive review conducted by NMFS, USACE, and, for PGPs, the delegated permitting agencies (e.g., City of Cape Coral and Pinellas County) , as defined in the Tier 2 discussion below. The following permits expired November 7, 2011: SAJ- 5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 34, 46, and 72. SAJ-20 and 33 expired May 1, 2012. SAJ-96 expired July 13, 2012. SAJ-91 expired on October 12, 2012.10 Table 1: Number of times each general perm it was issued in th e last five years.

Project Type Smalltooth
sawfish
critical
habitat Gulf
sturgeon critical
habitat Johnson’s

seagrass critical
habitat Elkhorn & staghorn

coral
critical
habitat 5-Year

Total 2

SAJ-5 Maintenance dredging N/A N/A N/A N/A 84

SAJ-12 Private single-family boat ramps N/A N/A N/A N/A 8

SAJ-13
Aerial transmission lines N/A N/A N/A N/A 41

SAJ-14 Sub-aquatic
transmission lines N/A N/A N/A N/A 167

SAJ-17
Minor structures 156 22 27 58 1,488

SAJ-20 Single-family docks 547 183 27 0 3,256

SAJ-33 Private multi-family
docks 7 10 2 0 149

SAJ-34
Commercial docks 2 1 0 0 28

SAJ-46
Bulkheads and backfills N/A N/A N/A N/A 395

SAJ-72
Residential docks in Citrus County N/A N/A N/A N/A 156

SAJ-91
Docks and minor structures in the City of Cape Coral 2,382 N/A N/A N/A 2,382

SAJ-96
Docks and minor
structures in Pinellas County N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,224

Total 3,094 216 56 58 11,378

2 5-year totals are from 2006-2010 except SAJ-96 which is 2007-2012 and SAJ-91 which is an average five year total based on 4 years of data from 2008-2011.11 General permits and actions excl uded from all cr itical habitat:
SAJ-5: Maintenance dredging activities in re sidential (man-made) canals in navigable waters
of the United Sates.

 A residential canal is defined as a man-ma de waterway, historically dug from uplands, and surrounded on both sides by upl ands adjacent to principally residential properties.

 Federally-maintained navigation and/or flood co ntrol projects are not considered to be
residential canals and SAJ-5 is not au thorized for use within them.

 No additional dredging or excavation is allowe d under this permit other than is necessary to restore the canal to its original excavate d depth; however, in no case shall the depth of canal be greater than -5 feet mean low water (MLW).

 The material dredged/excavated under each authorization shall not exceed 4,000 cubic yards per project per year.

 SAJ-5 does not authorize the removal of plugs or the connection of any canal or other non-connected waterbody to navigable waters of the United States or to any other waters
of the United States.

SAJ-12: Installation and maintenance of private single-family boat ramps , including appurtenant structures (bulkheads, rub-rails, and tie- up piers) requiring less that 100 cubic yards
of fill material.

 The boat ramp should extend no further than 1 to 2 feet waterward of the mean high water line (MHWL) or the ordinary high wate r line (OHWL), but in no case shall they
exceed 5 feet waterward of the MHWL or the OHWL.

 Tie-up piers shall not exceed the length of the boat ramp or a width of 4 feet; and may have a single catwalk or terminal platform not to exceed 20 feet in length and 4 feet in
width.

 Navigational access to navigable waters of th e United States must already exist. No dredging of navigational access channels is permitted.

SAJ-13: Installation, construction, maintenance, replacement, and/or repair of aerial transmission lines, electrical substations, and access roads for construction and maintenance of overhead power lines and el ectrical substations.

 Foundations for overhead transmission line towe rs, poles, and anchors that provided the
foundations shall be the minimum size necessa ry and have separate footings for each tower leg (rather than a larger single pad) where feasible.

 Access roads are limited to the minimum effect s as stated in the special conditions of SAJ-13 including minimizing the width and le ngth of access roads as necessary, that raised access roads be properly bridged or culv erted to maintain surface water flows, to minimize surface discharge, and that roads used only for construction be removed upon completion of work and restored to pre-construction conditions.12 SAJ-14: Installation, construction, maintenan ce, replacement, and repair of subaqueous utility and transmission lines, outfall and intake structures associ ated with the utility line, substations, and access roads for the construction and maintenance of same.

 All subaqueous utility and/or transmission lines shall be in stalled a minimum of 4 feet below the bottom contour except in federal ch annels which have deeper criteria as described in special condition #15.

 No utility and/or transmission lines will be embedded in the bottom of state Class I or II waters or aquatic preserves.

 Discharge of dredged or fill material is authorized by this general permit as described in special condition #13.

 Dredged or fill materials must not change the pre-construction bottom contours as described in special condition #17.

 Materials resulting from trench excavation ma y be temporarily side-cast according to the requirements in special conditions #16 and #17.

SAJ-46: Installation of bulkheads and backfill fr om single-family lots in residential (manmade) canals in the state of Florida.

 A residential canal is defined as a man-ma de waterway, historically dug from uplands, and surrounded on both sides by upl ands adjacent to principa lly residential property. Open water areas on bays and lagoons are not considered residential canals, nor are federally-maintained navigational and/or flood control projects, and SAJ-46 is not
authorized for use within them.

 The bulkhead and backfill shall not exceed 300 feet in length, and shall not extend waterward of the MHWL or the OHWL, unless necessary to align with existing adjacent
seawalls.

 Seawall and/or riprap restoration may be perm itted at its previous location, upland of, or within one foot waterward of its previous location.

 New riprap will not be placed more than 4 f eet waterward of the MHWL or the OHWL.

 This permit does not authorize fill activities ot her than placement of riprap previously specified and backfill behind seawalls or bulkhead.

 At no time should this permit be construed to allow filling of waters of the United States for additional development, to impede navigation, or affect flood control.

SAJ-72: Installation of residential docks in Citrus County, Florida

.

 In-water work is limited to piling placement only. Additional associated structures such as boat lifts, stairway, walkway, or floating platforms shall be constructed out of water.

 All construction shall conform to the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan which limits residential dock construction to 1 slip per 100 f eet of shoreline that the applicant controls as part of the lot where his or her residence is located. Therefore, most docks cannot
accommodate more than 1 vessel.

 Expansion of existing marinas or other commer cial facilities is not authorized under

SAJ-72.13 General permits allowed in critical habitat : SAJ-17: Installation of minor structures

 Minor structures include singl e mooring pilings, small moori ng dolphins (not to exceed a cluster of four), non-commercial information signage, boat lifts, hoists, davits, or other minor structure that would have less environmental impact than a small dock.

SAJ-20: Repair, replacement, or installation of single-family docks/piers

 Docks are to accommodate not more than four vessels and normal appurtenances such as boat hoists, boat shelters with open sides, stairways, walkways, mooring pilings, and dolphins.

SAJ-33: Installation of private multi-family docks/piers or government docks/piers

 Dock must be less than 1,000 square feet in surface area and are designed to accommodate not more than five vessels, incl uding dry storage, unless a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission approved Manat ee Protection Plan is more restrictive.

 This general permit includes normal appurtenances such as boat hoists, boat shelters with open sides, stairways, walkways, mooring pilings, and maintenance of the same.

SAJ-34: Installation of private commercial piers

 Piers must be 1,000 square feet or less in surface area and accommodate 5 or fewer boat slips (including dry storage), unless a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission approved Manatee Protection Plan is more restrictive.

 This general permit includes normal appurtenances such as boat hoists, boat shelters with open sides, stairways, walkways, mooring pilings, and maintenance of the same. Associated mooring pilings are not included in this surface area.

 The expansion of existing marina s or other commercial faciliti es is not authorized under this general permit.

PGPs:
SAJ-91: Minor structures and bulkheads within the man-made canals in Cape Coral

.

 The work authorized is limited to existing cana ls within the City of Cape Coral and does not include the Caloosahatchee River, Matl acha Pass Aquatic Preserve, and the Cape Coral Spreader Canal.

 The removal of red mangroves is prohibited.

 All residential lots along the canals in the City of Cape Coral have 125 feet to 140 feet of shoreline. The city code requires all prope rties maintain a bulkheads along the canals if the property has a swimming pool. The City of Cape Coral no longer requires the placement of riprap in front of bulkheads along the canals.

 The City of Cape Coral has stated that they have not used SAJ-91 fo r the authorization of aerial transmission lines, sub-aqueous transmis sion lines, or for new stormwater outfalls and do not anticipate the need to use this perm it for these activities in the future. They may continue to use this permit for the main tenance of existing stormwater outfalls.

Aerial Transmission Lines and associated structures

 No dredging or filling of navigable waters or waters of the United States is permitted.14 Subaqueous and Transmission Lines

 This includes the installation and maintena nce of subaqueous utility and transmission lines placed on, under, or embedded in the bot tom of navigable waters of the United Sates within the City of Cape Coral. The installation of utility and transmission lines by direction boring is authorized.

 Dredged or till material placed in backf ill or bedding for subaqueous utility and transmission lines must not change th e preconstruction bottom contours. Excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area.

Private Single-Family Docks and Appurtenances

 Structures authorized under this PGP are private single-family docks not to exceed 4 slips. This would include normal appurtenanc es such as boat hoists, boat shelters with open sides, stairways, walkways, moor ing piles, dolphins, and maintenance of these appurtenances. Construction of upl and cut boat slips is not authorized.

 No living (i.e., residential structure), fueling, or stor age facilities over navigable
waters of the United States are authorized.

 A structure which by its size or location ma y adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands or submerge d aquatic vegetation (SAV) shall not be authorized. Impacts to SAV cannot be authorized.

Minor Structures associations with Single-Family Docks

 Minor structures include single mooring pile s; small mooring dolphins (limited to one cluster of 4 or fewer pilings); non-commerc ial information signage, boat lifts, hoists, davits, etc.; and other minor structure that would have less environmental impacts
than a small dock.

Stormwater Outfalls

 Structures authorized under SAJ-91 are stormwater outfalls and appurtenances.

 Dredging is authorized at st ormwater outfalls. Maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below MHWL or OHWL. No additional dredging is authorized under this general permit othe r than that which would be necessary to restore the discharge structure to its original permitted excavated depth.

 Excavated spoil material shall be deposite d at self-contained up land areas that will prevent spoil material and/or return wate r from reentering any water of the United States (including wetlands) or in terfering with natural drainage.

Bulkheads and Backfill in Residential Canals

 The work herein authorized includes th e construction, repair or maintenance of seawalls (bulkheads) and associated backfill in residential canals.

 The seawall shall not exceed 300 feet in length and not ex tend any farther waterward than 18 inches from the existing seawall or MHWL.

 The backfill must be from upland sources and consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in other than trace quantitie s. The amount of back fill shall not exceed one cubic yard per running foot below the plane of the MHWL.

 This permit does not authorize any filling, except for backfill behind the seawall. New riprap may be placed at the toe of th e existing or replacement seawall when the15 toe of the seawall is deeper than 3 feet at MLLW. Also, replacement riprap can only be added within the same footprint of exis ting riprap (i.e., no wa terward extension or lateral expansion of riprap beyond the previous footprint) in depths less than or equal
to 3 feet at MLLW.

SAJ-96: Single-family piers in Pinellas County

 Single-family piers are not to exceed 2 slip s, including personal watercraft lifts and
seawall mounted davits.

 This would include normal appurtenances c onsidered minor structures such as boat hoists, boat shelters with ope n sides, stairways, walkwa ys, lower landings, mooring pilings, dolphins, and maintenance of sa me, including pier reconfiguration.

 Maintenance dredging around the single family dock.

Permits not covered under this consultation: The only other general permits that the US ACE oversees that occu r in areas under the jurisdiction of NMFS are listed below in Table 2 and discussed below. These are included for comparison and to explain in Section 2.3, how each permit is used to authorize activities in Florida. The renewal of these perm its is not covered by this opinion.

Table 2: General permits not c overed under this consultation.

USACE general permit Description Date NMFS completed
consultation NMFS project number

SPGP IV-R1 Variety of activities throughout the state
of Florida under

FDEP December 21, 2011 F/SER/2009/05980

SAJ-42 Variety of activities
in Miami-Dade County February 10, 2011 F/SER/2008/01790

SAJ-71 Live rock aquaculture October 13, 2010 I/SER/2010/01366

SAJ-82 Variety of activities in Florida Keys On-going F/SER/2008/02958

SAJ-93 Maintenance dredging in the
Intracoastal Waterway on the east
coast of Florida No consultation on
record No consultation on
record

SAJ-99 Live rock and marine bivalve aquaculture August 29, 2012 I/SER/2012/0130316 SPGP IV-RI: This PGP that gives limited general authority to the FDEP for several in-water construction activities in all of th e counties in the state of Florida , except for Miami-Dade County. In-water construction activities covered by this SPGP are: shoreline stabilization projects; construction of boat ramp s, boat launch areas and structur es associated with such ramps or launch areas; docks, piers asso ciated facilities, and other mi nor piling-supported structures, and; maintenance dredging of canals and channels. NMFS completed a programmatic consultation for SPGP IV-R1 on December 21, 2011.

SAJ-42: This PGP that gives limited general authority to Miami-Dade County for several inwater construction activities and serves as an operating agreement between Miami-Dade County’s DERM and the USACE to administer SAJ-42. Specifically, SAJ-42 covers the majority of Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, located in Biscayne Bay within Miami-Dade County. For the intent of the present program matic consultation, only those areas of Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat outside of Miami-Dade County will be discusse d in terms of effects analyses to both the species and its critic al habitat. NMFS completed a programmatic consultation for SAJ-42 on February 10, 2011.

SAJ-71: This PGP that will authorize the deposition of materials for live rock aquaculture
within federal waters off the state of Flor ida. PGP SAJ-71 will be administered by NMFS through an operating agreement between the USAC E and NMFS that gives general authority to NMFS to administer SAJ-71 for the purposes of live rock aquaculture, in na vigable waters of the
United States which are within federal waters off the state of Florida. NMFS completed a programmatic consultation fo r SAJ-71 on October 10, 2010.

SAJ-82: This RGP for single-family residential projects in Monroe County including lot fills; construction of minor structures, minor pili ng-supported structures and marginal docks, including repair or replacement of said structures; boat ramps; and riprap revetments, bulkheads
and backfill in residential canals. Activities will be loca ted in waters of the United States on, or within existing wetland lots in platted subdivi sions within Monroe County, Florida, excluding federally-maintained navigation channels, flood control projects, and the Marvin D. Adams Waterway (Adam’s Cut). NMFS is currently working on a programmatic consultation for SAJ82 and its effects on corals and Acropora critical habitat.

SAJ-93: This RGP that gives limited general authority to the Florida Inland Navigation District
for maintenance dredging activities along the east coast of Florida. Dredging is authorized in
federal channels located in the Atlantic Intr acoastal Waterway, the Intracoastal Waterway, the Okeechobee Waterway, and along the east coast of Florida.

SAJ-99: This PGP that gives limited general authority to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to authorize the depositio n of materials for live ro ck aquaculture within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Florid a. Additionally, this permit also authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material (i.e., shell hash, bags seeded with clams, rock, etc.) necessary for shellfish and live rock aquaculture such as seed ing, rearing, cultivating, relaying, transplanting, and harvesting activities. NMFS completed a programmatic consultation for SAJ99 on August 29, 2012.17 Nationwide Permits (NWP) not covered under this consultation: These are included for comparison and to explai n in Section 2.3, how each permit is used to
authorize activities in Florida. The renewal of these permits is not covered by this opinion. These NWPs were reissued and published under the federal registry dated February 12, 2012, and became effective March 19, 2012.

NWP-2 Structures in Artificial Canals: Structures constructed in artificial (i.e., man-made) canals within principally reside ntial developments where the connection of the canal to a navigable water of the United States has been previously authorized (see 33 CFR 322.5(g)). (Section 10)

NWP-3 Maintenance: (a) The repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure, or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3, provided that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently authorized modification. (b) This NWP also au thorizes the removal of accumulated sediments and debris in the vicinity of existing structures (e.g., bridges, culverted road crossings, water intake structures, etc.) an d/or the placement of new or addition al riprap to protect the structure.
The removal of sediment is limited to the mini mum necessary to restore the waterway in the vicinity of the structure to the approximate dime nsions that existed when the structure was built, but cannot extend farther than 200 feet in any dir ection from the structure. (c) This NWP also authorizes temporary structures , fills, and work necessary to conduct the maintenance activity. Appropriate measures must be taken to ma intain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construc tion activities, access fill s, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. (d) Th is NWP does not authorize maintenance dredging for the primary purpose of navigation. This NW P does not authorize beach restoration. This
NWP does not authorize new stream channelization or stream relocation projects. (Sections 10 of the Clean Water Act and Section 404 of the Rivers and Harbors Act)

NWP-9 Structures in Fleeting and Anchorage Areas : Structures, buoys, floats and other devices placed within anchorage or fleeting areas to facilitate moorage of vessels where the U.S. Coast Guard has established such areas for that purpose. (Section 10)

NWP-10 Mooring Buoys: Non-commercial, single-boat, mooring buoys. (Section 10)

NWP-13 Bank Stabilization : Bank stabilization ac tivities necessary for erosion prevention, provided the activity meets all of the following criter ia (a) No material is placed in excess of the minimum needed for erosion protection; (b) The ac tivity is no more than 500 feet in length along the bank, unless the district engi neer waives this criterion by making a written determination concluding that the discharge will result in mi nimal adverse effects; (c) The activity will not exceed an average of one cubic yard per running foot placed along the bank below the plane of the ordinary high water mark or the high tide lin e, unless the district engineer waives this criterion by making a written determination concl uding that the discharge will result in minimal adverse effects; (d) The activity does not involve discharges of dredged or fill material into18 special aquatic sites, unless th e district engineer waives th is criterion by making a written determination concluding that the discharge wi ll result in minimal adverse effects; (e) No material is of a type, or is placed in any locati on, or in any manner, that will impair surface water flow into or out of any waters of the United States; (f) No material is placed in a manner that will be eroded by normal or expected high flows (pr operly anchored trees and treetops may be used in low energy areas); and, (g) The activity is not a stream channelizati on activity. This NWP also authorizes temporary structures , fills, and work necessary to construct the ba nk stabilization activity. (Sections 10 of the Clean Water Ac t and 404 of the Rivers and Harbors Act)

NWP-19 Minor Dredging: Dredging of no more than 25 cubic yards below the plane of the ordinary high water mark or the mean high wa ter mark from navigabl e waters of the United States (i.e., Section 10 waters ). This NWP does not authoriz e the dredging or degradation through siltation of coral reefs, sites that s upport submerged aquatic vegetation (including sites where submerged aquatic vegetation is documented to exist but may not be present in a given year), anadromous fish spawning areas, or we tlands, or the connecti on of canals or other artificial waterways to navigable waters of th e United States (see 33 CF R 322.5(g)). (Sections 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 404 of the Clean Water Act)

NWP-28 Modifications of Existing Marinas: Reconfiguration of exis ting docking facilities within an authorized marina area. No dredgi ng, additional slips, dock spaces, or expansion of any kind within waters of the United States is authorized by th is NWP. (Section 10)

NWP-35 Maintenance Dredging of Existing Basins: Excavation and removal of accumulated sediment for maintenance of existing marina basins , access channels to marinas or boat slips, and boat slips to previously authorized depths or co ntrolling depths for ingres s/ egress, whichever is less, provided the dredged material is deposited at an area that ha s no waters of the United States site and proper siltation cont rols are used. (Section 10)

NWP-36 Boat Ramps: Activities required for the construc tion of boat ramps, provided the activity meets all of the following criteria (a) The discharge into waters of the United States does not exceed 50 cubic yards of concrete, rock, crushed stone or gravel into forms, or in the form of precast concrete planks or slabs, unless the dist rict engineer waives th e 50 cubic yard limit by making a written determination concluding that the discharge will result in minimal adverse effects; (b) The boat ramp does not exceed 20 feet in width, unless the district engineer waives this criterion by making a written determination concluding that the disc harge will result in minimal adverse effects; (c) The base material is crushed stone, gravel or other suitable material; (d) The excavation is limited to the area necessary for site preparation and all excavated material
is removed to an area that has no waters of the United States; and, (e) No material is placed in special aquatic sites, including wetlands. (Sections 10 of the Rive rs and Harbors Act and 404 of the Clean Water Act ).19 2.3 Project Specific Review

This section describes the require d second-tier review for this c onsultation, other than projects proposing installation of any type of piling greate r than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer. Because of the noise levels generated, projects proposing installation of any type of p iling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by imp act hammer cannot be authorized until projectspecific consultation has been reinitiated and concl uded with the NMFS. In the state of Florida, there are two different ways in wh ich an applicant can apply for an in-water permit. Applicants either apply directly to a regional delegated au thority or to the FDEP through the SPGP IV-RI. Below is a description of the way that individual projects are received, re viewed, and processed. A flow chart demonstrating the application proce ss for a dock construction project is provided at
the end of this section.

1. Project Application : In areas with PGPs in place, the regional delegated authority receives the permit applications directly (i.e., Cape Coral for SAJ-91, Miami-Dade County for SAJ-42, and Pinellas County for SA J-96). All other applications within the
state of Florida are submitted to the FDEP under SPGP IV-R1.

2. Authorization of PGPs : Since these agencies have de legated authority to process applications that meet the terms and conditi ons of the applicable PGP for the USACE, each application is assessed to see that it meets the PDCs defined by the PGP. If the
PDCs are met then it is submitted to NMFS as stated in step 4 below. If the proposed project is not authorized under one of the PG Ps (e.g., does not meet all of the PDCs, is
outside of the defined action area for the PGP, requires greater review), then the application is forwarded to the USACE for review. (NMFS has already completed consultation on the SAJ-42 and SPGP IV-R1, as discussed earlier. This consultation only applies to PGPs SAJ-91 and 96)

3. Authorization of RGPs : Permit applications forwarded to the USACE from FDEP or the other PGP delegated authorities are then indi vidually reviewed by the USACE. Projects may then be authorized under an RGP or NWP based on the type of activity requested in the application, the level of impact expected, and/or the location of the project. Projects
authorized under NWPs are not covered under this consultation . Before a project can be authorized under a RGP, the USACE must co nduct a project specific review to ensure
that all of the PDCs are met. If the PDCs are met then it is submitted to NMFS as stated in step 4 below.

4. Submission to NMFS: The USACE or its delegated authority must email NMFS the following information to nmfs.ser.SAJgeneralpermits@noaa.gov :

a. A completed Excel spreadsheet attachment in the format shown below in Table 3. Table 3 provides the necessary head ings along with three examples for
demonstration. Below Table 3 are descri ptions and formatting requirements for
each of the columns.
b. A completed form stating how each of the PDCs is met or is not applicable and why. The USACE and NMFS will develop a standardized form for each of the general permits.

c. Any other supporting documentation necessa ry to support the determination made by the USACE or its delegated authority. This may include pr oject application,20 site survey (e.g., benthic, seagrass, ha rdbottom, etc), photos, environmental assessment, and more. NMFS will acknowledge receipt of the USACE or the PGPs delegated authority’s email submission through an auto reply e-mail. NMFS will review each e-mail submission sent to us by the USACE. If the USACE or PGPs delegated authority receives acknowledgement of NMFS' receipt of the application package, and receives no subsequent notification within the 10-day review period that the project does not comply with the programmatic consultation, then the USACE or designated authority may proceed with processing the project application.

5. Tier III review : If a project does not meet the PDCs defined in this document for any of the general permits, it must undergo separate Section 7 consultation with NMFS. This
review is referred to as Tier III review by the USACE. After this review, if NMFS provides a may affect but not likely to adversely affect determination, then the USACE may authorize the activity either under the original general permit or separately as an individual permit. Projects authorized by the USACE that require separate Section 7
consultation are not covere d by this consultation.21Table 3: USACE project specific review provided to NMFS (shown below with examples).Datesent toNMFSPermitusedPermitTrackingNumberProjectAddressCountyLatitudeLongitudeCriticalHabitatUnitTotalInwaterimpactShallowIn-waterimpactOverwaterareaImpacttypeNewConstruction,Repair,ReplacementAllPDCsmet1/1/13 SAJ-91 12-11111123 MainSt., CapeCoralLee 26.12345 -81.12345STSFCHCHEU123 12 210dock,seawallreplacement yes1/2/13 SAJ-96Unknownformat123 MainSt.,DunedinPinellas 28.12345 -82.12345 N/A 50 0 75dock,dredgenewconstructionyes1/3/13 SAJ-20SAJ-2012-250123 MainSt.,JupiterIslandMartin 17.12345 -80.12345JSG CHUnit E8 0 80 Dock replacement yes22 Formatting requirements:

1. Date sent to NMFS: This is the da te the email was provided to NMFS.

2. Permit used: This is the general permit used to authorize the activity.

3. USACE permit number: This is the permit number assigned by the USACE to the project.

4. Project Address: This is the address of the pr oject location. Any forma tting is fine in this category, though the state and zi p code are not required.

5. County
6. Latitude: This shall be formatted in decimal degrees to five places as shown in the examples.

7. Longitude: This shall be formatted in decima l degrees to five places as shown in the examples. Please provide a negative symbol before the longitude to denote the western hemisphere.

8. Critical habitat unit: These shall be provi ded in the following acronym style with no spaces or hyphens as shown in the examples. This allows for accurate sorting in excel.

 STSF CH CHEU (smalltooth sawfish critic al habitat Charlotte Harbor Estuary Unit)

 STSF CH TTIU (smalltooth sawfish critic al habitat Ten Thousand Island Unit),

 GS CH Unit 9 (gulf sturgeon critic al habitat - specify the unit)

 A CH ( Acropora critical habitat)

 JSG CH Unit A (Johnson’s seagrass crit ical habitat - sp ecify the unit)

 N/A (not applicable because the project is not located within a critical habitat unit)

9. Total in-water impact is defined as the total area of in-water substrat e that is permanently changed below MHW. This loss is calculate d in square feet a nd includes seawall placement, riprap, and dredging. This does not include temporary impacts such as side casting while installing sub-aquatic transmi ssion lines. Piling placements are also included for the following counties: Bay, Br oward, Dixie, Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Indian River, Levy, Martin, Miami-Dade Okal oosa, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa,
and Walton.

10. Shallow in-water impact is the sub-set of the total in-water impact listed in number 9
above between MHW and 3 feet MLLW.

11. Overwater area includes the total square foot age of all overwater structures including docks, boats, canopies, etc. This is not limited to just Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat
but includes the entire State of Florida.

12. New construction, repair, or replacement: Pleas e note which type of activity is being authorized. Repair and replacement are defined as occurring within the same footprint as the existing structure. New construction is de fined as a partial or completely new project footprint.

13. All PDCs met: Answer “yes” or “no”, if all of the applicable PDCs defined in this document are being met by the proposed project.23 Figure 1: USACE decision making tree.24 2.4 Programmatic Review

NMFS and USACE will conduct programmatic review s to evaluate, among other things, whether the nature and scale of the assumptions and eff ects predicted continue to be valid; whether the PDCs continue to be appropriate; and whether th e project-specific cons ultation procedures are being complied with and are effective. The pur pose of this is to verify conclusions and assumptions regarding the potential effects to ESA-listed species and critical habitat, review data on the cumulative impacts of the combined project s from the previous year, evaluate and suggest any procedural changes prompted by the review of data. For the two PGPs (SAJ-91 and 96), the agency authorizing authority may be involved in the reviews conducted between the USACE and NMFS. If the results of the programmatic review show that the anticipated impacts to listed species or critical habitat defined in this document are being exceeded, reinitiation of consultation may be required.

In-depth project review : This in-depth project review is in addition to the project review, PDC verification, and documentation requirement in Section 2.3. Periodically, NMFS will conduct a detailed review of a random sample of project s authorized under the general permits covered under this consultation. During this detailed review, NMFS may request additional information from the USACE or its delegated authority for individual projects beyond the required
information submitted to NMFS described in Section 2.3.

1. In the first year of the permit authorization, NMFS will review 10 randomly selected projects authorized under each of the 12 genera l permits for a total of 120 projects. This review will be conducted quarterly for a tota l of 480 (120 projects x 4 quarterly reviews) projects

2. If the projects reviewed in the first year meet the assumptions and PDCs defined by this opinion, then the review for years 2-5 will be conducted semi-annually (every 6 months). Again, 10 randomly selected projects aut horized under each of the 12 general permits will be reviewed for a total of 120 projects. This will result in 240 reviews annually. If this review results in questions or concerns by NMFS, an in-person meeting or conference call will be scheduled with the USACE to resolve any issues.

Annual programmatic review : The annual review will determine if the PDCs, assumptions, and effects analysis continue to be working and releva nt as discussed above. As previously stated, if the results of the programmatic review exceed the an ticipated impacts to liste d species or critical habitat defined in this document, reinitiation of consultation may be required. The annual review will cover all projects that occur within a given calendar year and the review will occur at the end of that year but no later than March 31 st of the following year. This review will be conducted as an in-person meeting or conferen ce call between NMFS, USACE, and its delegated authorities, if needed. The meeting will discuss the results of the in-depth project reviews; administrative issues; concerns or necessary changes in the assumptions, PDCs, or effects of this consultation; and any other procedural changes required. NMFS will document the results of the
annual review in a formal letter to the USACE.25 2.5 Project Design Criteria

Based on past permitting practices of the USACE a nd review of consultations with similar inwater construction activities, PDCs have been id entified that typically have been applied to permitted in-water construction activities and that limit adverse effects to those that are minimal
in nature and never result in adverse effects to li sted species or adverse effects to the essential features of designated critical ha bitat. The nature of the in-wat er construction activities involved in a proposed project will dictate which of the PDCs will be applicable to future projects covered by this consultation. The PDCs for several types of in-water construction activities may apply to a single proposed project (e.g., a proposed proj ect may require both shoreline stabilization and installation of a single-family pier). Below is a list of each general permit covered by this consultation and the PDCs required to issue that permit (see Table 4). For projects that utilize the construction guidelines, the USACE shall ensure that applicants are using the current guidelines including any updates. It is important to note that each of thes e general permits have
different action areas within the state of Florida (see Section 2.6). Only SAJ- 17, 20, 33, 34, and
91 authorize activities within critical habitat.

Table 4: PDCs for General Permits covered under this Consultation.

All Projects All projects and activities shall meet the following conditions: For projects in waters accessible to sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, or sturgeon (Gulf, shortnose, or Atla ntic), the permittee will utilize the

“ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions ,” and any added requirements, as appropr iate for the proposed activity. Under these guidelines, all construc tion activities will cease if sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish, are observed in the area. These construction conditions shall also appl y to sturgeon (Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic). All projects are required to use turbidity curtains for the smallest practicable area, that are monitored daily to ensure listed species are not being impacted by their pres ence, and be removed upon project completion, and that will not appreciably interfere with use of the area by any listed species. Turbidit y control measures, including best management practices, shall be used throughout construction to
control erosion and siltation to ensure there are no violations of state Water Quality Standards as establ ished in Sections 62-4.242 and 62-
4.244 of the Florida Administrativ e Code and Chapters 62-302, 62- 520, 62-522, and 62-550 of the Florida Administrative Code. All projects are prohibited on or contiguous to ocean beaches.26 SAJ-5
Maintenance Dredging of
Residential
Canals This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: Gulf st urgeon critical habitat, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, North Atlantic right whale critical hab itat, and elkhorn and staghorn coral
critical habitat. Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). Maintenance dredging activities are limited to residential (man-made) canals in navigable waters of the United Sates. Excavated spoil material shall be deposited in a self-contained upland (i.e., non-wetland pursuant to current fe deral criteria) disposal site that will prevent spoil material and/or return water from reentering any water
of the United States or interf ering with natural drainage No additional dredging or excavation is allowed under this permit other than is necessary to restore the canal to its original excavated depth; however, in no case shall the depth of can al be greater than -5 feet MLW. The material dredged/excavated und er each authorization shall not exceed 4,000 cubic yards per project per year.
SAJ-5 does not authorize the removal of plugs or the connection of any
canal or other non-connected waterb ody to navigable waters of the United States or to any other wa ters of the United States.

SAJ-12 Boat Ramps This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: Gulf st urgeon critical habitat, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, North Atlantic right whale critical hab itat, and elkhorn and staghorn coral
critical habitat. Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). Excavated spoil material shall be deposited in a self-contained upland (i.e., non-wetland pursuant to current fe deral criteria) disposal site that will prevent spoil material and/or return water from reentering any water
of the United States or interf ering with natural drainage Installation and maintenance of pr ivate single-family boat ramps, including appurtenant stru ctures (bulkheads, rub-ra ils, and tie-up piers) must require less than 100 cubic yards of fill material. These boat ramps typically extend no fu rther than 1 to 2 feet waterward of the MHWL or OHWL, but in no case shall they exceed 5 feet
waterward of the MHWL or the OHWL. Tie-up piers shall not exceed the lengt h of the boat ramp or a width of 4 feet; and may have a single catwalk or terminal platform not to exceed 20 feet in length and 4 feet in width. Navigational access to navigable waters of the United States must already exist. No dredging of navigational access channels is permitted.27 SAJ-13
Aerial
Transmission
Lines This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: Gulf st urgeon critical habitat, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, North Atlantic right whale critical hab itat, and elkhorn and staghorn coral
critical habitat. Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass).
Foundations for overhead transmissi on line towers, poles, and anchors that provided the foundations shall be the minimum size necessary and have separate footings for each tower leg (rather than a larger single pad)
where feasible. Permanent impacts (e.g., foundation to wers, transmission line poles, etc.) must be less than 1 acre per 2 miles in-water segment.

SAJ-14 Sub-Aqueous
Transmission
Lines This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: Gulf st urgeon critical habitat, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, North Atlantic right whale critical hab itat, and elkhorn and staghorn coral
critical habitat. Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). All subaqueous utility and/or transm ission lines shall be installed a
minimum of 4 feet below the bottom contour except in federal channels which have deeper criteria as desc ribed in the draft special condition #15
of SAJ-14. Discharge of dredged or fill material is authorized by this general permit as described in the draft speci al condition #13 of SAJ-14. Dredged or fill materials must not change the pre-construction bottom contours as described in the draft sp ecial condition #17 of SAJ-14. Materials resulting from trench exca vation may be temporarily side-cast according to the requirements in th e draft special conditions #16 and #17
of SAJ-14. Permanent impacts (e.g., foundation to wers, transmission line poles, etc.) must be less than 1 acre pe r 2 miles in-water segment.28 SAJ-17
Minor

Structures The following guidelines shall be followed: “Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Marsh or Mangrove Habitat - August 2001.” Because of concerns about adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass, dock construction in the lagoon (as well as canal) systems on Florida’s east coast from Sebastian Inlet (Brevard County) south to and including central Bisc ayne Bay (Miami-Dade County) must also comply with the construction guidelines titled “ Key for Construction Conditions for Docks or Other Minor St ructures Constructed in or Over Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) NMFS/USACE – February

2002.” Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). No dredging associated with dock/ pier construction is authorized. No work shall be authorized by SAJ-17 which causes adverse impact to
hardbottom or other essen tial features within st aghorn or elkhorn coral designated critical habitat. Essentia l features are natural consolidated
hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover. Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS. Impact hammer installation of piles or sheet piles is prohibited from
March 1 to June 30 in the areas defi ned in the noise restriction areas defined in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2-5.29 SAJ-20Private Singlefamily
Docks/Piers This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The following guidelines shall be followed: “Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Marsh or Mangrove Habitat - August 2001.” Because of concerns about adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass, dock construction in the lagoon (as well as canal) systems on Florida’s east coast from Sebastian Inlet (Brevard County) south to and including central Bisc ayne Bay (Miami-Dade County) must also comply with the construction guidelines titled “Key for Construction Conditions for Docks or Other Minor St ructures Constructed in or Over Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) NMFS/USACE – February

2002.” Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). No dredging associated with dock/pier construction is authorized under this permit. Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS. Impact hammer installation of piles or sheet piles is prohibited from
March 1 to June 30 in the areas defi ned in the noise restriction areas defined in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2-5.30 SAJ-33
Private Multifamily or

Government
Docks/Piers This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The following guidelines shall be followed: “Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Marsh or Mangrove Habitat - August 2001.” Because of concerns about adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass, dock construction in the lagoon (as well as canal) systems on Florida’s east coast from Sebastian Inlet (Brevard County) south to and including central Bisc ayne Bay (Miami-Dade County) must also comply with the construction guidelines titled “Key for Construction Conditions for Docks or Other Minor St ructures Constructed in or Over Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) NMFS/USACE – February

2002.” Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). Municipal or commercial fishing pi ers are not author ized under this permit. No dredging associated with dock/ pier construction is authorized. Water depths may not be altered in association with dock/pier
construction. Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS. Impact hammer installation of piles or sheet piles is prohibited from
March 1 to June 30 in the areas defi ned in the noise restriction areas defined in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2-5.31 SAJ-34
Commercial
Piers This permit cannot be used to au thorize projects in the following designated critical habitat: elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The following guidelines shall be followed: “Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Marsh or Mangrove Habitat - August 2001.” Because of concerns about adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass, dock construction in the lagoon (as well as canal) systems on Florida’s east coast from Sebastian Inlet (Brevard County) south to and including central Bisc ayne Bay (Miami-Dade County) must also comply with the construction guidelines titled “Key for Construction Conditions for Docks or Other Minor St ructures Constructed in or Over Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) NMFS/USACE – February

2002.” Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). Municipal or commercial fishing pi ers are not author ized under this permit. No dredging associated with dock/ pier construction is authorized. Water depths may not be altered in association with dock/pier
construction. Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS. Impact hammer installation of piles or sheet piles is prohibited from
March 1 to June 30 in the areas defi ned in the noise restriction areas defined in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2-5.32 SAJ-46
Bulkheads and
Backfill in
Man-made
Canals This permit cannot be used to au thorized projects in the following designated critical habitat: Gulf st urgeon critical habitat, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, North Atlantic right whale critical hab itat, and elkhorn and staghorn coral
critical habitat. Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). Fill material used with a project shall be limited to suitable, clean fill material, which excludes materials su ch as trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, construction materials, concrete block with exposed reinforcement bars, and any soils co ntaminated with any toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the CWA) (applie s to SAJ-13, SAJ-14, and SAJ-46).
The bulkhead and backfill shall not exceed 300 feet in length, and shall
not extend waterward of the MHWL or the OHWL, unless necessary to align with existing adjacent seawalls. Seawall and/or riprap restoration may be permitted at its previous location, upland of, or within one foot waterward of its pr evious location. New riprap will not be placed more than 4 feet waterward of the MHWL
or the OHWL. This permit does not authorize fill ac tivities other than placement of riprap previously specified and backfill behind seawalls or bulkhead. Projects proposing installation of metal sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project -specific consultation has been
reinitiated and conc luded with the NMFS

SAJ-72
Residential
Docks in Citrus County Projects authorized under these permits will have no adverse impacts to hard or soft corals, mangroves, a nd/or seagrasses (including Johnson’s seagrass). If a project site support s emergent or submerged aquatic vegetation or is expected to support these though not present at time of survey, the applicants shall adhere to the USACE/NMFS’ “ Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Marsh or Mangrove Habitat - August 2001 .” Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS.33 SAJ-91
Shoreline Armorment, Docks, and
Minor
Structures in the City of Cape
Coral No impacts are allowed to mangrove or submerged aquatic vegetation Excavated spoil material shall be deposited in a self-contained upland (i.e., non-wetland pursuant to current fe deral criteria) disposal site that will prevent spoil material and/or return water from reentering any water of the United States or interfering with natural drainage. Dredging is authorized at stormwat er outfalls. Maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below MHWL or
OHWL. No additional dr edging is authorized u nder this general permit
other than that which would be n ecessary to restore the discharge structure to its original permitted excavated depth.
Minor structures are allowed that w ould have less environmental impacts than a small dock include single moor ing piles; small mooring dolphins (limited to one cluster of 4 or fewer pilings); non-commercial information signage, boat lifts, hois ts, davits, etc.; and other minor

structure. Structures authorized under this PG P are private single-family docks not to exceed 4 slips. This would include normal appurtenances such as boat hoists, boat shelters with open sides, stairways, walkways, mooring piles, dolphins, and maintenance of these appurtenances. Construction of upland cut boat slips are not authorized.
The seawall shall not exc eed 300 feet in length an d not extend any farther waterward than 18 inches from the existing seawall or MHW. This permit does not authorize any filling, except for backfill behind the seawall. New riprap may be placed at the toe of the existing or replacement seawall when the toe of th e seawall is deeper than 3 feet at MLLW. Also, replacement riprap can only be added within the same footprint of existing riprap (i.e., no waterward extension or lateral expansion of riprap beyond the previous footprint) in depths less than or equal to 3 feet at MLLW. Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS. Impact hammer installation of piles or sheet piles is prohibited from
March 1 to June 30 in the areas defi ned in the noise restriction areas defined in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2-5.34 SAJ-96 Pinellas County This permit cannot be used to au thorized projects in the following designated critical habitat: Gulf st urgeon critical habitat, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, North Atlantic right whale critical hab itat, and elkhorn and staghorn coral
critical habitat. Note: there is no de signated critical habitat in Pinellas County. Projects involving pilings where mangrove, emergent or submerged aquatic vegetative resources are pr esent must comply with USACE and

NMFS’ “Construction Guidelines in Florida for Minor Piling-Supported
Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Marsh, or Mangrove Habitat” dated August 2001. No impacts are allowed to mangroves or submerged aquatic vegetation. Projects will not be authorized on beach areas used by swimming sea
turtles. Projects proposing installation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of metal piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-specific consultation
has been reinitiated and concluded with the NMFS.

Single-Family Docks: No more than 2 slips are allowed (i ncluding personal water craft, single davits, seawall mounted davits).

Multi-use and Commercial Docks:
No new access for watercraft is allowed (including high and dry). No increase in number of slips is al lowed (existing number of slips is not in question). No improvements are allowed that would increase usage.
Size of vessels must not be increased.
Structures are not allowe d to be used for repeat use vessels or special

events.

Shoreline Stabilization: New vertical walls are not allowed waterward of MHW/OHW (except between two existing walls and less than 100 feet). Replacement seawalls or riprap are al lowed within 1 feet of the existing

structure. New riprap is allowed less than 10 feet waterward of MHW/OHW. Riprap cannot be steeper than a 2:1 slope.

Maintenance Dredging Around Single-Family Docks: Dredging is not allowed to be more than -5 feet deep at MLW. Dredging must not exceed pr eviously authorized depth. Dredging must not exceed su rrounding controlling depths. Dredging must be less than 5,000 cubic yards.35 2.6 Action Area

The action area is defined by regulation as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR 402.02). The
action area includes all waters of the state of Florida except those areas not covered by the permit. All of the proposed acti ons under these general permits occu r within inland waters or do
not extend into the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Me xico further than a 1,00 0-square-foot residential dock. Therefore, direct impacts are limited to these areas and the surround ing waters. Indirect impacts include vessel traffic from the dock and boat ramps proposed under these general permits. Since residential vessels typically stay in inland and nearshore waters, the action area includes nearshore waters (Florida state waters ) from indirect impacts from vessel traffic.

Though all actions covered under these general permits occur within the state of Florida, below is a list of specific exemptions and exclusions fo r each of the separate general permits. Since we do not know the specific location of each of the actions that may be authorized under these general permits, we looked at the construction areas allowed by each permit, the PDCs for each permit, and the number of actions authorized under the previous 5-year authorization period to determine whether any action might be located or clumped in any areas of particular importance to listed species.

 Monroe County: Only SAJ-17 and SAJ-82 auth orize activities in M onroe County. SAJ82 is currently under separate NMFS re view (see NMFS PCTS reference number F/SER/2008/02958). All other general permits are prohibited for authorization in Monroe County.

 SAJ-5 and SAJ-46 are only authorized in man-made canals.

 All projects are prohibited that are on or contiguous with the ocean beaches.

 SAJ-5, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 33, 34, and 46 ar e allowed throughout th e state of Florida except for the following areas which are spec ifically excluded from authorization of projects under these permits.

o Motorboat prohibited zones, no entry zones, and federal manatee sanctuaries.

o All areas regulated under the Lake Okeechobee and Okeechobee Waterway Shoreline Management Plan, located betw een St. Lucie Lock in Martin County and W.P. Franklin Lock in Lee County.

o American crocodile designated critical habitat (Miami-Dade); the Biscayne Bay National Park Protection Zone (Dade County); St. Lucie Impoundment (Palm Martin County), and areas identified in th e Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C 1317, et seq.): St. Mary’s River from its headwaters to its confluence with the Bells River; the entire Wekiva River, including Wekiva Springs Run, Rock Springs Run, the entire Seminole Creek, and Black Water Creek form the outflow
from Lake Norris to the confluence with the Wekiva River; the Loxahatchee
River from Riverbend Park downstream to Jonathan Dickinson State Park.36 o The following state parks: John Pennekam p Coral Reef State Park, Lignum Vitae Key State Botanical Site and Aquatic Preserve, Long Key State Park, Curry Hammock State Park, and Bahia Honda State Park.

o Kings Bay/Crystal River/Homosassa/Sal t River system (Citrus County) and canals connected to these waterways.

o SAJ-5, SAJ-13, and SAJ-14 do not allow pr ojects with the Guana Tolomato
Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (St. Johns and Flagler Counties)

 SPGP IV-R1 (NMFS biological opinion da ted December 21, 2012; NMFS PCTS
reference number F/SER/2009/05980 ) covers activities in waters of the United States including navigable waters. It is not applicable in th e Intracoastal waterways, along beaches, or in upland-dug man-made canals.

 SAJ-72 is only applicable within Citrus County.

 SAJ-91 is only applicable within the man-made canals in the City of Cape Coral. It does not authorize work along the Caloosahatchee River, Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, or within the Cape Coral Spreader Waterway.

 SAJ-96 is only applicable with in Pinellas County. The following areas are exempt within Pinellas County: Spring Bayou/ TS or Bartow Power plant ar eas, Harbor Isles, and areas
less than 100 feet from a federal channel edge.

Only SAJ-17, 20, 33, 34, and 91 authorize work within ESA-designated critical habitat. Table 1 lists the number of times each of these general pe rmits was used for actions within each of the critical habitats during the last 5-year authorization period. This is used as an estimate of the number of times each permit will be used during this next 5-year period (see assumptions in Section 2.7).

As stated in the PDCs above, all permits are prohibited from impact hammer installation of piles or sheet piles from March 1 to June 30 in the fo llowing noise restriction zones defined in Table 5 and shown in Figures 2-5. These areas are based on current data and may not represent all areas necessary to protect reproductive female smallt ooth sawfish during pupping (see Section 3.2). If more areas are deemed necessary for protec tion or if the areas defined below require modification, these changes will be discussed an d implemented at the Tier II review meetings (see Section 2.4).

Table 5: Noise restriction zones in smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.

Name Latitude Longitude U.S. 41 Bridges

US 41 NW 26.660413° -81.885243°

US 41 NE 26.666827° -81.872966°

US 41 SW 26.642991° -81.873880°

US 41 SE 26.649405° -81.861605°

Iona Cove

IC NW 26.521437° -81.991586°37 IC NE 26.521212° -81.976191°

IC SW 26.511762° -81.991762°

IC SE 26.511537° -81.976368° Glover Bight

GB NW 26.542971° -81.997791°

GB NE 26.542678° -81.977745°

GB SW 26.529478° -81.998035°

GB SE 26.529185° -81.977992° Cape Coral

CC 1 26.551662° -81.947412°

CC 2 26.551561° -81.940683°

CC 3 26.539075° -81.940916°

CC 4 26.539205° -81.951049°

CC 5 26.542181° -81.951047°

CC 6 26.542133° -81.947776°

Figure 2: U.S. 41 Bridges with very small juvenile sawfish encounters38 Figure 3: Iona Cove with very small juvenile sawfish encounters39 Figure 4: Glove Bight with very small juvenile sawfish encounters40 Figure 5: Cape Coral Canals with very small juvenile sawfish encounters

2.7 Assumptions

Because this is a programmatic consultation, the ex act location, number of activities, and effects of each individual project is unknown. Therefore, we must look at the likely outcome of each project individually and the combined cumulative effect of all of the actions. Below is a list of assumptions made and the rationale for the assumption. The effects analyses for this programmatic consultation are based on these assu mptions. The Tier II process discussed in Section 2.4, allows for regular reviews be tween NMFS and USACE to determine if the assumptions and effects of the action are in-lin e with those that were anticipated by this document. This review process includes determining if changes are occurring in the number of permits predicted to be authori zed for activities covered under thes e general permits. At the time of review, consultation would be re-initiated if the effects seen in a given timeframe did not
match those defined in this document. With th e implementation of the Tier II reporting, better data will be collected during the next five y ears regarding the number of times each permit is used to authorize activities, its location and its relationship to each other and critical habitat, and the level of impact from the activity.41 1. Since it is impossible to know the exact numbe r of times a general permit will be used to authorize activities in the next five years, we look at the number of times each permit was
used to authorize activities dur ing the last five years. Fo r comparison, we compared the number of vessels registered in the st ate of Florida over the last ten years (http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/vs lfacts.html). Between 2002 and 2006, there was a net increase of 6 percent more vessels registered resulting in a likely increase of 6 percent more vessels traveling Florida coastal waters. Between 2007 and 2011, this number decreased 10 percent. This resulted in an overall decrease of 4 per cent over the ten year period. Because the number of activities that will be authorized during the next five years is unknown, we increased the amount of anticipated imp acts by 10 percent to allow for variability, as seen in ve ssel registration above. Ther efore, we anticipate no more than 12,516 projects to be author ized under these general permits in the next five years. This is the total number of permits issued dur ing the last five year s (11,378 as listed in Table 1) plus 10 percent. If the number of permits exceeds this num ber, re-initiation of consultation will be required.

2. Since the exact location of each project that may be authorized under the general permits is unknown, we must look at the most likely conditions to be encountered and the worst case scenario for each species. For example, when considering effects to smalltooth sawfish from an average residential dock pr oject, we consider a typical site with conditions commonly found in this area. These projects are often found in highly developed man-made canals (such as in th e City of Cape Coral for SAJ-91). These canals typically are comprised of shallo w, euryhaline banks along canals that are routinely dredged in the center to maintain ve ssel navigation. These canals typically have patchy coverage of mangroves along the shor eline, with mangroves typically found with sporadic coverage along the shoreline. We al so consider the worst case scenario of inwater construction in which the project could po ssibly harm or impede movement of this species, or could interfere with repr oductive females pupping their young.

Some of the areas that these species are found are not consider ed within our action area. For instance, when Gulf sturgeon move into th e rivers (such as the Suwannee River), they are covered under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. Therefore, the effect to species from projects that occur within this area ar e addressed by the USFWS not NMFS. By comparison, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon are under NMFS jurisdiction in rivers but are not known to spawn in any Florida ri vers so spawning related impacts are not considered. Similarly, effects to hatchling sea turtles are not considered under this consultation because they are under the juri sdiction of the USFWS on nesting beaches and the PDCs for this consultation prohibit activities on or contiguous to ocean beaches
so these areas are outside of the action area as well.

3. Since we do not know the level of development that will occur with in a given region or the distance between projects authorized under these general permits, we make the assumption that project are not likely to occur simultaneou sly in a small area. For instance, we assume that only one dock or seawall will be installed within a given canal
in smalltooth sawfish critical ha bitat. We also consider th e cumulative effects, if more than one project occurred simultaneously within a region. Since each of these projects is42 likely to be completed quickly (a couple of days to a couple of weeks depending on the type of activity), it is unlikely that project will occur simultaneously. For the effects analysis, we assume a worst case scenario of up to two projects occurring in the same area simultaneously.

Since we do not know the exact size and number of vessels that will be stored at docks and minor structures authorized by these general perm its, we look to studies conducted in the state of Florida that analyzed vessel use. According to these studies, the average size vessel stored at a residential dock is 22 feet in length with a draft of 2 feet (Sidman et al. 2007). This is consistent
with the center console recreati onal vessel common in Florida waters . Also, the largest dock/pier structure authorized under these general perm its is a 1,000 square foot dock under SAJ-33 or SAJ-34 allowing up to five vessels each. This si ze dock would not support larger vessels. The analysis in this opinion is based on recr eational vessels in this size class.

3. Status of Listed Species and Critical Habitat

The following endangered (E) and threatened (T) sp ecies and their designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS may occur in or near the action area (see Table 6 and Table 7)

. Table 6: Listed species likely to occur in or near the action area.

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Turtles

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 3 E/T
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 4 T

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E

Fish

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata 5 E
Gulf sturgeon Shortnose sturgeon Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Acipenser brevirostrum Acipenser oxyrinchus 6 T

E

E

Invertebrates and Marine Plants

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata T
Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis T
Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii T

3 Green turtles are listed as th reatened except for the Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico breeding populations, which are liste d as endangered.

4 Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA) DPS.

5 The U.S. DPS.

6 River and in-shore habitats within the action area may affect A tlantic sturgeon from the Carolin a and South Atlantic DPS; howev er, Atlantic sturgeon from all DPS may be affected in off-shore waters within the action area.43 Common Name Scientific Name Status

Marine Mammals

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E

Table 7: Designated critical habitat likely to occur in or near the action area.

Species Unit

Smalltooth sawfish C harlotte Harbor Estuary; Te n Thousand Islands/Everglades

Gulf sturgeon E stuarine and marine 7 (NMFS) – Units 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Staghorn and elkhorn coral F lorida Are a

Johnson’s seagrass A ll Units A-J

NMFS analyzed the potential routes of effects fr om all of the activities proposed by each of the general permits to each of the liste d species (see Table 6) and critic al habitat units (see Table 7) that occur within each of the ge neral permits action areas (see Se ction 2.6). Table 8 provides a list of each of the species that are not likely to be adversely a ffected, the species that are likely to be adversely affected, and the critical habitat units that are likely to be adversely affected by the
activities that can be authorized under each of the general permits. Ac tivities authorized under these permits that result in insignificant or disco untable effects to species and critical habitat are listed in Table 8 under species not likely to be a dversely affected and discussed in detail in
Section 3.1. Activities that are likely to adversely affect species and critic al habitat are discussed
in Section 3.1 and addressed fu rther in Section 3.2. Under th e Special Conditions for these general permits and the PDCs, only SAJ- 17, 20, 33, 34, and 91 allow activities within ESAdesignated critical habitat.

7 Gulf sturgeon riverine critical habitat is under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. This action area includes Units 3, 4, 5, 6, an d 7.44 Table 8: Impact to species and critical habitat by project type.

Project Type Species not likely to be adversely affected Species likely to be adversely affected Critical habitat likely to be adversely affected

SAJ-5
Maintenance

dredging sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass none none

SAJ-12Private singlefamily boat

ramps sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass Sea turtles none

SAJ-13
Aerial
transmission
lines sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass none none

SAJ-14 Sub-aquatic
transmission
lines sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass none none

SAJ-17
Minor structures sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass Johnson’s seagrass
elkhorn and staghorn coral

sea turtles smalltooth sawfish, and Johnson’s seagrass

SAJ-20 Single-family
docks sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass Johnson’s seagrass
sea turtles smalltooth sawfish, , and Johnson’s seagrass
critical habitat

SAJ-33
Private multifamily docks sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass Johnson’s seagrass
sea turtles smalltooth sawfish,
and Johnson’s seagrass
critical habitat

SAJ-34
Commercial
docks sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass Johnson’s seagrass
sea turtles smalltooth sawfish,
and Johnson’s seagrass
critical habitat

SAJ-46
Bulkheads and
backfills sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon, corals, Johnson’s

seagrass none none

SAJ-72
Residential
docks in Citrus County sea turtles, smalltooth
sawfish sea turtles none45 SAJ-91
Docks and minor
structures in the

City of Cape
Coral Sea turtles, smalltooth
sawfish sea turtles Smalltooth sawfish
critical habitat

SAJ-96
Docks and minor
structures in Pinellas County Sea turtles, smalltooth
sawfish sea turtles None

3.1 Status of Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected

3.1.1 Docks, piers, associated facilities, a nd other minor piling supported structures (except municipal and commercial fishing piers).

As discussed below, individual activities auth orized under SAJ-17, SAJ-20, SAJ-33, SAJ-34, SAJ-72, SAJ-91, and SAJ-96 may affect the follow ing species as stated in Table 8 above: sea turtles (loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback), smalltooth sawfish, sturgeon (shortnose, Gulf, and Atlantic), and corals (staghorn and elkhorn), protected by the ESA, may be found in or near the action. Th e action area for these general permits includes critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, staghorn and el khorn coral, and Johnson’s seagrass. Table 1 provides a list of how many tim es each of these general permits was issued in critical habitat during the last 5-year authori zation period. Potential individual and additive effects to these listed species cr itical habitat are discussed below. NMFS believes that sea turtles (loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback) may be affected by indirect impacts from an increase in vessel traffic and smalltooth sawfish and Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat may be adversely affected by some aspect s of the proposed action, as discussed below and again in Section 3.2 and Section 5.

Potential routes of effects to sea turtles: Sea turtles may be affected by be ing unable to use an area for fora ge or refuge habitat due to potential avoidance of construction activities cau sed by pile placement during dock construction. These effects will be insignificant due to the sma ll size of each piling placed and the limited time it will take to complete each action (typically a day or two for small docks to a couple of weeks for SAJ-33 and 34). Because these species ar e mobile and likely to leave the area during construction, the risk of injury from this type of construction activity is insignificant. In areas where seagrasses are present or known to occur, the “Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Construc ted in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), Marsh or Mangrove Habitat - August 2001” will be followed to minimize impacts to sea grasses that may be used by sea turtles for foraging.

No impacts to nesting beaches are anticipated from the construction of docks and piers because the PDCs for these permits prohibit construction where nesting beaches are located. Specifically all construction is prohibited on or contiguous to ocean beaches.46 Potential routes of effects to North Atlantic right whales: North Atlantic right whales and North Atlantic right whale critical habitat will not be impacted by any of the actions proposed under these genera l permits based on the following. Only SAJ-14 (sub-aquatic transmission lines) pr ovides for actions that extend a ny further from shore than the length of a dock or pier. SAJ- 14 cannot be applied to projects that occur on or are contiguous with ocean beaches, or occur within critical habitat without a projec t-specific Section 7 consultation. Therefore, impacts to North A tlantic right whales are not expected from construction activities under these permits.

Potential routes of effects to smalltooth sawfish: Effects include the risk of injury from constr uction activities including physical impacts from construction materials or operating constructi on machinery during cons truction activities. Construction of docks or piers typically involves the use of sma ll boats and/or barges, and pile driving or jetting-in of pilings. Some work also may be conducted from the uplands. No dredging is authorized under these permits. Becau se these species are mobile and likely to leave the area during construction, the ri sk of injury from this type of construction activity is insignificant. At any given site , smalltooth sawfish may be aff ected by being temporarily action (typically a day or two for small docks to a coup le of weeks for SAJ-33 a nd 34) unable to use the site due to potential avoidance of construction activities and related noise, but these effects will be insignificant. The effects of noise from the installation of docks and piers are discussed separately below for all species.

Juvenile smalltooth sawfish exhibit site fidelity to the areas in which they are pupped for the first several years of their liv es, typically in very shallow, near shore waters where they can avoid predation by coastal shark species . In South Florida, sawfish ha ve established distinct nursery areas where they utilize shallow, euryhaline ha bitat and red mangroves for foraging and refuge; these areas have been designated as critical habita t for the species (discussed below). Therefore, the removal of red mangroves or changing of water depths is pr ohibited under these permits. The risk to juvenile sawfish w ould be insignificant due to the li mited area of the impact around the pilings used to support docks or piers, the limited construction period, and because the sawfish are able to move away from the area dur ing construction and return when installation is complete.

Potential routes of effects to sm alltooth sawfish critical habitat:
The essential features for the conservation of smalltooth sawfish that provide nursery area functions are (1) red mangroves; and (2) shallo w, euryhaline (fluctuating salinity) habitats, characterized by water depths between MHWL a nd 3 feet measured at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Red mangroves and adjacent shallow, euryhaline habitats provide nursery area
functions that facilitate recrui tment of juveniles into the adul t population (discussed in Section 3.2). Thus, these features are essential to the conservation of smalltooth sawfish. One or more of the essential features must be present in a proj ect area for it to function as critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. The PDCs for these permits prohibit the removal of red mangroves and dredging (which would change the shallow, euryhaline feature) associated with dock construction. Therefore, impacts to smalltooth sa wfish critical habitat from piling placement are
discountable.47 Potential routes of effects to Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon: Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon may be affected by be ing unable to use the immediate area for forage or refuge habitat due to potenti al avoidance of constr uction activities caused by pile placement during dock construction. These eff ects will be insignificant due to the small size of the impact from piling placement, and the li mited duration of time required to place piles, which last typically a day or two for smaller re sidential docks. Larger dock projects (up to 1,000 square feet) may take up to a few weeks to place the increased number of piles necessary but are also constructed less frequently. For example, during the last permit period, only 11 docks were constructed in Gulf sturgeon cr itical habitat under SAJ-33 and 34. Because these species are mobile, the risk of injury from this type of construction activity is insignificant. In addition, sturgeon are opportunistic feeders and will be able to forage over large distances and will be able to locate prey beyond the immedi ate area of dock construction and return when construction is complete.

Sturgeon spawning will not be a ffected by activities covered unde r these general permits. The rivers in which Gulf sturgeon spawn are under th e jurisdiction of the U SFWS and are therefore
out of the action area of this consultation. Shor tnose and Atlantic sturgeon are not known to spawn in any rivers in the stat e of Florida (77 FR 5914) and ther efore will not be affected by these general permits. Migrati on to spawning rivers will be insignificant because docks are designed to not create obstructions , as they must be built to allo w for vessel traffic in a given area. The in-water footprint of a maximum 1,00 0-square-foot dock would not impede movement along a shoreline to spawning rivers.

Potential routes of effects to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat: NMFS believes the project is not likely to adve rsely affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. According to the USACE, 216 dock/pier constr uction projects were authorized from 2006-2010 within Gulf sturgeon critical habita t in the state of Florida (Units 9-14). The essential features necessary for the conservation of Gulf sturge on present include: abundant prey items; water quality and sediment quality necessary for norma l behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; and safe and unobstructed migratory pathwa ys necessary for passage within and between riverine, estuarine, a nd marine habitats.

Of the essential features, NMFS believes pr ey abundance, water qua lity, and safe and unobstructed migratory pathwa ys may be affected.

 Impacts to prey abundance will be insignificant due to the small size of the impact from piling placement and because sturgeon are oppor tunistic feeders and will be able to forage over large distances and will be able to locate prey beyond the immediate area of
dock construction and return when construction is complete.

 Water quality may be temporarily impacted by the placement of piles; however, this impact will be insignificant as turbidity cu rtains will be used to contain disturbed sediments, disturbances from piling placemen t are minimal, and the construction will be completed quickly (typically a few days for most projects to a few weeks for larger docks). Larger docks (up to 1,000 square feet in size) are built less frequently, with only 11 constructed in Gulf sturgeon critical habitat between 2006 and 2010 under SAJ-33 and

SAJ-34.

 Impacts to a safe and unobstructed migrator y pathway from the construction of docks will be insignificant. As discussed above , docks are constructed in a manner to not48 impede vessel traffic and therefore woul d not block migration during construction periods when the site was contained by turb idity curtains. Post construction, piling supported structures would not impede sturgeon pathways. Construction of these projects is temporary and completed quickly (typically a few days for most projects to a few weeks for larger docks).

Potential routes of effects to staghorn and elkhorn corals: SAJ-17 is the only permit that allo ws construction in areas where co rals may be found. All other piling permits prohibit projects that occur on or contiguous with ocean beaches, where coral are found. The USACE has also agreed to a llow only SAJ-17 to authorize permits in Acropora critical habitat. SAJ-17 is also the only pe rmit that allows projects within Monroe County,
where corals are known to occur. Elkhorn and staghorn corals could be adversely affected by shading and by increases in turbidity due to cons truction, if structures were built where these species are growing. However, stru ctures built where listed corals are growing, or that result in shading or turbidity effects to elkhorn and staghorn corals, are not authorized under these general permits and take of listed corals is not auth orized under these permits. The PDCs for SAJ-17,
also do not authorize activities th at impact hardbottom or other esse ntial features within staghorn or elkhorn coral designated critical habitat. SA J-17 is limited to minor structures (e.g., davits, pilings along seawalls for securi ng vessels, etc.) constructed of typically 4 or fewer pilings.
Since these structures are not al lowed on or contiguous with ocean beaches, the majority of these are built in residential man-made canals, where co ral is less likely to occur. Because the PDCs for SAJ-17 limit the location and prohibit impacts to corals and the hardbottom and coral skeletons that are used by spreading coral co lonies, the potential impacts to corals are insignificant.

Potential routes of effects to Acropora (staghorn and elkhorn) coral critical habitat: SAJ-17 is the only permit that allows construction in Acropora critical habitat. The physical
feature of Acropora critical habitat essential to its cons ervation is substrate of suitable quality and availability to support larval settlement and recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments. Substrate of suitable quality and availability is defined as consolidated
hardbottom or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy ma croalgae cover and sediment cover, occurring in water depths from the MHWL to 30 meters (73 FR 72210; November 26, 2008).

Information provided by the USACE indica tes that 58 projects occurred within Acropora critical habitat between 2006 and 2010. However, according to conversations with the USACE, this is
an inaccurate count of the number of actual projects in critical ha bitat because the GIS layer used to count the number of projects includes projects in man-made canals, which are exempt from Acropora critical habitat. These discrepancies likely account for the 58 projects permitted during the last renewal period (pers. e-mail comm. be tween N. Bailey, NMFS, and S. Santos, USACE Regulatory Division, May 26, 2011). During multiple conversations, the USACE stated that the majority of SAJ-17 projects are out-of-water struct ures such as boat lifts, davits, and whips that attach to either existing pilings or to structur es in canals that are both exempt from critical
habitat. As stated in the critical habitat ru le, "all existing (meaning al ready constructed at the time of this critical habitat designation) federa lly-authorized or permitted man-made structures such as aids-to-navigation (AT ONs), artificial reefs, boat ramp s, docks, pilings, channels, or marinas do not provide the essentia l feature that is essential to the species' conservation." Therefore, if these projects occu r in man-made canals or new stru ctures are attached to existing49 pilings in place at the time of cr itical habitat listing, then they w ould occur within the critical habitat unit but would be exempt from critical habitat and any impacts from the project would not be counted against critical habitat losses. According to the USACE, projects in the Florida Keys are usually visited by USAC E staff prior to issuing a permit to ensure that sensitive resources are not impacted by the proposed project. Th e site visits assess if the essential features
of hardbottom or coral skeleton are present to support either ex isting living coral or future
recruitment of Acropora species. The risk of impact to the coral skeleton component of the
essential features of coral critical habitat is discountable since the PDCs prohibit impacts to
corals or coral skeletons. If th e potential exists for a proposed proj ect to directly or indirectly
affect Acropora coral species, then the proposed projec t will require separate ESA Section 7 consultation and will not be authorized through this opinion. The placement of pilings may affect the hardbottom component of the critical habitat essentia l feature; however, hardbottom impacts are not expected as most projects in this area receive a site visit by the USACE to verify essential features are not impacted. Therefore, loss of the Acropora essential features is not expected in Acropora critical habitat from the placement of pilings authorized under these general permits and will not reduce the ability of the Florida Area critical habitat unit to provide for the conservation of the species.

Potential routes of effects to Johnson’s se agrass and Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat: Docks and piers are allowed to be permitted that may affect Johnson’s seagrass under SAJ-17, 20, 33, and 34. We believe the pote ntial of impacts to Johnson’ s seagrass are insignificant because the PDCs prohibit any adverse impact s to any submerged aquatic vegetation and specifically to Johnson’s seagrass. Between 2006 and 2010, only 56 projects were permitted in Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat, of which 27 were minor structures (e.g., boat lifts, davits, and mooring pilings). The PDCs for SAJ-17, 20, 33, 34, do not allow direct or indirect impacts to Johnson’s seagrass but do allow construction within Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat. Because of concerns about adverse impacts to Johnson’s se agrass, the PDCs for these permits include the requirement to use the construction guidelines titled “ Key for Construction Conditions for Docks
or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or Over Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) NMFS/USACE – February 2002”, for dock construction in the lagoon (as well as canal) systems
on Florida’s east coast from Sebas tian Inlet (Brevard County) s outh to and including central Biscayne Bay (Miami-Dade County). Though we be lieve impacts directly to Johnson’s seagrass are insignificant, there may be adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat as discussed below in Section 3.2 and again in Section 5.

Potential impacts from vessel traffic: Vessel traffic, both recreational and commercial, has been docume nted in stranding reports for each species to adversely affect protected specie s such as marine mammals and sea turtles. However, little information exists on interacti ons with smalltooth sawfish and sturgeon (Gulf sturgeon, shortnose, and Atlantic). This is like ly due to the fact that these species are all primarily demersal and rarely would be at risk from moving vessels. There are no known stranding reports for smalltooth sawfish being st ruck by vessels. There are limited records strandings of sturgeon struck by vessels in the northeast resulti ng from interactions of large shipping vessels in narrow channels that eliminat e the ability of the stur geon to avoid the vessel due to the deep draft of the shipping vessels. These general permits are limited to smaller recreational vessels with an averag e size of 22 feet long with a draf t of 2 feet (see Section 2.7).50 All permits are for residential projects except for SAJ-34 which allows up to five commercial vessels and is limited to a 1,000 square foot dock th at would not support larger vessels. Because vessels need sufficient water to navigate without striking the bottom, shallow areas are marked with navigational markers for recreational boaters to avoid these areas. Th erefore, impacts with these species are not anticipated and effects to smalltooth sawfish and sturgeon are discountable. The potential increase of vessel traffic from the c onstruction of pile-supporte d structures is listed below in Table 9. This is followed by an analys is of these effects to sea turtles and North Atlantic right whales.

Table 9: Potential increase in vessel traffic

General Permit Assumption Number of
times issued in 5-years 8 Potential 5-year
increase in vessels

stored at docks

SAJ-12 Private boat ramps 1 boat per ramp 8 8

SAJ-17 Minor piling structures 1 boat per structure 1,488 1,488

SAJ-20 Single-family docks Maximum 4 vessels
allowed - assume 4 3,256 13,024

SAJ-33 Private multi-family docks less than 1000 square feet Maximum 5 vessels
allowed - assume 5 149 745

SAJ-34
Commercial docks less than 1000 square feet Maximum 5 vessels
allowed - assume 5 28 140

SAJ-72 Docks in Citrus County 1 boat per dock 156 156

SAJ-91
Docks and minor structures in Cape Coral 1 boat per structure 2,489 9 2,489

SAJ-96
Docks and minor structures in Pinellas County 1 boat per structure 2,418 2,418

Total 20,468

Sea turtles are susceptible to vessel strikes. Dock and pier construction can indirectly (i.e., later in time) result in increased vessel traffic e ffects by new vessels usi ng those structures. According to the USACE, the following genera l permits were issued for docks and minor structures that may support vessel storage (see Table 9). Sea turt les could be adversely affected by an increase in vessel traffic associated with the additive increase in facilities that allow vessel
access to the marine environment. Because sea turtles spend a considerable amount of time on or near the surface of the water, this increases th e potential risk of collision from vessel traffic.

8 5-year totals are from 2006-2010 except SAJ-96 which is 2007-2012 and SAJ-91 which is an average five year total based on 4 years of data from 2008-2011. 5-year totals includes all dock structures, minor structures, and
davits.

9 This is a five year average as expl ained in Section 2.1 for SAJ-91. It includes all dock structures and davits.51 These general permits authorize not only the insta llation of new vessel acce ss facilities, but also repair, replacement, and maintenance of existi ng vessel access facilities. Thus, the number of new permits issued may not translate into a sim ilar increase in vessel traffic because a certain portion of the permitted docks are being replaced, not newly built. Due to the increase in vessel storage authorized by these ge neral permits, sea turtles may be adversely affected by the potential increase in vessel traffi c and vessel strikes, which is fu rther discussed below in Section 3.2 and again in Section 5.

The increased risk of vessel strikes to North A tlantic right whales is greatest during the annual calving season from November to April. Howeve r, based on a study of re creational boating in nearby Brevard County, 10 and on offshore weather pattern in formation from the Coast Pilot, vessel traffic is likely to be lower during the right whale calving season. Sidman et al. (2007) showed the months of November through February to be the lowest in terms of recreational vessel use, that vessel trips were of shorter du ration during these months, and that fewer boats
traveled offshore. Coast Pilot information indica tes that wind speeds off of Florida’s east coast are generally highest from September or Octobe r through April. Given the reduced amount of vessel traffic due to higher wind speeds, the risk of injury or death to sea turtles and North Atlantic right whales from interactions with recreational vessel traffic from this proposed project is discountable. Based on the above, NMFS concl udes that Northern Atla ntic right whales are not likely to be adversely affected by th e increased recreational vessel traffic.

3.1.2 Shoreline stabilization

Shoreline stabilization may be authorized under SAJ-46, 91, and 96. SAJ-46 does not allow projects to be authorized in critical habitat. SAJ-91 is located within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, and SAJ-96 does not include any critical habita t within its action area of Pinellas County.
Potential routes of effects to e ach of the listed species in Tabl e 6 are discussed below along with potential impacts to smalltooth sawfish critical habitat from shoreline stabilization projects
authorized under SAJ-91. The number of times th at each general permit was issued for shoreline armoring between 2006 and 2010 is provided below in Table 10, along with the additive impact
of these actions.

10 Sidman, C. et al. 2007. A Recreational Boating Ch aracterization of Brevard County. Florida Sea Grant Program. (http://edis.ifas.ufl .edu/pdffiles/SG/SG08100.pdf)52 Table 10: Potential impacts from shoreline armoring.

No. of seawalls permitted Maximum impact per seawall Total impact during 5-year period

SAJ-46 395 Max 300 feet x 4 feet allowable riprap = 1,200 square feet (0.03 acre) 474,000 square feet (10.88 acre)

SAJ-91 500 11 Max 300 feet x 18 inches = 450 square feet (0.01 acre) 225,000 square feet (5.17 acres)

SAJ-96 226 12 Max 100 if below MHW x 10 feet riprap = 1,000 square feet (0.02 acre) 226,000 square feet (5.18 acres)

Potential routes of effects to sea turtles: Effects on sea turtles include the risk of injury from construction activities (shoreline stabilization), including physical impacts from construction materials or operating construction machinery. The risk of injury from constructi on will be discountable due to these species’ mobility and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction
Conditions . Sea turtles may be affect ed by being temporarily unable to use the site for forage habitat due to potential avoidan ce of construction activities, rela ted noise, and physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, and potential foragi ng habitat may be permanently covered by riprap, but these effects will be insign ificant, given each project’s small footprint and short construction time. Projec ts authorized under SAJ-46 and 91 occur in man-made canals and
even the additive loss of habitat within 4 feet of the MHWL in these canals will be insignificant to sea turtles, as these areas are not known to be valuable foraging and refuge habitat for sea turtles. The potential loss of 3.4 acres (see Table 10) in Pinell as County over the five years is insignificant due to the nearshore location of thes e impacts (projects must be built landward of the MHWL or in alignment with adjacent seawalls), the PDC requirement to avoid submerged aquatic vegetation potentially us ed for sea turtle foraging, and the PDC prohibiting construction on beaches used by nesting sea turtles. Shoreline stabilization projects of this size and typically completed within a few days or weeks.

Potential routes of effects to smal ltooth sawfish and critical habitat:
Effects on smalltooth sawfish include the risk of injury from construction activities (shoreline stabilization), including physical impacts from construction materials or operating construction machinery. The risk of injury from constructi on will be discountable due to these species’ mobility and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction
Conditions . Effects on smalltooth sawf ish include potential loss of habitat (i.e., shallow, euryhaline habitat and mangroves) for foraging and predator avoidance. The removal of mangroves is prohibited under SAJ-46, 91, 96; th erefore, impacts to mangroves will be
discountable. The removal of sha llow, euryhaline habitat is limite d by the PDCs of each of these three general permits. SAJ-91 authorizes activitie s within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. Under SAJ-91, bulkheads shall not exceed 300 feet in length and not extend further waterward than 18 inches from the existing seawall or MHW. Riprap placement is only allowed outside of

11 This is a 5-year average based on data provided for the four years from 2008 to 2011. It includes all dock
structures and davits.

12 Pinellas County did not differentiate between the number of times seawalls were authorized verses maintenance dredging. Therefore, the full amount of 22 6 activities was considered for both.53 critical habitat for SAJ-46 and SAJ-96, and in wate rs deeper than 3 feet MLLW (as defined as
the essential feature from smalltooth sawfish cri tical habitat) for SAJ-91. SAJ-46 occurs in manmade canals outside of smalltooth sawfish critical habitat in areas that may or may not support smalltooth sawfish. This permit does not allow bul kheads to exceed 300 feet in length or extend waterward of the MHW unless to align with neig hboring seawalls. Riprap is allowed to be placed up to 4 feet waterward of MHW under SAJ-46. SAJ-96 is restricted to Pinellas County
and limits bulkheads waterward of the MHW unle ss to connect 2 existing seawalls within 100
feet.

The cumulative impact of seawalls installation for SAJ-46, 91, and 96 is likely to be similar to the effects that occurred during the last 5-year pe riod and therefore has the potential to similarly impact smalltooth sawfish and smalltooth sawfis h critical habitat (see Table 10). Again, no mangroves will removed by the installation of seawalls. The loss of shallow, euryhaline habitat from SAJ-46 and SAJ-96 is insignificant because th ese are seawalls that either occur above the MHWL or align with existing seawalls. Sin ce documented nursery habitat for smalltooth
sawfish occurs within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, the loss of pot entially 14.28 acres (the sum of SAJ-46 and SAJ-96 impacts) of shallow, eur yhaline habitat outside of critical habitat is insignificant. These impacts are spread between Pinellas County and man-made canals outside
of critical habitat where encount ers with juvenile sawfish are likely infrequent. Shallow, euryhaline habitat is crucial for foraging and refuge of juvenile sawfish and becomes less important to the species as they increase in si ze. The potential loss of 5.17 acres of shallow, euryhaline habitat within smalltooth sawfish crit ical habitat via SAJ-91 is likely to adversely impact critical habita t and is discussed furt her in Section 3.2 and again in Section 5.

Potential routes of effects to Gulf , shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon: Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon are not likely to be adversely affected by shoreline armoring permitable by SAJ-46, 91, or 96. SAJ-46 onl y applies to man-made, residential canals historically dug from the uplands where sturgeon are unlikely to occur. SAJ-91 is allowed only in Cape Coral, where sturgeon are not known to occur. SAJ-96 is only allowed in Pinellas County, where sturgeon are rare. The risk of in jury to sturgeon from the construction of shoreline armoring will be discountable due to th e species’ mobility and the implementation of

NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions . During foraging periods, Gulf sturgeon generally occupy shoreline area s between 2-4 m of depth characterized by lowrelief sand substrate. Gulf st urgeon are selecting foraging habita t based on substrate composition and depth, rather than infaunal invertebrate density, abundance or diversity. Hence, Gulf sturgeon, and likely, shortnose and Atlantic sturge on, occupy waters deeper than those impacted by shoreline armoring projects. Thus, the risk of impact from these activities is discountable. The range of shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic st urgeon in Florida is limited to the St. Mary’s
River and the St. Johns River. The PDCs stat e that projects cannot be permitted in the St. Mary’s River and are limited to man-made canal s, which excludes the St. Johns River. Therefore, the risk of impacts to shortnos e and Atlantic sturgeon would be discountable.

Potential routes of effects to elkhorn and staghorn coral: Elkhorn and staghorn corals are not likely to be adversely affected by shoreline armoring permitable by SAJ-46, 91, or 96. These corals do not occur within the action area for SAJ-91 (Cape Coral) or SAJ-96 (Pinella s County). SAJ-46 can only be authorized in man-made canals54 where corals are not likely to occu r and is not within critical habita t. Under this permit, adverse impacts are not allowed to hard or soft corals and specifically to elkhorn or staghorn corals. Therefore, the risk of impact to these sp ecies from shoreline ar moring is discountable.

Potential routes of effects to Johnson’s seagrass: Johnson’s seagrass is not likely to be adversel y affected by shoreline armoring permitable by SAJ-46, 91, or 96. Johnson’s seagrass does not o ccur within the action area for SAJ-91 (Cape Coral) or SAJ-96 (Pinellas County). SAJ-46 can onl y be authorized in man-made canals and is
not within critical habitat. U nder this permit, adverse impacts are not allowed to submerged aquatic vegetation and specifically to Johnson’s seagrass. Therefore, the risk of impact to these species from shoreline armoring is discountable.

3.1.3 Maintenance Dredging

During the first four years of the previous 5- year authorization period (i.e., 2006-2010), SAJ-5 was used 84 times. SAJ-96 was used an estimated 148 times, though we don’t know the number of times it was used specifically for maintena nce dredging as 148 represents a combination of
both shoreline stabilization and maintenance dred ging (see Table 11). All dredging authorized
under SAJ-5 is restricted to man-made canals throughout the state of Florida and SAJ-5 only allows dredging to restore the previously author ized depth. SAJ-96 is restricted to Pinellas County and is limited to the area immediately ar ound a single-family dock to maintain boat slip access. No mangrove or seagrass removal is pe rmitted by either of these two general permits. Neither permit is allowed for use in critical habitat for any species.

Table 11: Maintenance dredging volume

Permit Number Times Authorized during last 5 Years Dredge Volume Per Project Total Anticipated Dredged

SAJ-5 84 Max. 4,000 cubic yards 336,000 cubic yards

SAJ-96 226 13 Average 100 cubic yards 22,600 cubic yards

Potential routes of effects to sea turtles:
We believe that sea turtles ar e not likely to be adversely a ffected by projects approved under
SAJ-5 or SAJ-96. Effects on sea turtles include th e risk of injury from construction activities (i.e., mechanical dredging), including physical impacts with construction materials or operating construction machinery. Mainte nance dredging conducted in resi dential canals is typically completed by dragline dredging or by a land-ba sed backhoe, trackhoe, or other commonly used excavation equipment. Work may be done from a small barge if several neighbors combine dredging projects. The risk of in jury to sea turtles will be discount able because turtles are highly mobile and able to avoid this type of equi pment. Sea turtles may be affected by being temporarily unable to use a project site for fo raging and refuge due to potential avoidance of
construction activities and rela ted noise, and physical exclusio n from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insign ificant. Impacts to foraging and refuge habitat

13 Pinellas County did not differentiate between the number of times seawalls were authorized verses maintenance dredging. Therefore, the full amount of 226 activities was considered for both.55 will be insignificant as dredging is only allowed in areas previously dredged. Also, projects are not permitted that would affect submerged aquatic vegetation or mangroves. Potential effects are likely to be temporary, as projects of this size are typically completed in less than a week. No effects are anticipated to sea tu rtle nesting beaches as SAJ-5 is limited to man-made canals and SAJ-96 prohibits construction along beach es used by sea turtles for nesting.

Potential routes of effects to smalltooth sawfish: We believe that smalltooth sawfish are not likely to be adversely affected by projects approved under SAJ-5 and SAJ-96. Effects to these species include the risk of injury from construction activities (dredging), which will be discountable due to the species’ mobility, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions

. Smalltooth sawfish may be affected by being tem porarily unable to use a project site due to potential avoidance of construc tion activities and re lated noise, and physic al exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. These potential effects are likely to be temporary, as projects of this size typically take less than a week to complete. Effects on smalltooth sawfish include potential loss of ha bitat (i.e., shallow, euryhaline habitat and mangroves) for foraging and predator avoidance but these effects will be insignificant. Maintenance dredging will be restri cted to man-made residential canals outside of smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, no impacts are permitted to mangroves, and dredging may not exceed the previously authorized dredge depth.

Potential routes of effects to Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon: We believe that sturgeon are not likely to be adversely affected by projects approved under SAJ5 and SAJ-96. Effects to these species include th e risk of injury from construction activities (dredging), which will be discountable due to th e species’ mobility, and the implementation of

NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions . Sturgeon may be affected by being temporarily unable to use a project s ite due to potential avoidance of construction activities (dredging) and related noise, and physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. These potential effects are likely to be temporary, as projects of this size typically take a less than a week to complete. Under SAJ-5, impacts are restricted to man-made canals a nd dredging is only allowed to a previously authorized depths. Dredging under SAJ-96 occurs only in Pinellas County where Gulf sturgeon sightings are rare. Impacts to foraging and ref uge habitat will be insi gnificant because sturgeon are opportunistic feeders and will be able to fo rage over large distances, and will be able to locate prey beyond the immediate area of dredging a nd return when construction is complete. Under the PDCs, dredging is not allowed in Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, where most of the known nearshore Gulf sturgeon popula tions occur. Shortnose stur geon and Atlantic sturgeon are limited in Florida to the St. Mary’s River and the St. Johns River, and projects cannot be permitted in the St. Mary’s River under these general permits (NOAA’s Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon , 1998). Also, the PDCs limit dredgi ng to man-made canals, which would exclude the St. Johns River; th erefore, effects to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon would be
discountable.

Potential routes of effects to elkhorn and staghorn coral: Elkhorn and staghorn corals are no t likely to be adversely a ffected by maintenance dredging
authorized under SAJ-5 or SAJ- 96. These corals do not occur w ithin the action area for SAJ-9656 (Pinellas County). SAJ-5 can only be authorized in man-made canals, where corals are not likely to occur, and not within critical habitat. Unde r this permit, adverse impacts are not allowed to hard or soft corals and specifically to elkhorn or staghorn corals. Th erefore, the risk of impact to these species from maintenan ce dredging is discountable.

Potential routes of effects to Johnson’s seagrass: Johnson’s seagrass is not likely to be adversel y affected by maintenance dredging authorized under SAJ-5 or SAJ-96. Johnson’s seagrass does not occur within the action area for SAJ-96 (Pinellas County). SAJ-5 can only be authorized in man-made canals and not within critical habitat. Under this permit, adverse impacts ar e not allowed to submerged aquatic vegetation and specifically to Johnson’s seagrass. Therefore, the risk of impact to these species from maintenance dredging is discountable.

3.1.4 Boat ramps including appurtenant struct ures (bulkheads, rub-rails, tie-up piers)

SAJ-12 is the only general permit that allows project s to authorize the installation of boat ramps. The PDCs for this general permit prohibit installati on within critical habita t. During the previous 5-year authorization period (i.e ., 2006-2010), SAJ-12 was only used 8 times. Potential routes of effects to each of the listed species in Table 6 are discussed below.

Potential routes of effects to sea turtles:
We believe that sea turtles ar e not likely to be adversely a ffected by projects approved under
SAJ-12. Effects on sea turtles include the risk of injury from construction activities (i.e., mechanical dredging, pile placement), including phys ical impacts with cons truction materials or operating construction machinery. Construction of boat ramps is typically conducted from the uplands, or with the use of small boats and/or barges. Sea turtles are mobile and can easily avoid this type of interaction. The PDCs for this perm it restrict construction to within 5 feet of the MHWL (with projects typically only extending 1 to 2 feet waterward of the MHWL) so each project will have minor in-water impacts. Projects of this size are typically completed within a few hours to a few days. Additionally, pilings us ed for this permit will be small in size and number (i.e., to support a maximu m of an 80-square-foot platform) and will typically be jetted or driven in less than a day. Therefore, the risk of injury from the construction of a boat ramp is discountable. Sea turtles may be affected by bein g temporarily unable to use a project site for foraging due to potential avoidan ce of construction activities a nd related noise, and physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains , but these effects will be insignificant due to the short duration of this type of project. Imp acts to foraging habitat w ould be small in nature (within 5 feet of the MHWL) and limited in numbe r (only 8 projects during the last 5 years). Projects are also not permitted that would have an effect on submerged aquatic vegetation that may potentially be used for foraging.

Sea turtles are also susceptible to vessel strike s. Private boat ramp construction can indirectly (i.e., later in time) result in increased vessel tr affic effects by new vessels accessing the water at these locations. An analysis of this increase in vessel traffic from SAJ-12 is included in the analysis for vessel strikes resulting from dock construction above and ag ain in Section 5.57 Potential routes of effects to smalltooth sawfish: We believe that smalltooth sawfish are not likely to be adversely affected by projects approved
under SAJ-12. Effects on smalltooth sawfish incl ude the risk of injury from construction activities (i.e., mechanical dredging, pile placement), including physical impacts with construction materials or operati ng construction machinery. Boat ramp construction is typically conducted from the uplands, or with the use of sma ll boats and/or barges. Smalltooth sawfish are highly mobile and can easily avoi d this type of interaction. The PDCs for this permit restrict construction to within 5 feet of the MHWL (with projects typically onl y extending 1 to 2 feet waterward of the MHWL), so each project will have minor in-water impacts. Projects of this size are typically completed within a few hours to a few days. Additionally, pilings used for this permit will be small in size and number and will typi cally be jetted or driven in less than a day. Therefore, the risk of injury from the constr uction of a boat ramp is discountable. Smalltooth sawfish may be affected by being temporarily unable to use a project site for foraging and refuge habitat due to potential avoidan ce of construction activities, a nd physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant due to the short duration of this type of project. Impacts to foraging and refuge habitat would be small in nature, occur within 5 feet of the MHWL, a nd limited in number (only 8 project s during the last 5 years).
Effects on smalltooth sawfish incl ude potential loss of habitat (i .e., shallow, euryhaline habitat and mangroves) for foraging and predator avoi dance; however, the potential loss will be insignificant due to the small size of the project sites that could be permitted. Mangrove removal
and work within smalltooth critical habitat are not permitted under the special conditions of this permit; therefore, there will be no effects to the shallow, euryhaline water and red mangrove
essential features.

Potential routes of effects to Gulf , shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon: We believe that Gulf sturgeon, shortnose sturge on, and Atlantic sturge on are not likely to be adversely affected by projects approved under SAJ- 12. Effects to these species include the risk of injury from construction activities, which w ill be discountable due to the species’ mobility, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions

. Sturgeon may be affected by being temporarily una ble to use a project si te due to potential
avoidance of construction activities and relate d noise, and physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. These potential effects are likely to be temporary, as projects of this size typically take a few days to weeks to complete. Projects are also not allowed in Gulf sturgeon critical habitat so there will be no effect to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat essential features. Shortnose sturgeon a nd Atlantic sturgeon are limited in Florida to the St. Mary’s River and the St. Johns River, and projects cannot be permitted in the St. Mary’s River under the general permits cove red by this consultation. According to the USACE, between 2005 and 2010, only 2 permits were authorized under SAJ-12 in the lower St. Johns River and none in the upper St. Johns River. Due to the species’ mobility, the limited number, and the small size of th e construction impacts, the risk of impact to sturgeon is
discountable.

Potential routes of effects to elkhorn and staghorn coral: Elkhorn and staghorn corals are no t likely to be adversely aff ected by the inst allation of boat ramps under this general permit. The risk of im pact to corals is disc ountable because (1) the nearshore location of the boat ramps (less than 5 feet from MHW), (2) the PDCs for this permit58 exclude Acropora critical habitat in Monroe County wh ere most of these corals are found in Florida, and (3) the PDCs prohibi t adverse impacts to hard or so ft corals and specifically to elkhorn or staghorn corals.

Potential routes of effects to Johnson’s seagrass: Johnson’s seagrass is not likely to be adversely affected by the installa tion of boat ramps under this general permit. The risk of impact to th is species is discountable because (1) the small nearshore location of the boat ramps (less than 5 feet from MHWL), (2) the PDCs for this permit exclude Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat where most of this seagrass is located, and (3) the PDCs prohibit adverse impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and specifically to Johnson’s

seagrass.

3.1.5 Transmission lines and Stormwater Outfalls

SAJ-13 provides authorization for aerial transm ission lines and SAJ-14 provides authorization for sub-aquatic transmission lin es not located within critical habitat. SAJ-91 provides authorization for aerial transmission lines, su b-aqueous transmission lines, and stormwater
outfalls located within smalltooth sawfish critical ha bitat. Potential routes of effects to each of the listed species in Table 6 are discussed below along with po tential impacts to smalltooth
sawfish critical habitat from these actions authorized under th ese general permits. SAJ-13 was used 41 times during the last 5-year period, SAJ-14 was used 167 times, and SAJ-91 was not used to authorize transmission lines (aerial or su b-aquatic) or for new st ormwater outfalls during the last authorization pe riod. The City of Cape Coral does do not anticipate the need to use SAJ91 for the installation of new transmission lines (aer ial or sub-aquatic) or stormwater outfalls. However, SAJ-91 may be used for the regular main tenance of existing stormwater outfalls (pers. comm. M. Ilczyszyn, City of Cape Coral to N. Bailey, NMFS, September 27, 2012).

Potential routes of effects to sea turtles:
We believe that sea turtles ar e not likely to be adversely a ffected by projects approved under
SAJ-13 or SAJ-91for the installa tion of aerial transmission lines. Effects on sea turtles include the risk of injury from in-water construction activities (i.e., pile placement, transmission line tower installation), including physical impact s with construction materials or operating construction machinery. Construction of th e transmission line towe r foundations will be accomplished by jetting or driving pilings and then placing precast structures or pouring concrete in place. All in-water work will be done from the uplands, floating platform or barge, and in some instances by helicopter. The risk of inju ry from construction will be discountable because of the small size of each pole or tower placement in relations hip to the surrounding open water and because sea turtles are mobile and can easily a void this type of activity. Sea turtles may be affected by being temporarily unable to use a proj ect site for foraging and refuge habitat due to potential avoidance of construc tion activities and re lated noise, and physic al exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. Projects are not permitted that would affect submerged aquatic vegetation that may be used for foraging by sea turtles. Exclusion of these areas by turbidity cu rtains will likely to be temporary, as individual sections of the project will likely be completed one at a time, each sectio n will not take long to complete, turbidity curtains will be removed, and the project will progress forward to the next linear location. However, depending on the length of water body to be cro ssed, the total in-water construction time to complete the linear projec t could vary considerab ly. According to the59 USACE, SAJ-13 is usually used to authorize projects that span over the water with all footings on the uplands. According to the PDC’s, permanent impacts (e.g., foundation towers, transmission line poles, etc.) must be less than 1 acre per 2-mile in-water segment. The USACE regulates that the height of the transmission lines provides adequate clearance for vessels to pass safely beneath the lines, so proj ect authorized may not even resu lt in in-water impacts but be limited to line height for vessel navigation. Ther efore, impacts to foraging and refuge habitat
from installation of structures are insignificant based on the spacing design and small impact

areas.

We believe that sea turtles are not likely to be adversely aff ected by sub-aquatic transmission projects approved under SAJ-14 or SA J-91. Effects on sea turtles include the risk of injury from
in-water construction activities (i.e., directional drilling, sub- aquatic line placement, substation installation), including physical impacts with construction materials or operating construction machinery. Under SAJ-14, the only activities allo wed in tidal waters are the construction and operation of subaqueous utility and transmission lines themselves and the outfall and intake structures associated with the utility lines. According to the USACE, SAJ-14 was only used one time during the last authorizati on period to permit a stormwater outfall. The USACE regulates the placement of the structures , and the discharge must meet (and is regulated by) state and federal water quality standards. In-water work is normally performed from a floating platform or barge by excavating trenches using draglines or backhoes, placing the utility line, and then backfilling or allowing the trench to naturally refill. Most work will be accomplished using directional drilling under the substrata to avoi d impacts to marine resources, some will be trenched with temporary sidecasting, and some will be done by simply placing the line on the bottom with no excavation. Under SAJ-14, only 1 acr e of permanent fill (e.g., line placement) is allowed per 2-mile segment of linear transmission line. Due to the species’ mobility, the slow movement of the barges, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish
Construction Conditions

, the risk of injury will be discountable. Sea turtles may be affected by being temporarily unable to use a project site for refuge and fora ging due to potential avoidance
of construction activities and re lated noise, and physical excl usion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insi gnificant. Projects are not permitted that would have an effect on submerged aquatic vegetation that may be used by sea turtles for foraging. These potential effects are likely to be temporary, as sections of this linear project will likely be completed quickly. However, depending on the lengt h of the water body to be crossed, the total
in-water construction times could vary considerably. To further minimize impacts to sea turtles, projects are prohibited that are located in th e Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or on or contiguous to the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico beaches, where sea turtles are typically found. This measure also protects be aches used by nesting sea turtles.

Potential routes of effects to smalltooth sawfish: We believe that smalltooth sawfish are not likely to be adversely affected by aerial transmission line projects approved under SAJ-13 or SAJ-91. As previously stated, the City of Cape Coral does not anticipate using SAJ-91 to permit in-wat er activities for transmission lines (aerial or sub-aquatic), and stormwater outfall work will be limited to regular maintenance. Effects to smalltooth sawfish include the risk of injury from construction activities, which will be discountable due to the species’ mobili ty, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions . Smalltooth sawfish may be affected by being60 temporarily unable to use a project site due to potential avoidance of construction, and physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtai ns, but these effects wi ll be insignificant. These potential effects are likely to be temporar y, as sections of these linear projects typically take a few days to weeks to complete. Effect s on smalltooth sawfish include potential loss of habitat (i.e., shallow, euryhaline habitat and red mangroves) for foraging and predator avoidance; however, the potential loss will be insignificant due to the small size of the foundations that could be permitted. Aerial transmission lines typically span water bodies with the support structures placed on the uplands. According to the PDCs, permanent impacts (e.g., foundation towers, transmission line poles, etc.) must be less than 1 acre per 2-mile in-water segment. Mangrove removal and work within smalltooth critical habitat are not permitted under the special conditions of SAJ-13; therefore, there wi ll be no effect to the shallow-water essential features. No transmission line work is anticipated under SAJ-91.

We believe that smalltooth sawfish are not like ly to be adversely affected by sub-aquatic transmission line projects approved under SAJ-14 and SAJ-91. Effects to these species include the risk of injury from cons truction activities (i.e., direc tional drilling, sub-aquatic line placement, substation installation), which will be discountable due to th e species’ mobility, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions

. Smalltooth sawfish may be affected by being tem porarily unable to use a project site due to potential avoidance of construc tion activities and re lated noise, and physi cal exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. These potential effects are likely to be temporary, as sections of these linear proj ects are likely to be competed quickly. Effects on smalltooth sawfish include pote ntial loss of habitat (i.e ., shallow, euryhaline habitat and mangroves) for foraging and predator avoidance; however, the potential loss will be insignificant due to the small size of impacts likely from transmission line placement or directional drilling. Under SAJ-14, only 1 acre of permanent fill (i.e., transmission poles or foundations) is allowed per 2-mile segment of linear transmission line. Mangrove removal and
work within smalltooth critical habitat is not permitted under the speci al conditions of SAJ-14 and no transmission line work is anticipated under SAJ-91.

Potential routes of effects to Gulf , shortnose, and Atlantic sturgeon: We believe that sturgeon (Gulf sturgeon, shortnose, and Atlantic) are not like ly to be adversely affected by aerial transmission line projects approved under SAJ-13 or SAJ-91. The action area of SAJ-91 (Cape Coral) is not within the known ra nge for Gulf, shortnose, or Atlantic sturgeon; therefore, impacts are not expected to occur to thes e species. Effects to these species from SAJ13 include the risk of injury fr om construction activities, which wi ll be discountable due to the species’ mobility, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish
Construction Conditions , which the PDCs for this permit apply to sturgeon as well. Sturgeon may be affected by being temporarily unable to us e a project site due to potential avoidance of construction activities, and physic al exclusion from areas contai ned by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. These potential effects are likely to be temporary, as sections of these linear projects typically take a few days to weeks to complete. According to the PDCs, permanent impacts (e.g., foundation towers, transm ission line poles, etc.) must be less than 1 acre per 2-mile in-water segment. Projects are also not allowed in cr itical habitat so there will be no effect to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. S hortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon are limited in Florida to the St. Mary’s River and the St. Johns River, and projects cannot be permitted in the61 St. Mary’s River under the general permits covere d by this consultation. Due to the species’ mobility and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions, the risk of injury to shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the St. Johns River
will be discountable.

We believe that sturgeon (Gulf sturgeon, shortnose, and Atlantic) are not like ly to be adversely affected by sub-aquatic transmission line proj ects approved under SAJ-14. Effects to these species from SAJ-14 include the risk of injury from construction activities, which will be discountable due to the species’ mobili ty, and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions . Sturgeon may be affected by being temporarily unable to use a project site due to potential avoida nce of construction activ ities and related noise, and physical exclusion from areas contained by turbidity curtains, but these effects will be insignificant. According to the PDCs, permanen t impacts must be less than 1 acre per 2-miles in-water segment. Projects are also not allowed in critical habitat so there will be no effect to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. Shortnose sturge on and Atlantic sturgeon are limited in Florida to the St. Mary’s River and the St. Johns River, and projects cannot be permitted in the St. Mary’s River under the general permits cove red by this consultation. The risk of injury to shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon in the St. Johns River will be di scountable due to the species’ mobility and the implementation of NMFS’ Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction
Conditions

.

Potential routes of effects to elkhorn and staghorn coral: Elkhorn and staghorn corals are not likely to be adversely affected by activities authorized under SAJ-13, 14, and 91. The action area of SAJ-91 (Cape Coral) does not support elkhorn or staghorn corals. SAJ-13 and 14 are not expected to impact these species because the PDCs prohibit construction in areas th at support elkhorn and staghorn co rals (Monroe County, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or on or contiguous to the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico, and Acropora critical habitat) and the PDCs prohibit adve rse impacts to hard or soft corals and specifically to elkhorn or staghorn corals.

Potential routes of effects to Johnson’s seagrass: Johnson’s seagrass is not likely to be adversely affected by activities au thorized under SAJ-13, 14, and 91. Johnson’s seagrass does not occur with in the action area for SAJ-91 (Cape Coral). SAJ-13 and 14 are not expected to impact these species because the PDCs prohibit construction in areas that support Johnson’s seagrass (Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or on or contiguous to
the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Me xico), work is prohibited in Johns on’s seagrass critical habitat, and the PDCs prohibit adverse impacts to subm erged aquatic vegetation and specifically to Johnson’s seagrass.

3.1.6 Noise

We believe that the noise generated during the installation of pilings and seawalls under these general permits and the noise generated by an increas e in vessels stored at structures authorized under these general permits may affect sea tur tles (loggerhead, green, hawk sbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback), smalltooth sawfish, and stur geon (shortnose, Gulf, and Atlantic).62 Construction of piling supported structures Piling supported structures considered in this an alysis consider a variet y of materials such as wood, steel, concrete, fiberglass, and composites. According to the USACE, approximately 98 percent of the docks installed under these permits are constructed of 8-inch wood pilings. The other 2 percent of docks covered under these general permits are ge nerally constructed of 8-inch concrete piles. Dock installers in Cape Coral, Florida estimated that approximately 99 percent of
residential docks constructed in southwest Florida are cons tructed of wood piles (August 20, 2012 personal communication from Dan Stovall, VP of Honc Marine, to Ni cole Bailey, NMFS). The major difference between wood and concrete pile s is the shorter longev ity and lower cost of wood piles compared to c oncrete construction.

In-water construction equipment for docks and se awalls include workboats, water jetting, augerdrilling equipment, vibratory hammers, and impact hammers. Jetting and drilling result in much lower noise levels than either impact or vibrat ory pile driving. In many areas, projects utilize pile jetting during the initial phase s of pile installation to set the pile in place before it is driven to resistance. This method uses high-pressure water sprayed beneath the pile to excavate sediment and sand layers. Noise measurements ta ken with water jetting turned on or off during pile driving resulted in no a dditional noise recorded above th at of the pile driving noise (CALTRANS 2007), and the source levels for jetti ng is believed to be well below the 150 dB re 1 μPaRMS threshold for behavioral disturbance to fish. Noise levels for auge r drilling through rock to install large piles have been measured to be above 150 dB re 1 μPa RMS (Dazey et al. 2012); however, small-scale drilling operations that are more repr esentative of dock construction methods have been measured to be no more than 107 dB re 1 μPa0-peak at 7.5 meters from the source (Willis et al. 2010). Our back calculation resulted in an approximate source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa0-peak. Neither small-scale auger drilling nor wa ter jetting is expected to result in noise levels that may adversely affect listed species.

Impact hammer installation generates the most in -water noise. There are two main classes of impact hammers: external combustion and inte rnal combustion. External combustion hammers use cables, steam, compressed air or pressurized hydraulic fluid to raise the ram which is then dropped by gravity (e.g., a drop hammer). Intern al combustion hammers do not rely on gravity and force the ram into the pile (e.g., a diesel hammer). During impact pile driving, noise is produced when the energy from the hammer is tran sferred to the pile and released into the surrounding water and sediment.

The number of piles necessary to complete c onstruction under these general permits varies by permit. A typical residential dock as authorized under SAJ-20 , 72, 91, and 96, is constructed of 15 piles and requires approximately 10 hours to complete in-water construction, including placement of piles and equipment, and can take 2 or more days to complete. Some larger docks (up to 1,000 square feet) authori zed under SAJ-33 and SAJ-34, can use up to 70 piles and noise could be produced over a period of 2 weeks. SAJ- 17 requires the fewest number of piles with an average of only 4 piles. The size of timber p iles used for smaller residential dock and boat lift construction range from 8-inch diameters for sma ll docks and 10-inch diameter piles to support a boatlift. Larger boatlifts of 30,000 pounds or more use 12-inch pilings, and 16-inch diameter mooring piles. A breakdown of the number and size of piles anticipated to be used by each general permit is provided in Table 12 below.63 Because of the noise levels ge nerated, projects proposing instal lation of any type of piling greater than 24” in diameter, or installation of any size of meta l piling or sheet piling by impact hammer cannot be authorized until project-sp ecific consultation has been reinitiated and
concluded with the NMFS.

Construction of seawalls
Seawalls are constructed of either pre-fabricated concrete slabs, metal sheet pile with concrete caps, or vinyl sheets. Construction of this t ype of project is typi cally conducted from the uplands. Typically, residential seawalls are installed by excava ting with land-based equipment, jetting, or vibratory hammer. So me seawalls are also installed by impact hammer. Metal sheet pile is used least frequently be cause of the corrosive nature of the marine environment resulting in a limited lifespan of this type of bulkhead. Noise levels generated in the marine environment from land-based equipment are insignificant becaus e the air-water interface is an almost perfect reflector of acoustic waves. Therefore, the no ise generated by land-based mechanical excavators or jetting will reflect off the surface and will not be transmitted into the water at noise levels expected to be heard by these species. The in stallation of steel sheet pile seawalls and support pilings will generate the most noise of all resi dential seawalls. Installation by impact hammer also increases the noise generated when installing seawalls. The installation of metal piles or sheet pile by impact hammer cannot be authoriz ed until project-specific consultation has been
reinitiated and concl uded with the NMFS.

Appendix A details the methods and noise analysis to establish zone s of influence for injury and
behavioral reactions as the basis for our effects analysis. Below we consider the potential for the piling noise installed by impact hammer and vibr atory hammer to ensonify aquatic areas where listed species are found. This is followed by a di scussion about the impacts from noise to sea turtles (loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ri dley, and leatherback), smalltooth sawfish, and sturgeon (shortnose, Gulf, and Atlantic).

Table 12: Number of Pilings per project.

General Permit Average installation Worst case scenario 5-year totals 14

SAJ-17 Minor piling structure (4) 10-inch wood piles installed by jetting (4) 10-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 1,488

SAJ-20 Single family (45) 8-inch wood piles installed by jetting (68) 8-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 3,256

14 5-year totals are from 2006-2010 except SAJ-96 which is 2007-2012 and SAJ-91 which is an average five year total based on 4 years of data from 2008-2011.64 SAJ-33 Private multi-family
dock less than 1000 square feet (45) 8-inch wood piles installed by jetting (80) 8-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 149

SAJ-34
Commercial Pier less than 1000 square feet (45) 8-inch wood piles installed by jetting (80) 8-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 28

SAJ-72
Dock in Citrus County (15) 8-inch wood piles installed by jetting (15) 8-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 156

SAJ-91
Docks and minor structures in Cape
Coral (15) 8-inch wood piles installed by jetting (15) 8-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 2,489 15

SAJ-96
Docks and minor
structures in Pinellas County (15) 8-inch wood piles installed by jetting (15) 8-inch concrete piles installed by pile driving 2,418

Pile Driving and Seawa ll Installation Summary For this analysis, we assumed that a maximum of 10 pilings would be installed daily for docks installed under these general perm its. For seawalls, we assumed a worst case scenario of steel sheet pile bulkhead, as in stallation of sheet pile generates more noise than the installation of prefabricated concrete slabs. The noise level calculations were then compared to the threshold for small and large fish to determine if these levels would cause injurious or behavioral changes in sea turtles (loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback), smalltooth sawfish, and sturgeon (shortnose, Gulf, and Atlantic). Fo r this consultation, we ar e considering small fish to represent juvenile sturgeon ( young of the year) and sea turtle hatchlings. Large fish include sub-adult and adult sturgeon, all age classes of smalltooth sawfis h, and sub-adult and adult sea turtles. Impacts to small fish are not considered under this cons ultation because of their location in the state of Florida. Small Gulf sturgeon ( young of the year) occur within the Suwannee River in Florida, which is under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and ther efore out of our action area. Small shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are not kn own to occur in Florida. Small sea turtles (hatchlings) are found on nesting beaches and in open ocean environments which are excluded under the PDCs for these general permits; hence, th ey too are located outside of the action area. The threshold levels of noise at which potenti ally adverse effects ma y be experienced from impact and vibratory pile driving appear in table 13 and table 14, respectively.

15 This is a five year average as expl ained in Section 2.1 for SAJ-91. It includes all dock structures and davits.65 Table 13. Impact pile driving threshold no ise levels for fish and sea turtles. Effect Organism Underwater threshold (dB) Injury All fish and turtles 206 peak
Fish ≥ 2 grams 187 SEL

Behavior Fish 150 dB RMS
Sea turtles 160 dB RMS
Thresholds are based on the most conservative criteria for hearing generalists for fish (Federal Highway Administration 2012). No data on sea turtle injury from pile driving is available. Considering animals of equal mass, fish are considered more sensitive to physical inju ry than sea turtles; therefore, fish thresholds are
recommended as conservative thresholds fo r sea turtles as interim criteria.

Table 14. Vibratory pile driving thres hold levels for fish and turtles.

Effect Animal Threshold Level Injury Sturgeon, Sawfish, and Turtles 206 peak Injury (onset) Fish ≥ 102 g 234 SELCUM

Behavior Fish 150 RMS
Turtles 160 RMS
Thresholds are based on the recommended criteria for vibratory piling found in Hastings (2010). Cumulative source levels were back calculated using 20 minutes to drive each pile and 15 logR intermediate spreading loss based on reference levels for 24-inch AZ sheet pile noise using a vibratory hammer reported in CALTRANS (2007). There

are no SEL CUM levels established for sea turtles and fish thresholds are used as conservative indicators of potential injury.

To determine the effect of noise on these species, we reviewed research to see how these species respond to noise. A recent study (Krebs et al. 2012) reported th at tagged Atlantic sturgeon are not likely to remain in an area ensonified from pile driving long enough to reach the threshold level for the onset of injurious e ffects. Tagging data showed that Atlantic sturgeon are likely to avoid these areas during high leve ls of construction noise. Anot her study showed that sharks (and likely smalltooth sawfish), also leave an area when expos ed to high levels of noise. Myrberg (2001) reported that sudden increases in sound beginning at 20 decibels above ambient caused sharks to move away from the sound source. It is reasonable to assu me that initiating pile driving that increases noise leve ls upwards of 150 decibels above ambient levels would elicit a withdrawal response from smalltooth sawfish that may be in the area. NMFS believes that due to the mobile foraging habits of sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and sturgeon, these species are likely to avoid annoying levels of noise and avoi d any potentially harmful effects from long term exposure (hours). Therefore, we have discounted the potential e ffects of animals remaining in the area for long periods and we have discount ed the potential effects of cumulative sound exposure in our effects analysis.

We will further consider the potential effects fr om expose to a sudden injurious noise occurring before a species has ample time to leave the area and the behavioral effects of non-injurious noise exposure. At relatively clos e distances, the risk of injury or death (injurious noise effects) to fish from sound result primar ily from their vulnerability of th eir gas-filled organs (e.g., swim bladders, ears) as they expand and contract with passage of a pressure wave. Prolonged exposure to noise can amplify impa cts to species. However, the la rger the size of fish species66 exposed to sound disturbance, the greater their resistance to the pressu re waves produced by the sound in general. Notably, smalltooth sawfish ar e quite large in comparison to most species affected by pile driving. Additionally, smallt ooth sawfish are elasmobranchs that do not have swim bladders but do have gas fill ed cavities in their hearing appara tus. Injurious effects in the context of the proposed action (e.g., pile driving) are those effects that cause physical injury to smalltooth sawfish (e.g., hematomas, gill bleeding, auditory injury, or possibly entrap of an animal in an area where repeated exposure to nois e elevates effects from behavioral to injurious levels). The results of the noise analysis for pile and seawall installa tion only resulted in noise levels high enough to cause injuriou s effects to these species from the installation of metal sheet pile by impact hammer only, which is not author ized under the PDCs for th ese general permits. Tables 15 and 16 provide the distance for each sp ecies to experience behavioral effects for inwater construction authorized by these general permits.

Table 15: Impact pile driv ing impact zones.

Noise Unit Source Level at
Pile a Fish >2 g Impact Radius (m) Turtle Impact Radius (m) Timber pile Peak pressure (injury) 195 dB none none SELss (injury) 175 dB none none RMS (behavior) 185 dB 215 46

24-inch concrete pile Peak pressure (injury) 200 dB none none

SELss 175 dB none none RMS (behavior) 185 dB 215 46

a Pile driving data derived from CALTRANS (2007 and 2009).

b Tier 2 analysis is required for impact driving of sheet piles.

Table 16. Vibratory pile driving impact zones.

Source Level
at Pile a Fish Impact Radius (m) Turtle Impact Radius (m) Timber or Concrete pile b
Peak pressure (injury) 186 none none SELss (injury) 170 none none RMS (behavior) 170 22 5

Sheet pile Peak pressure (injury) 192 none none SELss (injury) 178 none none RMS (behavior) 178 74 16

a Pile driving data derived from CALTRANS (2007 and 2009).

b Vibratory pile driving of wood and concrete is not common and no measurements are available. We used source levels from vibratory pile driving of a 13-inch steel pipe as a conservative upper limit of potential noise for wood
and concrete.67 Potential routes of effects to sea turtles a nd sturgeon (Gulf, shortnose, and Atlantic): Since we expect sea turtles and sturgeon to avoid potentially injurious noise levels and since they can be deterred from the project area during pi le-driving activities, we further considered the potential for this avoidance beha vior to disrupt feeding, mating, or sheltering of individuals. The
effects of avoidance of the construction areas is not expected to have any measurable effect on the feeding, reproduction, or sheltering behavior due to short duration of most projects, that reproductive habitat for these species are excluded from the action areas, and that ample habitat is likely to be found in the su rrounding area. Therefore, noise impacts from construction of projects authorized under these general permits are insignificant.

Potential routes of effects to smalltooth sawfish: Since we also expect smalltooth sawfish to avoi d potentially injurious noise levels and because they can be deterred from the project area durin g pile-driving activities, we further considered the potential for this avoidance behavior to disr upt feeding, mating, or she ltering of individuals.
The effects of avoidance of the c onstruction areas is not expected to have any measurable effect on the feeding or sheltering behavior due to s hort duration of most projects and that ample habitat is likely to be found in the surrounding area. Unlike sea turtles and sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish is the only species considered in this opinion that is known to birth within the action area. As a result, behavioral noise impacts ha ve a greater ability to impact the species by potentially deterring a reproduc ing female from delivering young in an area disturbed by increased noise. The PDCs prohibit potential ly loud and startling noise generated by impact hammering in the noise restriction zones that ar e areas likely to be most frequently used by smalltooth sawfish to pup their youn g. In addition, impact hammering of any metal pile or sheet pile is prohibited in the PDCs because of the incr ease in noise levels generated from this type of activity. Therefore, noise impacts form construc tion of projects authorized under these general permits are insignificant.

Vessel Noise and Operation Noise generated by vessels may affect sturgeon, sea turtles, and smalltooth sawfish. Vessels transmit noise through water and cumulatively are a significant contribu tor to increases in ambient noise levels in many areas. The domin ant source of vessel noise from the proposed action is propeller cavitation of recr eational vessels, as well as th at produced from work barges. The intensity of noise from service vessels is ro ughly related to ship si ze and speed. Large ships tend to be noisier than small ones, and ships underway with a full load (or towing or pushing a load) produce more noise than unladen vessels. Vessel noise is most significant at frequencies from 20 to 300 Hz, but is also present above ambient noise levels up to 1 kHz. The low frequencies produced overlap with the low-fre quency hearing abilities of sturgeons and sea turtles (see Table 17).

Table 17. Hearing ranges of listed species.

Species or Group Hearing Range References

sea turtles 100-2,000 Hz Lenhardt (1994), Lenhardt et al. (1996), McCauley et al. (2000a), McCauley et al. ( 2000b),Moein et al. (1994), O'Hara and Wilcox (1990), Ketten and Bartol (2006)68 sturgeon 100-2,000 Hz Fay and Popper (2000), Lovell et al. (2005), Meyer and Popper (2002), Meyer et al. (2003) smalltooth sawfish <1,000 Hz Has not been measured, but is based on assumed lower-frequency hearing for fish without swim bladders [e.g., (Casper et al. 2003)].

(Codarin et al. 2009) measured the noise produced from an 8.5-m long cabin-cruiser, with a 163 HP inboard diesel engine opera ting at maximum speed 6 knots. At a minimum 10-m distance of the boat to the hydrophone, the average noise level of 132 dB was recorded.

Effects of Vessel Operation and Noise on Sea Turtles
Increases in ambient noise are believed to be a potential threat to mask communication in
animals. Effects on communication in sea turtle s are not expected since these species are not known to vocalize underwater, and are not known to communicate with sound. Due to their lack of reliance on their auditory sense, increases in ambient noise levels are not a major concern for sea turtles. For sea turtles, the potential for di sturbance from vessels appears to be more of a function of the physical presence of the vessel and motor noise at clos e distances to the vessel. The exposure of animals to vessels and prope ller noise is dependent on the number and proximity of the vessels to an animal. Since th e location of noise is limited to the position of a moving vessel, both noise and the presence of the vessel on the water may potentially affect the
behavior of animals at relative ly close distances where the vesse l noise is more audible and the vessel may be visible from both below and above the surface. Sea turtles may react to an oncoming vessel by swimming rapidly at the surf ace or diving beneath the surface. These reactions are expected to be im mediate reactions to avoid vess els and not have any long-term consequences on individuals. For work ba rges, the USACE shall implement the NMFS’ Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Reporting for Mariners that requires that vessel operators
maintain a distance of 45 meters from sea turtles that would reduce the pote ntial effects from the physical presence of the vessels to discountable levels. Due to th e reported interactions with vessels from stranding reports, not all sea turtles move out of the way of oncoming vessels.
NMFS believes this is more a func tion of the speed of the vessel and the decreased reaction time associated with fast approaching vessels. In Section 3.1.1, we determined that the increase of vessels resulting from the authoriz ation of docks from these general permits is likely to result in
an increase in sea turtle vessel strikes. This is considered further in Se ction 5 of this opinion.

Effects of Vessel Operation and Noise of Sturgeon and Sawfish Sawfish are not known to vocalize and masking of communication signal is not expected. While the data on sturgeon sound production is limite d, a recent paper by (Johnston and Phillips 2003) reports that both the pallid st urgeon and shovelnose sturgeon pr oduce sounds during the breeding season. Unpublished work by (Tolstoganova 1999) indicates that that several species of Acipenser also make sounds. However, there are no activities associated with the proposed action that are proposed to occur in sturgeon spawning areas; therefor e, the effects to masking of sturgeon communication sounds in considered in significant. The exposure of sturgeon and sawfish to vessel noise is dependent on the number and proximity of vessels to an animal, thus the behavioral responses to vesse l noise are limited to close distances. Although these levels are69 expected to be heard by sturgeon and smalltoot h sawfish, the sound levels do not exceed the sound level (> 150 dB) considered to elicit responses which would result in animals abandoning the area. Exposure to noise from passing vessels is ephemeral and below thresholds considered to result in significant behavior al responses, the effects of ve ssel noise on listed species of sturgeon and sawfish is discountable.

3.2 Status of Species and Critical Habita t Likely to be Adversely Affected

Of the listed species and critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction occurr ing within the action area (see Table 6 and Table 7), NMFS believes sea turtles (loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback), smalltooth sawfish cr itical habitat, and J ohnson’s seagrass critical habitat may be adversely impacted by the authori zation of these general permits. The remaining sections of this opinion will focus solely on these species and critical habitat.

The following subsections are synop ses of the best available info rmation on the status of the species that are likely to be adversely affected by one or more components of the proposed action, including information on the distribution, population structure, lif e history, abundance, and population trends of each species and threat s to each species. The biology and ecology of these species as well as their status and trends inform the effects analysis for this opinion. Additional background information on the status of sea turtle species can be found in a number of published documents, including: recovery plan s for the Atlantic green sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991), hawksbill sea turtle (NMFS and US FWS 1993), Kemp’s ridl ey sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1992b), leatherback sea turtle (NMFS and USFW S 1992a), and loggerhead sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS 2008); Pacific sea tu rtle recovery plans (NMFS and USFWS 1998a; NMFS and USFWS 1998b; NMFS and USFWS 1998c; NMFS and USFWS 1998b); and sea turtle status reviews, stock assessments, a nd biological reports (C onant et al. 2009; NMFSSEFSC 2001; NMFS-SEFSC 2009a; NMFS and USFWS 1995; NMFS and USFWS 2007a; NMFS and USFWS 2007b; NMFS and USFW S 2007c; NMFS and USFWS 2007d; NMFS and USFWS 2007e; TEWG 1998; TEWG 2000; TEWG 2007; TEWG 2009).

Sources of background information on the smallt ooth sawfish critical habitat include the smalltooth sawfish status review (NMFS 2000), the proposed and final critical habitat rules (73 FR 70290 and 74 FR45353), and pertinent other publications [e.g., (Poulakis and Seitz 2004; Seitz and Poulakis 2002; Simpfendorfer 2001; Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2004; Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2005a)].

Sources of background information on Johnson’s seag rass critical habitat include the final rule designating Johnson’s seagrass on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17786; see also, 50 CFR 226.213), the Recovery Plan (67 FR 62230), and the 5-year review published on December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68129).

3.2.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle – Northwest Atlantic DPS

The loggerhead sea turtle was lis ted as a threatened species throughout its global range on July 28, 1978. NMFS and USFWS published a final rule designating nine DPSs for loggerhead sea turtles (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011; effect ive October 24, 2011). The DPSs established70 by this rule include (1) Northwest Atlantic Oc ean (threatened); (2) Northeast Atlantic Ocean (endangered); (3) South Atlantic Ocean (threatened); (4) Mediterranean Sea (endangered); (5) North Pacific Ocean (endangered); (6) South Pacific Ocean (endangered); (7) North Indian Ocean (endangered); (8) Southeas t Indo-Pacific Ocean (endangere d); and (9) Southwest Indian Ocean (threatened). The Northwest Atlantic DPS (N WA DPS) is the only one that occurs within the action area and therefore is the only one to be considered in this opini on. No critical habitat has been designated as of the time of this opinion.

Species Description, Distribut ion, and Population Structure Loggerheads are large sea turtles with the mean straight carap ace length of adults in the southeast United States being approximately 92 cm. The corresponding mass is approximately 116 kg (Ehrhart and Yoder 1978). Adult and subadult loggerhead se a turtles typically have a light yellow plastron and a reddish brown carapac e covered by non-overlapping scutes that meet along seam lines. They typically have 11 or 12 pair s of marginal scutes, five pairs of costals, five vertebrals, and a nuchal (precentr al) scute that is in contact with the first pair of costal scutes (Dodd 1988).

The loggerhead sea turtle inhabi ts continental shelf and estuar ine environments and occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Dodd 1988). The majority of loggerhead nesting occurs at the western rims of th e Atlantic and Indian
Oceans concentrated in the north and south temperate zones and s ubtropics (NRC 1990).

In the western North Atlantic, the majority of lo ggerhead nesting is concentrated along the coasts of the United States from southern Virginia to Alabama. Additional nesting beaches are found along the northern and western Gu lf of Mexico, eastern Yucatán Peninsula, at Cay Sal Bank in the eastern Bahamas (Addison 1997 ; Addison and Morford 1996), off the southwestern coast of Cuba (Gavilan 2001), and along the coasts of Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, and the
eastern Caribbean Islands.

Non-nesting, adult female loggerheads are repor ted throughout the United States and Caribbean
Sea. Little is known about the distribution of adult males who are seasonally abundant near nesting beaches although aer ial surveys suggest that loggerheads in U.S. waters are distributed as a whole in the following proportions : 54 percent in the southeast U. S. Atlantic, 29 percent in the northeast U.S. Atlantic, 12 percent in the eastern Gulf of Mexic o, and 5 percent in the western Gulf of Mexico (TEWG 1998). Shallow water ha bitats with large e xpanses of open ocean access, such as Florida Bay, provide year-round resident foraging areas for significant numbers of male and female adult loggerheads while juve niles are also found in enclosed, shallow water estuarine environments not frequented by adults (Epperly et al. 1995c). Further offshore, adults primarily inhabit continental shelf waters, from New England south to Florida, the Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (Schroeder et al. 2003). Benthic, immature loggerheads foraging in
northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward in the fa ll as water temperatures cool and then migrate back northward in spring (E pperly et al. 1995c; Keinath 1993; Morreale and Standora 1998; Shoop and Kenney 1992).

Within the NWA DPS, most loggerhead sea turt les nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulf coast of Florida. Previous Sect ion 7 analyses have recognized at least five71 Western Atlantic subpopulations , divided geographically as fo llows (1) a northern nesting subpopulation, occurring from North Carolina to No rtheast Florida at ab out 29oN; (2) a South Florida nesting subpopulation, occurring from 29°N on the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast; (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulati on, occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida; (4) a Yu catán nesting subpopulation, occurring on the Eastern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (Márqu ez M 1990; TEWG 2000); and (5) a Dry Tortugas nesting subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tort ugas, near Key West, Florida (NMFS-SEFSC 2001). The recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic pop ulation of loggerhead sea turtles concluded, based on recent advances in genetic analyses, that there is no genetic distinction between loggerheads nesting on adjace nt beaches along the Florida Peninsula and that specific boundaries for subpopulatio ns could not be designated based on genetic differences alone. Thus, the plan uses a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic separation, and geopoliti cal boundaries, in addition to ge netic differences, to identify recovery units. The recovery uni ts are (1) the Northern Recovery Unit (Florida/Georgia border north through southern Virginia ); (2) the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (Florida/Georgia border through Pinellas County, Fl orida); (3) the Dry Tortugas R ecovery Unit (islands located west of Key West, Florida); (4) the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (Franklin County, Florida, through Texas); and (5 ) the Greater Caribbean Recove ry Unit (Mexico through French Guiana, the Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Gr eater Antilles) (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The recovery plan concluded that all recovery units are essential to the recovery of the species. Although the recovery plan was written prior to the listing of the NWA DP S, the recovery units
for what was then termed the Northwest A tlantic population apply to the NWA DPS.

Life History Information Loggerhead sea turtles reach sexual maturity be tween 20 and 38 years of age, although this varies widely among populations (Frazer a nd Ehrhart 1985; NMFS and SEFSC 2001). The annual mating season for loggerhead sea turtles occu rs from late March to early June, and eggs are laid throughout the summer months. Female loggerheads deposit an average of 4.1 nests within a nesting season (Murphy and Hopkins 1984) a nd have an average remigration interval of 3.7 years (Tucker 2010). Mean clutch size varies from 100 to 126 eggs for nests occurring along
the southeastern U. S. coast (Dodd 1988).

Loggerheads originating from the western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic Gyre fo r a period as long as 7- 12 years (Bolten et al. 1998). Stranding records indicate that when immature logge rheads reach 40-60 centimeters straight carapace length, they begin to occur in coastal inshore waters of the continental shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Witzell 2002). Recent studies have suggested that not all loggerhead s ea turtles follow the model of circumnavigating the North Atlantic Gyre as pelagic juveniles, followed by permanent se ttlement into benthic environments (Bolten and Witherington 2003; Laurent et al. 1998). These st udies suggest some turtles may either remain in the pelagic habitat in the North Atlantic longer than hypothesized or move back and forth between pelagic and coastal habita ts interchangeably (Witzell 2002).

As post-hatchlings, loggerheads hatched on U.S. beaches migrate offshore and become associated with Sargassum habitats, driftlin es, and other converge nce zones (Carr 1986) (Witherington 2002). Juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish and72 vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988). S ub-adult and adult loggerheads are primarily found in coastal waters and prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod
crustaceans in hard bottom habitats.

Abundance and Trends
A number of stock assessments and similar re views (Conant et al. 2009; Heppell et al. 2003; NMFS-SEFSC 2009a; NMFS and SEFSC 2001; NM FS and USFWS 2008; TEWG 1998; TEWG 2000; TEWG 2009) have examined the stock status of loggerheads in the Atlantic Ocean, but none have been able to develop a reliabl e estimate of absolute population size.

Numbers of nests and nesting females can vary wi dely from year to year. However, nesting beach surveys can provide a reliable assessment of trends in the adult female population, due to the strong nest site fidelity of females turtles, as long as such studies are sufficiently long and effort and methods are standardized [e.g., NMFS and USFWS (2008)]. NMFS and USFWS (2008) concluded that the lack of change in two important demographic parameters of loggerheads, remigration interval and clutch fr equency, indicate that time series on numbers of nests can provide reliable information on trends in the female population. Analysis of available data for the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit up through 2008 led to the conclusion that the observed decline in nesting for that unit could best be explained by an actual decline in the number of adult female loggerheads in the population (Witherington et al. 2009).

Annual nest totals from beaches within the No rthern Recovery Unit averaged 5,215 nests from 1989-2008, a period of near-complete surveys of Northern Recovery Unit nesting beaches (Georgia Department of Natural Resources unpub lished data, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission unpublished data, South Carolina Depa rtment of Natural Resources unpublished data, and represent approximately 1,272 nesting fe males per year [4.1 nests per female (Murphy and Hopkins 1984)]. The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys showed a significant decline of 1.3 percent annually. Nest totals fr om aerial surveys conducted by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources show ed a 1.9 percent annual d ecline in nesting in South Carolina from 1980 through 2008. Overall, th ere is strong statistica l data to suggest the Northern Recovery Unit has expe rienced a long-term decline. Data in 2008 showed improved nesting numbers. In 2008, 841 loggerhead nests we re observed compared to the 10-year average
of 715 nests in North Carolina. The number dropped to 276 in 2009, but rose again in 2010 (846 nests) and 2011 (948 nests). In South Carolina, 2008 was the se venth highest nesting year on record since 1980, with 4,500 nests, but this did no t change the long-term trend line indicating a decline on South Carolina beaches. Nesting dropped in 2009 to 2,183, with an increase to 3,141 in 2010. Georgia beach surveys located a total of 1,648 nests in 2008. This number surpassed the previous statewide record of 1,504 nests in 2003. In 2009, the number of nests declined to 998, and in 2010, a new statewide record was estab lished with 1,760 loggerhead nests. (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, North Ca rolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources ne sting data located at www.seaturtle.org).

Another consideration that may add to the impor tance and vulnerability of the NMU is the sex ratio of this subpopulation and its potential import ance for genetic diversity. Research conducted over a limited timeframe but across multiple years found that while the small Northern subpopulation can produce a larger proportion of male hatchlings than the large Peninsular73 Florida subpopulation, the sex ratio is female biased. In most y ears, the extent of the female bias is likely to be less extreme based upon current information. However, because their absolute numbers are small, their contribution to overall hatchling sex ratios is small (Wyneken et al. 2004; Wyneken et al. 2012). Since nesting female loggerhead sea turtles e xhibit nest fidelity, the continued existence of the Northern subpopulation is related to the number of female hatchlings that are produced. Fewer females will limit the number of subsequent offspring produced by the subpopulation.

The Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit is the largest loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic. A near-complete nest censu s (all beaches including index nesting beaches)
undertaken from 1989 to 2007 showed a mean of 64,513 loggerhead nests per year, representing approximately 15,735 nesting females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The statewide estimated total for 2010 was 73,702 (Fish and Wildlife Research Institute nes ting database). An analysis of index nesting beach data shows a 26 percent decline in nesting by the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit between 1989 and 2008, and a mean annual rate of decline of 1.6 percent despite a large increase in nesting for 2008, to 38,643 nests (NMFS and USFWS 2008; Witherington et al. 2009), Fish and Wildlife Re search Institute nesti ng database). In 2009, nesting levels, while still higher than the lows of 2004, 2006, and 2007, dropped below 2008 levels to approximately 32,717 nests, but in 2010 a large increase was seen, with 47,880 nests on the index nesting beaches (Fish and Wildlife Re search Institute nesti ng database). The 2010 Florida index nesting number is the largest since 2000. With th e addition of data through 2010, the nesting trend for the proposed NWA DPS of loggerheads became only slightly negative and not statistically different from zero (no trend) (NMFS and USFW S 2010). Nesting at the index nesting beaches in 2011 declined from 2010, but was still the second highest since 2001, at 43,595 nests (Florida Wildlife Research Institute nesting database).

The remaining three recovery units - Dry Tort ugas, Northern Gulf of Mexico, and Greater Caribbean - are much smaller nesting assemblages but still considered esse ntial to the continued existence of the species. Nesting surveys for the Dry Tortugas recovery unit are conducted as part of Florida’s statewide survey program. Survey effort was relatively stable during the 9-year period from 1995-2004 (although the 2002 year was missed). Nest counts ranged from 168-270, with a mean of 246, but with no detectable tr end during this period (NMFS and USFWS 2008).
Nest counts for the Northern Gulf of Mexico re covery unit are focused on index beaches rather than all beaches where nesting occurs. Analys is of the 12-year data set (1997-2008) of index nesting beaches in the area s hows a significant declining tren d of 4.7 percent annually (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Nesting on the Florida Panha ndle index beaches, which represents the majority of Northern Gulf of Mexico recovery unit nesting, had shown a large increase in 2008, but then declined again in 2009 and 2010 before rising back to a level similar to the 2003-2007 average in 2011. Similarly, nes ting survey effort has been inconsistent among the Greater Caribbean recovery unit nesting beaches and no trend can be determined for this subpopulation. Zurita et al. (2003) found a statis tically significant increase in th e number of nests on seven of the beaches on Quintana Roo, Mexico, from 198 7-2001, where survey effort was consistent during the period. However, nesting has declin ed since 2001, and the previously reported increasing trend appears to not have been sustained (NMFS and USFWS 2008).74 Determining the meaning of the long-term nes ting decline data is confounded by various inwater research that suggests the abundance of neritic juveni le loggerheads is steady or increasing. Ehrhart et al. ( 2007) found no significant regression- line trend in the long-term dataset. However, notable increases in recent years and a statistically significant increase in catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 102.4 percen t from the 4-year period of 1982-1985 to the 2002- 2005 periods were found. Epperly et al.(2007) dete rmined the trends of increasing loggerhead
catch rates from all the aforementioned studies in combination provide evidence there has been an increase in neritic juvenile loggerhead abunda nce in the southeastern United States in the recent past. A study led by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources found that standardized trawl survey CPUE s for loggerheads from South Ca rolina to North Florida was 1.5 times higher in summer 2008 than summer 2000. Ho wever, even though there were persistent inter-annual increases from 2000-2008, the difference was not statistic ally significant, likely due to the relatively short time se ries. Comparison to other data sets from the 1950s through 1990s showed much higher CPUEs in recent years regiona lly and in the South A tlantic Bight, leading South Carolina Department of Natural Resources to conclude that it is highly improbable that CPUE increases of such magnitude could occur wit hout a real and substantia l increase in actual abundance (Arendt et al. 2009). Wh ether this increase in abundance represents a true population increase among juveniles or merely a shift in sp atial occurrence is not cl ear. NMFS and USFWS (2008), citing (Bjorndal et al. 2005), caution about extrapolating localized in-water trends to the broader population and relating loca lized trends in neritic sites to population trends at nesting beaches. The apparent overall increase in the abundance of neritic loggerheads in the southeastern United States may be due to increas ed abundance of the larges t Stage III individuals (oceanic/neritic juveniles, historically referred to as small benthic juveniles), which could indicate a relatively large cohor t that will recruit to maturity in the near future (TEWG 2009). However, in-water studies throughout the east ern United States also indicate a substantial decrease in the abundance of the smallest Stag e III loggerheads, a patt ern also corroborated by stranding data (TEWG 2009).

The NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (S EFSC) has developed a preliminary stage/age demographic model to help determine the estimated impacts of mortality reductions on loggerhead sea turtle populat ion dynamics (NMFS-SEFSC 2009a ). This model does not incorporate existing trends in the data (such as nesting trends) but instead relies on utilizing the
available information on the releva nt life-history parameters for sea turtles and then predicts future population trajectories ba sed upon model runs using those parameters. Therefore, the model results do not build upon, but instead are complementary to, the trend data obtained through nest counts and other observations. The model uses the range of published information for the various parameters including mortality by stage, stage duration (years in a stage), and fecundity parameters such as eggs per nest, nests per nesting female, hatchling emergence success, sex ratio, and remigration interval. Mode l runs were done for each individual recovery unit as well as the western North Atlantic popula tion as a whole, and th e resulting trajectories were found to be very similar. One of the most robust results from the model was an estimate of the adult female population size for the western North Atlantic in the 2004-2008 timeframe. The distribution resulting from the m odel runs suggest the adult fema le population size to be likely between approximately 20,000 to 40,000 individuals, with a low likelihood of being up to 70,000 (NMFS-SEFSC 2009a). A much less robust estimate for total benthic females in the western75 North Atlantic was also obtained, with a likely range of approximately 30,000-300,000 individuals, up to less than 1 million (NMFS-SEFSC 2009a).

Threats Loggerhead sea turtles face numerous natural and an thropogenic threats that help shape its status and affect the ability of the speci es to recover. As many of the threats affecting loggerheads are
either the same or similar in nature to threats affecting other listed sea tu rtle species, many of the
threats identified in this section below are discus sed in a general sense for all listed sea turtles rather than solely for loggerheads. Threats specif ic to a particular species are then discussed in the corresponding status s ections where appropriate.

The Loggerhead Biological Review Team determin ed that the greatest threats to the NWA DPS of loggerheads result from cumu lative fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic habitats (Conant et al. 2009). Domestic fishery operations often capture, injure, and kill sea turtles at various life stages. Loggerheads in the pelagic environment are exposed to U.S. A tlantic pelagic longline fisheries. Although loggerhead sea turtles are mo st vulnerable to pelagi c longlines during their immature life history stage, there is some eviden ce that benthic juveniles may also be captured, injured, or killed by pelagic fi sheries as well (Lewison et al. 2004). Southeast U.S. shrimp fisheries have historically been the largest fishery threat to benthic sea turtles in the southeastern United States, and continue to interact with and kill large numbers of turtles each year. Loggerheads in the benthic environment in waters off the coastal United States are exposed to a
suite of other fisheries in federal and state wate rs including trawl, gillnet, purse seine, hook-andline, including bottom longline a nd vertical line (e.g., bandit gear , handline, and rod-reel), pound net, and trap fisheries (refer to the Environmental Baseline section of this opinion for more specific information regarding federal and state ma naged fisheries affecting sea turtles within the action area). In addition to dom estic fisheries, sea turtles are subject to direct as well as incidental capture in numerous fore ign fisheries, further exacerbati ng the ability of sea turtles to survive and recover on a global scale. For exam ple, pelagic, immature loggerhead sea turtles circumnavigating the Atlantic are exposed to international longline fisheries including the Azorean, Spanish, and various other fleets (Aguila r et al. 1995; Bolten et al. 1994; Crouse 1999). Bottom set lines in the coastal waters of Madeira, Portugal, are reported to take an estimated 500 pelagic immature loggerheads each year (Dellinge r and Encarnaçâo 2000) and gillnet fishing is known to occur in many foreign waters, including (but not limited to) the northwest Atlantic, western Mediterranean, South America, West A frica, Central America, and the Caribbean. Shrimp trawl fisheries are also occurring off th e shores of numerous foreign countries and pose a significant threat to sea turtles similar to the im pacts seen in U.S. wate rs. Many unreported takes or incomplete records by foreign fleets, making it difficult to characterize the total impact that international fishing pressure is having on listed sea turtles. Nevertheless, international fisheries represent a continuing threat to sea turtle survival and rec overy throughout their respective

ranges.

There are also many non-fishery impacts affecting th e status of sea turtle species, both in the
marine and terrestrial environment. In nearsh ore waters of the United States, the construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels has been identified as a source of sea turtle mortality. Hopper dredges, which are frequently used in ocean bar channels and sometimes in harbor channels and offshore borrow areas, move relatively rapidly and can entrain and kill sea76 turtles (NMFS 1997a). Sea turtles entering coas tal or inshore areas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling-water systems of elect rical generating plants. Other nearshore threats include harassment and/or injury resulting fr om private and commercial vessel operations, military detonations and training exercises, and scientific research activities.

Coastal development can deter or interfere with nesting, affect nesting success, and degrade nesting habitats for sea turtles. Structural imp acts to nesting habitat in clude the construction of buildings and pilings, beach ar moring and renourishment, and sand extraction (Bouchard et al. 1998; Lutcavage et al. 1997). These factors ma y directly, through loss of beach habitat, or indirectly, through changing thermal profiles a nd increasing erosion, serve to decrease the amount of nesting area available to females and ma y change the natural behaviors of both adults and hatchlings (Ackerman 1997; Witherington et al. 2003; Witherington et al. 2007). In addition, coastal development is usually accompanied by artifi cial lighting which has been known to alter the behavior of nesting adults (W itherington 1992) and is often fatal to emerging hatchlings that are drawn away from the water (Witherington a nd Bjorndal 1991).

Predation by various land predators is a threat to developing nests a nd emerging hatchlings. Additionally, direct harvest of eggs and adults fr om beaches in foreign countries continues to be a problem for various sea turtle species throughout their ranges (NMFS and USFWS 2008).

Multiple municipal, industrial, and household sources, as well as atmospheric transport, introduce various pollutants such as pest icides, hydrocarbons, organochlorides [e.g., dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphe nyl (PCBs)], and others that may cause adverse health effects to sea tur tles (Garrett 2004; Grant and Ross 2002; Hartwell 2004; Iwata et al. 1993). L oggerheads may be particularly affected by organochlorine contaminants as they were observed to ha ve the highest organoc hlorine contaminant concentrations in sampled tissues (Storelli et al . 2008). It is thought th at dietary preferences were likely to be the main differentiating factor among species. Storelli et al. (2008) analyzed tissues from stranded loggerhead sea turtles a nd found that 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 (Law et al. 1991). Recent efforts have led to improvements in regional water quality in the ac tion area, although the more persistent chemicals are still detected and are expected to endur e for years (Grant and Ross 2002; Mearns 2001). Acute exposure to hydrocarbons from petroleum pr oducts released into th e environment via oil spills and other discharges may di rectly injure individua ls through skin contact with oils (Geraci 1990), inhalation at the water’s surface and in gesting compounds while feeding (Matkin and Saulitis 1997). Hydrocarbons also have the pote ntial to impact prey populations, and therefore may affect listed species indir ectly by reducing food availabilit y in the action area. In 2010, there was a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Me xico at British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon (DWH) well. Official estimates are that millions of barrels of oil were released into the Gulf, with some experts estimating even higher volumes. At this time the assessment of total direct impact to sea turtles has not been determined. Additionally, the long-term impacts to sea turtles as a result of habitat impacts, prey loss, and subsurface oil particles and oil components broken down through physical, chemical, and bi ological processes are not known.77 There is a large and growing body of literature on past, present, and future impacts of global climate change, exacerbated and accelerated by human activities. Some of the likely effects commonly mentioned are sea leve l rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and change in air and water temperatures. Nati onal Ocean and Atmospheri c Association’s (NOAA) climate information portal provides basic bac kground information on thes e and other measured or anticipated effects (see http://www.climate.gov).

Climate change impacts on sea turtles currently ca nnot, for the most part, be predicted with any degree of certainty; however sign ificant impacts to the hatchling sex ratios of loggerhead turtles may result (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). In marine turtles, sex is determined by temperature in
the middle third of incubation with female offs pring produced at higher temperatures and males at lower temperatures within a thermal tolera nce range of 25°-35°C (Ackerman 1997). Increases in global temperature coul d potentially skew future sex ratios toward higher numbers of females (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Modeling suggests an increase of 2°C in air temperature would
result in a sex ratio of over 80 percent female offspring for loggerheads nesting near Southport, North Carolina. The same increase in air temper atures at nesting beaches in Cape Canaveral, Florida, would result in close to 100 percent female offspring. More ominously, an air temperature increase of 3°C is likely to exceed th e thermal threshold of most clutches, leading to death (Hawkes et al. 2007). Warmer sea surface temperatures have been correlated with an earlier onset of loggerhead nesting in the spring (Hawkes et al. 2007; Weishampel et al. 2004), as well as short inter-nesting interv als (Hays et al. 2002) and shor ter nesting season (Pike et al. 2006).

The effects from increased temperatures ma y be exacerbated on developed nesting beaches where shoreline armoring and construction have denuded vegetation. Erosi on control structures could potentially result in the pe rmanent loss of nesting beach ha bitat or deter nesting females (NRC 1990). These impacts will be exacerbated by sea level rise. If females nest on the seaward side of the erosion control structures, nests may be exposed to repeated tidal overwash (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Sea level rise from global climate change is also a potential problem for areas with low-lying beaches where sand depth is a limiting factor, as the sea may inundate nesting sites and decrease available nesting habitat (Baker et al. 2006; Daniels et al. 1993; Fish et al. 2005). The loss of habitat as a result of climate change could be accelerated due
to a combination of other environmental and ocea nographic changes such as an increase in the frequency of storms and/or cha nges in prevailing currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion (Antonelis et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2006).

Other changes in the marine ecosystem caused by global climate change (e.g., ocean acidification, salinity, oceanic cu rrents, dissolved oxygen levels, nut rient distribution, etc.) could
influence the distribution and abundance of phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, crustaceans, mollusks, forage fish, et c., which could ultimately affect the primary foraging areas of sea turtles.

Actions have been taken to reduce anthropogenic impacts to loggerhead s ea turtles from various sources, particularly since the ea rly 1990s. These include lighting ordinances, predation control, and nest relocations to help increase hatchling survival, as well as measures to reduce the mortality of pelagic immatures, benthic immature s, and sexually mature age classes from various78 fisheries and other marine activ ities. Recent actions have ta ken significant steps towards reducing the recurring sources of mortality of sea turtles in the environmental baseline and improving the status of all loggerhead subpopulations . For example, the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) regulation published on February 21, 200 3 (68 FR 8456), represents a significant improvement in the baseline effects of trawl fi sheries on loggerhead sea turtles, though shrimp trawling is still considered to be one of th e largest source of anthropogenic mortality on loggerheads (NMFS-SEFSC 2009a).

3.2.2 Green Sea Turtle

The green sea turtle was liste d as threatened under the ESA on July 28, 1978, except for the
Florida and Pacific coast of Me xico breeding populations which were listed as endangered. Critical habitat for the green s ea turtle has been designated on September 2, 1998, for the waters surrounding Isla Culebra, Puerto Rico , and its associated keys. No critical habitat exists in the
action area for this consultation.

Species Description, Distribut ion, and Population Structure Green sea turtles have a smooth carapace with four pairs of lateral (or cost al) scutes and a single pair of elongated prefrontal scales between the eyes. They typically have a black dorsal surface and a white ventral surface although the carapace of green sea turt les in the Atlantic Ocean has been known to change in color from solid black to a variety of shades of grey, green, brown and
black in starburst or irre gular patterns (Lagueux 2001).

Green sea turtles are distributed circumgloball y, mainly in waters between the northern and
southern 20 o C isotherms (Hirth 1971) and nesting occurs in more than 80 countries worldwide (Hirth and USFWS 1997). The two largest ne sting populations are f ound at Tortuguero, on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, and Raine Island , on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The complete nesting range of green sea turtles with in the southeastern United States includes sandy beaches of mainland shores, barrier islands, co ral islands, and volcanic islands between Texas and North Carolina as well as the U.S. Virgin Island and Puerto Rico (Dow et al. 2007; NMFS and USFWS 1991). However, the vast majority of green sea turtle nesting within the
southeastern United States occurs in Florida (Johnson and Ehrhart 1994; Meylan et al. 1995). Principal U.S. nesting areas for green sea turtle s are in eastern Florida, predominantly Brevard through Broward counties. For more informati on on green sea turtle nesting in other ocean basins, refer to the 1991 Recovery Plan for th e Atlantic Green Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991)
or the 2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-Year St atus Review (NMFS and USFWS 2007a).

In U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, green turtles are found in inshore and nearshore waters from Texas to Massachusetts. Principal benthic foraging areas in the southeastern United States include Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay, La guna Madre, and the Gulf inlets of Texas (Doughty 1984; Hildebrand 1982; Shaver 1994), th e Gulf of Mexico off Florida from Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Caldwell and Carr 1957; Carr 1984), Florida Bay and the Florida Keys (Schroeder and Foley 1995), the In dian River Lagoon system in Florida (Ehrhart 1983), and the Atlantic Ocean off Florida from Brevard through Broward Counties (Guseman and Ehrhart 1992; Wershoven and Wershoven 1992). The summer developmental habitat for green turtles also encompasses estuarine and coasta l waters from North Carolina to as far north79 as Long Island Sound (Musick and Limpus 1997). Additional important foraging areas in the western Atlantic include the Culebra archipelago and other Puerto Rico coastal waters, the south coast of Cuba, the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua, the Caribbean coast of Panama, scattered areas along Colombia and Brazil (Hirth 1971), and the northwestern coas t of the Yucatan Peninsula.

Adults of both sexes are presumed to migrat e between nesting and foraging habitats along corridors adjacent to coastlines and reefs (Hays et al. 2001) and, like loggerheads, are known to migrate from northern areas in the summer back to warmer southern waters to the south in the fall and winter to avoid seasonally cold seawater temperatures. In terms of genetic structure, regional subpopulations show di stinctive mitochondrial DNA prope rties for each nesting rookery (Bowen et al. 1992; Fitzsimmons et al. 2006). Despite the genetic differences, turtles from separate nesting origins are commonly found mixed together on foraging grounds throughout the species’ range. However, such mixing occurs at extremely low levels in Hawaiian foraging areas, perhaps making this central Pacific popula tion the most isolated of all green turtle populations occurring worldwide (Dutton et al. 2008).

Life History Information Green sea turtles exhibit particul arly slow growth rates [about 1- 5 centimeters per year (Green 1993; McDonald-Dutton and Dutton 1998) ] and also have one of the l ongest ages to maturity of any sea turtle species [i.e., 20-50 years (Chalo upka and Musick 1997; Hirth and USFWS 1997)]. The slow growth rates are believed to be a c onsequence of their largel y herbivorous, low-net energy diet (Bjorndal 1982). Upon reaching sexual maturity, females begin returning to their natal beaches (i.e., the same beaches where they we re hatched) to lay eggs (Balazs 1982; Frazer and Ehrhart 1985) and are capable of migrating si gnificant distances (hundre ds to thousands of kilometers) between foraging and nesting areas. While females lay eggs every 2-4 years, males are known to reproduce every year (Balazs 1983).

Green sea turtle mating occurs in the waters o ff nesting beaches. In the southeastern United States, females generally nest between June and Se ptember, and peak nesting occurs in June and July (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989). During the nesting season, females nest at approximately two-week intervals, laying an average of 3-4 clutches (Johnson and Ehrhart 1996). Clutch size often varies among subpopulations , but mean clutch size is ar ound 110-115 eggs. In Florida, green sea turtle nests contain an average of 136 eggs (Witherington a nd Ehrhart 1989), which will incubate for approximately two months befo re hatching. Survivorship at any particular nesting site is greatly influenced by the level of anthropogenic stressors, with the more pristine and less disturbed nesting sites (e.g., Great Barrier Reef in Aust ralia) showing higher survivorship values than nes ting sites known to be highly di sturbed (e.g., Nicarauga) (Campbell and Lagueux 2005; Chaloupka and Li mpus 2005). After emerging from the nest, hatchlings swim to offshore areas and go through a posthatch ling pelagic stage where they are believed to live for several years, feeding close to the surf ace on a variety of mari ne algae and other life
associated with drift lines and other debris. Th is early oceanic phase remains one of the most poorly understood aspects of green turtle life history (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). However, at approximately 20- to 25-centimet er caprapace length, juveniles l eave pelagic habitats and enter benthic foraging habitats. Growth studies usi ng skeletochronology indica te that for green sea
turtles in the Western Atlantic shift from the o ceanic phase to nearshor e development habitats (protected lagoons and open coastal areas rich in sea gr ass and marine algae) after approximately80 5-6 years (Bresette et al. 2006; Z ug and Glor 1998). As adults, th ey feed almost exclusively on sea grasses and algae in shallow bays, lagoons, and reefs (Rebel and In gle 1974) although some populations are known to also feed heavily on inverteb rates (Carballo et al. 2002). While in coastal habitats, green sea turtles exhibit site fi delity to specific foraging and nesting grounds and it is clear they are capable of “homing in” on th ese sites if displaced (M cMichael et al. 2003). Reproductive migrations of Flor ida green turtles have been identified through flipper tagging and/or satellite telemetry. Based on these studies, the majority of adult female Florida green
turtles are believed to reside in nearshore fora ging areas throughout the Florida Keys from Key Largo to the Dry Tortugas and in the waters southwest of Cape Sable, Florida, with some postnesting turtles also residi ng in Bahamian waters as well (NMFS and USFWS 2007b).

Abundance and Trends A summary of nesting trends is provided in the mo st recent 5-year status review for the species (NMFS and USFWS 2007b) in which the authors collected and organized abundance data from 46 individual nesting concentrations organized by ocean region (i.e., Western Atlantic Ocean, Central Atlantic Ocean, Eastern Atlantic Ocea n, Mediterranean Sea, Western Indian Ocean, Northern Indian Ocean, Eastern Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, We stern Pacific Ocean, Central Pacific Ocean, and Eastern Pacific Ocean). The au thors were able to determine trends at 23 of the 46 nesting sites and found that 10 appeared to be increasing, 9 appeared to be stable, and 4 appeared to be decreasing. With respect to regional trends, the Pacific, the Western Atlantic, and the Central Atlantic regions appeared to show more positive trends (i.e., more nesting sites increasing than decreasing) while the Southeas t Asia, Eastern Indian Ocean, and possibly the Mediterranean Sea regions appeared to show mo re negative trends (i.e., more nesting sites decreasing than increasing). These regional determ inations should be viewed with caution since trend data was only available for about half of th e total nesting concentration sites examined in the review and that site specifi c data availability appeared to vary across all regions.

The western Atlantic region (focus of this opini on) was one of the best performing in terms of
abundance in the entire review as there were no s ites that appeared to be decreasing. The 5-year status review for the species identified eight ge ographic areas considered to be primary sites for green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic/Caribbean and reviewed the trend in nest count data for each (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). These sites in clude (1) Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico; (2) Tortuguero, Costa Rica; (3) Aves Island, Venezuel a; (4) Galibi Reserve, Suriname; (5) Isla Trindade, Brazil; (6) Ascension Island, United Kingdom; (7) Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea; and (8) Bijagos Achipelago, Guinea-Bissau. Nesting at all of these sites was considered to be stable or increasing with the exception of Bioko Isla nd and the Bijagos Ar chipelago where the lack of sufficient data precluded a meaningful trend assessment for either site (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). Seminoff (2004) likewise reviewed green sea turtle nesti ng data for eight sites in the western, eastern, and central Atlantic, including all of th e above with the exception that nesting in Florida was reviewed in place of Isla Trindade, Brazil. Seminoff (2004) concluded
that all sites in the ce ntral and western Atlantic showed incr eased nesting, with the exception of nesting at Aves Island, Venezuela, while both sites in the eastern Atlantic demonstrated decreased nesting. These sites are not inclusive of all green sea turtle ne sting in the Atlantic. However, other sites are not believed to suppor t nesting levels high enough that would change the overall status of the species in the Atlant ic (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). More information81 about site specific trends for the other major ocean regions can be found in the most recent 5- year status review for the species [see NMFS and USFWS (2007a)].

By far, the largest known nesting assemblage in the western Atlantic region occurs at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. According to monitori ng data on nest counts as well as documented emergences (both nesting and non-nesting events), th ere appears to be an in creasing trend in this nesting assemblage since monitoring began in the early 1970s. For instance, from 1971-1975 there were approximately 41,250 average emergen ces documented per year and this number increased to an average of 72,200 emergences do cumented per year from 1992-1996 (Bjorndal et al. 1999). Troëng and Rankin (Troëng and Ranki n 2005) collected nest counts from 1999-2003 and also reported increasing trends in the populati on consistent with the ea rlier studies, with nest count data suggesting 17,402-37,290 females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). Modeling by (Chaloupka et al. 2008) using data sets of 25 years or more resulted in an estimate of the Tortuguero, Costa Rica, population growing at 4.9 percent annuall y. The number of females nesting per year on beaches in the Yucatán, Aves Island, Galibi Reserve, and Isla Trindade number in the hundreds to low thousands, depe nding on the site (NMFS and USFWS 2007a).

In the continental United States , green turtle nesting occurs al ong the Atlantic coast, primarily along the central and sout heast coast of Florida where an estimated 200-1,100 females nest each year (Meylan et al. 1994; Weishampel et al . 2003). Occasional nesting has also been documented along the Gulf coast of Florida as well as the beaches on the Florida Panhandle (Meylan et al. 1995). More recently, green turt le nesting occurred on Ba ld Head Island, North Carolina; just east of the mouth of the Cape F ear River; on Onslow Island; and on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. In 2010, a to tal of 18 nests were found in No rth Carolina, 6 nests in South Carolina, and 6 nests in Georgi a (nesting databases maintained on www.seaturtle.org). Increased nesting has also been observed along the Atla ntic coast of Florida, on beaches where only loggerhead nesting was observed in the past (Pritchard 1997).

In Florida, index beaches were established to standardize data collecti on methods and effort on key nesting beaches. Since establishment of the index beaches in 1989 up until recently, the pattern of green turtle nesti ng has shown biennial peaks in abundance with a generally positive trend during the ten years of re gular monitoring. According to data collected from Florida’s index nesting beach survey from 1989-2011, gree n turtle nest counts across Florida have increased approximately tenfold from a low of 267 in the early 1990’s to a high of 10,701 in 2011. In 2007, there were 9,455 green turtle nest s found just on index nesting beaches, the highest since index beach monitoring began in 1989. The number fell back to 6,385 in 2008 and dropped under 3,000 in 2009, at first causing some concern, but 2010 saw an increase back to 8,426 nests on the index nesting beaches and then the high of 10,701was measured in 2011 (FWC Index Nesting Beach Survey Database). Modeling by (Chaloupka and Balazs 2007) using data sets of 25 years or more has resulted in an estimate of the Florida nesting stock at the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge growing at an annual rate of 13.9 percent.

There are no reliable estimates of the number of immature green sea turtles that inhabit coastal areas of the southeastern United States, where they come to forage. Ehrhart et al. (2007) have documented a significant increase in in-water ab undance of green turtle s in the Indian River Lagoon area. It is likely that immature green sea turtles fora ging in the southeastern United82 States come from multiple genetic stocks; therefor e, the status of immature green sea turtles in the southeastern United States might also be as sessed from trends at all of the main regional nesting beaches, principally Flor ida, Yucatán, and Tortuguero.

Threats The principal cause of past declin es and extirpations of green sea turtle assemblages has been the overexploitation of green sea turt les for food and other products. Although intentional take of green sea turtles and their eggs is not extensive within the southe astern United States, green sea turtles that nest and forage in the region may spe nd large portions of thei r life history outside the region and outside U.S. jurisdiction, where exploitati on is still a threat. There are also significant and ongoing threats to green sea turtles from huma n-related causes in the United States. Similar
to that described in more detail above for l oggerhead sea turtles, these threats include beach armoring, erosion control, artif icial lighting, beach disturbanc e (e.g., driving on the beach), pollution, foraging habitat loss as a result of di rect destruction by dr edging, siltation, boat damage, interactions with fishing gear, and oils spills.

Fibropapillomatosis disease is an in creasing threat to green sea turtle s. Presently, this disease is cosmopolitan and has been found to affect large numbers of animals in some areas, including Hawaii and Florida (Herbst 1994; Jacobson 1990; Jacobson et al. 1991). Other sources of natural mortality include cold-stunning and biotoxin exposure. Cold-stunni ng is not considered a major source of mortality in most cases. As temp eratures fall below 8°-10°C, turtles may lose their ability to swim and dive, of ten floating to the surface. The rate of cooling that precipitates cold-stunning appears to be the primary threat, rather than the water temperature itself (Milton and Lutz 2003). Sea turtles that overwinter in ins hore waters are most susceptible to coldstunning because temperature changes are most rapid in shallow wa ter (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989). During January 2010, an unusually large cold-stunning event in the southeastern
United States resulted in ar ound 4,600 sea turtles, mostly gr eens, found cold-stunned, with hundreds found dead or dying. A large cold-stunni ng event occurred in the western Gulf of Mexico in February 2011, resulting in appr oximately 1650 green turtles being found coldstunned in Texas. Of these, approximately 620 were found dead or died after stranding and approximately 1030 were rehabilitated and released. Additionally, during this same time frame, approximately 340 green turtles were found cold-s tunned in Mexico, with approximately 300 of those reported as being subsequently released.

The likely effects of global climate change discu ssed previously for logge rheads also apply to green turtles. Additionally, green sea turtle ha tchling size also appears to be influenced by incubation temperatures, with smaller hatchlings produced at higher temp eratures (Glen et al. 2003).

3.2.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle

The leatherback sea turtle was listed as enda ngered throughout its enti re range on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491) under the Endangered Species Conser vation Act of 1969, a precursor to the ESA. Critical habitat was designated in 1979 in coastal waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Designation of critical habitat in the Pacifi c Ocean occurred on January 26, 2012 (77 FR 4170). This designation includes appr oximately 16,910 square miles (43,798 square km)83 stretching along the California co ast from Point Arena to Point Arguello east of the 3,000 meter depth contour; and 25,004 square miles (64,760 square kilometers) stretching from Cape Flattery, Washington to Cape Blanco, Oregon east of the 2, 000 meter depth contour.

Species Description, Distribut ion, and Population Structure The leatherback is the largest sea turtle in the world. Mature males and females can reach lengths of over 2 meters and weigh close to 900 kilograms (or 2000 pounds). The leatherback is the only sea turtle that lacks a hard, bony shell. A leathe rback's carapace is approximately 4
centimeters thick and consists of a leathery, oil-saturated connective tissue overlaying loosely interlocking dermal bones. The ridged carapace a nd large flippers are ch aracteristics that make the leatherback uniquely equipped for long distance foraging migrations. Leatherbacks lack the crushing chewing plates characteri stic of sea turtles that feed on hard-bodied prey (Pritchard 1971). Instead, they have pointed toothlike cu sps and sharp edged jaws that are perfectly adapted for a diet of soft-bodi ed pelagic (open ocean) prey, su ch as jellyfish and salps. A
leatherback's mouth and throat also have backwa rd-pointing spines that help retain gelatinous

prey.

The leatherback sea turtle ranges farther than any other sea turtle sp ecies, exhibiting broad thermal tolerances (NMFS and USFWS 1995). They forage in temperate and subpolar regions
between latitudes 71o N and 47o S in all oceans and undergo extens ive migrations to and from their tropical nesting beaches. In the Atlantic Ocean, leatherbac ks have been recorded as far north as Newfoundland, Canada, and Norway, and as far south as Uruguay, Argentina, and South Africa (NMFS-SEFSC 2001). Female leatherbacks ne st from the 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 Atla ntic, and perhaps in the world, are located in French Guiana and Suriname (NMFS-SEFSC 2001).

Previous genetic analyses of leatherbacks using only mito chondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggested
that within the Atlantic basin th ere were at least three genetically distinct nesti ng populations: the St. Croix nesting population (U.S . Virgin Islands), the mainla nd nesting Caribbean population (Florida, Costa Rica, Suriname/French Guiana), and the Trinidad nesti ng population (Dutton et al. 1998). Further genetic analyses using micros atellite markers along with the mtDNA data and tagging data has resulted in Atlantic Ocean leat herbacks now being divided into seven groups or breeding populations: Florida, Northern Caribbean, Western Caribbean, Southern Caribbean/Guianas, West Africa, South Africa, and Brazil (TEWG 2007). General differences in migration patterns and foraging grounds may oc cur between the seven nesting assemblages, although data to support this is limited in most cases.

Life History Information Leatherbacks are a long-lived sea turtle species, with some individuals reaching 30 years of age or older. Past estimates showed that they re ached sexual maturity faster than most other sea turtle species as Rhodin (1985) reported maturity for leatherbacks occurring at 3-6 years of age while Zug and Parham (1996) reported maturity o ccurring at 13-14 years of age. More recent research using sophisticated methods of analyz ing leatherback ossicles has cast doubt on the previously accepted age to maturity figures, wi th leatherbacks in the western North Atlantic possibly not reaching sexual maturity until as la te as 29 years of age (Avens and Goshe 2007).84 Female leatherbacks lay up to 10 nests during th e nesting season (March through July in the United States) at 2-3 year intervals. They produc e 100 eggs or more in each clutch and, thus, can produce 700 eggs or more per nesting season (Sch ultz 1975). However, a significant portion (up to approximately 30 percent) of th e eggs can be infertile. Thus, the actual proportion of eggs that can result in hatchlings is less than this s easonal estimate. After 60-65 days, leatherback hatchlings with white striping al ong the ridges of their backs and on the margins of the flippers emerge from the nest. Leathe rback hatchlings are approximately 50-77 cen timeters in length, with fore flippers as long as their bo dies, and weigh approximately 40-50 g. Although leatherbacks forage in coastal waters, they appe ar to remain primarily pelagic through all life stages (Heppell et al. 2003). Ec kert (1999) found that leatherback juveniles remain in waters warmer than 26oC until they exceed 100 centimeter s in length. The location and abundance of prey, including medusae, siphonophores, and salpae, in temperate a nd boreal latitudes likely has a strong influence on leatherback distribution in these areas (Plo tkin 1995). Leatherbacks are known to be deep divers, with reco rded depths in excess of a half mile (Eckert et al. 1989), but may also come into shallow waters to locate prey items.

Abundance and Trends The status of the Atlantic leatherback population has been less clear than the Pacific population, which has shown dramatic declines at many nes ting sites (Sarti Martínez et al. 2007; Spotila et al. 2000). This uncertainty has been a result of in consistent beach and aerial surveys, cycles of erosion and reformation of nesting beaches in th e Guianas (representing the largest nesting area), a lesser degree of nest-site fidelity than occurs with the hardshell sea turtle species, and inconsistencies in the availability and analyses of data. However, coordinated efforts at data collection and analyses by the Leatherback Turtle Expert Working Group have helped to clarify the understanding of the Atlantic population status (TEWG 2007).

The Southern Caribbean/Guianas stock is th e largest known Atlantic leatherback nesting aggregation (TEWG 2007). This area includes the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana), Trinidad, Dominica, and Venezuela, with the vast majority of the nesting occurring in the Guianas and Trinidad. Past analyses had shown that the nesting aggregation in French Guiana had been declining at about 15 per cent per year since 1987 (NMFS-SEFSC 2001). However, from 1979-1986, the number of nests wa s increasing at about 15 percent annually,
which could mean that the observed decline could be part of a nesting cycl e that coincides with the erosion cycle of Guiana beaches described by Sc hultz (1975). It is thought that the cycle of
erosion and reformation of beaches has resulte d in shifting nesting beaches throughout this region. This was supported by the increased nesti ng seen in Suriname, where leatherback nest numbers had shown large increases concurrent with declines elsewhere (with more than 10,000 nests per year since 1999 and a peak of 30,000 nests in 2001), and the long-term trend for the overall Suriname and French Guiana populati on was thought to possibly show an increase [(Girondot et al. 2002) in (Hilterman and Goverse 2003) ]. In the past, many sea turtle scientists have agreed that the Guianas (and some would include Trinid ad) should be viewed as one population and that a synop tic evaluation of nesting at all beac hes in the region is necessary to develop a true picture of populati on status (Reichart et al. 2001). Genetics studies have added support to this notion and have resulted in the designation of the Southern Caribbean/Guianas stock. Using both Bayesian modeling and regressi on analyses, the Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG 2007) determined that the Southern Ca ribbean/Guianas stock had demonstrated a long-85 term, positive population growth rate (using nest ing females as a proxy for population). This positive growth was seen within major nesting areas for the stock, including Trinidad, Guyana, and the combined beaches of Suriname and French Guiana (TEWG 2007).

The Western Caribbean stock includes nesting b eaches from Honduras to Colombia. The most intense nesting in that area occurs in Costa Ri ca, Panama, and the Gulf of Uraba in Colombia (Duque et al. 2000). The Caribbean coast of Costa Rica and extending through Chiriquí Beach, Panama, represents the fourth largest known leat herback rookery in the world (Troëng et al. 2004). Examination of data from three inde x nesting beaches in the region (Tortuguero, Gandoca, and Pacuare in Costa Rica) using variou s Bayesian and regressi on analyses indicated that the nesting population likel y was not growing over the 1995- 2005 time series of available data (TEWG 2007). Other modeling of the nesti ng data for Tortuguero indicates a possible 67.8 percent decline between 1995 and 2006 (Troëng and Chaloupka 2007).

Nesting data for the Northern Ca ribbean stock is available from Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands (St. Croix), and the Britis h Virgin Islands (Tortola). In Puerto Rico, the primary nesting beaches are at Fajardo and on the island of Cu lebra. Nesting between 1978 and 2005 has ranged between 469-882 nests, and the population has been growing sin ce 1978, with an overall annual growth rate of 1.1 percent (TEW G 2007). At the primary nesti ng beach on St. Croix, the Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, nesting has fluc tuated from a few hundred nests to a high of 1,008 in 2001, and the average annual growth rate has been approximately 1.1 percent from 1986-2004 (TEWG 2007). Nesting in Tortola is lim ited, but has been increasing from 0-6 nests per year in the late 1980s to 35-65 per year in the 2000s, with an annual growth rate of approximately 1.2 percent between 1994 and 2004 (TEWG 2007).

The Florida nesting stock nests primarily along the east coast of Florida. This stock is of growing importance, with total nests between 800-900 per year in the 2000s following nesting totals fewer than 100 nests per year in the 1980s (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished data). Using data from the index nesting beach surveys, the TEWG (TEWG 2007) estimated a significant annual ne sting growth rate of 1.17 percent between 1989 and 2005. In 2007, a record 517 leatherback nest s were observed on the index beaches in Florida, followed by 265 nests in 2008, a record 615 nests in 2009, a slight decline to 552 nests in 2010, and then a new record of 625 nests in 2011 (FWC Index Nesting Beach Survey Database). This up-and-down pattern is thought to be a result of the cyclical nature of leatherback nesting, similar to th e biennial cycle of green turt le nesting, but overall the trend shows rapid growth on Flor ida’s east coast beaches.

The West African nesting stock of leatherbacks is a large, im portant, but mostly unstudied aggregation. Nesting occurs in various countries along Africa’s Atlantic coast, but much of the nesting is undocumented and the da ta are inconsistent. However, it is known that Gabon has a very large amount of leatherback nesting, with at least 30,000 nests laid along its coast in one season (Fretey et al. 2007). Fret ey et al. (2007) also provide detailed information about other known nesting beaches and survey efforts along the A tlantic African coast. Because of the lack of consistent effort and minimal available data, trend analyses were not possible for this stock (TEWG 2007).86 Two other small but growing nesting stocks utili ze the beaches of Brazil and South Africa. For the Brazilian stock, the TEWG ( TEWG 2007) analyzed the availabl e data and determined that between 1988 and 2003 there was a positive annual average growth rate of 1.07 percent using regression analyses and 1.08 percen t using Bayesian modeling. The South African stock has an annual average growth rate of 1.06 based on regression modeling and 1.04 percent using the Bayesian approach (TEWG 2007).

Estimates of total population size for Atlantic leatherbacks are di fficult to ascertain due to the inconsistent nature of the available nesting data . In 1996, the entire West ern Atlantic population
was characterized as stable at best (Spotila et al. 1996), with nu mbers of nesting females reported to be on the order of 18,800. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated that the leatherback population for the entire Atlantic basin, includ ing all nesting beaches in the Am ericas, the Caribbean, and West Africa, totaled approximately 27,600 adult fema les (considering both nesting and interesting females), with an estimated range of 20,082-35,133. This is consistent with the estimate of 34,000-95,000 total adults (20,000-56,000 adult females; 10,000-21,000 nesting females) determined by the TEWG (TEWG 2007).

Threats Anthropogenic impacts to the leatherback population are similar to those facing other sea turtle species including interactions with fishery gear, marine pollution, destruction of foraging habitat, and threats to nesting beaches (see loggerhead stat us and trends section for more information on these threats). Of all the extant sea turtle specie s, leatherbacks seem to be the most vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear, esp ecially gillnet and pot/trap lines used in various fisheries around the world. This susceptibility may be the result of their body type (lar ge size, long pectoral flippers, and lack of a hard shel l), their attraction to gelatinous organisms and algae that collect on buoys and buoy lines at or near the surface, th eir method of locomotion, and/or perhaps their attraction to the lightsticks used to attract target species in longline fisheries. From 1990-2000, 92 entangled leatherbacks were reported from New York through Maine and many other stranded individuals exhibited evidence of prio r entanglement (Dwyer et al. 2002). For many years, the use of turtle exclude r devices (TEDs) required for use in many U.S. fisheries were less effective at excluding the larger leatherback sea turtles compared to the smaller, hard-shelled turtle species. However, modifications to th e design of TEDs have been required since 2003 that are expected to have reduced the amount of leathe rback deaths that result from net capture. Zug and Parham (1996) point out that a combination of the loss of long- lived adults in fishery-related
mortalities and a lack of recr uitment from intense egg harves ting in some areas has caused a sharp decline in leatherb ack sea turtle populations and represen ts a significant threat to survival and recovery of the species worldwide. Leatherb ack sea turtles may also be more susceptible to marine debris ingestion than other sea turtle sp ecies due to their predom inantly pelagic existence and the tendency of floating debris to concentrat e in convergence zones that adults and juveniles use for feeding and migratory purposes (Lut cavage et al. 1997; Shoop and Kenney 1992).

Investigations of the stomach contents of leat herback sea turtles reveal ed that a substantial percentage (44 percent of the 16 cases examin ed) contained some form of plastic debris (Mrosovsky 1981). The presence of plastic in the digestive tract sugge sts that leatherbacks might not be able to distinguish between prey items and forms of debris such a plastic bags (Mrosovsky et al. 2009). Balazs (1985) speculate d that the object might resemble a food item by its shape, color, size or even movement as it drifts about, and induce a feeding response in87 leatherbacks. Just as with other sea turtles, nesting and foraging leat herback sea turtles are subjected to the effects from past and present oil spills occurring in the Gulf of Mexico and other regions (see loggerhead sea turtle status section for more information). At the time of this consultation, no confirmed deaths of leatherbacks have been record ed in the vicinity of the DWH spill site, although this does not mean that no mo rtality has occurred (NMFS et al. 2011).

As discussed in more detail in the loggerhead section above, global climate change can be expected to have various impacts on all sea tu rtles, including leatherbacks. Global climate change is likely to also influe nce the distribution and abundance of jellyfish, the primary prey item of leatherbacks (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). Several studies have shown leatherback distribution is influenced by jellyfish abunda nce [e.g., (Houghton et al. 2006; Witt et al. 2006; Witt et al. 2007)]; however, more studies need to be done to monitor how changes to prey items affect distribution and foraging success of leatherbacks so that population-level effects can be
determined.

3.2.4 Hawksbill Sea Turtle

The hawksbill sea turtle was listed as endangere d throughout its entire ra nge on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491) under the Endangered Species Conserva tion Act of 1969, a precursor to the ESA. Critical habitat was designated on June 2, 1998 in coastal waters surroun ding Mona and Monito Islands in Puerto Rico (63 FR 4669 3). No critical habi tat exists within the action area for this
consultation.

Species Description, Distribut ion, and Population Structure
Hawksbill sea turtles are small to medium-si zed (45 to 68 kilograms on average) although nesting females are known to weigh up to 80 kil ograms in the Caribbean (Pritchard et al. 1983). The carapace is usually serrated a nd has a "tortoise-shell" colori ng, ranging from dark to golden brown, with streaks of orange, red, and/or black. The plastron of a hawksbill turtle is typically yellow. The head is elongated and tapers to a point, with a beak-lik e mouth that gives the species its name. The shape of the mouth allows the hawksbill turtle to reach into holes and crevices of coral reefs to find sponges, th eir primary food source as adults, and other invertebrates. The shells of hatchlings are 42 millimeters long and are mostly brown and somewhat heart-shaped (Eckert 1995; Hillis and Mackay 1989; Van Dam and Sarti 1989).

Hawksbill turtles have a circumtropical distribution and usually occur between latitudes 30°N and 30°S in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian O ceans. In the western At lantic, hawksbills are widely distributed throughout the Caribbean Sea, off the coasts of Florida and Texas in the continental United States, in the Greater and Le sser Antilles, and along the mainland of Central America south to Brazil (Amos 1989; Groomb ridge and Luxmoore 1989; Lund 1985; Meylan and Donnelly 1999; NMFS and USFWS 1998b; Plot kin and Amos 1988; Plotkin and Amos 1990). They are highly migratory and use a wide range of habitats during their lifetimes (Musick and Limpus 1997; Plotkin 2003). Adult hawksbill tu rtles are capable of mi grating long distances between nesting beaches and foraging areas. For instance, a female hawksbill sea turtle tagged
in BIRNM was later identified 1,160 miles (1,866 kilo meters) away in the Miskito Cays in Nicaragua (Spotila 2004).88 Hawksbill sea turtles nest on insular and sandy b eaches throughout the tropics and subtropics. Nesting occurs in at least 70 countries, although much of it now only occurs at low densities compared to other sea turtle species (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). It is beli eved that the widely dispersed nesting areas as well as the often lo w densities seen on nesting beaches is likely a result of overexploitation of previ ously large colonies that have since been depleted over time (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). The most significant nesting within the Unite d States occurs in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, sp ecifically on Mona Island and Buck Island Reef National Monument, respectively. Although nesting within the c ontinental United States is typically rare, it can also occur along the southe ast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys. The largest hawksbill nesting population in the Western Atlantic occurs in the Yucatán Península of Mexico, where several thousand ne sts are recorded annually in th e states of Campeche, Yucatán, and Quintana Roo (Garduno-Andrade et al. 1999; Spotila 2004). In the U.S. Pacific, hawksbills nest on main island beaches in Hawaii, primar ily along the east coast of the island. Hawksbill nesting has also been documented in American Samoa and Guam. More information on nesting in other ocean basins may be found in the 5-y ear status review for the species (NMFS and USFWS 2007b).

Mitochondrial DNA studies show that reproduc tive populations are effectively isolated over ecological time scales (Bass et al. 1996). Substa ntial efforts have been made to determine the nesting population origins of hawksbill sea turtles assembled in foraging grounds, and genetic research has shown that hawksbills of multiple nesting origins commonly mix in foraging areas (Bowen et al. 1996). The fact that hawksbills exhib it site fidelity to their natal beaches suggests that if subpopulations become ex tirpated they may not be replenished by recruitment from other nesting rookeries (B ass et al. 1996).

Life History Information
Hawksbill sea turtles exhibit sl ow growth rates although they are known to vary within and among populations from a low of 1-3 centimeter s per year measured in the Indo-Pacific (Chaloupka and Limpus 1997; Mortimer et al. 2003; Mortimer et al. 2002; Whiting 2000) to a high of 5 centimeters or more per year measured at some sites in the Caribbean (Díez and Dam 2002; León and Díez 1999). Differences in growth rates are likely due to differences in diet and/or density of turtles at foraging sites and overall time spen t foraging (Bjorndal et al. 2000; Chaloupka et al. 2004). Consistent with slow growth, age to maturity for the species is also long, taking between 20 and 40 years depending on the region (Chaloupka and Musick 1997; Limpus and Miller 2000). Hawksbills in the western Atlantic are known to mature faster (i.e., 20 or more years) than turtles found in the Indo-Pacific (i.e., 30-40 y ears) based on studies performed in these areas (Boulan 1983; Boulon 1994; Díez and Dam 2002; Limpus and Miller 2000). Males are typically mature when their length reaches 69 centimeters while females are typically mature at 75 cm (Eckert et al. 1992; Limpus 199 2). Female hawksbills return to their natal beaches every 2-3 years to nest (Van Dam et al. 1991; Witzell 1983) and generally lay 3-5 nests per season (Richardson et al. 1999). Compared with other sea turtles, clutch size for hawksbills can be quite high (e.g., up to 250 eggs per clutch ) (Hirth and Abdel Latif 1980). Hawksbills may undertake developmental migrations (migrations as immatures) and reproductive migrations that
involve travel over hundreds or thousands of kilometers (M eylan 1999a). Post-hatchlings (oceanic stage juveniles) are believed to occ upy the pelagic environment, taking shelter in floating algal mats and drift lines of flotsam a nd jetsam in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans89 (Musick and Limpus 1997) before recruiting to more coastal foraging grounds. In the Caribbean, hawksbills are known to almost exclusively f eed on sponges (Meylan 1988; van Dam and Díez 1997) although at times they have been seen fo raging on other food items, notably corallimorphs and zooanthids (León and Díez 2000; Ma yor et al. 1998; van Dam and Díez 1997).

Reproductive females undertake periodic (usually non- annual) migrations to their natal beach to nest and exhibit a high degree of fidelity to thei r nest sites. Movements of reproductive males are less certain, but are presumed to involve migr ations to the nesting each or to courtship stations along the migratory corridor. Hawksbills show a high fidelity to their foraging areas as well (van Dam and Díez 1998). Foraging sites are typically areas associat ed with coral reefs although hawksbills are also found around rocky out crops and high energy shoals which are optimum sites for sponge growth. They can also inhabit seagrass pastures in mangrove-fringed bays and estuaries, particularly along the eastern shore of continents where coral reefs are absent (Bjorndal 1997; van Dam and Díez 1998).

Abundance and Trends There are currently no reliabl e estimates of population abund ance and trends for nonnesting
hawksbills at the time of this cons ultation; therefore, nesting beach data is currently the primary information source for evaluating trends in global abundance. Most hawksbill populations around the globe are either declini ng, depleted, and/or remnants of larger aggregations (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). The largest nesting population of hawksbills appears to occur in Australia where approximately 2,000 hawksbills nest off the northwest coast a nd about 6,000 to 8,000 nest off the Great Barrier Reef each year (Spotila 2004). Additionally, about 2,000 hawksbills nest each year in Indonesia and 1,000 nest in the Re public of Seychelles (Spotila 2004). In the United States, about 500-1,000 hawksbill nests are laid on Mona Island, Puerto Rico (Diez and van Dam 2007) and another 56-150 nests are laid on Buck Island off St. Croix (Meylan 1999b; Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). Nesting also occurs to a lesser extent on other additional beaches on St. Croix, St. John, St. Thomas, Culebra Isla nd, Vieques Island, and mainland Puerto Rico. Mortimer and Donnelly (2008) reviewed nesting data for 83 nesting conc entrations organized among 10 different ocean regions (i.e., Insu lar Caribbean, Wester n Caribbean Mainland, Southwestern Atlantic Ocean, Ea stern Atlantic Ocean, Southweste rn Indian Ocean, Northwestern Indian Ocean, Central Indian Ocean, Eastern Indian Ocean, We stern Pacific Ocean, Central Pacific Ocean, and Eastern Pacific Ocean). Histor ic trends (i.e., 20-100 year time period) were determined for 58 of the 83 sites while recent abundance trends (i.e., within the past 20 years)
were also determined for 42 of the 83 sites. Am ong the 58 sites where hist oric trends could be determined, all showed a declining trend duri ng the long term period. Among the 42 sites where recent trend data were available, 10 appeared to be increasing, 3 appeared to be stable, and 29 appeared to be decreasing. With respect to regional trends, ne sting populations in the Atlantic (especially in the Insular Caribbean and Wester n Caribbean Mainland) ar e generally doing better than those in the Indo-Pacific regions. For inst ance, 9 of the 10 sites showing recent increases were all located in the Caribbean. Nesting con centrations in the Pacifi c Ocean appear to be performing the worst of all regions despite the fact that the region currently supports more nesting hawksbills than either the Atlantic or Indian Oceans (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008).
Buck Island and St. Croix’s East End beaches support two remnant populations of between 17- 30 nesting females per season (Hillis and Mack ay 1989; Mackay 2006). While the proportion of hawksbills nesting on Buck Island represents a small proportion of the total hawksbill nesting90 occurring in the greater Caribbean region, Mort imer and Donnelly (2008 ) report an increasing trend in nesting at that site ba sed on data collected from 2001-2006. This increase is likely due to the conservation measures implemented wh en Buck Island Reef National Monument was expanded in 2001. More information about site specific trends for can be found in the most recent 5-year status review for the species [see (NMFS and USFWS 2007b)].

Threats The historical decline of the species is primarily attributed to centuries of exploitation for the beautifully patterned shell which made it a highl y attractive species to target (Parsons 1972). The fact that reproductive females exhibit a high fidelity for nest sites and the tendency of hawksbills to nest at regular intervals within a season made them an easy target for capture on nesting beaches. The tortoiseshell from hundr eds of thousands of turtles in the western Caribbean region was imported into the Unite d Kingdom and France during the 19th and early 20th centuries (Parsons 1972) and additional hundred s of thousands of turtles contributed to the region’s trade with Japan prio r to 1993 when a zero quota was imposed (Milliken and Tokunaga 1987) as cited in (Brautigram and Eckert 2006).

The continuing demand for the hawksbill's shell as well as other products (leather, oil, perfume, and cosmetics) represents an ongoing threat to recovery of the species . The British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Haiti, and the Turks and Caicos Islands (United Kingdom) all permit some form of legal take of hawksbill turtles. In the northern Caribbean, hawksbills
continue to be harvested for thei r shells, which are often carved into hair clips, combs, jewelry, and other trinkets (Márquez M 1990; Stapleton and Stapleton 2006). Additionally, hawksbills are harvested for their eggs and me at while whole stuffed turtles are sold as curios in the tourist trade. Also, hawksbill sea turtle products are openly available in the Dominican Republic and Jamaica despite a prohibition on harvesting hawksb ills and their eggs (F leming 2001). In Cuba, 500 turtles are legally captured each year a nd while current nesti ng trends are unknown, the number of nesting females is suspected to be declining in some areas (Carillo et al. 1999; Moncada et al. 1999). Internati onal trade in the she ll of this species is prohibited between countries that have signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, but illegal trade is still occu rring and remains an ongoing threat to hawksbill survival and recovery throughout its range.

Due to their preference to feed on sponges associated with coral reefs, hawksbill sea turtles are particularly sensitive to losses of coral reef communities. Coral reefs are vulnerable to destruction and degradation cau sed by human activities (e.g., nut rient pollution, sedimentation, contaminant spills, vessel groundings and anchori ng, recreational uses, etc.) and are also highly
sensitive to the effects of clim ate change (e.g., higher incidences of disease and coral bleaching) (Crabbe 2008; Wilkinson 2004). Continued loss of coral reef communitie s (especially in the greater Caribbean region) is expected to imp act foraging and represents a major threat to recovery of the species.

Hawksbills are also currently subject to the same suite of threats on both nesting beaches and in
the marine environment that affect other sea turtles (e.g., interaction with federal and state fisheries, coastal construction, oil spills, climate change affecting se x ratios, etc.) as discussed in the loggerhead sea turtle status se ction Hawksbill sea turtles are also susceptible to capture in91 nearshore artisanal fishing gear such as drift-netting, long-lining, set-netting, and trawl fisheries with gill nets and artisanal hook and line representing the greatest impact to the species in the greater Caribbean region [(Epperly 2003; Lutcavage et al. 1997; NRC 1990)].

3.2.5 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle was listed as e ndangered throughout its entire range on December 2, 1970 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, a precursor to the ESA. No
critical habitat has been designated for the species.

Species Description, Distribut ion, and Population Structure The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is the smallest of all extant sea turtles with adults generally weighing less than 45 kilograms and having a ca rapace length of around 65 centimeters. Adults have an almost circular carapace with a grayis h green color while the plastron is often pale yellow. There are two pairs of pref rontal scales on the head, five vertebral scutes, and five pairs of costal scutes. In the bridge adjoining the pl astron to the carapace, there are four scutes, each of which is perforated by a pore. Hatchlings are usually grayish-black in color and weigh between 15-20 grams. This species has a very rest ricted range relative to other sea turtle species with most adults occurring in the Gulf of Mexico in shallow nearshore waters, although adultsized individuals sometimes are found on the east ern seaboard of the United States as well. Nesting is essentially limited to the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, although few nests have also been record ed in Florida and the Carolinas (Meylan et al. 1995). Kemp’s ridley s nest in daytime aggregations known as “arribadas”, primarily at Rancho Nu evo, a stretch of beach in Mexic o. Most of the population of
adult females nests in this single locality (Pritchard 1969).

Life History Information Kemp’s ridley sea turtles reach sexual maturity at 7-15 years of age. While some turtles nest annually, the weighted mean remigration rate is approximately two years. Nesting generally occurs from April to July and females lay a pproximately 2.5 nests per season with each nest containing approximately 100 eggs (Márquez M 1994). Studies have shown that the time spent in the post-hatchling pelagic stage can vary from 1-4 years’ time, while the benthic immature stage typically lasts approximately 7-9 years (Sch mid and Witzell 1997). L ittle is known of the movements of the post-hatching, planktonic stage w ithin the Gulf of Mexi co although the turtles during this stage are assumed to a ssociate with floating seaweed (e.g., Sargassum spp. ) where they would presumably feed on the available sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the Gulf of Mexico. Atlantic juve niles/subadults travel northward with vernal warming to feed in the productive , coastal waters of Georgia through New England, returning southward with the onset of winter to escape the cold (Henwood and Ogren 1987; Lutcavage and Musick 1985; Ogren 1989). Upon leaving Chesapeake Bay in autumn, juvenile ridleys migrate down the coast, passing Cape Hatteras in December and January (Musick and Limpus 1997). These larger juveniles are joined there by juveniles of the same size from North Carolina sounds and smaller juve niles from New York and New England to form one of the densest concentrations of Kemp’s ridleys outside of the Gulf of Mexico (Epperly et al. 1995c; Epperly et al. 1995b; Musick and Limpus 1997). Adult Kemp’s ridleys primarily occupy neritic habitats, typically containing muddy or sandy bot toms where prey can be found. In the post-92 pelagic stages, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are la rgely cancrivorous (crab eat ing), with a preference for portunid crabs (Bjorndal 1997). Stomach cont ents of Kemp's ridleys along the lower Texas coast consisted of a predominance of nearshore cr abs and mollusks, as well as fish, shrimp and other foods considered to be scavenged disc ards from the shrimping industry (Shaver 1991).

Abundance and Trends Of the seven extant species of sea turtles in the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the lowest population level. Most of the population of adult fe males nest on the Rancho Nuevo beaches (Pritchard 1969). When nesting aggr egations at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the mid-1980s, nesting numbers were below 1,000 (with a low of 702 nests in 1985). However, observations of increased nesting in the 1990’s suggested th at the decline in the ridley population has stopped and the population is now increasing (USFWS 2000). The number of nests observed at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches increased at a mean rate of 11.3 percent per year from 1985 to 1999 (TEWG 2000). These trends are further supported by 2004-2007 nesting
data from Mexico. The number of nests ove r that period has increased from 7,147 in 2004, to 10,099 in 2005, to 12,143 in 2006, and 15,032 during the 2007 nesting season (Gladys Porter Zoo nesting database 2007). In 2008, there we re 17,882 nests in Mexico (Gladys Porter Zoo 2008), and nesting in 2009 reached 21,144 (Gladys Porter Zoo 2010). In 2010, nesting declined significantly, to 13,302 (Gladys Porter Zoo 2010) . Nesting numbers rebounded from 2010’s reduced nesting to 20,570 (Gladys Porter Zoo 2011). A small nesting population is also emerging in the United States, primarily in Te xas, rising from 6 nests in 1996 to 128 in 2007, 195 in 2008, and 197 in 2009. Texas nesting then expe rienced a decline similar to that seen in Mexico for 2010, with 140 nests (N ational Park Service data, http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/strp.htm), but nesting rebounded in 2011 with a record 199 nests (National Park Service data, h ttp://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/currentseason.htm).

Heppell et al. (2005) predicted in a population mode l that the population is expected to increase at least 12-16 percent per year and that the population co uld attain at least 10,000 females nesting on Mexico beaches by 2015. NMFS et al . (2011) contains an updated model which predicts that the population is expected to incr ease 19 percent per year and that the population could attain at least 10,000 females nesti ng on Mexico beaches by 2011. Approximately 25,000
nests would be needed for an estimate of 10,000 nesters on the beach, based on an average 2.5 nests/nesting female. In 2009 the population wa s on track with 21,144 nests, but an unexpected and as yet unexplained drop in nesting occurred in 2010 (13,302), deviating from the NMFS et al. (2011) model prediction. A subsequent increa se to 20,570 nests in 2011 occurred, but we will not know if the population is cont inuing the trajectory predicted by the model until future nesting data is available. Of course, this updated mode l assumes that current su rvival rates within each life stage remain constant. The recent increases in Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nesting seen in the last two decades is likely due to a combination of management m easures including elimination of direct harvest, nest protection, the use of TEDs, reduced trawling effort in Mexico and the United States, and possibly other change s in vital rates (TEWG 1998; TEWG 2000). While these results are encouraging, the species limited range as well as low global abundance makes it particularly
vulnerable to new sources of mort ality as well as demographic and environmental stochasticity all of which are often difficult to predict with any certainty.93 Threats Kemp’s ridleys face many of the same threats as ot her sea turtle species, including destruction of nesting habitat from storm events, natural predat ors at sea, and oceanic events such as coldstunning. Although cold-stunning ca n occur throughout the range of the species, it may be a greater risk for sea turtles that utilize the more northern habi tats of Cape Cod Bay and Long Island Sound. For example, in the winter of 1999-2000, there was a major cold-stunning event where 218 Kemp’s ridleys, 54 loggerheads, an d 5 green sea turtles were found on Cape Cod beaches (R. Prescott, NMFS, pers. comm. 2001). Annual cold-stunning events do not always occur at this magnitude; the extent of episodic major cold-stun events may be associated with numbers of sea turtles utilizing Northeast waters in a given year, oceanographic conditions, and
the occurrence of storm events in the late fall . Many cold-stunned sea turtles can survive if found early enough, but cold-stunning events can still represent a significant cause of natural mortality. A complete list of other indirect factors can be found in NMFS SEFSC (NMFSSEFSC 2001).

Although changes in the use of sh rimp trawls and other trawl g ear have helped to reduce mortality of Kemp’s ridleys, this species is also affected by other sources of anthropogenic impacts similar to those discussed in previous sections. For example, in the spring of 2000, a total of 5 Kemp’s ridley carca sses were recovered from the same North Carolina beaches where 275 loggerhead carcasses were found. Cause of deat h for most of the sea turtles recovered was unknown, but the mass mortality event was suspected to have been from a large-mesh gillnet fishery operating offshore in the preceding weeks. The 5 Kemp’s ridley carcasses that were found are likely to have been only a minimum count of the number of Kemp’s ridleys that were killed or seriously injured as a re sult of the fishery inte raction because it is unlikely that all of the
carcasses washed ashore.

The impacts of pollution on Kemp’s ridley sea turtle s, as with all sea turtles, are still poorly understood. There is little data to provide an understanding of how wa ter quality impacts sea turtles. It is expected that the acute and chronic impacts of the DWH oil spill, along with other oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, will continue to have an impact on sea tu rtles, especially Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, for years to come.

Global climate change impacts as described in th e section for loggerhead sea turtles above are also expected. Other changes in the marine ecosystem cause d by global climate change (e.g., salinity, oceanic currents, dissolv ed oxygen levels, nutrient distribut ion, etc.) could influence the
distribution and abundance of phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, forage fish, etc., which could ultimately affect the primary foraging areas of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles.

3.2.6 Smalltooth Sawfish

Species Description The smalltooth sawfish is a tropical marine and estuarine elasmobranchs. It has an extended snout with a long, narrow, flattened, rostral blad e (rostrum) with a series of transverse teeth along either edge. In general, smalltooth sawfis h inhabit shallow coastal waters of warm seas throughout the world and feed on a variety of sm all fish, e.g., mullet, jacks, and ladyfish94 (Simpfendorfer 2001), and crustaceans, e.g., shr imp and crabs (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Norman and Fraser 1937). Although this spec ies is reported to have a circumtropical distribution, NMFS identified smalltooth sawfish from the Southeast United States as a distinct population segment (DPS), due to the physical is olation of this population from others, the differences in international management of the species, and the significance of the U.S. population in relation to the gl obal range of the species (see 68 FR15674). The U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish was listed as endangered under the ESA on April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674).

Life History Information
Smalltooth sawfish fertilization is internal and females give birt h to live young. The brood size, gestation period, and frequency of reproduction are unknown for smalltooth sawfish. Therefore, data from the closely related largetooth sawfish re present our best estimate s of these parameters. The largetooth sawfish likely reproduces ev ery other year, has a gestation period of approximately 5 months, and produces a mean of 7.3 offspring per brood [range of 1-13 offspring; (Thorson 1976)]. Smalltooth sawfish are approximately 31 in (80 cm) at birth and may grow to a length of 18 feet (548 cm) or greater during their lifetime (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Simpfendorfer 2002). Simpfendorfer et al. (2008) report rapid juvenile growth for smalltooth sawfish for the first two years after bi rth, with stretched total length increasing by an average of 25-33 in (65-85 cm) in the first year and an average of 19- 27 in (48-68 cm) in the second year. However, very little information ex ists on size classes othe r than juveniles, which make up the majority of sawfish encounters; ther efore, much uncertainty remains in estimating life history parameters for smalltooth sawfish, especi ally as it relates to age at maturity and postjuvenile growth rates. Based on age and growth studies of the larget ooth sawfish (Thorson 1982) and research by Simpfendorfer (2000), the smallt ooth sawfish is likely a slow-growing (with the exception of early juveniles), la te-maturing (10-20 years) spec ies with a long lifespan (30-60 years). However, juvenile growth rates pr esented by Simpfendorfer et al. (2008) suggest smalltooth sawfish are growing faster than pr eviously thought and therefore may reach sexual maturity at an earlier age.

There are distinct differences in habitat use ba sed on life history stage. Juvenile smalltooth sawfish [those up to 3 years of age or approximate ly 8 feet in length (Sim pfendorfer et al. 2008)]
inhabit the shallow waters of estuaries and can be found in sheltered bays, dredged canals, along banks and sandbars, and in rivers (NMFS 2000). J uvenile smalltooth sawfish occur in euryhaline waters (i.e., waters with a wide range of salinities) and are of ten closely associated with muddy or sandy substrates, and shorel ines containing red mangroves, Rhizophora mangle (Simpfendorfer 2001; Simpfendorfer 2003). Tracking data from the Caloosahatchee River in Florida indicate very shallow de pths and salinity are important abiotic factors influencing juvenile smalltooth sawfish movement patterns , habitat use, and distribution (Simpfendorfer 2011). Another recent acoustic ta gging study in a developed region of Charlotte Harbor, Florida identified the importance of mangroves in close pr oximity to shallow water habitat for juvenile smalltooth sawfish, stating that j uveniles generally occur in sha llow water within 328 feet (100 meters) of mangrove shorelines [generally red mangroves (Simpfendorfer et al. 2010)]. Juvenile smalltooth sawfish spend the majority of their time in waters less than 13 feet (4 m) in depth (Simpfendorfer et al. 2010) and ar e seldom found in depths greater than 32 feet(10 m; (Poulakis and Seitz 2004). Simpfendorfer et al. (2010) also indicated developmental differences in habitat use: the smallest juveniles (young-of-the-year juveniles measuring <100 centimeter in length)95 generally used water depths less than 0.5 mete r (1.64 feet), had small home ranges (4,264 to 4,557 square mile ), and exhibited high levels of site fi delity. Although small juveniles exhibit high levels of site fidelity fo r specific nursery habitats for periods of time lasting up to three months (Wiley 2007), they do undergo small moveme nts coinciding with changing tidal stages. These movements often involve moving from sh allow sandbars at low tide to within red mangrove prop roots at higher tides (Simpfendorfer et al. 2010), behavior likely to reduce the risk of predation (Simpfendorfer 2006). As juven iles increase in size, they begin to expand their home ranges (Simpfendorfer et al. 2010; Simpfe ndorfer et al. 2011), eventually moving to more offshore habitats where they likely feed on larger prey and eventually reach sexual maturity.

Researchers have identified several areas within the Charlotte Harbor Estuary that are disproportionately more important to juvenile sm alltooth sawfish, based on intra- or inter-annual capture rates during random sampling events with in the estuary (Poulakis 2012; Poulakis et al. 2011). These areas were termed “hotspots” and also correspond with areas where public encounters are most frequently reported. Use of these “hotspots” can be variable between and among years based on the amount and timing of freshwater inflow. Smalltooth sawfish use hotspots further upriver during hi gh salinity conditions (drought) and areas closer to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River during times of high freshw ater inflow (Poulakis et al. 2011). At this time researchers are unsure what specific biotic (e.g., presence or absence of predators and prey) or abiotic factors influence this habitat use, bu t believe a variety of conditions in addition to salinity, such as temperature, dissolved oxyge n, water depth, shoreline vegetation, and food availability, may influence habitat se lection (Poulakis et al. 2011).

While adult smalltooth sawfish may also use the estuarin e habitats used by juveniles, they are commonly observed in deeper waters along the co asts. Poulakis and Seitz (2004) noted that nearly half of the encounters with adult-sized smalltooth sawfish in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys occurred in depths from 200 to 400 feet (70 to 122 meters) of water. Similarly, Simpfendorfer and Wiley (2005a) reported encounters in deeper waters off the Florida Keys, and observations from both commercial longline fishi ng vessels and fishery-i ndependent sampling in the Florida Straits report large smalltooth sawfish in depths up to 130 feet (~40 meters) (NSED 2012). However, NMFS believes adult smalltooth sawfish use shallow estuarine habitats during parturition (when adult females return to shallo w estuaries to pup) because very young juveniles still containing rostral sheaths ar e captured in these areas. Si nce very young juveniles have high site fidelities, we hypothesize that they are birthed nearby or in th eir nursery habitats. The noise
restriction zones identified in Fi gures 2-5 correlate with the ho tspots identified by the studies
listed above and encounter data. These ar eas are likely used during parturition.

Population Dynamics Few long-term abundance data exist for the sm alltooth sawfish, making it very difficult to estimate the current population size. However, Simpfendorfer (2001) estimated that the U.S. population may number less than five percent of historic levels, based on anecdotal data and the fact that the species’ range has contracted by near ly 90 percent, with south and southwest Florida the only areas known to support a reproducing p opulation. Since actual abundance data are limited, researchers have begun to compile capture a nd sightings data (coll ectively referred to as encounter data) in the NSED that was develope d in 2000. Although this data cannot be used to assess the population because of the opportunistic nature in wh ich they are collected (i.e.,96 encounter data are a series of random occurrences rather than an evenly distributed search over a defined period of time), researchers can use this database to assess th e spatial and temporal
distribution of smalltooth sawfish. We expect that as the populat ion grows, the geographic range
of encounters will also increase. Since the conception of the National Sawfish Encounter Database ( NSED), over 3,000 smalltooth sawfish encounters have been reported and compiled in the encounter database (NSED 2012).

Despite the lack of scientific data on abundance, recent encounters with young-of-the-year, older juveniles, and sexually mature smalltooth sawfish indicate that the U.S. population is currently reproducing (Seitz and Poulakis 2002; Simp fendorfer 2003). The abundance of juveniles encountered, including very sm all individuals, suggests that the population remains viable (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2004), and data analyzed fr om Everglades National Park as part of an established fisheries-dependent monitoring progr am (angler interviews) indicate a slightly increasing trend in abundance within the park over the past decade (Carlson and Osborne 2012; Carlson et al. 2007). Using a demographic approach and life history data for smalltooth sawfish and similar species from the literature, Simpfendo rfer (2000) estimated intr insic rates of natural population increase for the species at 0.08 to 0.13 per year and population doubling times from 5.4 to 8.5 years. These low intrinsic rates 16 of population increase suggest that the species is particularly vulnerable to excessi ve mortality and rapid population declines, after which recovery may take decades.

Status, Distribu tion, and Threats Within the United States, smalltooth sawfish have been captured in estuarine and coastal waters from New York south through Texas, although peni nsular Florida has historically been the region of the United States with the largest num ber of recorded captures (NMFS 2000). Recent records indicate there is a resident reproducing population of smalltooth sawfish in south and
southwest Florida from Charlotte Harbor through the Dry Tortugas, which is also the last U.S. stronghold for the species (Poulakis and Seitz 200 4; Seitz and Poulakis 2002; Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2005a). Water temperatures (no lower than 16°-18°C) and the availability of appropriate coastal habitat (shallow, euryhaline waters and red mangroves) are the major environmental constraints limiting the northern movements of sm alltooth sawfish in the western North Atlantic. Most specimens captured along the Atlantic coast nor th of Florida are large adults (over 10 feet) that likely represent seasonal migr ants, wanderers, or colonizers from a historic Florida core population(s) to the south, rather than being members of a continuous, even-density population (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).

Past literature indicates smallt ooth sawfish were once abundant al ong both coasts of Florida and quite common along the shores of Texas a nd the northern Gulf coast [(NMFS 2010b) and citations therein]. Based on recen t comparisons with these histori cal reports, the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish has declined over the pa st century[e.g.,(Simpfendorfer 2001; Simpfendorfer 2002)]. The decline in smalltooth sawfish abunda nce has been attributed to several factors including bycatch mortality in fi sheries, habitat loss, and life hi story limitations of the species (NMFS 2010).

16 The rate at which a population increases in size if ther e are no density-dependent forces regulating the population97 Bycatch Mortality Bycatch mortality is cited as the primary cause for the decline in smalltooth sawfish in the United States (NMFS 2010b). While there has ne ver been a large-scale directed fishery, smalltooth sawfish easily become entangled in fishing gears (gillnets, otter trawls, trammel nets, and seines) directed at other commercial species , often resulting in serious injury or death (NMFS 2009c). This has historically been re ported in Florida (Snelson and Williams 1981), Louisiana (Simpfendorfer 2002), and Texas (Bau ghman 1943). For instance, one fisherman interviewed by Evermann and Bean (1898) reporte d taking an estimated 300 smalltooth sawfish in just one netting season in the Indian Rive r Lagoon, Florida. In another example, smalltooth sawfish landings data gathered by Louisiana shrimp trawlers from 1945-1978, which contained both landings data and crude information on effort (number of vessels, vessel tonnage, number of gear units), indicated declines in smalltooth sawfish landings from a high of 34,900 pounds in 1949 to less than 1,500 pounds in most years afte r 1967. The Florida net ban passed in 1995 has
led to a reduction in the numb er of smalltooth sawfish incide ntally captured, “...by prohibiting the use of gill and other entangling nets in all Florida waters, and prohi biting the use of other nets larger than 500 square feet in mesh area in nearshore and inshore Florida waters 17 ” (F LA

. C ONST . art. X, § 16). However, the threat of by catch currently remains in commercial fisheries (e.g., South Atlantic shrimp fisher y, Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, federal shark fisheries of the South Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery), thou gh anecdotal information collected by NMFS ports agents suggest smalltoot h sawfish captures are now rare.

In addition to the incidental bycatch in commercial fisheries, smalltooth sawfish have historically been and continue to be captu red by recreational fishermen. Encounter data (NSED 2012) and past research (Caldwell 1990) document that ro strums are sometimes removed from smalltooth sawfish caught by recreational fishermen, thereby re ducing their chances of survival. While the current threat of mortality associated with recrea tional fisheries is expected to be low given that possession of the species in Florida has been prohibited since 1992, by catch in recreational fisheries remains a potential threat to the species.

Habitat Loss
Modification and loss of smalltooth sawfish habita t, especially nursery habitat, is another contributing factor in the decline of the species . Activities such as agricultural and urban development, commercial activities, dredge-a nd-fill operations, boating, erosion, and diversions
of freshwater runoff contribute to these losses (SAFMC 1998). Large areas of coastal habitat
were modified or lost between the mid-1970s an d mid-1980s within the United States (Dahl and Johnson 1991). Since then, rates of loss have decr eased but habitat loss continues. From 1998- 2004, approximately 64,560 ac of coastal wetlands were lost along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, of which approximately 2,450 ac were intertidal wetlands consisting of mangroves or other estuarine shr ubs (Stedman and Dahl 2008). Further, Orlando et al. (1994) analyzed 18 major southeastern estuaries and r ecorded over 703 miles of navigation channels and 9,844 miles of shoreline with modifications. In Florida, coastal development often involves the removal of mangroves and the armoring of shor elines through seawall c onstruction. Changes
to the natural freshwater flows into estuarine and marine wate rs through construction of canals

17 “ nearshore and inshore Florida waters" means all Fl orida waters inside a line three miles seaward

of the coastline along the Gulf of Mexico and inside a line one mile seaward of the coastline along the
Atlantic Ocean.98 and other water control devices ha ve also altered the temperature, salinity, and nutrient regimes; reduced both wetlands and submerged aquatic vege tation; and degraded va st areas of coastal habitat utilized by smalltoot h sawfish (Gilmore 1995; Redderi ng 1988; Whitfield and Bruton 1989). While these modifications of habitat ar e not the primary reason for the decline of smalltooth sawfish abundance, it is likely a cont ributing factor and almost certainly hampers the recovery of the species. Juvenile sawfish and their nursery habitats are particularly likely to be affected by these kinds of habitat losses or al ternations, due to their affinity for shallow, estuarine systems. Although many forms of habitat modification are currently regulated, some permitted direct and/or indirect damage to habita t from increased urbanization still occurs and is expected to continue to threaten survival and recovery of the sp ecies in the future.

Life History Limitations The smalltooth sawfish is also limited by its life history characteris tics as a slow-growing, relatively late-maturing, and long-lived species. Animals using this life history strategy are usually successful in maintaini ng small, persistent population sizes in constant environments, but are particularly vulnerable to increases in mortality or rapi d environmental change (NMFS 2000). The combined characteristics of this life history strategy result in a very low intrinsic rate of population increase (Musick 1999) that make it slow to recover from any significant population decline (Simpfendorfer 2000). More recent data suggest sm alltooth sawfish may mature earlier than previously thought, meaning rates of population increase could be higher and recovery times shorter than those curren tly reported (Simpfendorfer et al. 2008).

Current Threats The three major factors that led to the current status of the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish (bycatch mortality, habitat loss, and life history limitations) con tinue to be the greatest threats today. However, other threats such as the illegal commercial trade of smalltooth sawfish or their body parts, predation, and marine pollution and debris may also affect the population and recovery of smalltooth sawfish on smaller scales (NMFS 2010b). We anticipate that all of these
threats will continue to affect the rate of recovery for the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish.

In addition to the anthropogenic effects mentione d previously, changes to the global climate are likely to be a threat to smallt ooth sawfish and the habitats they use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that global climate change is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and its impacts to coastal resources may be signifi cant. Some of the likely effects commonly mentioned are sea level rise, in creased frequency of severe w eather events, changes in the amount and timing of precipitation, and changes in air and water temperatures [e.g.,(EPA 2012; NOAA 2012). The impacts to sm alltooth sawfish cannot, for th e most part, currently be predicted with any degree of certainty, but we ca n project some effects to the coastal habitats where they reside. We know that the coastal ha bitats that contain red mangroves and shallow, euryhaline waters will be directly impacted by climate chan ge through sea level rise, which is expected to exceed 1 meter globally by 2100 accor ding to Meehl et al. (2007), Pfeffer et al. (2008), and Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009). Sea le vel rise will impact mangrove resources, as sediment surface elevations for mangroves will not keep pace with conservative projected rates of elevation in sea level (Gilman et al. 2008). Sea level increase s will also affect the amount of shallow water available for juvenile smalltooth sawf ish nursery habitat, esp ecially in areas where there is shoreline armoring (e.g., seawalls). Furt her, the changes in precipitation coupled with99 sea level rise may also alter salinities of co astal habitats, reducing the amount of available smalltooth sawfish nursery habitat.

3.2.7 Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat

On September 2, 2009, NMFS issued a final rule (74 FR 45353; see also, 50 CFR § 226.218) to designate critical habitat for the U.S. DPS of smalltooth sawfish. The critical habitat consists of two units: the Charlotte Harbor Estuary Un it (CHEU), which comprises approximately 221,459 acres (346 mi 2 ) of coastal habitat, and the Ten T housand Islands/Everglades Unit, which comprises approximately 619,013 acres (967 mi 2 ) of coastal habitat. This consultation primarily focuses on an activity occurring in the CHEU, located in Charlo tte and Lee Counties (see Figure 6). Charlotte Harbor is the second largest estuary in the state of Florida. It is fed by the Myakka
River and Peace River to the north and the Caloosah atchee River to the east of the harbor which
connect to the Gulf of Mexico. Freshwater fl ows from the Caloosahatchee River are controlled by the Franklin Lock and Dam which periodically releases water; hence, effecting the salinity regime downstream of the dam. Charlotte Harbor is a relatively shallo w estuary comprised of large areas of submerged aquatic vegetation, oys ter bars, saltwater mars h, freshwater wetlands, and mangroves. The unit boundaries for both th e CHEU and Ten Thousand Islands/Everglades
Unit are defined in detail in the final ru le (74 FR 45353; see also, 50 CFR § 226.218).

The majority of the Ten Thousand Islands/ Evergl ades Unit is comprised of protected lands located within Everglades National Park, th e Cape Romano-Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve, and Rookery Bay Aqua tic Preserve. This leaves only a few small towns where residential development can occur. These towns include Everglades, Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, and Goodland. These communities are highly developed with numerous manmade canals hardened by seawalls.

Critical habitat is defined by the ESA as including areas in a speci es’ occupied range that include the physical and biological featur es essential to a species conser vation (“essential features”).
Section 3 of the ESA defines the terms “conser ve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean: “to use, and the use of, all methods and procedur es which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at wh ich the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.” The recovery plan developed for the smalltooth sawfish represents NMFS’ best judgment about the ob jectives and actions necessary for the species’ recovery. These objectives include the need to protect and/or restore sma lltooth sawfish habitats for both adult and juvenile sawfish. Habitats, especially those that have been demonstrated to be important for juveniles, must be protected and, if necessary, restored. Without sufficient habitat, the population is unlikely to increase to a level as sociated with low extinction risk and delisting.100 Figure 6: Smalltooth sawfish critical habitat (CHEU)

The recovery plan also identifies specific recovery criteria to im plement each recovery objective. The habitat-based recovery criteri on focuses on protecting areas that have been identified as important for juveniles (i.e., nurseries), and identifies mangrove shorelines, non-mangrove nursery habitats, and freshwater fl ow regimes as important features for juveniles. Juveniles are especially vulnerable to pr edation and starvation (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2005b). The recovery plan states that the re covery of the smalltooth sawfish depends on the availability and quality of nursery habitats and that protecti on of high-quality nursery habitats located in southwest Florida is essential to the species. Fa cilitating recruitment into the adult population by101 protecting the species’ ju venile nursery areas is the key c onservation objective for the species that will be supported by protec tion of critical habitat.

As discussed in the status of smalltooth sawfish, researchers have identified several areas within the Charlotte Harbor Estuary that are disproporti onately more important to juvenile smalltooth sawfish, based on intra- or inter-annual capture rates during random samp ling events within the estuary (Poulakis 2012; Poulakis et al. 2011). These hotspots we re compared to areas where public encounters are most frequently reported. Use of these hotspots can be variable between and among years based on the amount and timing of freshwater inflow. Smalltooth sawfish use hotspots further upriver during hi gh salinity conditions (drought) and areas closer to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River during times of high freshw ater inflow (Poulakis et al. 2011). At this time researchers are unsure what specific biotic (e.g., presence or absence of predators and prey) or abiotic factors influence this habitat use, bu t believe a variety of conditions in addition to salinity, such as temperature, dissolved oxyge n, water depth, shoreline vegetation, and food availability, may influence habitat se lection (Poulakis et al. 2011).

Threats to Critical Habitat Development in this region exploded in the 1950 s with the founding of master plan communities including Cape Coral and Punta Gorda. Th ese communities involved large dredge and fill projects resulting in over 400 mile s of man-made canals in Cape Coral alone. This unique design provided a large percentage of home owners in these communities with water front homes. The majority of these man-made canal communities have armored shorelines with minimal remaining mangroves habitat. The canals also require periodic dredging to maintain adequate depth for vessel naviga tion. Additional developmental pressures continue to occur within the area from the installation or replacemen t of docks, boat ramps, marinas, and shoreline armoring, and utility projects.

Between September 2009 and October 16, 2012, NM FS completed 78 consultations with the USACE on activities that may affect critical habi tat for smalltooth sawfish with the CHEU. By comparison, only 9 projects have occurred with the Ten Thousand Island/Everglades Unit and only 3 of these resulted in impacts to critical ha bitat. Because of the comparatively few number of projects within the Ten Thousand Island/Everg lades Unit, the focus of this consultation will be the CHEU. The majority of these projects we re residential single-family-home or commercial seawall construction proj ects within the CHEU, each resulted in up to a few hundred square feet of impacts to smalltooth sawfish critical habita t. Since the designati on of critical habitat on September 2, 2009, approximately 8.88 acres of sha llow, euryhaline habitat and 4,907 linear feet of red mangrove essential features have been im pacted in the CHEU resu lting in an average loss of 2.96 acres per year of shallow, euryhaline habitat and 1,636 linear f eet of red mangrove loss per year. It is important to note that the majority of consultations are for seawall projects but that the greatest amount of impacts to essential features resulted from recent la rge dredging activities. This is mainly due to public maintenance dred ging required in navigation channels. Since the designation of critical hab itat, existing navigational channels that have shoaled in and required maintenance dredging are included in the impact analysis to shallow, euryhaline habitat.102 As part of the protection of criti cal habitat in the CHEU, federal ag encies must ensure that their activities are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the physical and biological features that are e ssential to the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12 (b)). Therefore, proposed actions that may impact cri tical habitat require an analysis of potential impacts to each “essential feature.” The essential features for the conservation of smalltooth sawfish that provide nursery ar ea functions are (1) red mangroves; and (2) shallow, euryhaline (fluctuating salinity) habitats, characterized by water depths between MHWL and 3 feet measured at MLLW. Red mangroves and shallow, euryhaline habitats provide nursery area
functions that facilitate recrui tment of juveniles into the adul t population. Thus, these features
are essential to the conservation of smalltooth sa wfish. One or both of th ese essential features must be present in a project area for it to functio n as critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. In this instance with the Heinrich project, bot h of these essential features are present.

Dock and Boat Ramp Construction Federal agencies routinely pe rmit residential and commercial docks and boat ramps throughout the CHEU. Docks are typically required to be constructed in accordance with NMFS-USACE Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or over Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (S AV), Marsh, or Mangrove Habitat when possible; however, the current dock guideli nes allow for some amount of mangrove removal. Typically, mangrove removal is restricted ei ther to trimming to facilitate a dock or complete removal up to the width of the dock extending toward open wate r. Florida state c ounties have different guidelines for mangrove removal; however, all red mangrove removal permit requests within
smalltooth sawfish critical habitat necessita te ESA Section 7 cons ultation and projected mangrove losses from such projects are cumu latively tallied by NMFS Protected Resources Division. Boat ramps are often part of a larger project such as marinas, bridge approaches, and causeways where natural and previously create d deep-water habitat access channels already exist. Boat ramps can remove both the mangrove and the shallow, euryhaline habitat features of
critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish.

Marinas All marinas have potential to adversely affect aquatic habitats. Mo st existing marinas are
excluded from critical habitat for smalltooth sawfis h because the essential features tend to be absent. However, expansion of existing marinas and creation of new mari nas are currently being
considered within the action area. Marinas are typically deeper th an the coastal habitat used by juvenile smalltooth sawfish as nursery areas, thus expansion of marinas can result in permanent loss of large areas of nursery habitat.

Bulkheads and Seawalls
Bulkheads and other shoreline stab ilization structures are used to protect adjacent shorelines
from wave and current action and to enhance water access. These projects may adversely impact critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish through di rect filling, installation of riprap, dredging, and/or removal of red mangroves. Vegetation plan tings, sloping riprap, or gabions are generally considered to be environmentally compatible as shoreline stabilizati on methods over vertical seawalls since they provide s horeline protection and also prov ide good quality fish and wildlife habitat. However, placement of riprap material removes shallow, euryhaline habitat, an essential feature, which is utilized by juve nile smalltooth sawfish for forage and refuge from predators.103 Cables, Pipelines, and Transmission Lines While not as common as other activities, excavat ion of submerged lands is sometimes required for installing cables, pipelines, and transmission lines. Construction may also require temporary or permanent filling of submerged habitats. Open-cut trenching and installation of aerial
transmission line footers are activities that have the ability to temporarily or permanently impact
critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish.

Transportation Potential adverse effects from federal transporta tion projects in the acti on area include operations of the Federal Highway Admini stration, USACE, and Federal Em ergency Management Agency. Construction of road improvement projects ty pically follow the existing alignments and expand to compensate for the increase in public use. Tr ansportation projects may impact critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish through installation of br idge footers, fenders, pilings, and abutment armoring, or through removal of existing bridge mate rials by blasting or mechanical efforts.

Dredging Riverine, nearshore, and offshore areas are dredged for naviga tion, construction of infrastructure, and marine mining. The total environmental im pact of dredging in th e Southeast is unknown, but undoubtedly great (GMFMC 1998; GMFMC 2005; SAFMC 1998). An analysis of 18 major
southeastern estuarie s recorded over 703 miles of navi gation channels and 9,844 miles of
shoreline modifications. Habitat effects of dr edging include the loss of submerged habitats by disposal of excavated materials, turbidity and si ltation effects, contaminan t release, alteration of hydrodynamic regimes, and fragmentation of physical habitats (GMFMC 1998; GMFMC 2005; SAFMC 1998). Cumulatively, these effects have degraded habitat areas used by juvenile and adult smalltooth sawfish. In the CHEU, dredging to maintain canals and channels, that were constructed prior to the critical habitat, limit the extent of critical habita t to the margins of many waterways, and dredging activity can disturb juveniles that are using adjacent habitats.

Impoundments and Other Water-level Controls Federal agencies such as the USACE have hist orically been involved in large water control projects in Florida. Agencies sometimes pr opose impounding rivers and tributaries for such purposes as flood control, salt wa ter intrusion prevention, or creat ion of industrial, municipal, and agricultural water supplies. Projects to repair or replace water control structures may affect smalltooth sawfish critical habitat by limiting su fficient freshwater discharge which could alter the salinity of estuaries. The ability of an estuary to function as a nursery depends upon the quantity, timing, and input location of freshwater inflows (USEPA 1994). Estuarine ecosystems are vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbances, prim arily decreases in seasonal inflow caused by upstream withdrawals of riverine freshwater for agricultural, industrial, and domestic purposes; contamination by industrial and sewage discha rges; agricultural runo ff carrying pesticides, herbicides and other toxic po llutants; and eutrophication cau sed by excessive nutrient inputs from a variety of nonpoint and point sources. Additionally, rivers and their tributaries are susceptible to natural disturbances, such as floods and droughts, whose effects can be exacerbated by these anthropogenic disturbances. Smalltooth sawfish within the CHEU have an affinity for a particular salinity range, movi ng downriver during wetter months and upriver during drier months, in the Caloosahatchee Ri ver (Simpfendorfer 2011). Water management104 decisions may impact the functioning of cr itical habitat whereby sawfish follow salinity gradients into more narrow areas of the Caloosahatchee River, for example, where less shallowwater habitat exists for them to escape predation. Furthermore, large changes in water flow over short durations would likely es calate movement patterns fo r sawfish, thereby increasing predation risk and energy output. The most vul nerable portion of the juvenile sawfish population to water management projects appears to be sawf ish in their first year of life (Simpfendorfer 2011). Newborn sawfish remain in smaller areas irrespective of salinity, potentially exposing them to greater osmotic stress and impacting the nur sery functions of sawfis h critical habitat.

Climate Change Threats The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that global climate change is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and its impacts to coastal resources may be significant. There is a large and growing body of literature on past, pres ent, and future impacts of global climate change induced by human activitie s (i.e., global warming mostly driven by the burning of fossil fuels). Some of the likely effects commonly men tioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and changes in air and water temperatures. NOAA’s climate change web portal provides information on the climate-related variability and changes that are exacerbated by human activities (http://www. climate.gov/#understandingClimate). The Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change Web page also provides basic background information on these and other measured or anticipated e ffects (see www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html). Though the impacts on smalltooth sawfish currently cannot, for the most part, be predicted with any degree of certainty, we can proj ect some effects to sawfish critical habitat. We do know that both essential features (red mangrov es and shallow, euryhaline waters less than 3 feet deep at MLLW) will be impacted by climate change. Se a level rise is expected to exceed 1 meter globally by 2100, according to the most recent pub lications, exceeding the estimates of the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Abrego et al. 2009; Acevedo 1991; Meehl et al. 2007). A one-meter sea leve l rise in the state of Florida is within the range of recent estimates by 2080 (Abrego et al. 2009; Adam et al. 2011). Along the Gulf coast of Florida, and south Florida in particular, rises in sea level wi ll impact mangrove resources. As sea levels rise, sediment surface elevations fo r mangroves will not keep pace with conservative projected rates of elevation in sea level (Adey 1977). This net lowering in sediment elevation poses the greatest threat to mangroves, especially where they are most vulnerable such as where there is limited or no area for landward migration as sea levels rise (Ade y 1978). This is the case in areas of the CHEU where mangroves are he mmed in by shoreline armoring and coastal development and will be unable to spr ead inland when sea level rises.

Sea level increases would also a ffect the shallow-water essential feature of smalltooth sawfish
critical habitat within the CHEU. The effects of sea level rise on available shallow-water habitat
for smalltooth sawfish would be exacerbated in areas where there is shoreline armoring (e.g., seawalls) along the sides of the canal and the centerlines of th e canals that are maintenance dredged deeper 3 feet depth for boat accessibility. In these areas, as sea levels rise, the areas that are within essential feature depth (less than 3 feet at MLLW) will be re duced along the edges of the canals (see diagram below).105 Other threats to mangroves resulting from clim ate change include: changes in precipitation amounts and distribution; changes in s eawater temperature; changes in CO 2 levels; and damages to mangroves from increasingly severe storms an d hurricanes (Aeby et al. 2006). Predictions for increases of up to 25 percent globally for preci pitation are expected by 2050 (Aeby et al. 2006) but this distribution will vary, leading to increases and decreases in precipitation at the regional level. Changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate change may adversely affect the growth of mangroves and their areal extent (Adey et al. 1977 ; Adey and Steneck 1985). Decreases in precipitation will increase salini ty and inhibit mangrove productivity, growth, seedling survival, and spatial c overage (Adjeroud 1997). Decreas es in precipitation may also change mangrove species composition, favoring more salt-tolerant ones (Ellison 2004). Increases in precipitation may benefit some speci es of mangroves, increas ing spatial coverage and allowing them to out-compete other salt ma rsh vegetation (Adjeroud et al. 2009). However, potential mangrove expansion necessitates suitabl e habitat for mangroves to expand their range, which depends to a great extent on patterns and intensity of coastal development. Seawater temperature changes will have potential adverse effects on mangroves as we ll. Many species of mangroves show an optimal shoot density betw een sediment temperatures between 15°-25°C (59°-77°F) (Adjeroud and Tsuchiya 1999). Ho wever, between 25° and 35°C (77-95°F) many species begin to show a decline in leaf struct ure and root and leaf fo rmation rate (Aeby 2005), and temperatures above 35°C lead to adverse effects on root st ructure and survivability of seedlings (Afzal et al. 2001). Temperatures above 38°C (100.4°F) l ead to a cessation of photosynthesis and mangrove mortality (Aeby 2006). Although impossible to forecast precisely, the oceans are predicted to warm by 2° to 6°C by 2100 (Agassiz 1883). If mangroves shift poleward in response to temperature increases, th ey will be limited by cold events and available recruitment area. This is especially true wh en considering already armored shorelines in
residential communities such as those within an d surrounding the CHEU of critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. As atmospheric CO 2 levels increase, mostly resulting from anthropogenic causes (e.g., burning of fossil fuels), the wo rld’s oceans will absorb much of this CO 2 , causing potential increases in photosynthe sis and mangrove growth rates. However, this increase in growth rate would be limited by lower salinities expected from CO 2 absorption in the oceans (Agegian 1985), and also limited by available undeveloped coastline for mangroves to expand their range. A secondary effect of increased CO 2 concentrations in the oceans is the deleterious effect this would have on coral reefs’ ability to absorb calcium carbonate (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. > 3 ft deep MLLW
essential feature absentseawallseawall < 3 feet MLLW < 3 feet MLLW

As sea level rise occurs (shaded), available shallowwater essential feature is reduced

Canal bottom Canal bottom106 2007), leading eventually to reef erosion and ther eby reducing the buffer th at coral reefs provide to mangrove habitats from waves, especi ally during storm/hurricane events.

Finally, the anticipated threat to mangroves resulting from climate change may result from an increase in the severity of storms and hurri canes. Houghton et al (1883) predict that wind intensities will likely increase from 5 to 10 percent. Additionally, tropical st orms are expected to increase in intensity and/or fr equency, which will directly imp act existing mangroves that are already adversely impacted by incr eased seawater temperatures, CO 2 , and changes in precipitation (Aeby and Santavy 2006; Aeby et al. 2011a). The height of existing mangroves may be reduced as a response to increased trop ical storm intensity as well (Ainsworth and Hoegh-Guldberg 2009). More severe storm surges that lead to flooding even ts are also expected and would lead to potential changes in mangrove community composition, mortality, and recruitment (Aeby et al. 2011b), in addition to a ffecting mangroves’ ability to photosynthesize (Ainsworth et al. 2011) and aff ecting oxygen concentrations in the mangrove lenticels (Ellison 2004).

3.2.8 Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat

NMFS designated Johnson’s seagrass critical ha bitat on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17786; see also, 50 CFR 226.213). The term “critical habitat” is defi ned in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as (i) The specific areas within the geogra phic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those phys ical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific ar eas outside the geographic area occ upied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination th at such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
“Conservation” is defined in Sect ion 3(3) of the ESA as the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or th reatened species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary.

The specific areas occupied by Johnson's seagrass and designated by NMFS as critical habitat
are those with one or more of the following criteria:

1. Locations with populations that have persisted for 10 years.

2. Locations with persiste nt flowering populations.

3. Locations at the northern and southern range limits of the species.

4. Locations with unique genetic diversity.

5. Locations with a documented high abundan ce of Johnson’s seagrass compared to other areas in the species’ range.

Ten areas (units) within the range of Johnson’ s seagrass (approximately 200 km of coastline from Sebastian Inlet to northern Biscayne Ba y, Florida) are designated as Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat (see Table 18). The total acreag e of critical habitat for Johnson’s seagrass rangewide is roughly 22,574 acres (NMFS 2002). SAJ-17, 20, 33, and 34 are allowed within all of the Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat Units.107 Table 18: Designated critical habita t units for Johnson's seagrass.

Unit A A portion of the Indian River, Florida, north of the Sebastian Inlet Channel.

Unit B A portion of the Indian River, Florid a, south of the Seba stian Inlet Channel.

Unit C A portion of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, in the vicinity of th e Fort Pierce Inlet.

Unit D A portion of the IRL, Florida, north of the St . Lucie Inlet.

Unit E A portion of Hobe Sound, Florida, excluding the federally-marked navigation channel
of the Intracoastal Waterwa y ( ICW )

. Unit F A portion of the south side of Jupiter Inlet, Florida.

Unit G A portion of Lake Worth, Florida, north of Bingham Island.

Unit H A portion of Lake Worth Lagoon, Florida, located just north of the Boynton Inlet.

Unit I A portion of northeast Lake Wyman, Boca Raton, Florida, excluding the federallymarked navigation channel of the ICW.

Unit J A portion of northern Biscayne Bay, Florida, including all parts of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve excluding the Oleta Rive r, Miami River, and Little River beyond their mouths, the federally-marked naviga tion channel of the ICW, and all existing federally-authorized navigation channels, basins, and berths at the Port of Miami.

Unit J is by far the largest of the designated cr itical habitat units, making up approximately 83 percent of total designa ted critical habitat, by area, for Johnson’s seagrass throughout its 200-km range. The majority of proj ects authorized in Unit J are covered under SAJ-42 and not by the general permits considered in this consultation.

Critical habitat determinations fo cus on those physical and biologica l features that are essential to the conservation of the speci es (50 CFR 424.12). Federal agen cies must ensure that their activities are not likely to result in the destru ction or adverse modifica tion of critical habitat through adverse effects to the essential features with in defined critical habitat areas. Therefore, proposed actions that may impact designated crit ical habitat require an analysis of potential impacts to each essential feature. The essential featur es of Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat are (1) adequate water quality, defined as being fr ee from nutrient over-enrichment by inorganic and organic nitrogen and phosphorous or other inputs that create lo w oxygen conditions; (2) adequate salinity levels, indicating a lack of very frequent or c onstant discharges of fresh or low salinity waters; (3) adequate water transparency which would allow sunlight necessary for photosynthesis; and (4) stable, unconsolidated sedi ments that are free from physical disturbance.
All four essential features must be present in an area for it to function as critical habitat for Johnson’s seagrass.108 3.2.9 Cumulative effect of all 12 general permit s to listed species and critical habitat

Section 3 addressed the individual and cumulative e ffect of each of the types of actions that can be authorized by each of the 12 general permits and their likelihood to be adversely affected by
the action. This section addresse s the cumulative ecological impact to each of the species and
critical habitat from the combination of a ll of the actions over th e next five years.

After looking at the effects of construction impacts from all activit ies covered under these general permits and the likelihood that projects w ill not occur simultaneously in the same area,
we have determined that most of the direct im pacts from construction ar e not likely to adversely impact listed species in Florida. Those that are likely to adversely impact species or critical habitat are discussed below. The types of activiti es covered under these permits are not likely to change the landscape of Florida near shore waters. These permits allow the continued development of Florida while protecting species and critical habitat b ecause project impacts are minimized by the PDCs. This is confirmed through the Tier II process de fined in this opinion.

The only direct construction impacts of concern in this opinion are impacts to smalltooth sawfish critical habitat and Johnson’s seagrass critical ha bitat. Activities author ized under these general permits can result in both indivi dual and project level loss and a cumulative loss that can result in a loss of ecological function of th ese critical habitats. This lo ss is discussed further in the following sections.

The direct effects of noise generated from constr uction of these projects was also considered and determined to be insignificant or discountable ba sed on the PDCs. Of concern was the effect that noise would have on juvenile smalltooth sawfis h. Because impacts to juvenile sawfish or
deterrent of adult female smalltooth sawfish from pupping could have an ecological impact on the recovery of the species, the USACE agreed to add PDCs that prohib it activities that could impact these species.

Indirect effects from activities authorized under th ese general permits were also analyzed in this section along with their individu al and cumulative impact on species and critical habitat. An indirect impact of concern is the cumulative increase in vessel traffic resulting from the construction of a large number of docks aut horized under these general permits. Section 5 discusses the potential mortality of turtles from this increased vessel traffic and its impact on the recovery of the species.

4. Environmental Baseline

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and na tural factors leading to the current status of the species, its habitat (including designated critical habitat), and ecosystem,
within the action area. The environmental baseli ne is a "snapshot" of a species' health at a specified point in time. It does not include the effects of the acti on under review in the
consultation.

By regulation, environmental baselines for biolog ical opinions include the past and present impacts of all state, federal, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. We109 identify the anticipated impacts of all proposed federal projects in the specific action area of the consultation at issue, that have already undergone formal or earl y Section 7 consultation as well as the impact of state or private actions whic h are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02, emphasis added).

Focusing on the impacts of the activities in the ac tion area specifically, allows us to assess the prior experience and state (or condition) of the e ndangered and threatened individuals, and areas of designated critical habitat that occur in an action area, and that will be exposed to effects from the action under consultation. This is importa nt because, in some phenotypic states or life history stages, listed individuals will commonly exhibit, or be more susceptible to, adverse responses to stressors than th ey would be in other states, stages, or areas within their
distributions. The same is true for localized populations of enda ngered and threatened species: the consequences of changes in the fitness or performance of individuals on a population's status depends on the prior state of the population. De signated critical habita t is not different: under some ecological conditions, the physical and biot ic features of critical habitat will exhibit responses that they would not exhibit in other conditions.

Environmental Contamination Coastal runoff, marina and dock construction, dredging, aquacultu re, oil and gas exploration and extraction, increased under water noise and boat traffic can degrade marine habitats used by sea turtles (Colburn et al. 1996) and smalltooth sawf ish. The development of marinas and docks in inshore waters can negatively impact nearshore habitats. An increase in the number of docks built increases boat and vessel traffic. Fueling faci lities at marinas can sometimes discharge oil, gas, and sewage into sensitive estuarine and coastal habitats. Although these contaminant concentrations do not likely affect the more pe lagic waters, sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish analyzed in this opinion travel between nears hore and offshore habitats and may be exposed to and accumulate these contaminants during their life cycles.

4.1 Factors Affecting Sea Turtles in the Action Area

As stated in Section 2.6 (“Acti on Area”), the proposed project is includes direct impacts to all
marine inshore waters in Florida with constr uction along ocean beaches prohibited by the PDCs. Indirect impacts from vessel traffic occur in ma rine inshore and nears hore waters in Florida including the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. However, sea turtles found in the action area are not year-round residents of the area, and may travel widely throughout the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Therefore, indivi duals found in the action area can potentially be affected by activities anywhere else within their range. Numerous activities have been identified as threats and may affect sea turtles in thei r respective ranges, and thus the action area (see Sections 3.2 and Appendix B). The following anal ysis examines actions that may affect these species’ environment within the action area.

4.1.1 Federal Actions

In recent years, NMFS has undertaken several ESA Section 7 consultations to address the effects of federally-permitted fisheries and other federa l actions on threatened and endangered species. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing th e probability of adverse effects110 of the action on sea turtles and/or smalltooth sa wfish. Similarly, recovery actions NMFS has
undertaken under the ESA are addressi ng the problem of take of sea turtles in the fishing and oil and gas industries, vessel operati ons, and other activities such as USACE dredging operations.

4.1.1.1 Construction and Operati on of Public Fishing Piers

Several public fishing piers have been constructe d within the state of Fl orida over the past ten years. Most of these have been constructed following the active hur ricane seasons of 2004 and 2005, which resulted in damage to the then existi ng piers. All public fishing piers but two were constructed along the Gulf coast of Florida; only the Jacksonville and Flagler Beach fishing pier was constructed along the Atlantic coast of Flor ida. A list of fishing piers that NMFS has
consulted on in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are included in Appendix B along with the
annual incidental take level an ticipated for each project.

4.1.1.2 Dredging

Marine dredging vessels are co mmon within U.S. coastal wa ters. Although the underwater noises from dredge vessels are typi cally continuous in duration (for periods of days or weeks at a time) and strongest at low frequencies, they are not believed to have any long-term effect on sea turtles. However, the construc tion and maintenance of federal na vigation channels and dredging in sand mining sites ("borrow areas") have been id entified as sources of sea turtle mortality. Hopper dredges in the dredging mo de are capable of moving relativ ely quickly compared to sea turtle swimming speed and can thus overtake, entrain, and kill sea turtles as the suction draghead(s) of the advancing dr edge overtakes the resting or swimming turtle. Entrained sea turtles rarely survive. NMFS completed regi onal opinions on the impacts of USACE’s hopperdredging operation in 1997 for dredging along the South Atlantic (NMFS 1997b)and in 2003 for operations in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2007b) . In the Gulf of Mexico regional opinion, NMFS determined that (1) Gulf of Mexico hop per dredging would a dversely affect Gulf sturgeon and four sea turtle species (i.e., gree n, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerheads) but would not jeopardize their continue d existence and (2) dredging in the Gulf of Mexico would not adversely affect leatherback sea turtles, smallt ooth sawfish, or ESA-listed large whales. An ITS for those species adversely affected was issued. In the South Atlantic regional biological opinion (SARBO), NMFS determined that (1) hopper dre dging in the South Atla ntic would adversely affect shortnose sturgeon and f our sea turtle species (i.e., green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerheads), but would not jeopardize their co ntinued existence, a nd (2) South Atlantic dredging would not adversely affect leatherback sea tur tles or ESA-listed large whales. An ITS for those species adversely affected was issued.

The above-listed regional opinions consider ma intenance dredging and sand mining operations. Numerous other stand-alone opinions have been produced that analyzed hopper dredging projects that did not fall (partia lly or entirely) under the scope of actions contemplated by these regional opinions. For example, numerous other opi nions have been issued in the action area on
the west side of Florida in the Gulf of Me xico, covering navigation channel improvements and beach restoration projects, including: East Pass dredging, Destin, Florida [to USACE in 2009 (NMFS 2009a)], dredging of City of Mexico Beach canal inlet [to USACE in 2012 (NMFS 2012)]. Similarly, in the South Atlantic, opini ons issued for dredgi ng and beach nourishment111 projects outside the scope of the SARBO included: use of Cana veral Shoals borrow area for a beach renourishment and protection project at Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa Beach, Florida [2010 opinion to USAF (NMFS 2010a)], channel dredging for homeporting of carrier group surface ships at U.S. Naval Station Mayport [opinion issued to USN in 2009 (NMFS 2009b)], and Boca Raton Inlet Dredging Project [opinion to USACE, 2008 (NMFS 2008)], among others. Each of the above stand-alone opinions had its own ITS and determined that hopper dredging during the proposed action would not adversely affect any species of sea turtles or other listed species, or destroy or adversely modify cr itical habitat of any listed species.

4.1.1.3 ESA Section 10 Permits

The ESA allows the issuance of permits to take ESA-listed species for the purposes of scientific research, under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). Au thorized activities range from photographing, weighing, and tagging protected spec ies incidentally taken in fish eries, to blood sampling, tissue sampling (biopsy), and performing laparoscopy on intentionally-capture d organisms. The number of authorized takes varies widely de pending upon the research and species involved, but may involve the taking of hundreds of individuals annually. Most takes authorized under these permits are expected to be (a nd are) non-lethal. Before any research permit is issued, the proposal must be reviewed under the permit regulations (i.e., must show a bene fit to the species). In addition, since issuance of the permit is a federal activity, issuance of the permit by NMFS must also be reviewed for compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to en sure that issuance of the permit does not result in jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of its critical habitat.

4.1.2 State or Private Actions

4.1.2.1 Vessel Traffic

Commercial vessel traffic and recreational boating pursuits can have adverse effects on sea turtles through propeller and boat strike damage. The extent of the impact on sea turtles in the
action area is not known at this time.

4.1.2.2 State Fisheries

Recreational fishing from private vessels, privat e and public piers (descr ibed above in Section 4.1.1.1), and from shore does occur in the area. Obse rvations of state recreational fisheries have
shown that sea turtles are known to bite baited hooks, and loggerheads frequently ingest the hooks. Hooked turtles have been reported by th e public fishing from boa ts, piers, beaches, banks, and jetties and from commerci al fishermen fishing for reef fish and for sharks with both single rigs and bottom longlines (NMFS 2001). Additionally, lost fi shing gear such as line cut after snagging on rocks, or discarded hooks and line, can also pose an entanglement threat to sea turtles in the area. A detailed summary of the known impacts of hook-and-line incidental captures to loggerhead sea tur tles can be found in the TEWG (1998); TEWG (2000) reports.

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 perm it. Although the past and currenteffects of these fisheries on112 listed species are 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 of Mexico coasts.

4.1.3 Other Potential Sources of Impacts in the Environmental Baseline

4.1.3.1 Conservation and Recovery Ac tions Shaping the Environment

NMFS has implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of sea turtles from comm ercial fisheries in the action area. These include sea turtle release gear requirements for Atlantic highly migr atory species (HMS) and Gulf of Mexico reef fish fisheries, and TED requirements for the s outheastern shrimp trawl fisheries. These regulations have relieved some of th e pressure on sea turtle populations.

Under Section 6 of the ESA, NMFS may enter into cooperative res earch and conservation agreements with states to assist in recovery actio ns of listed species. Prio r to issuance of these agreements, the proposal must be reviewed for compliance with S ection 7 of the ESA.

Outreach and Education, Sea Turtle Entanglements, and Rehabilitation NMFS and cooperating states have established an extensive network of STSSN participants along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts th at collects data on dead sea turtles, and also
rescues and rehabilitates a ny live stranded sea turtles.

Sea Turtle Handling and Resuscitation Techniques NMFS published a final rule (66 FR 67495, December 31, 2001) detailing handling and resuscitation techniques for sea turtles that are in cidentally caught during sc ientific research or fishing activities. Persons participating in fishing activities or scientific research are required to handle and resuscitate (as necessary ) sea turtles as prescribed in the final rule. These measures help to prevent mortality of hard -shelled turtles caught in fishing or scientific research gear.

A final rule (70 FR 42508) published on July 25, 2005, allows any agent or employee of NMFS, the USFWS, the U.S. Coast Guard, or any other federal land or water management agency, or any agent or employee of a state agency responsib le for fish and wildlife, when acting in the
course of his or her official dut ies, to take endangered sea tu rtles encountered in the marine environment if such taking is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or entangle d endangered sea turtle, or dispose of a dead endangered sea turtle, or sa lvage a dead endangered sea turtle that may be
useful for scientific or educa tional purposes. NMFS already affords the same protection to sea
turtles listed as threatened under the ESA [50 CFR 223.206(b)].

On August 3, 2007, NMFS published a final rule re quiring selected fishing vessels to carry
observers on board to collect data on sea turtle in teractions with fishing operations, to evaluate existing measures to reduce sea turtle takes, a nd to determine whether additional measures to address prohibited sea turtle takes may be n ecessary (72 FR 43176). This rule also extended from 30 to 180 days, the maximum period NMFS observers may be placed on vessels in response to a determination by th e Assistant Administrator that the unauthorized take of sea turtles may be likely to jeopardize their con tinued existence under ex isting regulations.113 Other Actions A revised recovery plan for the loggerhead se a turtle was completed December 8, 2008 (NMFS and USFWS 2008). An updated bi-na tional recovery plan for the Ke mp’s ridley sea turtle was completed in 2011 (NMFS et al. 2011). Recovery teams comprised of sea turtle experts have been convened and are currently working toward s revising other plans based upon the latest and best available information. Five-year status reviews have recently been completed for green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and l oggerhead sea turtles. These reviews were conducted to comply with the ESA mandate for pe riodic evaluation of lis ted species to ensure that their threatened or endangere d listing status remains accurate. Each review determined that no delisting or reclassification of a species status (i.e., threatened or endangered) was warranted at the time. However, further review of speci es data for the green, hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles was recommended, to eval uate whether DPSs should be established for these species (NMFS and USFWS 2007a ; NMFS and USFWS 2007b; NMFS and USFWS 2007c; NMFS and USFWS 2007d; NMFS and USFWS 2007e ). The Services published a final rule on September 22, 2011, listing the global po pulation of loggerhead sea turtles as nine separate DPSs.

4.2 Factors Affecting Smalltooth Sawfish within the Action Area

4.2.1 Federal Actions

As discussed in Section 3.2, between Sept ember 2009 and October 16, 2012, NMFS completed
78 consultations with the USACE on activities th at may affect critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish with the CHEU. By comparison, only 9 projects have occurred with the Ten Thousand Island/Everglades Unit and only 3 of these resulted in impacts to critical habitat. Because of the comparatively few number of projects within the Ten Thousand Island/Everglades Unit, the
focus of this consultation will be the CHEU. Th e majority of these projects were residential single-family-home or commercial seawall constr uction projects within the CHEU, each resulted in up to a few hundred square feet of impacts to smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. Since the designation of critical ha bitat on September 2, 2009, approximately 8.88 acres of shallow, euryhaline habitat and 4,907 linear feet of red mangr ove essential features have been impacted in the CHEU resulting in an average loss of 2.96 acres per year of shallow, euryhaline habitat and 1,636 linear feet of red ma ngrove loss per year.

4.2.2 State or Private Actions

A number of non-federal activities that may adve rsely affect designated critical habitat for
smalltooth sawfish in the action area include im pacts from wastewater systems, aquaculture facilities, and residential shorel ine stabilization activities that do not require, or do not obtain, federal permits (i.e., seawall, riprap). The di rect and indirect impacts from some of these activities are difficult to quantify. However, where possible, conservation actions through the ESA Section 10 permitting, ESA Section 6 cooperative agreements, and state permitting programs are being implemented or investigated to monitor or study impacts from these sources. There are numerous shoreline stabilization projects that have occurred and continue to occur114 within the smalltooth sawfish critical habitat that have completed the Section 7 consultation

process.

4.2.2.1 State Fisheries

Recreational fishing from private vessels, privat e and public piers (descr ibed above in Section 4.1.1.1), and from shore does occur in the area. Obse rvations of state recreational fisheries have
shown that smalltooth are known to bite baited hooks. Hooked smalltooth sawfish have been reported by the public fishing from boats, piers, beaches, banks, and jetties and from commercial fishermen fishing for reef fish and for sharks with both single rigs and bottom longlines (NMFS 2001). Additionally, lost fishing gear such as line cut after snagging on rocks, or discarded hooks and line, can also pose an entanglement thr eat to smalltooth sawfish in the area. 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.

4.2.2.2 Other Potential Sources of Imp acts in the Environmental Baseline

Natural Disturbances Stochastic (i.e., random) events, such as hurri canes, are common throughout the range of the smalltooth sawfish, especially in the current core of its range (i.e., south and southwest Florida). These events are by nature unpred ictable, and their effect on th e recovery of the species is unknown. However, they have the potential to impede recovery directly if an imals die as a result of them, or indirectly if importa nt habitats are damaged as a re sult of these disturbances. In 2005, Hurricane Charley damaged habitat within sm alltooth sawfish critical habitat, which has
seemed to recover.

4.2.3 Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline

Federal Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consul tation requirements pursu ant to the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Ac t minimize and mitigate for losses of wetlands and preserve valuable foraging and developmenta l habitat for juvenile smalltooth sawfish. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as “those wate rs and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to matu rity” (16 U.S.C. §1802(10)). ESA-designated
critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish also fall under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). NM FS has designated mangrove and estuarine habitats as EFH, as recommended by the GMFMC. Both essential features (shallow, euryhaline water less than 3 feet MLLW and red mangroves) are critical components of areas designated as EFH and receive a basic level of protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to the extent that the Act requires minimization of impacts to EFH resources.

NMFS is currently coordinating with the FDEP regarding Florida Statute 373.414(5)(c), which requires (or provides an exemption) to persons repairing or replacing a seawall in Florida to place riprap at the toe of the new structure. The intent of the st atute is to provide structure for benthic organisms, crustaceans, and fish to o ccupy, which would help to mitigate for natural habitat removed by vertical seawalls. In situat ions where a living shoreline is not feasible,115 placement of riprap in front of ve rtical seawalls is generally desi rable in most cases. However, in areas designated as smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, riprap may impact essential features, thus removing nursery function of the critical habitat from the unit. NMFS is working with FDEP and local county governments (Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade) to ensure that riprap is not require d in areas designated as critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. None of the general permits proposed in this cons ultation allow the placement of riprap in front
of seawalls in smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.

4.3 Factors Affecting Johnson’s seagrass Cr itical Habitat in the Action Area

A wide range of activities funded, authorized, or carried out by federal agencies may affect the essential habitat requirements of Johnson's s eagrass. These include dredging, dock/marina construction, boat shows, bridge/highway cons truction, residential construction, shoreline stabilization, breakwaters, and the installation of subaqueous lines or pipelines. Other federal actions (or actions with a federal nexus) that may affect Johnson’s seagrass include actions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the US ACE to manage freshwater discharges into waterways; regulation of vessel traffic by the U.S. Coast Guard; management of national refuges and protected species by the USFWS; management of vessel traffic (and other activities) by the U.S. Navy; and authorization of state coas tal zone management plans by NOAA’s National Ocean Service. Although these actions have pr obably removed Johnson’s seagrass and affected its critical habitat, none of these past actions have jeopardized the continued existence of Johnson’s seagrass, or destroyed or adve rsely modified its critical habitat.

Between January 1, 2005 and November 1, 2012, according to NMFS’ Public Consultation Tracking System database, ESA consultation was completed on a total of 41 proposed activities, which had the potential to affect Johnson’s seagra ss critical habitat. Of these consultations, 17 were concluded formally (i.e., with issuance of a biological opinion). The majority of these projects were single- or multi-family dock constr uction projects that each resulted in a few square feet to a few hundred square feet of im pacts to Johnson’s seagra ss and/or its designated critical habitat. Other types of projects fall into one of the categories listed in the previous paragraph and the majority of th ese projects resulted in impacts to less than 0.1 acre of Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat. Ho wever, a few projects resulted in more significant impacts. These included a two marinas each resul ting in approximately 0.60 acres of impact to critical habitat and a marina resulting in approxim ately 12 acres of impact to critical habitat.

4.3.1 Federal Actions

4.3.1.1 Programmatic Consultation on Army Co rps Permitting of Marine Construction and Dredge and Fill Projects in Miami-Dade County (SAJ-42)

As discussed in Section 2, NMFS received a request for Section 7 consultation on the
reauthorization of SAJ-42 for Miami-Dade County on March 31, 2008. PGP SAJ-42 has been reissued three times since 1981 (i.e., 1986, 1994, a nd 2002) and cover a period of five years. NMFS issued a programmatic opinion on January 10, 2011. It is based on a review of impacts associated with the reissuance of the PGP, wh ich gives general authority to the Miami-Dade County’s DERM to administer SAJ-42 for severa l in-water constructio n activities in Miami-116 Dade County, Florida. The in-w ater construction activities in clude shoreline stabilization projects, maintenance dredging, and repair, replacement, or installa tion of single-family piers. The USACE’s Jacksonville District is the perm itting authority. The opinion analyzed project effects on sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, Johns on’s seagrass, elkhorn and staghorn corals, and designated critical habitat for Johnson’s seagra ss and elkhorn and staghorn corals in accordance
with Section 7 of the ESA and concluded Johnson ’s seagrass may be adversely affected by the proposed action but is not likely to be jeopardized. The impacts fr om SAJ-42 are important to all species considered in this opini on but most important to Johnson’s seagrass and critical habitat and have the largest impact on their baseline. As stated earlier, the majority of Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat falls within the juri sdiction of SAJ-42. Th erefore, most of the development that will impact this species and critical habitat will be addressed under SAJ-42 versus the general permits c onsidered under this opinion.

Dock construction, dredging, etc. within the ra nge of Johnson’s seagrass will continue, as the shoreline is highly prized for residential and commercial development. While newer construction is encouraged to follow the NM FS-USACE dock construction guidelines and the Johnson’s seagrass key in order to minimize sh ading impacts to Johnson’s seagrass and its critical habitat, loss of Johnson’s seagrass will continue due to shading and the installation of pilings, even if docks are designed in full co mpliance with the dock construction guidelines.

4.3.2 State or Private Actions

4.3.2.1 Miami Boat Show

Other projects of interest invol ve temporary, but recurring impact s. The international boat shows held in Miami Beach affect large areas of sha llow seagrass habitat. The Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage show project area is lo cated within Johnson’s seagrass desi gnated critical habitat. The shows have been occurring annually for over 20 y ears. Impacts occur du ring the installation and removal of the pilings used to hold temporary fl oating docks in place during the events. Barges install pilings using a vibratory hammer and can cause adverse effects that disturb bottom sediments while driving the pilings into the s ubstrate, and also from propeller wash while maneuvering into position for pile driving. Approxi mately 600 yachts up to 180 feet in length are showcased during the events. The docks are in place for less than 30 days, but together with the moored boats, cause large-scal e, albeit temporary, shading im pacts to approximately 34 acres of Johnson’s seagrass and its designated critical habitat. While piling installation and shading cause event-related impacts, the greatest impact to seagrass habitat may occur from propeller dredging when the boats are back ing into their slips and then later when exiting the slips following conclusion of the events. Propeller dr edging can occur when la rge deep-draft vessels, such as the type on exhibit, are moored in shallow waters. Surveys conducted from 2003-2006 in the Miami project area found Johnson’s seagra ss growing in patches adjacent to the seawall out to approximately 40 feet from the seawall in depths ranging from 3 to 8 feet. Johnson’s seagrass was not found in deeper depths in the Miami action area and subsequent surveys performed in 2007 to 2009 did not document the presence of Johnson’s seagrass, and observed
an overall decrease in abundance of all species of seagrass formerly noted. During the event,
some of the vessels are moored in slips along the seawall an d may cause destabilization of
bottom sediments when the boats are moved into and out of their slips. Pr evious permits issued117 for the events (permits for these events are 5 year s in duration), stipulated that pre-and post-show seagrass surveys were a condition of the perm it. However, the surveys did not have a good sampling design and have not provided a good spatial account of the occurrence of Johnson’s seagrass within the action areas. Using the result s of surveys conducted by previous researchers, impacts associated with the shows over the course of the permitted action (5 years) have been
estimated at 1.46 acres. NMFS determined that the Miami show may affect Johnson’s seagrass but is not likely to jeopardize its continued existence. The action is also likely to adversely affect its designated critical habitat, but will not result in its destruction or adverse modification. To date, no mitigation has been proposed for the impact s to Johnson’s seagrass or its critical habitat, although current permit applications for future bo at shows scheduled for the next 5 years propose a compensatory mitigation component.

4.3.2.2 Urban Development

Urban development since the 1960s has affected inshore water quality throughout the range of Johnson’s seagrass. However, Woodward-Clyde C onsultants (1994) stated that improvements in
erosion and sediment control in association w ith urban development in the 1980s and 1990s may have been responsible for reduced turbidity in those decades as compared to the previous two decades of development. Reductions in seagrasse s were apparent in the 1970s, along with areas of highly turbid water. Increases in submerge d aquatic vegetation were noted until coverage and density peaked in 1986, albeit at levels remainin g below those observed in the decades prior to 1960. In association with upland development, wa ter quality and transparen cy within the range of Johnson’s seagrass are affected by stormwater and agricultural runoff, wastewater discharges, and other point and non-point source discharges.

The most clearly identified and manageable thre at to the persistence a nd recovery of Johnson’s seagrass is the possibility of mortality due to reduced salinity over long periods of time (NMFS 2007a). High-volume freshwater discharges from Lake Okeechobee flow downstream to the mouth of the St. Lucie River and have the potentia l to adversely affect Johnson’s seagrass. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan may help to alleviate the frequency of high-volume freshwater discharges from Lake Okeechobee. However, the success of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is uncertain because many of the proj ects are still in the planning phase or early implementation phase.

4.3.2.3 Recreational Vessel Traffic

Increasing recreational vessel tra ffic in the range of Johnson’s s eagrass results in marina and dock construction, improper anchoring, and propelle r scarring. Propeller scarring and improper anchoring are known to adversely affect seagrasses (Kenworthy et al. 2002; Sargent et al. 1995). These activities can severely disrupt the benthi c habitat by uprooting plants, severing rhizomes, destabilizing sediments, and si gnificantly reducing the viability of the seagrass community. Propeller dredging and improper anchoring in sha llow areas are a major disturbance to even the most robust seagrasses. A number of local, state, and federal st atutes and conservation measures prohibit damaging seagrasses thro ugh vessel impacts. These include designation of vessel restriction zones and speed reductio n zones to limit vessel access to seagrass beds, fines to those that damage seagrass beds in aquatic preser ves, informational signa ge, mooring fields, and public awareness campaigns. Despite these effort s, vessel damage can have significant local and small-scale (1 meter 2 to 100 meter 2 ) impacts on seagrasses (Kirsch et al. 2005), but there is no118 direct evidence that these small-scale local effects are so widespread that th ey are a threat to the survival of Johnson’s seagrass.

4.3.3 Other Potential Sources of Im pacts in the Environmental Baseline

4.3.3.1 Natural Disturbances

A discussion of how natural disturbances (e.g., tropical storms and hurri canes) affect Johnson’s seagrass is found in Section 3.2.

4.3.3.2 State and Federal Activities Th at May Benefit Johnson’s Seagrass

As discussed above, state and federal conservati on measures exist to pr otect Johnson’s seagrass and its habitat under an umbrella of manage ment and conservation programs that address seagrasses in general (Kenworthy et al. 2006). Conservation includes boate r restriction zones, protection under SAJ-42 in Miami-Dade County, protections of seagrass beds under Florida manatee designated critical hab itat, and local grassroot organizations working to protect seagrasses. These conservation measures must be continually monitored and assessed to determine if they will ensure the long term pr otection of the species and the maintenance of
environmental conditions suitable for its c ontinued existence thr oughout its geographic
distribution.

5. Effects of the Action

5.1 Effects to Sea Turtles

Sea turtles may be accidently injured or killed by the potential increase of 20,456 vessels moored at docks authorized under these general permits (see Table 9). As discussed in Section 3.1, increased boat traffic could increase the probability of collisions between vessels and sea turtles. Three studies have been completed in the state of Florida that evaluated recreational boater usage for Sarasota County (Sidman et al. 2006), Charlo tte Harbor (Sidman et al. 2005)), and Brevard County (Sidman et al. 2007). NMFS has previously analyzed the probability of vessel strikes to sea turtles in Florida (Barnette 2009) using a combination of these three studies, vessel registration data from the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and turtle stranding data from the STSSN, and the likelihood of tu rtles struck by vessels being undetected or unreported. This analysis was completed in 2009 using data from 2005 to 2007. Still, this study represents the most conservative estimate of vessel strikes av ailable because vessel registration with the Florida DMV (and likely vessel usage in the state of Florida) has decreased each year since 2007. For comparison, the NMFS study determ ined that one turtle was struck by a vessel every 149,877 trips made from recreational coastal registered vessels in the state of Florida.

We assume these general permits will result in an increase of 20,456 vessels in Florida (see Table 9). This is likely an overestimate as many of these slips will either not have vessels stored at each individual project location, vessels stored at these locations will be relocated from an existing location (marina or previously trailered), or the permit will be issued for repairs to structures not resulting in new construction. If we assume that the average recreational boater in119 Florida makes 52 trips per year (Barnette 2009), this would equal 1,028,872 vessel trips made by
recreational boaters in Florida from stru ctures built under th ese general permits.

An increase of 1,028,872 vessel tr ips made per year from structures authorized under these general permits can then be divided by the number of trips assumed to result in a vessel strike to a sea turtle (1 strike per 149,877 trips). The results in the likelihood of 7 turtles being struck by vessels stored at structures authorized under these general permits.

By looking at all of the sea turtle s that have been reported to the STSSN in Florida in the last ten years (see Figure 7), we see a breakdown of the pe rcentage of each of the species that are killed in Florida waters. This is not a representation of just turtles killed by ve ssel strikes but provides a species composition of turt les in Florida waters in the last ten years. Using these percentages, it is estimated that the 7 turtles that may be taken by vessel strikes fr om vessels stored at structures approved under these general permits will be a likely combination of 3 green (42 percent), 3 loggerhead (41 percent), and 1 Kemp’s ridley (11 percent). Potential vessel strikes to
leatherback and hawksbill sea tu rtles are not being considered further because they each represented only 3 percent of the strandings in the state of Florida (see Figure 2) and the likelihood of vessel interaction with these two spec ies is low due to their limited distribution in
the action area.

Figure 7: STSSN Turtle Strandings in Florida by Species (2002-2011).

5.2 Effects to Smalltooth Sawfish and Sm alltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat

Of the two essential features to smalltooth sawfis h critical habitat, only the shallow, euryhaline waters characterized by depths between the MHWL and 3 feet measured at MLLW will adversely affected from direct effects of ac tions authorization of these general permits. Potentially removing 5.17 acres of shallow, eury haline habitat in the CHEU, over the next 5-year 42%

41% 3% 3% 11% STSSN Turtle Strandings in Florida by Species

2002

‐ 2011

Green (2,442)

Loggerhead (2,420)

Leatherback (153)

Hawksbill (164)

Kemp's ridley (675)120 authorization period, will result in the permanent loss of loss of this critical habitat’s essential feature (see Section 3.1.2 and Table 10). This equates to approximately one acre per year.

Impacts to adult and juvenile sawfish from this loss of this particular piece of habitat will be insignificant since each project area will be small as the PDCs limit construction from extending more than 18 inches from the existing structure or MHWL. Projects will only remove a thin area along the shoreline and will not impact red ma ngroves since the PDCs prohibit mangrove removal. Juvenile smalltooth sawfish that may inha bit the construction are, wi ll likely be able to move to adjacent properties during construction, away from the c onstruction activity, and return
once the in-water construction is finished, without traversing deeper waters that could increase predation risk. Also, the amount of critical habi tat lost is an extremely small fraction (0.006 percent) of the total critical habitat remaining in the CHEU. Based on this information, we
believe all habitat-related eff ects of the proposed action on juve nile smalltooth sawfish will be insignificant or discountable.

Indirect impacts to smalltooth sawf ish and their use of critical ha bitat may be adversely impacted by the noise generated from the construction of thes e projects. Of concern are the noise impacts associated with deterring reproductive females fr om parturition or harming juveniles unable to easily avoid the construction noise. As discussed in Section 3, a st atistically high number of very small juveniles are found in areas defined as hot spots and reproductive females are likely using these areas to pup. NMFS compared the areas de fined as hotspots by researches (Poulakis 2012; Poulakis et al. 2011) to areas w ith the highest density of juve nile sawfish encounters from the
NSED. This data was used to define areas that require greater protection from noise generating construction in order to protect smalltooth sawfish and support the recovery of the species and its critical habitat. Hotspot bounda ries were drawn around the highe st density of encounters using natural geographic features used by smalltooth sawfish (e.g., shallow, euryhaline habitat, mangrove shoreline, canals with high encounter rate s, etc.). Below are the coordinates and maps showing these hotspots. As research continue s, these boundaries may change and other hotspots may be added or removed.

5.3 Effects to Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat

The PDCs for SAJ-17, 20, 33, and 34 do not allo w direct or indirect impacts to Johnson’s seagrass but do allow for construction within Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat. Because of concerns about adverse impacts to Johnson’s seagrass, the PDCs for these permits include the requirement to use the construction guidelines titled “Key for Construction Conditions for Docks
or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or Over Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) NMFS/USACE - February 2002”, for dock construction in the lagoon (as well as canal) systems on Florida’s east coast from Sebastian Inlet (Bre vard County) south to and including central Biscayne Bay (Miami-Dade County).

Based on the number of piling struct ures installed during the last five years, we can estimate the amount of impact anticipated from the authoriza tion of these general permits over the next five years. These impacts include direct impacts fr om piling placement (see Table 19) and indirect impacts from the shading created by docks and ve ssels stored at the docks (see Table 20). We believe that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect th e water transparency essential121 feature and the unconsolidated sediments essential feature. We believe that there will be no effects to the adequate salinity essential feature. Likewise, the adequate water quality feature is not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action because there will be no significant effects resulting from any of the elements of the proposed action (i.e., dock construction and vessel mooring). However, a permanent loss of any one essential f eature renders the area incapable of supporti ng Johnson’s seagrass.

Piling installation will result in permanent impacts to 80 square feet of critical habitat through removal of substrate. Vessel shading may precl ude future growth and recruitment of Johnson’s seagrass in the shaded area underneath the vesse l (or vessels) when not in use, which is presumed to be most of the time. Based on the a ssumed number of vessels that may be stored at docks authorized under these general permits (see Table 9), we can estimate that vessel storage would create shading over 25,520 square feetof Johnson’s seagrass cr itical habitat. An additional 29,000 square feet of critical habitat may be affect ed by shading from the dock; however, Johnson’s seagrass may colonize some of the areas under the dock due to the use of grated decking with a minimum 43 percent light transmittance. As stated earlier, the PDCs prohibit dock construction th at will directly or indi rectly impact Johnson’s seagrass. In a recent study, Johnson’s seagrass was found to persist under docks constructe d of grated decking versus non-grated decking. Johnson’s seagrass was obser ved in higher densitie s under grated versus non-grated docks, although it was reduced in frequency under grated docks (Landry et al. 2008). Therefore, Johnson’s seagrass may be able to utilize some of the sh aded areas of critical habitat post-construction (although po ssibly at a reduced density) at the project site, and should
be able to recruit under the st ructures in the future, due to the agreed-upon conservation measures (i.e., use of grated decking over the enti re dock). Thus, we conclude that the critical habitat under the vessel (25,520 s quare feet) and under the pilings (80 square feet) may be permanently lost to Johnson’s seagrass, but that the critical habitat under the grated dock (29,000 square feet) will continue to provide critical habitat services to the species in the future. Therefore, the net loss of criti cal habitat from the proposed action is 25,600 square feet (0.59 acres)

.

Table 19: Impacts to Johnson's seagrass critical habitat.

General Permit Assumption 18 Number times
issued 2006-2010 Impact

SAJ-17 Minor piling structure (4) 10-inch pilings = 40 square inches 27 1,080 square inches

SAJ-20 Single family dock (45) 8-inch pilings = 360 square inches 27 9,720 square inches

SAJ-33 Private multi-family dock less than 1000 square feet (45) 8-inch pilings = 360 square inches 2 720 square inches

SAJ-34 (45) 8-inch pilings = 0 0 square inches

18 The number of piles is based on in formation provided by the USACE. Mo re accurate piling information will be collected as part of the Tier II repo rting for the next renewal process.122 Commercial dock less than 1000 square feet 360 square inches

Total 1,120 square inches 56 11,520 square inches

= 80 square feet

Table 20: Johnson's Seagrass Critical Habi tat Impacts from vessels and shading.

General
Permit Shading from

docks Shading from

Vessels 19 Piling impacts Impacts from

vessels and pilings

SAJ-17 Minor piling

structure Docks not permitted under this general permit 1 vessel x 27
times authorized

x 176 square feet= 4,752 square feet 1,080 square inches (7.5 square feet) 4,759.5 square
feet

SAJ-20 Single family
dock 1,000 square feet
x 27 times
authorized = 27,000 square
feet 4 vessels x 27
times authorized x 176 square feet = 19,008 square
feet 9,720 square inches (67.5 square feet) 19,075.5 square
feet

SAJ-33
Private multifamily dock
less than 1000

square feet 1,000 square feet
x 2 times
authorized = 2,000 square feet 5 vessels x 2
times authorized x 176 square feet

= 1,760 square
feet 720 square inches (5 square feet) 1,765 square feet

SAJ-34
Commercial
dock
less than 1000

square feet Not used to authorize permits
in Johnson’s CH during the last 5

years. Not used to authorize permits
in Johnson’s CH during the last 5

years. 0 square inches 0

Total 29,000 square
feet 25,520 square
feet 80 square feet 25,600 square feet (0.59 acres)

6. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include the eff ects of future state, tribal, or local private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area cons idered in this opinion. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in th is section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.

19 The average vessel stored at a residential dock is 22 feet long and 8 feet wide which creates a shadow of 176 square feet, based on information from the USACE. This dimension is multiplied by the estimated number of vessels anticipated to be stored at the dock per general permit and the number of times the permit was authorized during the last five years (see Table 9).123 6.1 Cumulative Effects to Sea Turtles

Cumulative effects from unrelated , non-federal actions occurring in the action area may affect sea turtles. Stranding data indicate sea turtles in the action area die of various natural causes, including cold stunning and hurrican es, as well as human activities, such as incidental capture in state fisheries, ingesti on of and/or entanglement in debris, ship strikes, and degradation of nesting habitat. The cause of death of most sea turtles recovered by the stranding network is
unknown.

The fisheries described as occurring within the ac tion area (see Sections 3 a nd 4, the Status of the Species and the Environmental Baseline, respectively ) are expected to continue as described into the foreseeable future, concurrent with the propo sed action. NMFS is not aware of any proposed or anticipated changes in these fisheries (excluding the southeastern shrimp fisheries) that would substantially change the impacts each fishery has on sea turtles covered by this opinion.

6.2 Cumulative Effects to Smalltooth Sawfish and Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat

Smalltooth sawfish habitat has been degraded or modified throughout th e southeastern United States from agriculture, urban development, commercial activities, channel dredging, boating activities, and the divers ion of freshwater runoff. While the degradation an d modification of habitat is not likely the primary reason for the decline of smalltooth sawfish abundance and their contracted distribution, it has like ly been a contributing factor.

No categories of effects beyond t hose already described are expected in the action area. The
smalltooth sawfish critical habitat units will like ly continue to experience the same types of
actions described in the status of critical habitat in Section 3. These threats include shoreline armoring, canal dredging, and dock construction. The additive effect of these actions to the
essential features of critical habitat will contin ue to be assessed by the USACE to ensure that they either meet the PDCs defined by SAJ-17, 20, 33, 34, and 91 or will require review by NMFS on a project-level basis thr ough the Section 7 process. Th e effects of these actions are tracked cumulatively through an improved track ing and reporting system internally by NMFS and by the reporting requirements set forth under th e Tier II requirements of this consultation.

Although the vast majority of these future ac tivities will have a federal nexus (i.e., USACE permit requirement) and thus will be subject to ESA Section 7 consultation, the total losses of critical habitat that may accrue over time could at some point have measurable adverse impacts
on the conservation function of critical habitat. Since the time of critical habitat designation in 2009, NMFS has completed Section 7 consultations on projects that have resulted in the loss of approximately 2.96 acres per year of shallow, eur yhaline habitat and 1,636 lin ear feet per year of red mangrove shoreline in the CHEU, as of Oct ober 16, 2012. Compared to 78 projects that have undergone Section 7 consultation in the CH EU, the Ten Thousand Islands critical habitat unit has only had 10 projects. The amount of impact anticipated in the next five years is based on the assumption that the amount of impact from the last five years reported to have occurred in
smalltooth sawfish critical habitat will be the sa me with the potential of up to a 10 percent increase (see the assumptions made in Section 2.7). However, the USACE did not define which critical habitat unit in which these impacts oc curred (i.e., CHEU or Ten Thousand Islands).124 Since only 11 percent (i.e., 10 of the 88 completed pr ojects) of the projects have occurred in the Ten Thousand Islands critical habitat unit, we are going to assume that all of the projects that will be approved under these general permits w ill occur in the CHEU. According to the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan (NMFS 2009c), the species recovery is expected to take approximately 100 years (4 generations), assuming that all recovery actio ns are fully funded and implemented. Using data gathered from projects that have been consulted on by this office and applying this number as the expected rate of cr itical habitat loss per ye ar (2.96 acre per year) extrapolated out 100 years would result in a loss of shallow, euryhaline habitat of 296 acres or 0.35 percent of total available shallow, euryhaline habitat, an d a loss of 191,000 linear feet or 3.46 percent of total available mangrove habitat, in the CHEU. It is important to note that these losses do not include impacts from actions that do not have a federal nexus and would not be subject to ESA Section 7 consultation; however, as previously noted, most activities occurring in
CHEU do have a federal nexus.

6.3 Cumulative Effects to Johnson ’s Seagrass Critical Habitat

No categories of effects beyond t hose already described are expected in the action area. Dock construction will likely continue, with concomitant loss and degradation of seagrass habitat, including Johnson’s seagrass; however, these activ ities are subject to USACE permitting and/or ESA Section 7 consultation. NMFS and the USACE have developed and are working on updating protocols to encourage the use of light-t ransmitting materials in future construction of docks within the range of Johnson’s seagrass, as defined in the PDCs of these general permits. However, even if all new docks are constructe d in full compliance with the dock construction guidelines, there will still be shading impacts to Johnson’s seagrass and its designated critical habitat from all new docks (but shading impacts would be significantly reduced if guidelines are followed). Landry et al. (2008) found that Johnson’ s seagrass persisted under docks constructed of grated decking versus non-grated decking. Although it was reduced in frequency under grated docks, Johnson’s seagrass was observed in highe r densities under grated versus non-grated docks. NMFS acknowledges that shading impacts to Johnson’s seagrass and its designated
critical habitat will continue via dock construction; however, if NMFS and the USACE continue to encourage permit applicants to design and construct new docks in full compliance with the dock construction guidelines, th e Johnson’s Seagrass Key, and the recommendations in Landry et al. (2008) and Shafer et al . (2008), NMFS believes that shadi ng impacts to Johnson’s seagrass and its designated critical habitat will be reduced in the short- and long-term.

The creation, widening, and deepening of inlets and channels will continue to remove and/or bury Johnson’s seagrass and its desi gnated critical habitat, destab ilize sediments, and decrease water transparency. However, dredge/fill activities that may affect Johnson’s seagrass and/or its designated critical habitat are subject to USACE permitting and ESA Section 7 consultation.

Upland development and associated runoff will con tinue to degrade water quality and decrease water clarity necessary for growth of seag rasses. Flood control and imprudent water management practices will continue to result in freshwater inputs into estuarine systems, thereby degrading water quality and altering salinity. Lo ng-term, large-scale reduction in salinity has been identified as a potentially significant threat to the persis tence and recovery of Johnson’s

seagrass125 Increased recreational vessel tra ffic will continue to result in damage to Johnson’s seagrass and its designated critical hab itat by improper anchoring, prope ller scarring, and accidental groundings. However, it is expected that ongo ing boater education progr ams and posted signage about the dangers to seagrass beds from prope ller scarring and improper anchoring may reduce impacts to Johnson’s seagrass and it s designated critical habitat.

7. Jeopardy Analysis and Destructio n/Adverse Modification Analysis

The analyses conducted in the previous sections of this opinion serve to provide a basis to determine whether the proposed actio n would be likely to jeopardi ze the continued existence of loggerhead, green and Kemp’s ridley. In Sect ion 6.0, we outlined how the proposed action can
affect these sea turtles. Now we turn to an a ssessment of the species response to these impacts, in terms of overall population effects, and whethe r those effects of the proposed action, when
considered in the context of the status of th e species (Section 3.0), the environmental baseline (Section 4.0), and the cumulative effects (Section 6.0), will jeopardize the continued existence of the affected species.

This section evaluates whether th e proposed action is lik ely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ri dley sea turtles in the wild. To jeopardize the continued existence of is defined as “to engage in an action that reasonably woul d be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce ap preciably the likelihood of both the su rvival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing th e reproduction, numbers, or dist ribution of that species” (50 CFR 402.02). Section 5 (“Effects of the Action”) describes the effects of the proposed action on Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles, a nd the extent of those e ffects in terms of an
estimate of the number of sea turtles th at would be captured or killed.

As discussed in Section 2.7, we looke d at the number of vessels regi stered in the state of Florida over the last ten years to determine trends. Si nce there was a 10 percent fluctuation in vessel registration (probably due to cha nges in the economy), we assume that the number of vessels that may occur in Florida waters over the next fi ve years could increase by up to 10 percent. Therefore, we look at the number of turtles estimat ed to be captured or killed from Section 5 and add 10 percent. Since the numbers are low per species, this does not ch ange the estimate of numbers for the jeopardy analysis.

The following jeopardy analyses firs t consider the effects of the act ion to determine if we would reasonably expect the action to result in reduc tions in numbers, reproduction, or distribution of the affected sea turtle species. The analyses ne xt consider whether any such reduction(s) would in turn result in an appreciabl e reduction in the likelihood of surviv al of these species in the wild, and the likelihood of recovery of these species in the wild. In sum, we evaluated whether or not any anticipated take of sea tur tle species will result in any reduc tion in reproduction, numbers, or distribution that may appreciably increase any species ’ risk of extinction, or appreciably interfere with achieving recovery objectives, in the wild.

In the following analyses, we find that although some reduction in numbers and reproduction is expected for sea turtles species, the anticipated ta ke of Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles will not appreciably increase the risk of extinction of these sp ecies in the wild, or appreciably interfere with achieving r ecovery objectives for the species.126 All life stages are important to the survival and recovery of the species; however, it is important
to note that individuals of one lif e stage are not equivalent to t hose of other life stages. For example, the take of male juveniles may affect survivorship and recruitment rates into the reproductive population in any given year, and ye t not significantly re duce the reproductive potential of the population. A very low percent of hatchlings is typically expected to survive to reproductive age. The death of mature, breeding females can have an immediate effect on the reproductive rate of the species. Sub-lethal effects on adult females may also reduce reproduction by hindering foraging success, as suffi cient energy reserves are probably necessary for producing multiple clutches of eggs in a bree ding year. Different age classes may experience varying rates of mort ality and resilience.

For this analysis, we acknowledge that the loss of reproductive fema le sea turtles would have the greatest effect on the overall gene tic diversity of each species. The impact resulting from the loss of a reproductive female is discussed in grea ter detail below for each species. However, it is reasonable to assume that reproductive female will not be the only sea turtles that would be impacted since approximately 50 percent of the p opulation is male, based on the sex ratio of any species. Furthermore, since juveniles comprise a portion of the populatio n (albeit a currently unknown quantity) the likelihood that a mature fe male would be capture d is even less. Therefore, we analyze the possibl e worst case scenario of the loss of reproductive female(s) but cannot anticipate and do not define the age or gender of the sea tur tle that may be lethally taken indirectly by the proposed action. We do not be lieve the potential impacts discussed below will have a measurable effect on the species’ overa ll genetic diversity or species recovery.

7.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtles

The maximum potential lethal take of 3 loggerhead sea turtles is a reduction in numbers. These
lethal takes would also result in a reduction in reproduction as a result of lost reproductive potential, as some of these individuals would be females who would have survived other threats and reproduced in the future, thus eliminating each female individual’s contribution to future generations. For example, an adult female loggerh ead sea turtle can lay 3 or 4 clutches of eggs every 2 to 4 years, with 100 to 130 eggs per clutch . The annual loss of adult female sea turtles, on average, could preclude the production of thou sands of eggs and hatchlings of which a small percentage would be expected to survive to sexual maturity. Because all the potential interactions are expect ed to occur at random throughout the proposed action area and sea turtles generally have large ranges in which they disper se, the distribution of loggerhead sea turtles in the action area is expected to be unaffected.

Whether or not the reductions in loggerhead sea turtle numbers and reproduction attributed to the proposed action would appreciably reduce the lik elihood of survival for loggerheads depends on
what effect these reductions in numbers and reproduction would have on overall population sizes and trends, i.e., whether the estimated reducti ons, when viewed within the context of the
environmental baseline and status of the species, are of such an extent that adverse effects on population dynamics are appreciable. In Section 3.1, we reviewed the status of the species in terms of nesting and female population trends and several recent assessments based on population modeling [e.g., (Conant et al. 2009 ; NMFS-SEFSC 2009a)]. Below we synthesize127 what that information means in general terms and also in the more specific context of the proposed action and the environmental baseline.

Loggerhead sea turtles are a slow growing, late-m aturing species. Because of their longevity, loggerhead sea turtles require high survival rate s throughout their life to maintain a population. In other words, late-maturing species cannot tolerate much anthropogenic mortality without going into decline. Conant et al. (2009) conc luded loggerhead natural growth rates are small; natural survival needs to be high; and even lo w to moderate mortality can drive the population
into decline. Because recrui tment to the adult population is slow, population modeling studies suggest even small increased mortality rates in a dults and sub-adults could substantially impact population numbers and viability (Chaloupka and Musick 1997; Crouse et al. 1987; Crowder et al. 1994; Heppell et al. 1995).

The best available information i ndicates that the NWA DPS of logge rheads is still large, but is possibly experiencing more mortality than it can withstand. All of th e results of population models in both NMFS SEFSC (2009a) and Conant et al. (2009) indicated western North Atlantic loggerheads were likely to conti nue to decline in the future unless action was taken to reduce anthropogenic mortality. With the inclusion of newer nesting data beyond the 2007 data used in those analyses, the status of loggerhead nest ing is beginning to show improvement. As previously described in the Stat us of the Species section, in 2 008 nesting numbers were high, but not enough to change the negative trend line. Nesting dipped again in 2009, but rose substantially in 2010. The 2010 Florida index nes ting number was the largest since 2000. With the addition of data through 2010, the nesting trend for the NW A DPS of loggerheads is only slightly negative and not statis tically different from zero (no trend) (NMFS and USFWS 2010). Additionally, although th e best-fit trend line is slightly nega tive, the range from the statistical analysis of the nesting tre nd includes both negative and positive growth (NMFS and USFWS 2010). The 2011 nesting was on par with 2010, providi ng further evidence that the nesting trend may have stabilized. It is important to note, however, that even if the trend has stabilized, overall numbers have a long way to go to meet the goals of the recovery plan.

NMFS SEFSC (2009a) estimated the minimum adu lt female population size for the western
North Atlantic in the 2004-2008 time frame to likely be between 20,000 to 40,000 (median 30,050) individuals, with a low likelihood of be ing as many as 70,000 individuals. Estimates were based on the following equation: Adult fema les = (nests/(nests per female)) x remigration
interval. The estimate of western North Atla ntic adult loggerhead female was considered
conservative for several reasons. The number of nests used for the western North Atlantic was based primarily on U.S. nesting beaches. Thus, the results are a slight underestimate of total nests because of the inability to collect complete nest counts for many non-U.S. nesting beaches. In estimating the current population size for adult nesting female loggerhead sea turtles, NMFS SEFSC (2009a) simplified the number of assump tions and reduced uncertainty by using the
minimum total annual nest count over the releva nt 5-year period (2004-20 08) (i.e., 48,252 nests). This was a particularly conservative assump tion considering how the number of nests and nesting females can vary widely from year to year (cf., 2008’s nest c ount of 69,668 nests, which
would have increased the adult female estim ate proportionately, to between 30,000 and 60,000). Also, minimal assumptions were made about the distribution of remigrat ion intervals and nests per female parameters, which are fairly robust and well known parameters.128 Although not in NMFS SEFSC (2009a), NMFS SEFSC , in conducting its loggerhead assessment also produced a much less robust estimate for tota l benthic females in the western North Atlantic, with a likely range of approximately 60,000 to 700,000, up to less than one million. This estimate was discussed during the SEFSC’s pres entation on the loggerhead assessment to the
Gulf Council’s Reef Fish Committee at its J une 16, 2009, meeting (NMFS-SEFSC 2009b). The
estimate of overall benthic females is consid ered less robust because it is model-derived, assumes a stable age/stage distribution, and is highly dependent upon the life history input parameters. Relative to the more robust estimate of adult females, this estimate of total benthic female population is consistent with our knowle dge of loggerhead life hi story and the relative abundance of adults and benthic juveniles: th e benthic juvenile populat ion is an order of magnitude larger than adults. Therefore, we believe female benthic l oggerheads number in the hundreds of thousands, and therefor e smaller pelagic stage individua ls would occur in similar or even greater numbers.

Recent studies (Conant et al. 2009; Merric k et al. 2008; NMFS-SEFSC 2009a; NMFS and USFWS 2008; TEWG 2009; With erington et al. 2009)] have a ll concluded that loggerhead nesting and adult female populations in the western North Atlantic are in decline and likely to continue to decline, as detailed previously, mo re recent analyses have indicated that the trend may have stabilized (NMFS and USFWS 2010). As discussed in Section 3 and TEWG (2009),
there is information on increases of abundance in some juvenile age classes, which makes an assessment of overall population tren ds more difficult. The populati on is clearly not at a stable age distribution, given past populati on perturbations. It is possible that observed declines may be transitory effects, which will be compensated for by a wave of recruitment, which may be what we are seeing with the latest data. However, the fact remains that NMFS-SEFSC (2009b), even though it was completed prior to nesting data from 2008-2010, is still the most comprehensive demographic model to date and predicted that a continued decline in the total population is likely, given our present knowledge of loggerhead lif e history parameters. Therefore, we believe
a conservative assessment of the NWA DPS is to consider the effects of the action as if the population is still in an over all minor declining trend.

Despite the recently observed decline of the NWA DPS, its total population remains large. Adult female population size is cons ervatively estimated, based on th e minimum nesting year of 2007, in the range of 20,000 to 40,000. The adult male popul ation would be similar. Benthic juveniles
number into the hundreds of thousands. We beli eve the currently large population is still under the threat of possible future decline until large mo rtality reductions in fisheries and other sources of mortality (including impacts outside U.S. jurisd iction) are achieved and/or the impacts of past protection and conservation efforts are realized within the population. Howeve r, over at least the next several decades, we expect the NWA populati on of adult females to remain large and to retain the potential for recovery. The effects of the proposed action will have an instantaneous effect on the overall size of the population, whic h we believe will remain sufficiently large for
several decades to come even if the population were still in a mi nor decline, and the action will not measurably reduce the size of the populatio n, cause the populati on to lose genetic heterogeneity or broad demographic representa tion, impede successful reproduction, nor affect loggerheads’ ability to meet their life cycle requirements, including reproduction, sustenance,
and shelter.129 The Services’ recovery plan for the NWA popul ation of the loggerhead turtle (NMFS and USFWS 2008) which is the same population of turtles as the NWA DPS, provides additional explanation of the goals and vi sion for recovery for this popu lation. The objectives of the recovery plan most pertinent to the threats po sed by the proposed action are numbers 1 and 2:

 Ensure that the number of nests in each recove ry unit is increasing and that this increase corresponds to an increase in th e number of nesting females.

 Ensure the in-water abundance of juveniles in both neritic and oceanic habitats is increasing and is increasing at a greater rate than strandings of similar age classes.

Recovery objective 1, “Ensure that the number of nests in each recovery unit is increasing...,” is the plan’s overarching objective and has associat ed demographic criteria. Currently, none of the plan’s criteria are being met, but the plan acknow ledges that it will take 50-150 years to do so. Further reduction of multiple th reats throughout the North Atlantic , Gulf of Mexico, and Greater Caribbean will be needed for strong, positive population growth, following implementation of more of the plan’s actions. Although any con tinuing mortality in what might be an already declining population can a ffect the potential for population grow th, we believe the effects of the proposed action would not impede or prevent achieving this recovery objective over the anticipated 50-150 year time frame.

Recovery objective 2, “Ensure the in-water abund ance of juveniles in bot h neritic and oceanic habitats is increasing and is increasing at a greater rate than strandings of similar age classes.” Currently, there are not enough data to determine if this objective is being met. The NWA DPS nesting trend for loggerhead sea turtles remains slightly negative, although as mentioned above the trend has likely stabilized. Overall, loggerhe ad populations have a long way to go before the population decline is reversed a nd numerical increases in popul ation meet the goals of the recovery plan. As with recovery objective 1 above, continuing mort ality in what might still be a declining population resulting from the proposed action would not impede or prevent achieving this recovery objective over the anti cipated 50-150 year time frame.

We believe that the proposed action is not reason ably expected to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of recovery of the NWA DPS of loggerheads. Recovery is the process of removing threats so self-sustaining populations persist in the wild. The proposed action would not impede progress on achieving the identified relevant recovery objectives or achieving the overall recovery strategy.130 7.2 Green Sea Turtles

The maximum potential lethal take of 3 green sea tu rtles is a reduction in numbers. These lethal takes would also result in a pot ential reduction in future reprod uction, assuming some individuals
would be females and would have survived otherw ise to reproduce. For example, an adult green sea turtle can lay 1-7 clutches (usually 2-3) of eggs every 2 to 4 years, with 110-115 eggs/nest of which a small percentage is expected to survive to sexual maturity. Green sea turtles are highly migratory, and individuals from all Atlantic nesting populations may ra nge throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and Caribbean Sea. While the potential lethal take and relocation of turtles captured in trawls would result in a displacement of individuals from important developmental habitat, the loss is not significant in terms of local, regional , or global distribution as a whole. The majority of reproductive effort for green sea turtles comes from Florida and the Florida population distribution would be expected to remain the same. Therefore, we believe the anticipated impacts will not aff ect the species’ distribution.

Whether the reductions in numbers and repr oduction of green sea turtles species would appreciably reduce the species’ li kelihood of survival depends on the probable effect the changes in numbers and reproduction would have on current population sizes and trends.

The 5-year status review for green sea turtles states that of th e seven green sea turtle nesting
concentrations in the Atlantic Basin for which ab undance trend information is available, all were determined to be either stable or increasing (N MFS and USFWS 2007a). That review also states that the annual nesting female population in the Atlantic basin ranges from 29,243-50,539 individuals. Additionally, the pattern of green sea turtle ne sting shows biennial peaks in abundance, with a generally pos itive trend during the ten year s of regular monitoring since
establishment of index beaches in Florida in 1989. An average of 5,039 green turtle nests were laid annually in Florida between 2001 and 2006 w ith a low of 581 in 2001 and a high of 9,644 in 2005 (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). Data from the index nesting beaches program in Florida
substantiate the dramatic increa se in nesting. In 2007, there were 9,455 green turtle nests found just on index nesting beaches, the highest sin ce index beach monitoring began in 1989. The number fell back to 6,385 in 2008, further dropping under 3,000 in 2009, but that consecutive drop was a temporary deviation from the normal bi ennial nesting cycle for green turtles, as 2010 saw an increase back to 8,426 nests on the i ndex nesting beaches (FWC Index Nesting Beach Survey Database). Modeling by Chaloupka et al. (2008) using data sets of 25 years or more resulted in an estimate of the Tortuguero, Costa Rica, population gr owing at 4.9 percent annually.

For a population to remain stable, sea turtle s must replace themselves through successful reproduction at least once over the course of their reproductive liv es, and at least one offspring must survive to reproduce itself. If the hatchling survival rate to maturity is greater than the mortality rate of the population, the loss of breeding individuals would be exceeded through recruitment of new breeding individuals from su ccessful reproduction of non- taken sea turtles. Since the abundance trend information for green sea turtles is clearly increasing, we believe the lethal interactions attributed to the proposed ac tion will not have any measurable effect on that trend. Therefore, we conclude the proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of green sea turtles in the wild.131 The Recovery plan for the population of Atla ntic green sea turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1991) lists the following relevant recovery objectiv es over a period of 25 continuous years:

 The level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at least 6 years;

- Status: Green sea turtle nesting in Fl orida between 2001-2006 was documented as follows: 2001 – 581 nests, 2002 – 9,201 nests, 2003 – 2,622, 2004 – 3,577 nests, 2005 – 9,644 nests, 2006 – 4,970 nests. Th is averages 5,039 nests annually over those 6 years (2001-2006) (NMFS and US FWS 2007a). Subsequent nesting has shown even higher average numbers (i.e., 2007 – 9,455 nest, 2008 – 6,385, 2009 – 3, 000, 2010 – 8,426 nests, 2011 – 10,701), thus, this recovery criterion continues to
be met.

 A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging grounds.

- Status: Several actions are being taken to address this objective; however, there are currently no estimates available specifi cally addressing changes in abundance of individuals on foraging grounds. Given the clear increases in nesting, however, it is likely that numbers on foraging grounds have increased by at least the same amount. This opinion’s effects analysis assumes that in-water abundance has increased at the same rate as Tortuguero nesting.

Lethal interactions of green s ea turtles attributed to the propos ed action are not likely to reduce population numbers over time due to current popula tion sizes, nesting increases and expected recruitment. Thus, the proposed action is not like ly to impede the recovery objectives above and will not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of green sea turtles’ recovery in the
wild.

7.3 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtles

The maximum potential lethal take of 1 Kemp’s ridl ey sea turtle is a reduction in numbers. This lethal take would also result in a potential reduction in future reproduction, assuming some
individuals would be females and would have su rvived otherwise to reproduce. For example, females lay approximately 2.5 nests per season with each nest containing approximately 100 eggs, though only a small percentage is expected to survive to sexual maturity. Kemp’s ridleys are wide ranging throughout the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast, and while the potential lethal take would result in a displacem ent of individuals from important developmental habitat, the loss is not significant in terms of th e species’ rangewide distribution as a whole.

The proposed action’s reductions in numbers and reproduction would reduce the species’ population compared to the number that would have been present in the absence of the proposed action, assuming all other variables remained the same. Whether the reductions in numbers and reproduction of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles sp ecies would appreciabl y reduce this species’ likelihood of survival depends on the probable ef fect the changes in numbers and reproduction would have on current population sizes and trends.132 Heppell et al. (2005) predicted in a population mode l that the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle population is expected to increase at least 12-16 percent per year and that the populati on could attain at least 10,000 females nesting on Mexico beaches by 20 15. NMFS et al. (2011) contains an updated model which predicts that the popu lation is expected to increase 19 percent per year and that the population could attain at least 10,000 females nesting on Mexico beaches by 2011. Approximately 25,000 nests would be needed fo r an estimate of 10,000 nesters on the beach, based on an average 2.5 nests/nesting female. In 2009 the population was on track with 21,144 nests, but an unexpected and as yet unexplai ned drop in nesting occurred in 2010 (13,302), deviating from the NMFS et al. (2011) model predic tion. A subsequent increase to 20,570 nests in 2011 occurred. Though we will not know if the population is continuing the recovery trajectory and timeline predicted by the model until future nesting data is available, there is nothing to indicate the trend of increases in this species’ population will cease.

The recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (NMFS et al. 2011) lists the following relevant recovery objectives:

 A population of at least 10,000 nesting fema les in a season (as measured by clutch frequency per female per season) distribute d at the primary nesting beaches (Rancho Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Playa Dos) in Mexi co is attained. Me thodology and capacity to implement and ensure accurate nesting female counts have been developed

.

The recovery plan states average nests per fe male is 2.5 and sets a recovery goal of 10,000 nesting females that would be represented by 25 ,000 nests in a season. As discussed above, nesting levels had been steadily increasing to a high of 21,144 nests in 2009, exhibited a
substantial decline in 20 10, but rebounded markedly in 2011 to 20,570 nests. The lethal take of 1 Kemp’s ridleys by the proposed action will not aff ect the overall level or trend in adult female nesting population numbers or number of nests per nesting season. T hus, the proposed action will not result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle recovery
in the wild.

7.4 Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat

This section analyzes the effects of this action, in the context of the status of the critical habitat,
the environmental baseline and cumulative effect s, to determine whether the adverse effects are likely to destroy or adversely modify smalltooth sa wfish critical habitat. When determining the potential impacts to critical habitat this biol ogical opinion does not rely on the regulatory
definition of "destruction or adve rse modification" of critical ha bitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead we have relied upon the statutory pr ovisions of the ESA to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. Ultimately, we seek to determine if, with the implementation of the proposed action, critical habitat would remain functional (or reta in the current ability for the essential features to be functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species. Thus, we evaluate whether the essential features will continue to provide juvenile smalltooth sawfish with nursery habitat functi ons after implementation of the proposed action and whether the project will impede (i.e., dela y or limit) the conservation of the smalltooth
sawfish.133 NMFS designated critical habitat to protect juvenile nursery areas and assist in the recovery of the species by facilitating recr uitment into the adult population. Impacts to designated critical habitat have the potential to further destabilize rec overy efforts and stymie chances for recovery. The recovery strategy in the smalltooth sawfish recovery plan focused on three main objectives (1) minimize human interactions and associated injury and mortality; (2) protect and/or restore smalltooth sawfish habitats; and (3) ensure smal ltooth sawfish abundance increases substantially and the species reoccupies areas from which it had previously been extirpated (NMFS 2009).

The proposed action will result in a permanent lo ss of designated critical habitat. Because critical habitat is designated to facilitate th e conservation of the species, we must evaluate
whether this loss of habitat w ould interfere with the conserva tion objective of the designated critical habitat – that is, facilitation of juveni le recruitment into a recovering adult population. The Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan states that each of nine recovery regions counts toward the downlisting and delisting criteria to ensure the species is viable in the long-term and can maintain genetic diversity (NMFS 2009). For th e three recovery regions with remaining highquality juvenile habitat (recovery regions G, H, and I in southwest Florida; the CHEU is in recovery region G), juvenile hab itats must be maintained and e ffectively protected over the long term at or above 95 percent of the acreage availa ble at the time of listing, which occurred in April 2003. In recovery region G, the recovery objectives also require that the relative abundance of small juvenile sawfish (< 200-cm STL) either increases at an average annual rate of at least 5 percent over a 27-ye ar period, or juvenile abundance is at greater than 80 percent of the carrying capacity of the recovery region.

We estimated that 5.17 acres of the shallow, eury haline essential feature w ill be permanently lost
and cease to function as critical habitat due to seawall installation authorized under SAJ-91, based on the number authorized during the last fi ve years (see Section 3.1.2 and Section 5.2). As discussed in Section 2.7, we assume that this number could increase up to 10 percent over the next five years. Therefore, we estimate that approxima tely 5.69 acres of shallow, euryhaline habitat may be lost over the next five years.

As of 2003, the amount of shallow, euryhaline ha bitat in the CHEU alon e was estimated to be 84,480 acres (132 square miles) and the amount of red mangrove shor eline is 5,512,320 linear feet (1,044 miles), based on remote sensing data fr om Florida Wildlife Research Institute . At
the time of smalltooth sawfish critical habita t designation in 2009, our estimate of the current average loss of essential feat ures (red mangrove/shallow, euryha line habitat) was approximately 0.40 acre per year, based on USACE project a pplications between 2007 and 2009. Since the time of critical habitat listing in 2009 to October 16, 2012, NMFS has completed Section 7 consultations on projects that have resulted in the total loss of approximately 8.88 acres of shallow, euryhaline habitat and 4,907 linear feet of red mangrove shoreline. These total losses translate into annual rates of loss of approximate ly 2.96 acres of shallow, euryhaline habitat and 1,636 linear feet of red mangrove shoreline. A ccording to the recovery plan objectives, 95 percent of this habi tat (approximately 80,256 acres of sh allow, euryhaline habitat and 5,236,704 linear feet of red mangrove) must be maintained a nd effectively protected to facilitate recovery of the sawfish. This requirement is premised on the fact that, although the CHEU is part of the larger recovery region G, designated critical ha bitat is currently the only area in which nursery
areas have been established a nd are being protected specifica lly for that purpose. The134 authorization of seawall installa tion projects under SAJ-91 would result in the loss of 5.69 acres of shallow, euryhaline essential features and wo uld not interfere with ac hieving this recovery objective.

Assessment of impacts of the project on the ot her relevant recovery objective, juvenile abundance, is made difficult by the state of avai lable data. Because smalltooth sawfish critical habitat was recently designated in 2009 and the smalltooth sawfish recovery plan was also released in 2009, studies needed to assess some aspects of the recovery plan have just begun. Given the limited duration (3 years) of a current study to assess annual rate s of increase within recovery regions G, H, I, and J, there is not enough data to discern the trend in juvenile abundance within the recovery region. Though speci es abundance is genera lly linked to habitat availability, the permanent loss of 5.69 acres of the shallow, euryhaline essential feature of critical is not likely to impede the 5 percent annual growth ma ndate for the juvenile population within recovery region G. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the proposed action’s adverse
effects on the essential features of smalltooth sawfish critical ha bitat will not impede achieving the recovery objectiv es listed above.

7.5 Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat

This section also analyzes the eff ects of this action, in the context of the status of the critical habitat, the environmental baseline and cumulativ e effects, to determine whether the adverse effects are likely to destroy or adversely m odify Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat.

Critical habitat determinations focus on those phy sical and biological feat ures (called “essential features”) that are essential to the conservati on of the species. The ESA defines “conservation” as the use of all methods and procedures that ar e necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary – when a species is judged to be recovered. Recovery of this spec ies, as described in the recovery plan, will be achieved when the following conditions are met (1) the species’ present geographic range remains stable for at least 10 years or increa ses; (2) self-sustaini ng populations are present throughout the range at distances le ss than or equal to the maxi mum dispersal distance to allow for stable vegetative recruitment and gene tic diversity; a nd (3) populations and supporting habitat in its geographic range have long-term protection (thr ough regulatory action or purchase acquisition). The essential features of Johnson' s seagrass critical habita t are adequate water quality, adequate salinity levels, adequate wa ter transparency, and stable, unconsolidated sediments that are free from phys ical disturbance. Therefor e, our destruction/adverse modification analysis evaluates whether the adve rse effects to the cri tical habitat essential features will impede achieving these recovery objectives.

In Section 5, NMFS determined that 25,600 square feet (0.59 acre) of desi gnated critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass will be permanently lost due to impacts associated with the placement of pilings and from shading by the vessel, based on the number of docks authorized during the last five years. As discussed in Section 2.7, we a ssume that this number could increase up to 10 percent over the next five years due to fluctuations in the economy. Therefore, we estimate that 28,160 square feet (0.65 acre) of designated cr itical habitat for Johnson's seagrass will be permanently lost over the next five years.135 These effects will not reduce or destabilize the present range of Johnson’s seagrass. There are thousands of acres of unaffected designated crit ical habitat for Johnson’ s seagrass exist along the
east coast of Florida between Sebastian Inlet an d Biscayne Bay that will be unaffected by this action. The proposed project will not disturb designated critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass outside the action area of each individual proj ect, and the potential for a self-sustaining population of Johnson’s seagrass is not being rem oved from this critical habitat unit. This project will not affect the long-te rm protection of the species or its designated critical habitat elsewhere. Though small sections of each of the individual projec t site authorized under these general permits will not be available for long-term protection as described in recovery objective (3), thousands of acres of designated critical ha bitat are still available for long-term protection. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the proposed actio n’s adverse effects on the essential features of Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat will not impede achieving the recovery objectives listed
above.

8. Conclusion

Using the best available data, we analyzed the e ffects of the proposed acti on in the context of the status of the species, the envir onmental baseline, and cumulative effects, and determined that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existen ce of green, Kemp’s ridley or the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles. Th ese analyses focused on the impacts to, and population responses of, sea turtles in the Atlantic basin. However, the impact of the effects of the proposed action on Atlantic s ea turtle populations must be ex trapolated to impacts to sea turtles throughout its global rang e, as the species is listed. Because the proposed action will not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of a ny Atlantic populations of sea turtles, it is our opinion that the proposed action is also not likely to jeopardiz e the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, or green sea turtles.

After reviewing the current status of smalltoot h sawfish critical habitat, the environmental baseline, the effects of the propos ed actions, and the cumulative eff ects, it is our opinion that the authorization of these genera l permits and the removal of approximately 5.69 acres of the shallow, euryhaline essential feature of critical habitat will not impede the critical habitat’s ability to support the sm alltooth sawfishes’ conservation, desp ite permanent adverse effects. Given the nature of the project and the informa tion provided above, we c oncludes that the action, as proposed, is likely to advers ely affect but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. Because the proposed action will not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of smalltooth sawfish, it is our opinion that the propos ed action is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify smalltooth sawfish critical
habitat.

After reviewing the current status of Johnson’s seagrass critical habita t, the environmental baseline, the effects of the propos ed actions, and the cumulative eff ects, it is our opinion that the authorization of these general permits and the removal of appr oximately 0.65 acre of Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat will not impede the cr itical habitat’s ability to support the Johnson’s seagrass conservation, despite permanent adverse eff ects. Given the nature of the project and the information provided above, we concludes that the action, as proposed, is likely to adversely affect but is not likely to dest roy or adversely modify Johnson’ s seagrass critical habitat.136 Because the proposed action will no t reduce the likelihood of surviv al and recovery of Johnson’s seagrass, it is our opinion that th e proposed action is likel y to adversely affect but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Johns on’s seagrass critical habitat.

It is important to note that th e conclusions drawn in this op inion are based on a series of assumptions (see Section 2.7). Because a programmatic by nature covers future actions that have not been specifically identified, the analysis is based on the actions that occurred during the last five years and a prediction that actions in the next five years will be the same plus a potential increase of 10 percent, as discu ssed in the assumptions and the je opardy analysis (see Section 7). A series of assumptions are made based on the be st available data, PDCs are in place to define the limits of the action (see Secti on 2.3), and Tier II reporting is required to evaluate that the activities authorized meet the assumptions made and that the effects are consistent with the analysis in this opinion (see S ection 2.4). If the assumptions ar e inaccurate or the effects are outside of the scope of this opi nion, that consultation must be reinitiated. This determination
will be made at the Tier II review between the USACE and NMFS.

9. Incidental Take Statement

NMFS acknowledges that 7 turtles may be injured or killed through an increase in vessel traffic from these general permits. Construction of docks and boat authorized under these general permits is under the jurisdiction of the USAC E but the vessel traffic resulting from this construction is not under the jurisdic tion of the USACE. Therefore, no take is authorized. If any takes of species under NMFs’ purview are taken during in-water constr uction authorized under these general permits, it shall be immediately reported to takereport.nmfsser@noaa.gov , refer to the present biological opinion by title, issue da te, NMFS Public Consultation Tracking System identifier number (P/SER/2011/01939), and the USACE permit number related to the specific general permit that authorized the activit y, and consultation must be reinitiated.

10. Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conser vation programs for th e benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discreti onary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critica l habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

NMFS believes the following conservation reco mmendations are reasonable, necessary, and appropriate to conserve and rec over sea turtles, sma lltooth sawfish critical habitat and Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat. NMFS strongly recommends that these measures be considered and adopted. In order for us to be kept informed of actions minimizi ng or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed species or thei r habitats, we request notificati on of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.137 Noise:
1. Determine ambient noise levels in a variety of in-water settings th roughout the state of Florida. For instance, determine the ambient noise level in a man-ma de residential canal compared to the open water environments like the Caloosahatchee River in CHEU. These could be compared to noise levels in other ri vers like the St. Johns and other estuaries like Tampa Bay.

2. Pile Driving: To better understand the cumulative effects of noise pile driving activities, the USACE should conduct an independent study to characterize all aspects of noise-producing construction activities (such as pile driving) in the state of Florida. The study should characterize both specific sources of noise, as well as ambient noise measurements in various areas throughout Florida. Major noise- producing activit ies should be identified and
measurements of noise from these activities shou ld be recorded and reported in appropriate units of measurement (peak levels, SELCUM, RM S, etc.) to estimate the acoustic footprint of the activities, duration, fre quency, and relative contribution to ambient noise levels in the state of Florida. Methodologies of field m easurements should be should be coordinated with NMFS personnel. Such data would help quantify the relative contribution of pile driving on ambient noise levels, compared to other known sources, and conduct cumulative impact analyses in the Florida waters. Followi ng completion of such a study, the USACE should hold a joint USACE/NMFS workshop with industry representatives to cooperatively discuss the results of the study and identify any tec hnology- or method-base d recommendations to reduce ambient noise in the marine environment, and any other future actions that may be necessary to reduce noise impacts from in -water construction activities in Florida.

Sea Turtles
1. Provide all applicants applyi ng for a USACE permit involving docks or boat ramps with
information about the risk of vessel strikes to turtles. This should also include contact information for the sea turtle stranding network.

2. Require all multi-family or government docks be pos ted with signs about the risk of sea turtle
vessel strikes and contact information fo r the sea turtle stranding network.

Smalltooth Sawfish Critical Habitat
1. Continue public outreach and education on sma lltooth sawfish and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, in an effort to minimize in teractions, injury, and mortality.

2. Provide funding to conduct directed research on smalltooth sawfish that will help further our understanding about the species, i.e., implem ent a relative abundance monitoring program which will help define how spatial and temporal variability in the physical and biological environment influence smalltooth sawfish, in an effort to predict long-term changes in smalltooth sawfish distribution, abundance, extent, and timing of movements.

3. Conduct or support surveys to he lp acquire detailed bathym etry and mangrove coverage
within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.138 4. Continue to request the removal of existing riprap from future seawall restoration/replacement projects within smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.

5. Provide funding to conduct directed research in an effort to develop new technology to support vertical seawalls other th an riprap (e.g., living seawalls th at incorporate mangroves).

Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat
1. NMFS recommends that the USACE conduct and s upport monitoring to assess trends in the
distribution and abundance of J ohnson’s seagrass. Data collec ted should be contributed to
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm ission’s Florida Wildlife Research Institute to support ongoing GIS mapping of Johnson’ s and other seagrass distribution.

2. NMFS recommends that the USACE, in coordina tion with seagrass researchers and industry, support ongoing research on light requirements a nd transplanting techniques to preserve and restore Johnson’s seagrass.

11. Reinitiation of Consultation

As provided in 50 CFR Section 402.16, reinitiation of formal c onsultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or cont rol over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) new information re veals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an ex tent not previously considered, (2) 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 biological opinion, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be a ffected by the identified action.

12. Literature Cited Abrego, D., M. J. H. van Oppen, and B. L. W illis. 2009. Highly infectious symbiont dominates initial uptake in coral juvenile s. Molecular Ecology (18):3518-3531.

Acevedo, R. 1991. Preliminary observations on eff ects of pesticides ca rbaryl, naphthol, and chlorpyrifos on planulae of the hermatypic co ral Pocillopora damicornis. Pacific Science 45(3):287-289.

Ackerman, R. A. 1997. The nest environment and embryonic development of sea turtles. . Pages

432 in P. L. Lutz, and J. A. Musick, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, New
York.

Adam, T. C., and coauthors. 2011. Herbivor y, Connectivity, and Ecosystem Resilience: Response of a Coral Reef to a Large-Scale Perturbation. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23717.

Addison, D. S. 1997. Sea turtle nesting on Cay Sa l, Bahamas, recorded June 2-4, 1996. Bahamas
Journal of Science 5:34-35.

Addison, D. S., and B. Morford. 1996. Sea turtle nesting activity on the Cay Sal Bank, Bahamas.
Bahamas Journal of Science 3:31-36.139 Adey, W. H. 1977. Shallow water Holocene bioher ms of the Caribbean Sea and West Indies. Pages 21–24 in D. L. Taylor, editor Proceedings of the 3rd International Coral Reef Symposium. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, FL.

Adey, W. H. 1978. Coral reef morphogene sis: a multidimensional model. Science 202(4370):831-837.

Adey, W. H., I. G. Macintyre, R. Stuckenrath, and R. F. Dill. 1977. Relict barrier reef system of St. Croix: its implications with respect to late Cenozoic coral reef development in the western Atlantic. Pages 15-21 in D. L. Taylor, editor Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef Symposium, Miami, FL.

Adey, W. H., and R. S. Steneck. 1985. Highly pr oductive eastern Caribbea n reefs: synergistic effects of biological, chemical, physi cal and geological factors. Pages 163–187 in M. L. Reaka, editor. The ecology of coral reefs, volume 3. NOAA Undersea Research Program, Rockville, MD.

Adjeroud, M. 1997. Factors influencing spatial patterns on coral reefs around Moorea, French Polynesia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 159:105-119.

Adjeroud, M., and coauthors. 2009. Recurrent large- scale disturbances, rec overy trajectories, and resilience of coral assemblages on a coral reef in the South Central Pacific reef. Coral Reefs 28(3):775-780.

Adjeroud, M., and M. Tsuchiya. 1 999. Genetic variation and clonal st ructure in the scleractinian
coral Pocillopora damicornis in the Ryukyu Archipelago, southern Japan. Marine Biology 134(4):753-759.

Aeby, G. S. 2005. Outbreak of coral disease in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Coral Reefs 24(3):481.

Aeby, G. S. 2006. Baseline levels of coral diseas e in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll
Research Bulletin 543:471-488.

Aeby, G. S., and D. L. Santavy. 2006. Factor s affecting susceptib ility of the coral Montastraea faveolata to black-band disease. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318:103-110.

Aeby, G. S., and coauthors. 2011a. Growth Anoma lies on the Coral Genera Acropora and Porites Are Strongly Associated with Host Density and Human Population Size across the IndoPacific. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16887.

Aeby, G. S., and coauthors. 2011b. Patterns of Co ral Disease across the Hawaiian Archipelago: Relating Disease to Environment. PLoS ONE 6(5):e20370.

Aeby, G. S., T. Work, S. Coles, and T. Lewis. 2006. Coral disease across the Hawaiian archipelago. American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., N. W. Washington DC 20009 USA, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.140 Afzal, D., A. Harborne, and P. Raines. 2001. Su mmary of Coral Cay Conservation's fish and coral species lists compiled in Utila , Honduras. Coral Cay Conservation.

Agassiz, A. 1883. Explorations of the surface fauna of the Gulf Stream, under the auspices of the United States Coast Survey. II The Tortugas and Florida Reefs. Mem Acad Arts Sci
Centennial 2:107—132.

Agegian, C. 1985. The biogeochemical ecology of Porolithon gardineri (Foslie). University of
Hawai'i.

Aguilar, R., J. Mas, and X. Pastor. 1995. Impact of Spanish swordfish longline fisheries on the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, population in the we stern Mediterranean. Pages 1 in 12th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Jeky ll Island, Georgia.

Ainsworth, T. D., and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 2009. Bacterial communities clos ely associated with coral tissues vary under experimental and na tural reef conditions and thermal stress. Aquatic Biology 4(3):289-296.

Ainsworth, T. D., and coauthors. 2011. Defining the tipping point. A complex cellular life/death balance in corals in response to stress. Scientific Reports 1.

Amos, A. F. 1989. The occurrence of hawksbills Er etmochelys imbricata along the Texas coast. Pages 9-11 in S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, a nd T.H. Richardson, compilers. Proceedings of the ninth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biology. NOAA technical
memorandum NMFS/SEFC-232.

Antonelis, G. A., J. D. Baker, T. C. Johanos, R. C. Braun, and A. L. Harting. 2006. Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi): status and conservation issues. Atoll Research
Bulletin 543:75-101.

Arendt, M., and coauthors. 2009. Examination of lo cal movement and migratory behavior of sea turtles during spring and summer along the Atla ntic Coast off the Southeastern United States. . South Carolina Depa rtment of Natural Resources.

Avens, L., and L. R. Goshe. 2007. Skeletochr onological analysis of age and growth for
leatherback sea turtles in the we stern North Atlantic. Pages 233 in M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A. F. Rees, and K. Williams, editors. Twenty-seventh Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. . In ternational Sea Turtle Society, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA. .

Baker, J. D., C. L. Littnan, and D. W. Johnst on. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the
terrestrial habitats of enda ngered and endemic megafauna on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. . Endangered Species Research 2:21-30.

Balazs, G. 1982. Growth rates of immature gree n turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Pages

117-125 in K. A. Bjorndal, editor. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.141 Balazs, G. H. 1983. Recovery records of adult gree n turtles observed or originally tagged at French Frigate Shoals, northwestern Ha waiian Islands. NMFS, Washington, D.C.; Springfield, VA.

Balazs, G. H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on mari ne turtles: entanglemen t and ingestion. R. S. Shomura, and H. O. Yoshida, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris . NOAA-NMFS, Honolulu, HI.

Barnette, M. C. 2009. Threats a nd Effects Analysis for Protect ed Resources on Vessel Traffic
Associated with Dock and Marina Construction. Pages 13 in D. Bernhart, editor, St Petersburg.

Bass, A. L., and coauthors. 1996. Testing models of female reproductive migratory behaviour and population structure in the Caribbean hawk sbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, with mtDNA sequences. Molecular Ecology 5(3):321-328.

Baughman, J. L. 1943. Notes on Sawfish, Pristis pe rotteti Müller and Henle, Not Previously Reported from the Waters of the Un ited States. Copeia 1943(1):43-48.

Bigelow, H. B., and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Sawfishes, guitarfishes, skates, and rays. J. TeeVan, C. M. Breder, A. E. Parr, W. C. Schroede r, and L. P. Schultz, editors. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic, Pa rt Two. Sears Foundation.

Bjorndal, K. A. 1982. The consequences of herbivor y for the life history pa ttern of the Caribbean green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Pages 111-116 In: Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and
Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

Bjorndal, K. A. 1997. Foraging ecolo gy and nutrition of sea turtles. P. L. Lutz, and J. A. Musick, editors. The Biology of Sea Tu rtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten, and M. Y. Chaloupka. 2005. Evaluating trends in abundance of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in the Greater Caribbean. Ecological Applications 15(1):304-314.

Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten, and Southeast Fi sheries Science Center (U.S.). 2000. Proceedings of a workshop on Assessing Abundance and Trends for In-Water Sea Turtle Populations :
held at the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research Univer sity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 24-26 March 2000. U.S. Departme nt of commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Na tional Marine Fisheries Se rvice, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Fla.

Bjorndal, K. A., J. A. Wetherall, A. B. Bolte n, and J. A. Mortimer. 1999. Twenty-Six Years of Green Turtle Nesting at To rtuguero, Costa Rica: An Enc ouraging Trend. Conservation Biology 13(1):126-134.

Bolten, A. B., K. A. Bjorndal, and H. R. Martin s. 1994. Life history model for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) popul ations in the Atlantic: Poten tial impacts of a longline fishery. U.S. Department of Commerce.142 Bolten, A. B., and coauthors. 1998. Transatlantic developmental migrations of loggerhead sea turtles demonstrated by mtDNA sequence anal ysis. Ecological A pplications 8:1-7.

Bolten, A. B., and B. E. Witherington. 2003. Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.

Bouchard, S., and coauthors. 1998. Effects of Expos ed Pilings on Sea Turtle Nesting Activity at Melbourne Beach, Florida. Journa l of Coastal Research 14:1343-1347.

Boulan, R. H., Jr. 1983. Some notes on the popula tion biology of green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles in the northern U.S. Virgin Islands: 1981- 1983. Report to the National Marine Fish eries Service, Grant No. NA82-GA-A-00044.

Boulon, R. H., Jr. 1994. Growth Rates of Wild Juvenile Hawksbill Turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, in St. Thomas, United Stat es Virgin Islands. Copeia 1994(3):811-814.

Bowen, B. W., and coauthors. 1992. Global Popul ation Structure and Na tural History of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Terms of Matriarchal Phylogeny. Evolution 46:865-

881.

Bowen, B. W., W. N. Witzell, and Southeast Fi sheries Science Center (U.S.). 1996. Proceedings of the International Sympos ium on Sea Turtle Conservation Genetics, 12-14 September 1995, Miami, Florida. U.S. Dept. of Comm erce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Serv ice, Southeast Fisher ies Science Center, Miami, Fla.

Brautigram, A., and K. L. Eckert. 2006. Turning th e tide: Exploitation, trade, and management of marine turtles in the Lesser Antilles, Central America, Colombia and Venezuela. TRAFFIC International, Ca mbridge, United Kingdom.

Bresette, M. J., D. Singewald, and E. D. Maye . 2006. Recruitment of post-pelagic green turtles (Chelonia mydas) to nearshor e reefs on Florida’s east coast. Page 288 In: Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (compile rs). Book of Abstracts. Twenty-sixth annual symposium on sea turtle biology a nd conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece.

Caldwell, D. K., and A. Carr. 1957. Status of th e sea turtle fishery in Florida. Pages 457-463 in
Transactions of the 22nd North American Wildlife Conference.

Caldwell, S. 1990. Texas sawfish: Which way did they go? Tide Jan.-Feb.:16-19.

CALTRANS. 2007. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data. Report prepared by Illinworth and Rodkin, Inc.

CALTRANS. 2009. Technical Guidance for Assessm ent and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish, Sacremento.143 Campbell, C. L., and C. J. Lagueux. 2005. Survival probability estimates fo r large juvenile and adult green turtles (Chelonia mydas) exposed to an artisanal marine turtle fishery in the
western Caribbean. He rpetologica 61(2).

Carballo, A. Y., C. Olabarria, and T. Ga rza Osuna. 2002. Analysis of four macroalgal assemblages along the Pacific Mexican co ast during and after the 1997-98 El Niño. Ecosystems 5(8 ):749-760.

Carillo, E., G. J. W. Webb, and S. C. Manolis. 1999. Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata)
in Cuba: an assessment of the historical harv est and its impacts. Chel. Cons. Biol. 3:264-

280.

Carlson, J. K., and J. Osborne. 2012. Re lative Abundance of Smalltooth Sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ) based on the Everglades National Park Creel Survey, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-626.

Carlson, J. K., J. Osborne, and T. W. Schmid t. 2007. Monitoring the recovery of smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinat a, using standardized relative indices of abundance. Biological Conservation 136(2):195-202.

Carr, A. 1984. So Excellent a Fishe. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Carr, A. 1986. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nation al Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Panama City Laboratory, Panama City, Fla.

Casper, B. M., P. S. Lobel, and H. Y. Yan. 200 3. The Hearing Sensitivity of the Little Skate, (Raja erinacea): A Comparison of Two Met hods. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68(4):371-379.

Chaloupka, M., and G. Balazs. 2007. Using Baye sian state-space modelling to assess the recovery and harvest potential of the Ha waiian green sea turtle stock. Ecological Modelling 205(1-2):93-109.

Chaloupka, M., and C. Limpus. 1997. Robust statisti cal modeling of hawksbill sea turtle growth rates (southern Great Barrier Reef). . Marine Ecology Progress Series 146: 1-8.

Chaloupka, M., and C. Limpus. 2005. Estimates of sex- and age-class-specific survival probabilities for a southern Great Barrier Reef green sea turt le population. Marine Biology 146(6):1251-1261.

Chaloupka, M., C. Limpus, and J. Miller. 2004. Gr een turtle somatic growth dynamics in a spatially disjunct Great Barrier Reef metapopulation. Coral Reefs 23(3):325-335.

Chaloupka, M., T. M. Work, G. H. Balazs, S. K. K. Murakawa, and R. Morris. 2008. Causespecific temporal and spatial trends in gr een sea turtle strandings in the Hawaiian Archipelago (1982-2003). Marine Biology 154:887-898.144 Chaloupka, M. Y., and J. A. Musick. 1997. Age, growth, and population dynamics. Pages 233-

276 in P. L. Lutz, and J. A. Musick, editors . The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press,

Boca Raton.

Codarin, A., L. E. Wysocki, F. Ladich, and M. Picciulin. 2009. Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin 58(12):1880-1887.

Colburn, T., D. Dumanoski, and J. P. Myers. 1996. Our stolen future. Dutton/ Penguin Books,
New York.

Conant, T. A., and coauthors. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Re port of the Loggerhead Biological Review
Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Crabbe, M. J. 2008. Climate change, global warmi ng and coral reefs: modelling the effects of temperature. Comput Bi ol Chem 32(5):311-4.

Crouse, D. T. 1999. Population modeling implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle management. . Chelonian Conserva tion and Biology 3(2):185-188.

Crouse, D. T., L. B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A Stage-Based Population Model for Loggerhead Sea Turtles and Implications for Conservation. Ecology 68(5):1412-1423.

Crowder, L. B., D. T. Crouse, S. S. Heppell, and T. H. Martin. 1994. Predicting the Impact of Turtle Excluder Devices on Loggerhead Sea Tu rtle Populations. Ecological Applications 4(3):437-445.

Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Daniels, R., T. White, and K. Chapman. 1993. Sea- level rise: Destructi on of threatened and endangered species habitat in South Caro lina. Environmental Management 17(3):373-

385.

Dazey, E., B. McIntosh, S. Brown, and K. M. Dudzinski. 2012. Assessment of Underwater Anthropogenic Noise Associated with Cons truction Activities in Bechers Bay, Santa Rosa Island, California. Journal of Environmental Protection 3(10):1286-1294.

Dellinger, T., and H. Encarnaçâo. 2000. Accidental capture of sea turtles by the fishing fleet based at Madeira Island, Portugal. Pages 218 in H. J. Kalb, and T. Wibbels, editors. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annua l Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.

Díez, C. E., and R. P. v. Dam. 2002. Habitat eff ect on hawksbill turtle growth rates on feeding grounds at Mona and Monito Islands, Puer to Rico. Marine Ecology Progress Series

234:301-309.145 Diez, C. E., and R. P. van Dam. 2007. In-water surveys for marine turtles at foraging grounds of Culebra Archipelago, Puerto Rico Progress Report: FY 2006-2007.

Dodd, C. K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea tu rtle: Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758). Fish and Wild life Service, U.S. Dept. of th e Interior, Washington, D.C.

Doughty, R. W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: a fo rgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 88:43-70.

Dow, W., K. Eckert, M. Palmer, and P. Kramer . 2007. An Atlas of Sea Turtle Nesting Habitat for the Wider Caribbean Region. The Wider Ca ribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network and The Nature Conservancy, Beaufort, North Carolina.

Duque, V. M., V. M. Paez, and J. A. Patino. 2000. Ecología de anidación y conservación de la tortuga cana, Dermochelys coriacea, en la Playona, Golfo de Uraba Chocoano (Colombia), en 1998 Actualidades Biologicas Medell ín 22(72):37-53.

Dutton, P. H., and coauthors. 2008. Composition of Hawaiian green turtle foraging aggregations: mtDNA evidence for a distinct regional populat ion. Endangered Species Research 5:37-

44.

Dutton, P. H., E. Bixby, and S. K. Davis. 1998. Tendency towards single paternity in leatherbacks detected with microsatellites. Pages 39 in F. A. Abreu-Grobois, R. BrisenoDuenas, R. Marquez-Millian, and L. Sarti-Ma rtinez, editors. Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436. Na tional Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL.

Dwyer, K. L., C. E. Ryder, and R. Prescott. 2002. Anthropogenic mortalit y of leatherback sea
turtles in Massachusetts waters. 2002 Northeast Stranding Network Symposium.

Eckert, K. L. 1995. Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Eretmoch elys imbricata. National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Dept. of Comm erce), Silver Spring, MD.

Eckert, K. L., J. A. Overing, B. Lettsome, Caribbean Environment Programme., and Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Recovery Team and Conservation Network. 1992. Sea turtle recovery action plan for the British Virg in Islands. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica.

Eckert, S. A. 1999. Global distribution of juve nile leatherback turtles. Hubbs Sea World Research Institute Technical Report.

Eckert, S. A., K. L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G. L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and foraging
behavior of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Can. J. Zool 67:2834-2840.

Ehrhart, L. M. 1983. Marine Turtles of the I ndian River Lagoon System. Florida Sci. 46:334-

346.146 Ehrhart, L. M., W. E. Redfoot, and D. Bagley. 2007. Marine turtles of th e central region of the Indian River Lagoon system. Florida Sci. 70(4):415-434.

Ehrhart, L. M., and R. G. Yoder. 1978. Marine turtles of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Pages 25-30 in G. E. Henderson, edit or Proceedings of the Florida and Interregiona l Conference on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research
Publications.

Ellison, A. M. 2004. Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecology Letters 7(6):509-520.

EPA. 2012. Climate Change. www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

.

Epperly, S. P. 2003. Fisheries-rela ted mortality and turtle excl uder devices (TEDS). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Epperly, S. P., J. Braun-McNeill, and P. M. Richards. 2007. Trends in the catch rates of sea turtles in North Carolina, U.S.A. Endangered Species Research 3:283-293.

Epperly, S. P., and coauthors. 1995c. Winter distri bution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape
Hatteras and their interactions with the summ er flounder trawl fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 56(2):519-540.

Epperly, S. P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow . 1995b. Sea Turtles in North Carolina Waters. Conservation Biology 9(2):384-394.

Evermann, B. W., and B. A. Bean. 1898. Indian River and its fishes.

Fay, R. R., and A. N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing. Hearing Res earch 149(1-2):1-10.

Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Final, ICF 645.10, ICF International, Seattle, WA.

Fish, M. R., and coauthors. 2005. Predicting the Impact of Sea-Level Rise on Caribbean Sea Turtle Nesting Habitat. Cons ervation Biology 19(2):482-491.

Fitzsimmons, N. N., L. W. Farrington, M. J. McCann, C. J. Limpus, and C. Moritz. 2006. Green turtle populations in the Indo-P acific: a (genetic) view from microsatellites. Pages 111 in N. Pilcher, editor Proceedings of the Tw enty-Third Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536.

Fleming, E. H. 2001. Swimming against the tide: recent surveys of exploitation, trade, and management of marine turtles in the nor thern Caribbean. Traffic North America, Washington, D.C.

Frazer, N. B., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1985. Prelimin ary Growth Models for Green, Chelonia mydas, and Loggerhead, Caretta caretta, Turtles in the Wild. Copeia 1985(1):73-79.147 Fretey, J., A. Billes, and M. Tiwari. 2007. L eatherback, Dermochelys coriacea, Nesting Along
the Atlantic Coast of Africa. Chelon ian Conservation and Biology 6(1):126-129.

Garduno-Andrade, M., V. Guzman, E. Brise no-Duenas, and A. Abreu. 1999. Increases in hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) ne stings in the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (1977-1996): data in support of successful conservation? . Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):286-295.

Garrett, C. 2004. Priority Substances of Interest in the Georgia Basin - Profiles and background
information on current toxics issu es. Technical Supporting Document.

Gavilan, F. M. 2001. Status and di stribution of the loggerhead tur tle, (Caretta ca retta), in the wider Caribbean region. Pages 36-40 in K. L. Eckert, and F. A. Abreu Grobois, editors.
Marine turtle conservation in the wider Caribbean region: a di alogue for effective regional management, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Geraci, J. R. 1990. Physiological and t oxic effects on cetaceans. Pages 167-197 in J. R. Geraci, and D. J. St. Aubin, editors. Sea Mammals and Oil: Confronting the Risks Academic Press, Inc.

Gilman, E. L., J. Ellison, N. C. Duke, and C. Field. 2008. Threats to mangroves from climate change and adaptation options: A re view. Aquatic Botany 89(2):237-250.

Gilmore, G. R. 1995. Environmental and Bioge ographic Factors Infl uencing Ichthyofaunal Diversity: Indian River Lagoon. Bulletin of Marine Science 57(1):153-170.

Girondot, M., A. D. Tucker, P. Rivalan, M. H. Godfrey, and J. Chevalier. 2002. Densitydependent nest destruction a nd population fluctuations of Gu ianan leatherback turtles. Animal Conservation 5(1):75-84.

Gladys Porter Zoo. 2008. Final Report on the Me xico/United States of America Population Restoration Project for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the Coasts of Tamaulipas, Mexico, Brownsville, Texas.

Gladys Porter Zoo. 2010. Summary Final Report on the Mexico/United States of America Population Restoration Project for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the Coasts of Tamaulipas, Mexico, Brownsville, Texas.

Glen, F., A. C. Broderick, B. J. Godley, and G. C. Hays. 2003. Incubation environment affects phenotype of naturally incubated green turtle hatchlings. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 83(05):1183-1186.

GMFMC. 1998. Generic amendment for addressing essential fish habitat requirements in the following Fishery Management plans of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States waters; Red Drum Fi shery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Migr atory Pelagic Resources (Mackerel) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Stone Cr ab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Spiny148 Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Cora l and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida.

GMFMC. 2005. Generic Amendment 3 for addre ssing EFH requirements, HAPCs , and adverse effects of fishing in the following FMPs of the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp, Red Drum, Reef Fish, Stone Crab, Coral and Coral Reefs in the GOM and Spiny Lobster and the Coastal Migratory Pelagic resources of the GOM and South Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa.

Grant, S. C. H., and P. S. Ross. 2002. Southern Resi dent killer whales at risk: toxic chemicals in the British Columbia and Washington envi ronment. . Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Sidney, B.C.

Green, D. 1993. Growth rates of wild immature gr een turtles in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Journal of Herpetology 27(3 ):338-341.

Groombridge, B., and R. Luxmoore. 1989. The green turtle and ha wksbill (Reptilia: Cheloniidae): world status, exploitation a nd trade. CITES Secretariat, Lausanne,
Switzerland.

Guseman, J. L., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecologi cal geography of Western Atlantic loggerheads and green turtles: evidence from remote tag recoveries. M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken, editors. 11th Annual Workshop on Sea Tu rtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS.

Hartwell, S. I. 2004. Distribution of DDT in sedime nts off the central California coast. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 49:299-305.

Hastings, M. C. 2010. Recommendations for In terim Criteria for Vibr atory Pile Driving. Submitted to ICF Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA. For Task order on vibratory pile driving, Caltrans Contract 43A0228.

Hawkes, L. A., A. C. Broderick, M. H. Godf rey, and B. J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology 13(5):923-932.

Hays, G. C., and coauthors. 2001. The diving behaviour of green turtles undertaking oceanic migration to and from Ascension Island: dive durations, dive profiles and depth distribution. Journal of Expe rimental Biology 204:4093-4098.

Hays, G. C., and coauthors. 2002. Water temperat ure and internesting inte rvals for loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (C helonia mydas) sea turtles. Journal of Thermal Biology 27(5):429-432.

Henwood, T. A., and L. H. Ogren. 1987. Distribution and migrations of immature Kemp’s ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) off Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Northeast Gulf Science 9(2):153-160.149 Heppell, S. S., L. B. Crowder, D. T. Crouse, S. P. Epperly, and N. B. Frazer. 2003. Population models for Atlantic loggerheads: pa st, present, and future. Pages 255-273 in A. B. Bolten, and B. E. Witherington, editors. Logger head Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington.

Heppell, S. S., L. B. Crowder, and J. Priddy. 199 5. Evaluation of a fisheries model for hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) ha rvest in Cuba. NOAA Tech. Memor. NMFS-OPR5.

Heppell, S. S., and coauthors. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size, and management impacts on Kemp’s ridl ey sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):767-773.

Herbst, L. H. 1994. Fibropapillomatosis of marine turtles. Annual Review of Fish Diseases

4:389-425.

Hildebrand, H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidaci ón de la tortuga “lora” Lepidochelys kempii (Garman), en la costa occidental del Golf o de México (Rept., Chel.). . Ciencia Mex 22(1):105-112.

Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical re view of the status of sea tu rtle populations in the Western Gulf of Mexico. Pages 447-453 in K. A. Bjorndal, editor. Biology and Conservation of
Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Instit ution Press, Washington D.C.

Hillis, Z., and A. L. Mackay. 1989. Research report on nesting and tagging of hawksbill sea turtles Eretmocheys imbricata at Buck Is land Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1987-88.

Hilterman, M. L., and E. Goverse. 2003. Aspects of Nesting and Nest Success of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Surina me, 2002. Guianas Forests and Environmental Conservation Project (GFECP). . W ildlife Fund Guianas/Biotopic Foundation,
Amsterdam.

Hirth, H. F. 1971. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle Chelon ia mydas (Linnaeus) 1758. Food and Agriculture Organizati on of the United Nations, Rome.

Hirth, H. F., and E. M. Abdel Latif. 1980. A nesti ng colony of the hawksbill turtle eretmochelys imbricata on Seil Ada Kebir Island, Suakin Archipelago, Sudan. Biological Conservation 17(2):125-130.

Hirth, H. F., and USFWS. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and coauthors. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857):1737-42.150 Houghton, J. D. R., T. K. Doyle, M. W. Wils on, J. Davenport, and G. C. Hays. 2006. Jellyfish Aggregations and Leatherback Turtle Fo raging Patterns in a Temperate Coastal Environment. Ecology 87(8):1967-1972.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Iwata, H., S. Tanabe, N. Sakai, and R. Tatsukawa. 1993. Distribution of persistent organochlorines in the oceanic air and surf ace seawater and the role of ocean on their global transport and fate Environm ental Science and Technology 27:1080- 1098.

Jacobson, E. R. 1990. An update on gr een turtle fibropapilloma. Mari ne Turtle Newsletter 49:7-

8.

Jacobson, E. R., S. B. Simpson, and J. P. Sundberg. 1991. Fibropapillomas in green turtles. Pages 99-100 in G. H. Balazs, and S. G. Pooley, edito rs. Research Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma. NOAA.

Johnson, S. A., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1994. Nest-site fidelity of the Florida green turtle. B. A. Schroeder, and B. Witherington, editors. Pr oceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Johnson, S. A., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1996. Repr oductive Ecology of the Fl orida Green Turtle: Clutch Frequency. Journal of Herpetology 30:407-410.

Johnston, C. E., and C. T. Phillips. 2003. Sound production in sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus
and S. platorynchus (Acipenseridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 68(1):59-64.

Keinath, J. A. 1993. Movements and behavior of w ild head-stated sea turtles. College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Kenworthy, W., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, R. Coles, G. Pergent, and C. Pergent-Martini. 2006. Seagrass Conservation Biology: An Interdis ciplinary Science fo r Protection of the Seagrass Biome. Pages 595-623 in A. W. D. Larkum, R. J. Orth, and C. M. Duarte, editors. SEAGRASSES: BIOLOGY, ECOLOGYAND CONSERVA TION. Springer
Netherlands.

Kenworthy, W. J., M. S. Fonseca, P. E. Whitfie ld, and K. K. Hammerstrom. 2002. Analysis of Seagrass Recovery in Experimental Excavatio ns and Propeller-Scar Disturbances in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Jo urnal of Coastal Research (ArticleType:
research-article / Issue Title: SPECI AL ISSUE NO. 37. IMPACTS OF MOTORIZED
WATERCRAFT ON SHALLOW ES TUARINE AND COASTAL MARINE ENVIRONMENTS / Full publication date : FALL 2002 / Copyright © 2002 Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc.):75-85.

Ketten, D. R., and S. M. Bartol. 2006. Functional m easures of sea turtle hearing. Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA.151 Krebs, J., F. Jacobs, and A. N. Popper. 2012. Presence of Acoustic-Ta gged Atlantic Sturgeon
and Potential Avoidance of Pile-Driving Activities During the Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP) for the Ta ppan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project. AKRF, Inc; Environmental Bioacoustics, LLC.

Lagueux, C. 2001. Status and distribution of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Wider Caribbean Region, pp. 32-35. In: K. L. Ecke rt and F. A. Abreu Grobois (eds.). 2001 Proceedings of the Regional Meeting: Ma rine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: A Dialogue for Effec tive Regional Management. Santo Domingo, 16- 18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IU CN-MTSG, WWF, UNEP-CEP.

Landry, J. B., W. J. Kenworthy, and G. D. Carl o. 2008. The effects of docks on seagrasses, with particular emphasis on the threatened seagrass, Halophila johnsonii . Report submitted to
NMFS Office of Pr otected Resources.

Laurent, L., and coauthors. 1998. Molecular resolution of marine turtle stock composition in fishery bycatch: a case study in the Me diterranean. Molecular Ecology 7:1529-1542.

Law, R. J., and coauthors. 1991. Concentrations of trace metals in the livers of marine mammals (seals, porpoises and dolphins ) from waters around the Bri tish Isles. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 22:183-191.

Lenhardt, M., S. E. Moein, and J. A. Musick. 1996. A method for determining hearing thresholds in marine turtles. Pages 160-161 in J. A. Keinath, D. E. Barnard, J. A. Musick, and B. A. Bell, editors. Fifteenth Annual Symposiu m on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Lenhardt, M. L. 1994. Seismic and very low fr equency sound induced behaviors in captive loggerhead marine turtles ( Caretta caretta ). Pages 238-241 in K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar, edito rs. Proceedings of th e Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

León, Y. M., and C. E. Díez. 1999. Population st ructure of hawksbill sea turtles on a foraging ground in the Dominican Republic. Chelonian Conservation and Biol ogy 3(2):230-236.

León, Y. M., and C. E. Díez. 2000. Ecology and population biology of hawksbill turtles at a Caribbean feeding ground. Pages 32-33 in Proceedings of the 18th International Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Lewison, R. L., S. A. Freeman, and L. B. Crow der. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7:221-231.

Limpus, C. J. 1992. The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata , in Queensland: population
structure within a southern Great Barrier Re ef feeding ground. Wild life Research 19:489-

506.152 Limpus, C. J., and J. D. Miller. 2000. Final re port for Australian hawksbill turtle population dynamics project. A project funded by the Ja pan Bekko Association to Queensland Parks
and Wildlife Service.

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, J. R. Nedwell, and M. A. Pegg. 2005. The inner ear morphology and hearing abilities of the Pa ddlefish (Polyodon spat hula) and the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). Comparativ e Biochemistry and Physiology a-Molecular & Integrative Physiology 142(3):286-296.

Lund, P. F. 1985. Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Nesting on the East Coast of Florida. Journal of Herpetology 19(1):164-166.

Lutcavage, M., and J. A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the Biology of Sea Turtles in Virginia. Copeia 1985(2):449-456.

Lutcavage, M. E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P. L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. Pages 432 in P. L. Lutz, and J. A. Musick, ed itors. The Biology of Sea Turtles.

CRC Press.

Mackay, A. L. 2006. Sea Turtle Monitoring Progra m The East End Beaches of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, 2006. Pages 16 in , WIMARCS, St. Croix. Unpublished.

Márquez M, R. 1990. Sea turtles of the world : an annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea turtle species known to date. Food and Agricu lture Organization of the United Nations,

Rome.

Márquez M, R. 1994. Synopsis of biological data on the Kemp's ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). U.S. Dept. of Comme rce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Serv ice, Southeast Fisher ies Science Center, Miami, Fla.

Matkin, C. O., and E. Saulitis. 1997. Restoratio n notebook: killer whale (Orcinus orca). Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage, Alaska.

Mayor, P., B. Phillips, and Z. Hillis-Starr. 1998. Results of stomach content analysis on the juvenile hawksbill turtles of Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S.V.I. . S. Epperly, and J. Braun, editors. 17th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memo.

McCauley, R. D., and coauthors. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys - a study of environmental implications. APPEA Journal 40:692-708.

McCauley, R. D., and coauthors. 2000b. Marine Se ismic Surveys: Analysis And Propagation of Air-Gun Signals; And Effects of Air-Gun E xposure On Humpback Whales, Sea Turtles, Fishes and Squid Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.

McDonald-Dutton, D., and P. H. Dutton. 1998. A ccelerated growth in San Diego Bay green turtles? Pages 175-176 in S. P. Epperly, and J. Braun, editors. Proceedings of the seventeenth annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation. NOAA Technical153 Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415. National Mari ne Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Orlando, FL.

McMichael, E., R. R. Carthy, and J. A. Se minoff. 2003. Evidence of Homing Behavior in
Juvenile Green Turtles in the North eastern Gulf of Mexico. Pages 223-224 in J. A. Seminoff, editor Proceedings of the Twen ty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservatio n. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-503. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Fl.

Mearns, A. J. 2001. Long-term contaminant trends and patterns in Puget Sound, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Coast. T. Droscher, editor Puget Sound Research Conference. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, Washington.

Meehl, G. A., and coauthors. 2007. Global climate projections. Pages 747-846 in S. Solomon, and coeditors, editors. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY.

Merrick, R. L., H. Haas, and Northeast Fisher ies Science Center (U.S.). 2008. Analysis of Atlantic sea scallop (Placop ecten magellanicus) fishery im pacts on the North Atlantic population of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Pages I elec tronic text (28 p.) in NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-NE ; 207. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nation al Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Mass.

Meyer, M., D. T. T. Plachta, and A. N. Popper. 2003. When a "Primitive" Fish Listens to Tones: Encoding of Sound in the Auditory Pe riphery of the Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser
brevirostrum . Pages 48 in , Abstracts of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Midwinter Research Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Meyer, M., and A. N. Popper. 2002. Hearing in "primitive" fish: brainstem responses to pure tone stimuli in the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens . Abstracts of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 25:11-12.

Meylan, A. 1988. Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: a diet of glass. Science 239:393-395.

Meylan, A. 1999a. International movements of immature and adult hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean region. . Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):189-194.

Meylan, A. 1999b. Status of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean region. . Chelonian Conserva tion and Biology 3(2):177-184.

Meylan, A. B., and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals. Chelonian Co nservation and Biology 3(2):200-204.154 Meylan, A. B., B. A. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea Turtle Ne sting Activity in the State of Florida, 1979-1992. Florida Dept. of Environm ental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL.

Meylan, A. M., B. Schroeder, a nd A. Mosier. 1994. Marine Turtle Nesting Activity in the State of Florida, 1979-1992. Pages 83 in K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar, editors. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memoran dum NMFS-SEFSC-351. National Malrine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisher ies Science Center, Hilton Head, SC.

Milliken, T., and H. Tokunaga. 1987. The Japanese sea turtle trade 1970 -1986. A special report prepared by TRAFFIC (Japan). Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. .

Milton, S. L., and P. L. Lutz. 2003. Physiologi cal and Genetic Responses to Environmental Stress. Pages 163-197 in P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick, and J. Wyneken, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles, volume 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Moein, S. E., J. A. Musick, and M. L. Lenhardt. 1994. Auditory behavior of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Pages 89 in K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar, editors. Fourteenth Annual Sympos ium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Moncada, F., E. Carrillo, A. Saenz, and G. Nodarse. 1999. Reproduction and nesting of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in the Cuban archipelago. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):257-263.

Morreale, S. J., and E. A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology of sea turtles in northeastern
U.S. waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-413.

Mortimer, J. A., and coauthors. 2003. Growth rates of immature hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) at Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles (Western Indian Ocean). Pages 247-248 In: Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503.

Mortimer, J. A., M. Day, and D. Broderick. 2002. Sea turtle populations of the Chagos Archipelago, British Indian Ocean Territor y. Pages 47-49 In: Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (editors). Proceedi ngs of the twentieth annual sy mposium on sea turtle biology and conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-477.

Mortimer, J. A., and M. Donnelly. 2008. Hawksb ill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Marine Turtle Specialist Group 2008 IUCN Red List Status Assessment.

Mrosovsky, N. 1981. Plastic Jellyfish. Ma rine Turtle Newsletter (17):5-6.

Mrosovsky, N., G. D. Ryan, and M. C. James. 2009. Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:287-289.155 Murphy, T. M., and S. R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the southeast region. NMFS-SEFSC.

Musick, J. A. 1999. Life in the slow lane : eco logy and conservation of long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

Musick, J. A., and C. J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat ut ilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. Pages 432 in P. L. Lutz, and J. A. Musick, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC

Press.

Myrberg, A. A. 2001. The Acoustical Biology of Elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 60(1):31-46.

NMFS-SEFSC. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerh ead and leatherback s ea turtles: and, an assessment of the impact of the pelagi c longline fishery on the loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles of the western North Atlantic. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nation al Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.

NMFS-SEFSC. 2009a. An assessment of loggerhead s ea turtles to estimate impacts of mortality reductions on population dynamics. NMFS S outheast Fisheries Science Center.

NMFS-SEFSC. 2009b. Estimated impacts of morta lity reductions on loggerhead sea turtle population dynamics, preliminary results. Pres ented at the meeting of the Reef Fish Management Committee of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tamps, FL.

NMFS. 1997a. ESA Section 7 consultation on Navy act ivities off the southeastern United States along the Atlantic Coast. Biological Opinion.

NMFS. 1997b. ESA Section 7 consultation on the continued hopper dredging of channels and
borrow areas in the southeastern Un ited States. Biological Opinion.

NMFS. 2000. Smalltooth Sawfish Status Review. NMFS, SERO.

NMFS. 2001. Endangered Species Ac t Section 7 consultation on the issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries for Management of the fall shallo w-water gillnet fishery for southern flounder in southeastern Pamlico Sound. Biological Opinion.

NMFS. 2007a. Endangered Species Act 5-Year Review: Johnson’s Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii, Eiseman). National Marine Fish eries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS. 2007b. ESA Section 7 consultation on the dredging of Gulf of Mexico navigation channels and sand mining (“borrow”) areas using hopper dredges by COE Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, and Jacksonville Distri cts. Second Revised Biological Opinion (November 19, 2003). .156 NMFS. 2008. ESA Section 7 consultation on City of Boca Raton - Dredging Project in Boca Inlet, Boca Raton, Palm Beach Count y, Florida. Biologial Opinion.

NMFS. 2009a. ESA Section 7 consultation on Oper ations and Maintenan ce Dredging of East Pass Navigation Project in Destin, Okaloos a County, Florida. Biological Opinion.

NMFS. 2009b. ESA Section 7 consultation on Propos ed channel dredging and Homeporting of Surface Ships at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, Florida. Biological Opinion.

NMFS. 2009c. Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS. 2010a. ESA Section 7 consultation on Us e of Canaveral Shoals borrow area, beach renourishment/shoreline protection project, Patrick Air Force Base using a hopper dredge. Biological Opinion.

NMFS. 2010b. Smalltooth Sawfish 5-Year Re view: Summary and Evaluation. Pages 51 in P. R. Division, editor, St. Petersburg, Florida.

NMFS. 2012. ESA Section 7 consultation on City of Mexico Beach Maintenance Dredging of the Mexico Beach Canal Inlet, City of Me ixco Beach, St. Andrew Bay Watershed, Bay County, Florida. Biological Opinion.

NMFS, and SEFSC. 2001. Stock assessments of l oggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagi c longline fishery on the loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles of the Western Nort h Atlantic U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL.

NMFS, and USFWS. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic gr een turtle (Chelonia mydas).

NMFS, and USFWS. 1992a. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean,
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. . National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington DC.

NMFS, and USFWS. 1992b. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ). Pages 47 in U.S. Department of Interior, a nd U.S. Department of Commerce,
editors. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce, National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS, and USFWS. 1993. Recovery plan for ha wksbill turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico (Eretmoc helys imbricata). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmopsheric Administrati on U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, [Washington, D.C].

NMFS, and USFWS. 1995. Status reviews for se a turtles listed under th e Endangered Species
Act of 1973. National Marine Fisherie s Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 1998a. Recovery plan for U. S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fi sheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.157 NMFS, and USFWS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for U. S. Pacific Populations of the Leatherback Turtle. Prepared by the Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team.

NMFS, and USFWS. 1998c. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). National Marine Fi sheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 1998b. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007a. Green sea turtle (C helonia mydas) 5-year review: Summary and
evaluation. National Marine Fisher ies Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007b. Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007c. Kemp’s ridley sea tu rtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007d. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007e. Loggerhead sea turtle (C aretta caretta) 5-year review: Summary and
evaluation. National Marine Fisher ies Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Second Revision National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2010. Unpublished Fina l Draft Report, Washington, D.C.

NMFS, USFWS, and SEMARNAT. 2011. BiNational R ecovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revi sion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NOAA. 2012. Understanding Climate. http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate

.

Norman, J. R., and F. C. Fraser. 1937. Giant fi shes, whales and dolphins. Putman and Company, Limited, London.

NRC. 1990. Decline of the sea tu rtles: causes and prevention . National Research Council, Washington DC.

NSED. 2012. National Sawfish Encounter Database. Florida Museum of Natural History, editor, Gainesville, FL.

O'Hara, J., and J. R. Wilcox. 1990. Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low frequency sound. Copeia (2):564-567.158 Ogren, L. H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and s ub-adult Kemp’s ridley sea turtle: Preliminary results from 1984-1987 surveys. C. W. Cailloue t, and A. M. Landry, editors. First Intl. Symp. on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biol , Conserv. and Management, Galvaston, TX.

Orlando, S. P., Jr. , and coauthors. 1994. Salinity characteristics of Sout h Atlantic estuaries. NOAA, Office of Ocean Resources Conser vation and Assessment, Silver Spring, Maryland

Parsons, J. J. 1972. The hawksbill turtle a nd the tortoise shell trade. Pages 45-60 in Études de géographie tropicale offertes a Pi erre Gourou, volume 1. Mouton, Paris.

Pfeffer, W. T., J. T. Harper, and S. O’Neel. 2008. Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea- Level Rise. Science 321(5894):1340-1343.

Pike, D. A., R. L. Antworth, and J. C. Stin er. 2006. Earlier Nesting Contributes to Shorter Nesting Seasons for the Loggerhead Seaturtle, Caretta caretta. Journal of Herpetology 40(1):91-94.

Plotkin, P. 1995. Adult Migrati ons and Habitat Use. Pages 472 in P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick, and J. Wyneken, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles, volume 2. CRC Press.

Plotkin, P. 2003. Adult migrations and habitat use. Pages 225-241 in P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick, and J. Wyneken, editors. Biology of Sea Tu rtles, volume 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida.

Plotkin, P., and A. F. Amos. 1988. Entanglement in and ingestion of marine turtles stranded along the south Texas coast. Pages 79-82 in B. A. Schroeder, compiler. Proceedings of the eighth annual workshop on sea turtle conservation and biol ogy. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS/SEFC-214.

Plotkin, P., and A. F. Amos. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, Pages 736-743 in: R. S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey eds. Proceedings Second International Conf erence on Marine Debris. NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-154.

Poulakis, G. R. 2012. Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements of Juvenile Smalltooth Sawfish, Pristis pectinata, in the Char lotte Harbor Estuarine System, Florida. Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida.

Poulakis, G. R., and J. C. Seitz. 2004. Recent occurrence of the smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Pristidae), in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, with comments on sawfish ecology. Florida Sci 67(27):27-35.

Poulakis, G. R., P. W. Stevens, A. A. Timme rs, T. R. Wiley, and C. A. Simpfendorfer. 2011. Abiotic affinities and spatiotemporal distri bution of the endangered smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata, in a sout h-western Florida nursery. Mari ne and Freshwater Research 62(10):1165-1177.159 Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969. The survival status of Ridley sea-turtles in Am erican waters. Biological Conservation 2(1):13-17.

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. IUCN Monogr 1:1-39.

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1997. Evolution, Phyolgeny and current status. Pages 432 in P. L. Lutz, and J. A. Musick, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, New York.

Pritchard, P. C. H., K. A. Bjor ndal, G. H. Balazs, IOCARIBE., and Center for Environmental Education (Washington D.C.). 1983. Manual of sea turtle research and conservation techniques, 2d edition. Center for Envi ronmental Education, Washington, D.C.

Rebel, T. P., and R. M. Ingle. 1974. Sea turtles and the turtle industry of th e West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico, Rev. edition. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Fla.

Reddering, J. S. V. 1988. Prediction of the effects of reduced river discharge on estuaries of the south-eastern Cape Province, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 84:726-730.

Reichart, H. A., and coauthors. 2001. Regional Sea Turtle Conservation Program and Action
Plan for the Guiana. World Wildlife F und - Guianas Forests and Environmental Conservation Project Paramaribo.

Rhodin, A. G. J. 1985. Comparative Chondro-Osse ous Development and Growth of Marine Turtles. Copeia 1985(3):752-771.

Richardson, J. L., R. Bell, and T. H. Rich ardson. 1999. Population ecology and demographic implications drawn from an 11-year study of nesting hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, at Jumby Bay, Long Island, Antigua , West Indies. . Ch elonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):244-250.

SAFMC. 1998. Final Plan for the South Atlantic Region; Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for the Fishery Management Plan of the S outh Atlantic Fishery Management Council. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC.

Sargent, F. J., T. J. Leary, D. W. Crewz, and C. R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida’s Seagrasses: assessment and management options. Florida Ma rine Research Institu te, St. Petersburg,

FL.

Sarti Martínez, L., and coauthors. 2007. Conserva tion and Biology of the L eatherback Turtle in
the Mexican Pacific. Chelonian Co nservation and Biology 6(1):70-78.

Schmid, J. R., and W. N. Witzell. 1997. Age a nd growth of wild Kemp’s ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology (2):532-537.160 Schroeder, B. A., and A. M. Foley. 1995. Populati on studies of marine turtles in Florida Bay. Pages 117 in J. I. Richardson, and T. H. Richards on, editors. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA.

Schroeder, B. A., A. M. Foley, and D. A. Bagley. 2003. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. Pages 114-124 in A. B. Bolten, and B. E. Witherington, editors. Loggerh ead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. .

Schultz, J. P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zool. Verhand. Leiden (143):172.

Seitz, J. C., and G. R. Poulakis. 2002. Recent Occurrence of Sawfishes ( Elasmobranchiomorphi:
Pristidae ) Along the Southwest Coast of Fl orida (USA) Florida Sci. 65(4).

Seminoff, J. A. 2004. Chelonia mydas. 2004 IU CN Red List of Threatened Species.

Shafer, D. J., J. Karazsia, L. Carrubba, and C. Martin. 2008. Evaluation of regulatory guidelines to minimize impacts to seagrasses from singl e-family residential dock structures in Florida and Puerto Rico. U.S. Army Engi neer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Shaver, D. J. 1991. Feeding Ecology of Wild and Head-Started Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles in
South Texas Waters. Journal of Herpetology 25(3):327-334.

Shaver, D. J. 1994. Relative Abundance, Temporal Patterns, and Growth of Sea Turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. Jour nal of Herpetology 28(4):491-497.

Shoop, C. R., and R. D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal di stributions and abundance of loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles in waters of th e northeastern United States. Herpetological Monographs 6:43-67.

Sidman, C., R. Swett, T. Fik, S. Fann, a nd B. Sargent. 2006. A Recreational Boating Characterization for Sarasota County. Univ ersity of Florida Sea Grant Program.

Sidman, C. F., and coauthors. 2007. A Recrea tional Boating Characterization for Brevard County.

Sidman, C. F., R. Swett, T. J. Fik, D. Fann, and W. B. Sargent. 2005. A Recreational Boating
Characterization for the Greater Charlotte Harbor. Sea Grant.

Simpfendorfer, C. A. 2000. Predicting Population Recovery Rates for Endangered Western Atlantic Sawfishes Using Demographic Anal ysis. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58(4):371-377.

Simpfendorfer, C. A. 2001. Essential habitat of the smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ). Report
to the National Fisheries Service’s Pr otected Resources Division. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report.161 Simpfendorfer, C. A. 2002. Smalltooth sa wfish: The USA’s first endangered elasmobranch Endangered Species Update (19):53-57.

Simpfendorfer, C. A. 2003. Abundance, movement and habitat use of the smalltooth sawfish. Final Report to the National Marine Fisher ies Service. Mote Marine Laboratory

Simpfendorfer, C. A., Beau G. Yeiser, Tonya R. Wiley, Gregg R. Poulakis, Philip W. Stevens, Michelle R. Heupel. 2011. Environmental Influe nces on the Spatial Ecology of Juvenile Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata): Re sults from Acoustic M onitoring. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16918.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., G. R. Poulakis, P. M. O’Donnell, and T. R. Wiley. 2008. Growth rates of juvenile smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata Latham in the western Atlantic. Journal of Fish Biology 72(3):711-723.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., and T. R. Wiley. 2004. Dete rmination of the distribution of Florida’s remnant sawfish population, and identification of areas critical to their conservation. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report. Mo te Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., and T. R. Wiley. 2005a. De termination of the distribution of Florida’s remnant sawfish population and identification of areas critical to th eir conservation. Final Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife C onservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., and T. R. Wiley. 2005b. Iden tification of priority areas for smalltooth sawfish conservation. Final report to th e National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for Grant # 2003-0041-000. Mote Marine Laboratory.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., T. R. Wiley, and B. G. Yeiser. 2010. Improving conservation planning for an endangered sawfish using data from ac oustic telemetry. Biological Conservation.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., and coauthors. 2011. Enviro nmental Influences on the Spatial Ecology of Juvenile Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectin ata): Results from Acoustic Monitoring. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16918.

Snelson, F. F., and S. E. Williams. 1981. Notes on the Occurrence, Distribution, and Biology of
Elasmobranch Fishes in the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida. Estuaries 4(2):110-

120.

Spotila, J. R. 2004. Sea turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press and Oakwood Arts, Baltimore, Maryland.

Spotila, J. R., and coauthors. 1996. Worldwide popul ation decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? . Chel onian Conservation and Biology 2(2):209-222.

Spotila, J. R., R. D. Reina, A. C. Steyermar k, P. T. Plotkin, and F. V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405(6786):529-530.162 Stapleton, S. P., and C. J. G. Stapleton. 2006. Tagging and Nesting Research on Hawksbill Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) at Jumby Bay, Long Island, Antigua, West Indies: 2005 Annual Report. Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network, Antigua, W.I. .

Stedman, S., and T. E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the
Eastern United States 1998-2004. National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Servi ce, and U.S. Department of th e Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Storelli, M. M., G. Barone, A. Storelli, and G. O. Marcotrigiano. 2008. Total and subcellular distribution of trace elements (Cd, Cu and Zn ) in the liver and kidney of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the Medite rranean Sea. Chemosphere 70:908-913.

TEWG. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ri dley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the wester n North Atlantic. U.S. Dept.

Commerce.

TEWG. 2000. Assessment update for the kemp's ridl ey and loggerhead sea turtle populations in
the western North Atlantic : a report of the Turtle Expert Working Group. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Fla.

TEWG. 2007. An Assessment of the Leatherback Turtle Population in the Atlantic Ocean.

NOAA.

TEWG. 2009. An Assessment of the Loggerhead Turtle Population in the Western North
Atlantic Ocean. NOAA.

Thorson, T. 1982. Life history implications of a tagging study of the largetooth sawfish, Pristis perotteti, in the Lake Nicar agua-Río San Juan system. E nvironmental Biology of Fishes 7(3):207-228.

Thorson, T. B. 1976. Observations on the reproducti on of the sawfish Pristis perotteti, in Lake Nicaragua, with recommendations for its conservation. T. B. Thorson, editor. Investigations of the Icthyof auna of Nicaraguan Lakes. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NB.

Tolstoganova, L. K. 1999. Whistle signals of st urgeons and cetaceans. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105(2):1047-1048.

Troëng, S., D. Chacón, and B. Dick. 2004. Possible decline in leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting along the coast of Ca ribbean Central America Oryx 38:395-403.

Troëng, S., and M. Chaloupka. 2007. Variation in adult annual survival probability and remigration intervals of sea tu rtles. Marine Biology 151(5):1721-1730.

Troëng, S., and E. Rankin. 2005. Long-term conserva tion efforts contribute to positive green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at To rtuguero, Costa Rica. Bi ological Conservation 121(1):111-116.163 Tucker, A. D. 2010. Nest site fidelity and clut ch frequency of loggerhead turtles are better elucidated by satellite telemetry than by noctu rnal tagging efforts: Implications for stock estimation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 383(1):48-55.

USEPA. 1994. Freshwater Inflow Action Agenda For The Gulf of Mexico; First GenerationManagement Committee Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USFWS. 2000. Report on the Mexico/United States of America Populatio n Restoration Project for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the Coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico.

van Dam, R., and C. E. Díez. 1997. Predation by hawksbill turtles on sponges at Mona Island, Puerto Rico. . Pages 1421-1426 in 8th International Co ral Reef Symposium.

Van Dam, R., and L. Sarti. 1989. Sea turtle bi ology and conservation on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Report for 1989.

Van Dam, R., L. Sarti, and D. Pares. 1991. The hawksbills of Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Pages

187 in M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken, editors. Proceedings of the eleventh annual workshop on sea turtle biology and cons ervation. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS/SEFC-302.

van Dam, R. P., and C. E. Díez. 1998. Home range of immature hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus)) at two Caribbean isla nds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 220(1):15-24.

Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. Global sea le vel linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(51):21527-21532.

Weishampel, J. F., D. A. Bagley, and L. M. Ehrhart. 2004. Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles following sea surface warming. Global Change Biology 10:1424-1427.

Weishampel, J. F., D. A. Bagley, L. M. Ehrh art, and B. L. Rodenbeck. 2003. Spatiotemporal patterns of annual sea turtle nesting behaviors along an East Central Florida beach. Biological Conservation 110(2):295-303.

Wershoven, J. L., and R. W. Wershoven. 1992. Juven ile green turtles in th eir nearshore habitat of Broward County, Florida: A five year review. 11th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS.

Whitfield, A. K., and M. N. Bruton. 1989. Some bi ological implications of reduced freshwater inflow into eastern Cape estuaries: a prel iminary assessment. South African Journal of
Science 85:691-694.

Whiting, S. D. 2000. The foraging ecology of juvenile green ( Chelonia mydas ) and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) sea turtles in north -western Australia. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Northern Territory University, Darwin, Australia.164 Wiley, T. R., Colin A. Simpfendorfer. 2007. The ecology of elasmobranchs occurring in the Everglades National Park, Florida: impli cations for conservation and management. Bulletin of Marine Science 80(1):171-189(19).

Wilkinson, C. R. 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. Australian Institute of Marine
Science:572.

Willis, M. R., M. Broudic, M. Bhurosah, and I. Masters. 2010. Noise Associated with Small Scale Drilling Operations. Paper submitted to the 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy. Bilbao, Spain.

Witherington, B., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothe rmic stunning and mortality of marine turtles in the Indian River Lagoon syst em, Florida. Copeia 1989:696-703.

Witherington, B., S. Hirama, and A. Mosier. 2003. Effects of beach armoring structures on marine turtle nesting. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Witherington, B., S. Hirama, and A. Mosier. 2007. Changes to armoring and other barriers to sea turtle nesting following severe hurricanes striking Florida beaches. Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Witherington, B., P. Kubilis, B. Brost, and A. Meylan. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle popu lation. Ecological App lications 19(1):30-54.

Witherington, B. E. 1992. Behavi oral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. Herpetologica 48(1):31-39.

Witherington, B. E., and K. A. Bjorndal. 1991. In fluences of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchling logge rhead turtles, Caretta care tta. Biological Conservation 55(2):139-149.

Witherington, B. W. 2002. Ecology of neonate loggerhead turtles inhabiting lines of downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 140(4):843-853.

Witt, M., B. Godley, A. Broderick, R. Penrose, and C. S. Martin. 2006. Leatherback turtles, jellyfish and climate change in the northwes t Atlantic: current situation and possible future scenarios. M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A. F. Rees, and K. Williams, editors. Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on S ea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Witt, M. J., and coauthors. 2007. Prey landscapes help identify foraging habitats for leatherback
turtles in the NE Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series (337):231-243.

Witzell, W. N. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766). Food and Agriculture Or ganization of the United Nations, Rome.

Witzell, W. N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): suggested changes to the life history model. Herp etological Revi ew 33(4):266-269.165 Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1994. Biological re sources of the Indian River Lagoon. Final Technical Report. Prepared for the I ndian River Lagoon National Estuary Program.

Wyneken, J., K. Blair, S. Epperly, J. Vaughn, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. Surprising sex ratios in west Atlantic loggerhead hatchlings- an unexpe cted pattern. Poster presentation at the 2004 International Sea Turtle Symp osium in San Jose, Costa Rica.

Wyneken, J., S. Eperly, S. Heppell, M. Rogers , and L. Crowder. 2012. Variable Loggerhead Hatchlings Sex Rations: Are Males Disa ppering? (Presented 2 Feb 2012, Abstract Number: 4523). Southeast Regional Sea Turt le Meeting Jeky ll Island, Georgia.

Zug, G. R., and R. E. Glor. 1998. Estimates of age and growth in a population of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Indi an River Lagoon system, Florida: a skeletochronological analysis Cana dian Journal of Zoology 76:1497-1506.

Zug, G. R., and J. F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronol ogical analysis. Chel onian Conservation and Biology 2(2):244-249.

Zurita, J. C., and coauthors. 2003. Nesting logger head and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico. NOAA Tech. Memo. , Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.166 13. Appendix A

PILE DRIVING NOISE ANALYSIS


### I. Approach to the Pile Driving Noise Assessment

Exposure criteria were used to assess whether noise from the proposed action may adversely affect listed species. In the cas e of injury threshol ds, establishing whether or not exposure to injurious noise levels is fairly straight forwar d (i.e., a likely exposure at the injury threshold equals a take). However, establishing advers e effects from behavioral noise requires further analysis. There is a dearth of information on beha vioral impacts that can directly correlate noise exposure with adverse effect to listed species of fi sh and sea turtles. The thresholds in Table 1-1
and Table 1-2 are to be used to establish noise le vels from impact and vi bratory pile driving at which injury may begin to occu r and behavioral effects could potentially result in adverse
effects.

Table 1-1. Impact pile driving threshold noise levels for fish and sea turtles. Effect Organism Underwater threshold (dB) Injury All fish and turtles 206 peak
Fish ≥ 2 grams 187 SEL Fish < 2 grams 183 (SEL)

Behavior Fish 150 dB RMS

Sea turtles 160 dB RMS
Thresholds are based on the most conservative criteria for hearing generalists for fish (Federal Highway Administration 2012). No data on sea turtle injury from pile driving is available. Considering animals of equal mass, fish are considered more sensitive to physical inju ry than sea turtles; therefore, fish thresholds are
recommended as conservative thresholds fo r sea turtles as interim criteria.

Table 1-2. Vibratory pile driving thres hold levels for fish and turtles.

Effect Animal Threshold Level Injury Sturgeon, Sawfish, and Turtles 206 peak Injury (onset) Fish ≤ 0.6 g 191 SEL CUM Fish ≥ 102 g 234 SEL CUM Behavior Fish 150 RMS
Turtles 160 RMS
Thresholds are based on the recommended criteria for vibratory piling found in Hastings (2010). Cumulative source levels were back calculated using 20 minutes to drive each pile and 15 logR intermediate spreading loss based on reference levels for 24-inch AZ sheet pile noise using a vibratory hammer reported in CALTRANS (2007). There

are no SEL CUM levels established for sea turtles and fish thresholds are used as conservative indicators of potential injury.

For fish 0.6 to 102 g, the cumulative SEL threshol d must be calculated independently based on fish mass by the following equation: SEL CUM = 195.28 + 19.28 × log10(mass)167 

### Steps To Calculate Pile Driving Zones of Influence

a. Deconstruct the Project The basic information regarding the pile driving activities requi red to conduct effects analysis
includes:

 the material composition of the piles (steel, concrete, wood, composite);

 the type of pile (e.g., sheet, H, tubular, square, etc.);

 the diameter of the piles;

 the number of piles driven;

 the number of hammer strikes per pile;

 the duration to dr ive a single pile;

 the number of piles driven per day;

 the time of year of the activity;

 the type of pile driving method (e.g., hydraulic, diesel, vi bratory hammer);

 other pile driving methods (e.g., drilling, jetting);

 vessels required;

 the total duration of the project;

 habitat characteristics; and

 A map of the project area.

b. Determine the Noise Reference Levels Noise levels produced from pile dr iving noise can be estimated from similar projects reported in technical papers and peer reviewed literature. Typically, the pile size, type, and pile driving
method are used to characterize noise levels. Reference levels were used from (CALTRANS 2007; CALTRANS 2009).

c. Determine Source Level: Sound Exposu re Level for a Single Strike (SEL SS ) It is important to note the dist ance of the reported noise leve l. Many reference levels are reported at 10 m from the pile. You can back calculate noise levels from 10 m to the pile by adding 10 dB for 10 logR cylindrical loss, 15 dB for 15 log intermediate spreading loss, and 20 dB for 20 logR spherical spreading loss. Other reference level distances can easily be backcalculated by determining the dB loss for the distance using the Spreading Loss Calculator

.

d. Determine Source Level: Sound Exposu re Level for Cumulative Strikes (SEL CUM ) Cumulative exposure is based on th e amount of time an animal may be exposed to noise from repeated strikes of impact hammers (or the amount of time for vibratory piling). The cumulative sound exposure level (SEL CUM ) is determined by accounting for the repeated strikes of the
hammer:

Daily SEL CUM Source Level = SEL SS Source Level + 10 log (# of strikes/ pile)(# of piles/day)

As a general guideline, consider the cumulative ef fects of noise exposure over a 24-hr period, as long as there is sufficient “quiet” recovery time between exposures. The effects of repeated daily168 exposures over days, weeks, or months may be c onsidered qualitatively or quantitatively if the different noise sources and exposur e levels are present over time. Note: this exposure level is realized from constant exposure to the noise , but does not account for animal movement.

NOTE: RMS levels (or root mean square) are already a time averaged level based on hearing and theoretically does not change with time. No further calculations are required for dB levels reported in RMS units based on th e number of strikes per day.

e. Choose A Spreading Loss Model
The decrease in noise level with distance from the source (also called attenuation or spreading loss) can be estimated using a spreading loss model. A general equation to predict noise at some distance from a pile is:

TL(R) = SL – N log R; where

TL is the threshold level in Table 1 at a distance R from the pile in meters, SL is the source level, N is a coefficient for geometric spread ing (e.g., spherical or cylindrical), and
R is a distance from the source.

For pile driving projects, geometric spreadi ng (N) can range between 10 and 20, but usually takes the form of two equa tions based on water depth.

Spherical spreading in deep water is expressed as: TL(R) = SL – 20 log R Intermediate spreading in shallower wate r is expressed as: TL(R) = SL – 15 log R

As a general assessment rule in determining whic h equation to use, use intermediate spreading loss if your impact zone distance is greater than the water depth. Most pile driving occurs in shallow, coastal areas so intermediate spread ing loss is most common model used for coastal projects. Open water pile driving in deeper wa ter is best modeled usi ng spherical spreading. To find the distance of the threshold level TL( R), solve the equation by altering the distance from the pile (R), but you can use the Spreadi ng Loss Calculator explaine d below in Step V. More detailed examples and discussion of de termining impact zones using spreading loss equations can be found in the Fede ral Highway Administration (2012).

The concept of “effective quiet” assumes that en ergy from pile strikes that is less than 150

‐ dB or SEL does not accumulate to cause injury. Fo r any given condition, at some distance, sound
attenuates to the level of effective quiet (i.e., 150

‐ dB SEL). Under the con cept of effective quiet,
the distance to the cumulative criterion level cannot extend be yond the distance to effective quiet. For example, an SEL SS value of 180 dB, attenuates to the effective quiet level of 150 dB at 280 feet (1,000 meters) using a 10 logR spreading loss mode l. Therefore, the SEL CUM distance is
limited to the number of strikes that meets 1000 m, but strikes beyond that do not contribute to
the SEL CUM

.169 NOTE: SEL CUM assumes constant exposure, and does not account for the movement of fish and
sea turtles. Movements must be monitore d during the activity, modeled, or considered qualitatively in the analysis.

f. Determine the Impact Zones by Ca lculating Threshold Distances Using the Spreading Loss Calculator In steps 3 and 4 you will have already have calcu lated the source level for both a single strike and for cumulative daily strikes. In step 4 you have chosen the spreading loss model appropriate for a project. A quick and effective method to cal culate impact zone distances with the model is
first calculate the difference in dB (-dB) between the source le vel and threshold level, then
determine what distance that dB difference occu rs with the Spreading Loss Calculator.

For example, to determine the distance of the daily cumulative level of injury, first subtract the threshold levels for each animal group in Table 1 from the SEL CUM source level.

Calculate the Difference (-dB) Between S ource Level and Injury Threshold Levels
fish ≥ 2 grams and sea turtles = Source Level (SEL CUM ) – 187 dB fish < 2 grams = Source Level (SEL CUM ) – 183 dB

Calculate the Difference (-dB) Between Sour ce Level and Behavioral Threshold Levels for all fish sizes = Source Level (RMS) – 150 dB sea turtles = Source Level (RMS) – 160 dB

Figure 1-1. Screenshot of the Spreading Loss Calcul ator. The dB loss over any range can be determined for three types spreading loss models (10 logR, 15 logR, and 20 logR). For example, at 50 m, there is a 25.5 dB reduction in noise from a pile due to intermediate transmission loss (15 logR). The spreading loss calculator is located on the network drive at: SLS4:\NOISE
EXPOSURE\SPREADING LOSS CALCULATOR

After determining the dB difference between sour ce level and threshold level, use the Spreading Loss Calculator to input different ranges in the first column (Range) to find the distance that the -
dB difference would occur. The calculator uses three spreading loss formulas to allow for quick calculations of several ranges. The equations solve for any range input by the user by

Range (m) log (R) 20 logR Spherical Spreading Loss (- dB) 10 log R Cylindrical Spreading Loss (- dB) 15 log R Cylindrical Spreading Loss (- dB)

10 0 0 0

2 0.301029996 6.020599913 3.010299957 4.515449935

4 0.602059991 12.04119983 6.020599913 9.03089987

8 0.903089987 18.06179974 9.03089987 13.5463498

10 1 20 10 15

25 1.397940009 27.95880017 13.97940009 20.96910013

50 1.698970004 33.97940009 16.98970004 25.48455007

100 2 40 20 30

1000 3 60 30 45

2000 3.301029996 66.02059991 33.01029996 49.51544993

10000 4 80 40 60

100000 5 100 50 75

500000 5.698970004 113.9794001 56.98970004 85.48455007

1000000 6 120 60 90 Spherical (20 logR) and Cylindrical (10 and 15 logR) Spreading Loss

Instructions: Input range from source to obtain spherical and cylindrical spreading loss (- dB)170 automatically calculating noise reduction at t hose distances from a pile (-dB) using three spreading loss equations for a ny range input by the user.

g. Report the Noise Levels in the Effects Analysis The noise levels used in the effects analysis should be tabulated for easy reference.

Table 1-3. Example for a 24-inch diameter co ncrete pile using a 15 logR spreading loss.
SEL CUM was calculated for 4 piles per day requiri ng 450 strikes per pile (1,800 strikes/day). Reference Unit (dB) Source Level Peak pressure 200 dB

RMS 185 dB

SEL SS 175 dB

SEL CUM 207.5 dB
Source levels back-calculated from CALTRANS (2009).

h. Standard Impact Zone Definitions

Injury Zone: the distance from pile driving with in which injury (lethal or non-lethal) may occur. Onset of injury considers hearing loss, as well other effects such as gill, eye, and swim bladder damage in fishes.

Behavioral Zone: the distance from pile driving w ithin which behavioral reactions may

occur.

Impact Zone: The distance from the pile encompa ssing the effects of interest (i.e., the injury zone and/or the behavior zone).

Watch Zone: an additional buffer zone that may be monitored to detect animals that are heading towards the impacted area. The wa tch zone radius may vary depending on the type of project, habitat, and species po tentially occurring in the project area.171 

### Pile

Injury Zone

Watch
Zone Behavioral
Reaction
Zone



# S
h

or eli

ne

Figure 1-2. An example graphic visualizi ng impact zones for a pile driving project. Graphical representations of the impact zones are a useful analytical tool in visualiz ing the project impacts within the species habitat.172 i. Behavioral Effects

The noise produced by pile driving projects may deter animals by acting as an acoustic deterrent from the construction area. Reactions may range from temporary startle responses to sudden noise, to a standoff distance, abandonment of the habitat, or even attraction to the novel sounds
in the environment. In some cases avoidance re sponses may be beneficial if the reaction results in the animal avoiding exposure to potentially harm ful noise levels. This is the strategy behind ramping up or dry-firing pile drivers.

Relatively few studies have been conducted for beha vioral reactions of s ea turtles (McCauley et al. 2000a; McCauley et al. 2000b), and none for sp ecies of sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish. Effects on behavior may be an important e ffect if it disrupts feeding, mating, migration, sheltering, or indirectly increases the risk to individuals (e,g., predat ion). Behavioral reactions to noise may be important if they occur in biologic ally important areas such as migratory pathways, foraging areas, near nesting beaches or spawni ng habitats, or in important developmental
habitats. Although species-specific responses to noise are e xpected, variable responses to noise may occur between different age classes or sexes of th e same species. Some individuals may be biologically motivated to remain in a hab itat for feeding, sheltering, mating, and other biologically important reasons, or may temporar ily use the area as an established pathway
between habitats. Other indivi duals may abandon use of the ar ea altogether. Habituation and sensitization may also result from longer-term noi se exposure (hours to weeks) and may result in adverse consequences on an indi vidual. An example analytical framework is provided in Figure

1-3.173 

### Figure 1-3. An e xample analytical framework for fish and sea turtles. 1.
2. Hab
itat Effects Behavioral

reaction Physical/

Injury Indirect
Effects Exposure to
Noise?

2.1 Effe

ct of
Tak Types of Response Injury
Avoidance/Attraction

Reduced Foraging Reproduction
2.3 Resting Migration

Habitat 2.4
2.5 YE S

LAA Time of Year/Species

not present

Effect
cannot be

avoided

Effect
avoided: (harm
avoidance measures) NO: Response is Insignificant 2.6 YES: Respo

nse to
Ex pos

NLAA NO

Insignificant

YES
Deterrence from optimal

foraging sites, nesting beaches, spawning sites, injury, habitat loss,
habitat mod. Is the effect of the response

negative? Listed species are

present

2.7
2.8 Res

pon

se174 II. 

### Analysis of Noise from Small Dock and Sea Wall Projects

Background
We conducted a review of the effects of noise from residential seawall and dock construction on listed species of sea turtles, sawfish, and stur geon occurring in the Southeast U.S. Most
residential docks in Florida are constructed with e ither wood or concrete piles. According to the USACE, approximately 98 percent of the docks in stalled under their permits are constructed of 8-inch wood pilings, and the remaining 2 percent of docks are constructed of 8-inch concrete piles. A dock installers in Cape Coral, Florid a estimated approximately 99 percent of residential
docks constructed in Southwest Florida are co nstructed of wood pile s (August 20, 2012 personal communication from Dan Stovall, VP of Honc Ma rine, to Nicole Baily, NMFS). The major difference between wood and concrete piles is the shorter longevity and lower cost of wood piles compared to concrete construction.

On water construction equipment for docks and s eawalls include workboat s, water jetting, augerdrilling equipment, vibratory hammers, and impact hammers. Jetting and drilling result of much lower noise levels than either impact or vibrat ory pile driving. In many areas, projects utilize pile jetting during the initial phase s of pile installation to set the pile in place before it is driven to resistance. This method uses high-pressure water sprayed beneath the pile to excavate sediment and sand layers. Noise measurements ta ken with water jetting on and off during pile driving resulted in no additional noise recorded above that of the pile driving noise (CALTRANS 2007), and the source levels for jetting is beli eved to be well below the 150 dB re 1 μPa RMS threshold for behavioral disturbance to fish. Auger drilling levels through rock for large piles have been measured to be above 150 dB re 1 μPa RMS (Dazey et al. 2012); however, small-scale drilling operations that are more representa tive of dock construction methods have been measured to be no more than 107 dB re 1 μPa 0-peak 7.5 m from the source (Willis et al. 2010). Our back calculation resulted in an appr oximate source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa 0-peak . Neither small-scale auger drilling nor water jetting is expected to result in noise levels that may adversely affect listed species.

Impact hammer installation generates the most in -water noise. There are two main classes of impact hammers: external combustion and inte rnal combustion. External combustion hammers use cables, steam, compressed air or pressurized hydraulic fluid to raise the ram which is then dropped by gravity (e.g., a drop hammer). Intern al combustion hammers do not rely on gravity and force the ram into the pile (e.g., a diesel hammer). During impact pile driving, noise is produced when the energy from the hammer is tran sferred to the pile and released into the surrounding water and sediment.

The number of piles necessary to complete constr uction of a residential do ck varies by the size and design of the structure. A typical dock of 15 piles requires approxima tely 10 hours of pile driving, including placement of piles and equipment, and can take 2 or more days to complete. Some larger residential docks can use up to 70 piles and noise could be produced over a period of 2 weeks. After pile installa tion, it takes an additional 26 hours for above water carpenter work for framing and decking, and an additional 3 hour s to install a boatlift. Pile driving for residential docks does not occur at night. Ha mmer drop for marina construction with timber piles has be reported to occur once or twice per minute (CALTRANS 2007).175 Assumptions of the Analyses

 Noise spreads cylindrically in coastal waters and noise transmission is characterized by 15 logR spreading loss.

 Strike rates for dock construction with timbe r piles has been reported to occur once or twice per minute (CALTRANS 2007). The average number of strikes per pile is estimated as 45, calculated as 1.5 times per minute for 30 minutes.

 Concrete pile installation was estimated to take 160 strikes per pile based on data provided by a contractor in Ca pe Coral (pers. comm. Rocky, Turell and Associates to N. Bailey, NMFS, September 6, 2012). The applican t’s contractor stated that the average pile is driven 8 feet and requires an aver age of 20 strikes per foot which equals 160 strikes per pile.

 CALTRANS (2007) reported that sheet piles were installed in 12 to 15 minutes, with pile strikes about once every 1.4 seconds or 43 to 44 strikes per minute (660 strikes per pile).

 An average of 10 timber or concrete piles wi ll be installed on any given work day.

 Vibratory piling may take up to 30 minutes per pile.



### Impact Pile Driving Noise Analysis for Small Docks and Seawalls

Table 2-1: Impact hammer source levels and threshold distances for injury (peak pressure) and behavioral impacts (RMS) resulting from dock, sea wall, and bulkhead construction.

Noise Unit Source Level at
Pile Fish Radius (m) Turtle Radius (m)

12-14 inch timber pile Peak pressure 195 dB NA NA
RMS 185 dB 215 46

SELss 175 dB NA NA

24-inch concrete pile Peak pressure 200 dB NA NA
RMS 185 dB 215 46

SELss 175 dB NA NA

24-inch sheet pile Peak pressure 220 dB 9 9
RMS 204 dB 858 185
SELss 194 dB 14 14

a Pile driving data derived from (CALTRANS 2007; CALTRANS 2009). Source levels were back-calculated from 10 m using 15 logR cylindrical spreading loss.

The peak pressure threshold is not exceeded fr om single strikes for wood or concrete, but is exceeded for sheet piles. Therefore, peak pressure is not considered further in the analysis for wood and concrete piles.176 Table 2-2. Impact hammer daily cumulative exposure (SEL CUM ) by number of piles installed per day.
Piles/Day Strikes/
Timber Pile 10Log(strikes) Strikes/
Concrete Pile 10Log(strikes) Strikes/
Sheet Pile 10Log(strikes)

1 45 16.53 160 22.04 660 28.20 2 90 19.54 320 25.05 1,320 31.21 3 135 21.30 480 26.81 1,980 32.97 4 180 22.55 640 28.06 2,640 34.22 5 225 23.52 800 29.03 3,300 35.19 6 270 24.31 960 29.82 3,960 35.98

7 315 24.98 1,120 30.49 4,620 36.65 8 360 25.56 1,280 31.07 5,280 37.23 9 405 26.07 1,440 31.58 5,940 37.74 10 450 26.53 1,600 32.04 6,600 38.20

Table 2-3. Impact hammer daily cumulative impact zone ranges for injury based for the number of wood piles driven per day.

Piles/Day SEL CUM Fish < 2 grams Fish ≥ 2 grams and Turtles

dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m) dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m)

1 191.04 8.5 3.7 4.5 2
2 194.5 11.5 5.8 7.5 3
3 196.3 13.3 7.7 9.0 4
4 197.5 14.5 9.3 10.5 5
5 198.5 15.5 10.8 11.5 6
6 199.3 16.3 12.2 12.3 7
7 200.0 17 13.6 13.0 7
8 200.6 17.6 14.9 13.6 8
9 201.1 18.1 16.1 14.1 9
10 201.5 18.5 17.1 14.5 9 The peak pressure threshold is not exceeded from single timber pile strikes. The effective quiet
level of 47 m is not exceeded.177 Table 2-4. Impact hammer daily cumulative impact zone ranges for injury based for the number of concrete piles driven per day.

Piles/Day SEL CUM Fish < 2 grams Fish ≥ 2 grams and Turtles

dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m) dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m)

1 197.04 14.04 8.6 10.04 4.7
2 200.05 17.05 13.7 13.05 7.5
3 201.81 18.81 17.9 14.81 9.7
4 203.06 20.06 21.8 16.06 11.8
5 204.03 21.03 25.2 17.03 13.7
6 204.82 21.82 28.4 17.82 15.4
7 205.49 22.49 31.6 18.49 17.1
8 206.07 23.07 34.5 19.07 18.7
9 206.58 23.58 37.2 19.58 20.2
10 207.04 24.04 40.1 20.04 21.7 The peak pressure threshold is not exceeded from single concrete pile strikes. The effective quiet level of 47 m is not exceeded.

Table 2-5. Impact hammer daily cumulative impact zone ranges for injury based for the number of sheet piles driven per day.

Piles/Day SEL CUM Fish < 2 grams Fish ≥ 2 grams and Turtles

dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m) dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m)

1 222.20 39.20 411 35.20 223
2 225.21 42.21 652 38.21 353
3 226.97 43.97 854 39.97 462
4 228.22 45.22 EF 41.22 560
5 229.19 46.19 EF 42.19 650
6 229.98 46.98 EF 42.98 734
7 230.65 47.65 EF 43.65 813
8 231.23 48.23 EF 44.23 EF
9 231.74 48.74 EF 44.74 EF
10 232.20 49.20 EF 45.20 EF

Peak

Pressure

17.00 14 14.00 9
The effective quiet level of 858 m is ex ceeded at 4 piles per day for small fish and 8 piles per day for larger fish.178 Table 2-6: Impact pile driving behavioral impact zone ranges for wood, concrete, and sheet piles. Piles/Day dB Above Fish

Threshold Fish Radius (m) dB Above Sea

Turtle

Threshold Sea Turtle Radius (m)

wood 35 dB 215 25 dB 46

concrete 35 dB 215 25 dB 46 sheet pile 44 dB 858 34 dB 185



### Vibratory Pile Driving Noise Analysis for Small Docks and Seawalls

Table 2-7. Source levels for 8- to 10-inch diameter wood and concrete piles, and 24-inch sheet piles installed with a vibratory hammer. Source Level at Pile Fish Radius (m) Turtle Radius (m)

8- to 10-inch wood

or concrete Peak pressure 186 NA NA

RMS 170 22 5
SELss 170 NA NA

24-inch AZ sheet pile Peak pressure 192 NA NA

RMS 178 74 16
SELss 178 NA NA
Vibratory pile driving of wood and concrete is not common and no measurements are available. We used source levels from vibratory pile driving of a 13-inch steel pipe as a conservative upper limit of potential noise for wood
and concrete.

The peak pressure threshold is not exceeded from vibratory pile driving and is not considered further in the analysis for any pile type.179 Table 2-8. Estimating the cumulative exposure (SEL CUM ) of animals to continuous noise from vibratory pile driving of wood, concrete, and sheet piles.

Number of Piles Average Time to Drive a Pile (seconds) 10 Log(time in seconds)
Cumulative dB

1 1,800 32.55

2 3,600 35.56

3 5,400 37.32

4 7,200 38.57

5 9,000 39.54

6 10,800 40.33

7 12,600 41.00

8 14,400 42.10

9 16,200 42.55

10 18,000 42.97

Table 2-9. Vibratory hammer daily cumulative impact zone ranges for injury based on the
number of wood or concrete piles driven per day.

Piles/Day SEL CUM Fish < 0.6 grams Fish ≥ 102 grams and Turtles

dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m) dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m)

1 191.5 0.5 1.1 NA NA

2 194.5 3.5 1.7 NA NA

3 196.3 5.3 2.2 NA NA

4 197.5 6.5 2.7 NA NA

5 198.5 7.5 3.2 NA NA

6 199.3 8.3 3.6 NA NA

7 200.0 9.0 4.0 NA NA

8 200.6 9.6 4.4 NA NA

9 201.1 10.1 4.7 NA NA

10 201.5 10.5 5.0 NA NA The effective quiet level of 22 m is not exceeded.180 Table 2-10. Vibratory hammer daily cumulative impact zone ranges for injury based on the number of sheet piles driven per day.

Piles/Day SEL CUM Fish < 0.6 grams Fish ≥ 102 grams and Turtles

dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m) dB Above

Threshold Impact Radius (m)

1 210.55 19.55 20.1 NA NA

2 213.56 22.56 31.9 NA NA

3 215.32 24.32 41.8 NA NA

4 216.57 25.57 50.7 NA NA

5 217.54 26.54 58.8 NA NA

6 218.33 27.33 66.4 NA NA

7 219.00 28.00 73.6 NA NA

8 220.10 29.10 EF NA NA

9 220.55 29.55 EF NA NA

10 220.97 29.91 EF NA NA The effective quiet level of 74 m is exceeded at 8 piles per day for small fish, but is not exceeded for large fish.

Table 2-11: Vibratory pile driv ing behavioral impact zone ra nges for wood, concrete, and sheet piles. Piles/Day dB Above Fish

Threshold Fish Radius (m) dB Above Sea

Turtle

Threshold Sea Turtle Radius (m)

wood 20 dB 22 10 dB 4.6

concrete 20 dB 22 10 dB 4.6 sheet pile 28 dB 74 18 dB 16181 14. Appendix B

Summary of annual incidental ta ke levels anticipated under the incidental take statements associated with NMFS’ existing biological opinio ns in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

Federal Action Sea Turtle Species 1

Loggerhead Leatherback Green Kemp’s Ridley Hawksbill

Coast Guard Vessel Operation 1 (combined)

Navy – SE Ops
Area 3 91 17 16 16 4

Navy – NE Ops
Area 10 0 1 1 0

Shipshock –
Seawolf/Winston
Churchill 276

(No more than 58 lethal) 276

(No more than 58 lethal) 276

(No more

than 58 lethal) 276

(No more

than 58 lethal) 276

(No more

than 58 lethal)
USACE Dredging –
NE Atlantic 27 1 6 5 0

USACE Dredging –
S. Atlantic 35 0 7 7 2

USACE Dredging –
N & W Gulf of
Mexico 30 0 8 14 2

USACE Dredging –

E Gulf of Mexico 8 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

USACE Rig Removal, Gulf of
Mexico 1 1 1 1 1

MMS Destin Dome
Lease Sales 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5

MMS Rig Removal,
Gulf of Mexico 10 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6

Dolphin/Wahoo Fishery 16

(No more than 2 lethal) 16

(No more than 1 lethal) 2

(No more

than 1 lethal) 2

(No more

than 1 lethal) 2

(No more

than 1 lethal)
NE Multispecies Sink Gillnet Fishery 10 4 4 2 0

ASMFC Lobster
Plan 10 4 0 0 0182 Federal Action Sea Turtle Species 1

Loggerhead Leatherback Green Kemp’s Ridley Hawksbill

Bluefish Fishery 6

(No more than 3 lethal) 0 0 6 0

Herring Fishery 6

(No more than 3 lethal) 1 1 1 0

Mackerel, Squid,
Butterfish Fisheries 6

(No more than 3 lethal) 1 2 2 0

Monkfish Fishery 6

(No more than 3 lethal) 1 1 1 0

Dogfish Fishery 6

(No more than 3 lethal) 1 1 1 0

Sargassum Fishery 15 1 1 1 1

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 15

(No more than 5 lethal) 3 3 3 3

Shrimp Fishery 8 163,160

(No more than

3,948 lethal) 3,090

(No more than 80 lethal) 155,503

(No more than 4,208 lethal) 18,757

(No more
than 514 Lethal) 640 11

(All lethal)

Weakfish Fishery 20 0 0 2 0

HMS – Pelagic Longline Fishery 1,905 1,764 105 (combined)

HMS – Shark Fishery 679

(No more than

346 lethal) 74

(No more than 47 lethal) 2

(No more

than 1 lethal) 2

(No more

than 1 lethal) 2

(No more

than 1 lethal)183 Federal Action Sea Turtle Species 1

Loggerhead Leatherback Green Kemp’s Ridley Hawksbill

NRC – St. Lucie,

FL 10 1000

(No more than 10 lethal) 1000

(No more than 1 lethal) 1000

(No more

than 10 lethal) 1000

(No more

than 1 lethal) 1000

(No more

than 1 lethal)

NRC – Brunswick,

NC 50

(No more than 6 lethal) 50 50

(No more

than 3 lethal) 50

(No more

than 2 lethal) 50

NRC – Crystal River, FL 55

(No more than 1 lethal) 55

(No more than 1 lethal) 55

(No more

than 1 lethal) 55

(No more

than 1 lethal) 55

(No more

than 1 lethal)

Navarre Beach

Fishing Pier 4

(up to 1 lethal
of either loggerhead or Kemp’s ridley) 0 0 2

(up to 1
lethal of

either loggerhead or Kemp’s

ridley) 0

Miller Fishing Pier 4

(up to 1 lethal
of either loggerhead or Kemp’s ridley) 0 0 2

(up to 1
lethal of

either loggerhead or Kemp’s

ridley) 0

Mexico Beach

Fishing Pier 4

(up to 1 lethal
of either loggerhead or Kemp’s ridley) 0 0 2

(up to 1
lethal of

either loggerhead or Kemp’s

ridley) 0184 Federal Action Sea Turtle Species 1

Loggerhead Leatherback Green Kemp’s Ridley Hawksbill

Biloxi Coliseum Fishing Pier 2

(up to 1 lethal

and 1 nonlethal of either species) 0 0 2

(up to 1
lethal and 1
non-lethal

of either species) 0

Clermont Harbor Fishing Pier 2

(up to 1 lethal

and 1 nonlethal of either species) 0 0 2

(up to 1
lethal and 1
non-lethal

of either species) 0

Washington Street Fishing Pier 2

(up to 1 lethal

and 1 nonlethal of either species) 0 0 2

(up to 1
lethal and 1
non-lethal

of either species) 0

Flagler Beach Pier 2

(Or 1 loggerhead and 1 Kemp’s

ridley) 2

(up to 1
lethal of
either Green

or loggerhead

species)

1 Anticipated Take level represents ‘lethal’ unless otherwise noted.

2 Includes Navy Operations along the Atlantic Coasts and Gulf of Mexico, Mine warfare center, Eglin AFB, Moody AFB.

3 Total estimated take includes acoustic harassment.

4 Up to 8 sea turtles total, of which, no more than 5 may be leatherbacks, greens, Kemp’s or hawksbill, in
combination.

5 Total anticipated take is 3 sea turtles of any combination over a 30-year period.

6 Not to exceed 25 sea turtles, in total.

7 Anticipated take for post-hatchlings over a 5-year period.

8 Represents estimated take (interactions between sea turtles and trawls). Lethal take in parentheses.

10 Annual incidental capture of up to 1,000 sea turtles, in any combination of the five species found in the action area. NOAA Fisheries anticipates 1 percent of the total number of green and loggerhead sea turtles (combined) captured (i.e., if there are 900 total green and loggerhead sea turtles captured in one year, then 9 sea turtles in any combination of greens and loggerheads are expected to be injured or killed185 Federal Action Sea Turtle Species 1

Loggerhead Leatherback Green Kemp’s Ridley Hawksbill

as a result. In cases where 1 percent of the tota l is not a whole number, then the total allowable incidental take due to injury or death will be round ed to the next higher whole number) will be injured or killed each year over the next 10 years as a result of this incidental capture. NOAA Fisheries also anticipates two Kemp’s ridley sea turtles will be killed each year and one hawksbill or leatherback sea turtle will be injured or killed every 2 years for the next 10 years.

11 Actual mortalities of hawksbills, as a result of sea tu rtle/trawl interactions, is expected to be much lower than this number. This number represents the estimated total number of mortalities of hawksbill sea turtles from all sources in areas where shrimp fishing takes place.