UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCENationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationNATIONALMARINEFISHERIESSERVICESoutheastRegionalOffice26313thAvenueSouthSt.Petersburg,Florida33701-5505http://sero.nmfs.noaa.govFISER31:ALSER-2012-657Mr.AndrewParks.P.E.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyEP.1820jRegionIVAtlantaFederalCenter61ForsythStreetAtlanta,Georgia30303-8960Ref.:GreenhouseGasPermitApplicationsubmittedbyFloridaPowerandLightPort EvergladesNextGenerationCleanEnergyCenter,FortLauderdale.BrowardCounty,FloridaDearMr.Parks:This respondstotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency’s(EPA’s)letterdatedFebruary22,2012,andbiologicalassessment(BA)datedNovember16,2012,designatingFloridaPowerandLightasyournonfederalrepresentativeandrequestinginformalconsultation(andconcurrencewithyour“noadverseeffect”determinationonthereferencedproject)underSection7oftheEndangeredSpeciesActof1973(ESA).EnclosedistheNationalMarineFisheriesService’s(NMFS’s)biologicalopinion,issuedinaccordancewithSection7oftheESA,basedonourreviewofyourproposedactiontoissueagreenhousegaspermittoFloridaPowerandLightPortEvergladesNextGenerationCleanEnergyCenter.Thepermitisforthedismantlementofexistingpowerunits,theconstructionofanew3-on-Icombinedcycleunitthatrunsprimarilyonnaturalgas,and thecontinueduseofthecooling-waterintakecanalandthewarm-waterdischargecanaladjacenttotheAtlanticIntracoastalWaterwayinFortLauderdale,BrowardCounty,Florida.Thebiologicalopinionanalyzestheproject’seffectsonloggerhead,green,andhawksbillseaturtles.ItisbasedoninformationprovidedinyourBA;theESAfive-yearstatusreviewsforloggerhead,green,andhawksbillseaturtles;NMFS’sandtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService’srecoveryplansforthesespecies;informationfrompreviousNMFS’sconsultationsinvolvingseaturtles;andothersources.Itisourbiologicalopinionthattheaction,asproposed,islikelytoadverselyaffectloggerhead,green,andhawksbillseaturtles,butisnotlikelytojeopardizetheircontinuedexistence.WelookforwardtofurthercooperationwithyouonotherEPA projectstoensuretheconservationandrecoveryofourthreatenedandendangeredmarinespecies.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisconsultation,pleasecontactAudraLivergood,consultationbiologist,atAudraLivergood@noaa.govor(786)351-2225.Sincerely,RoyE.Crabtree,Ph.D.\RegionalAdministratorEnclosureFile:1514-22KEndangeredSpeciesAct-Section7ConsultationBiologicalOpinionActionAgency:U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)Activity:GreenhouseGasPermittoFloridaPower&Light(FPL)forproposedimprovementsatthePortEvergladesNextGenerationCleanEnergyCenterConsultingAgency:NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarineFisheriesService,SoutheastRegionalOffice,ProtectedResourcesDivision,St.Petersburg,Florida(ConsultationNumberSER-2012-657)Approvedby:

‘S-

‘LRoyE.Crabtree,Ph.D.,RegionalAdministratorNMFS,SoutheastRegionalOfficeSt.Petersburg,Florida

SP 182013DateIssued:___________________________________________________1.ConsultationHistory42.DescriptionoftheActionandActionArea43.StatusofListedSpeciesintheActionArea104.EnvironmentalBaseline295.EffectsoftheAction416.CumulativeEffects467.JeopardyAnalysis478.Conclusion509.IncidentalTakeStatement5010.ConservationRecommendations5711.ReinitiationofConsultation5712.LiteratureCited57Appendix176Appendix2772 Acronym List

BA Biological Assessment

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DPS Distinct Population Segment DTRU Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act FPL Florida Power & Light

FWRI Florida Wildlife Research Institute GCRU Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit GIS Geographic Information Systems ICW Intracoastal Waterway

ITS Incidental Take Statement

MMPA U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act NGMRU Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NWA Northwest Atlantic PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls PEEC Port Everglades Energy Center SCDNR South Carolina Depart ment of Natural Resources

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center

TED Turtle Excluder Device TEWG Turtle Expert Working Group

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service3 Background

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), requires that each federal agency shall ensu re that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likel y to jeopardize the continued ex istence of any endangered or threatened species or result in th e destruction or adverse modificati on of critical habitat of such species. When the action of a federal agency ma y affect a protected species, that agency is required to consult with either the National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), depending upon the protected species that may be affected.

This document represents NMFS’s biological opinion (“opinion”) based on our review of the effects of proposed improvements and the cont inued operation of the Florida Power & Light (FPL) Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Cent er (PEEC) in Broward County, Florida, on green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas ), leatherback sea turtles ( Dermochelys coriacea ),

hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata ), loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ), Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii ), and smalltooth sawfish ( Pristis pectinata ), in accordance

with Section 7 of the ESA. Activities evaluated include dismantling four existing generators that run on fossil fuel and replacing them with a nom inal 1,250-megawatt 3-on-1 combined cycle unit that runs on natural gas. We al so evaluated potential effects on listed species from operation of the new unit that will run on natural gas.

Formal consultations are required when action ag encies determine that a proposed action “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. Formal cons ultations on most listed marine species are conducted between the action agency and NMFS. Cons ultations are concluded after NMFS’s issuance of an opinion that identifies wh ether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The opinion also states the amount or extent of inci dental taking that may o ccur. Nondiscretionary measures (“reasonable and prudent measures” - RPMs) to reduce the like lihood of interactions are developed, and conservation recommendations are made. Notably, there are no reasonable and prudent measures associated with critical habitat, only reas onable and prudent alternatives.

This opinion is based on information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FPL, Inwater Research Group, and th e Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).4 BIOLOGICAL OPINION

1.0 Consultation History

On February 22, 2012, EPA requested informal consultation with NMFS un der Section 7 of the ESA for FPL’s proposed improvements at the P EEC in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. In the same letter, EPA also designate d FPL as their nonfederal representative for the ESA Section 7 consultation. We requested ad ditional information and a biological assessment (BA) on March 29, 2012. We received the final BA on November 16, 2012, and initiated formal consultation the same day with EPA (formal cons ultations cannot be designated to nonfederal representatives).

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Action Area

2.1 Proposed Action

EPA proposes to issue a five-year greenhouse ga s permit to FPL to dismantle four existing generators at the PEEC that run on fossil fuel and replace them with a nominal 1,250-megawatt, 3-on-1 combined cycle unit that ru ns on natural gas (Figure 1).5 Figure 1. Typical "3- on-1" Combined Cycle Unit (Source: FPL BA).

Existing infrastructure at the PEEC, including access roads, rights-of-way for fueling infrastructure, natural gas transportation to PEEC, potable water supplies, phone and fiber optic infrastructure, access to FPL’s transmission system, and existing cooling-water intake and discharge systems, will be used during the dism antling and operation phas es of the project. FPL is not proposing any dredging or impacts to mangroves or seagrasses.

PEEC Dismantling and Construction Phases :

During the dismantling phase, FPL will remove the existing power block and associated facilities (tanks, piping, support buildings, etc.). During dismantling and the majority of the construction phase (approximately three years), the existing withdrawal of cooling water from the intake canal will not be operational. Th e condenser cooling water will begin testing and commissioning in the fourth quarter of 2015.

PEEC Operational Phase:

Once construction of the new 3-on-1 combined cy cle unit is complete and operational, primary water uses at the PEEC will be for cooling wa ter and process makeup water. Cooling water is required for condenser cooling and auxiliary equipment cooling. FPL will use the existing infrastructure of Units 3 and 4 once-through c ooling water intake and discharge systems for condenser cooling. Cooling water is withdr awn from the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) via

culverts that flow into FPL’s intake canal. Afte r the water is used, it is discharged into a canal that flows back into the ICW. The average flow for PEEC will be 635 million gallons per day (MGD) once the plant is fully commissioned and in operation, while the flow for the existing units is authorized for 1,296 MGD. Because the design intake flow for PEEC will be approximately one-half of the existing intake flow, the existing intake infrastructure can be used for PEEC with lower cooling water requirements. Therefore, the point of intake velocity and the intake canal flow velocity will be approximately 51 percent lower at the 635 MGD flow6 rate. The velocity at the intake culverts wi ll be approximately 2.17 feet per second (fps) and the average velocity within the intake canal is approximately 1.0 fps. The velocity at the intake screen is unchanged at approximately 2.9 fps.

PEEC will use natural gas as the primary fuel source for the new unit with ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) oil used as the backup fuel. Natural gas will be transported to PEEC via an existing natural gas pipeline. New infrastructure will be built to accommodate ULSD storage, delivery, and unloading from Port Ev erglades. FPL states in the BA (page 7) that under normal operations, they anticipate less than one ship per year will be sufficient to maintain the necessary levels of ULSD for re liable and continuous service. They state this is a significant reduction from the 22 plus ships per year necessary under current operations. During emergency situations, such as periods of disrup ted natural gas supply, FPL states additional ships may be required.

2.2 Action Area

“Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indire ctly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the ac tion area (50 CFR 402.02). The action area for PEEC includes the upland area of the power plan t where dismantlement of the existing units and construction of the new unit will occur, the once-through cooling water system (intake and discharge canals and structures), and waters of the ICW that flow into the intake canal and flow out from the discharge canal (back to th e ICW). In addition, the action area includes the ICW in the vicinity of Port Everglades. The ac tion area encompasses an area from just south of the discharge canal at approximately 26.07784°North latitude and 80.11513West longitude (North American Datum 1983), north to a point in the ICW just south of the turning basin near the Coast Guard Station at approximately 26.08855°North latitude and 80.11432°West longitude (North American Datum 1983). The acti on area includes this area of direct influence and the adjacent aquatic habitats that may experien ce indirect impacts. The indirect impact area includes the adjacent waterways and shoreline habitats between the Port Everglades Turning

Basin entrance channel midline south to a point approximately 370 meters south of the mouth of the discharge canal. The corner coordi nates for the portions of Port Everglades and

the ICW included in the action area are:

Northwest Corner: 26.09352°N and 80.12384°W

Northeast Corner: 26.09360°N and 80.11240° W

Southwest Corner: 26.07514°N and 80.11551°W

Southeast Corner: 26.07518°N and 80.11352°W

Figure 2 encompasses all areas expe cted to be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed

action.7 Figure 2. Black line delineates the Ac tion Area (Source of image: FPL BA).

The majority of the upland land use in the action area is comprised of facilities related to electric power generation at PEEC. The cooling-water intake (north side) and discharge (south side) canals are upland cut ditches (see Figures 3 and 4, respectively). The banks of the canals are overgrown primarily with Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ) and Australian pine ( Casuarina equisetifolia ) with scattered Mexican fireplant ( Poinsettia heterophylla ), painted leaf ( Poinsettia cyathophora ), Durban crowfoot grass ( Dactyloctenium aegyptium ), Virginia creeper ( Parthenocissus quinquefolia ) and prickly pear cactus ( Opuntia humifusa ). Natural terrestrial vegetative communities are scarce within the urban environment surrounding the PEEC8 property. Areas of mangrove wetlands and areas dominated by melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ) and Australian pine occur in the action area, in particular on the tract south of the discharge canal and at John U. Lloyd State Recreation Area on the eastern shore of the ICW across from PEEC (BA, page 9).

Figure 3. Cooling-water intake cana l (Photo credit: A. Livergood, NMFS).9 Figure 4. Warm-water disc harge canal (Photo Credit: A. Livergood, NMFS).

The proposed action will no t impact mangroves or seagrasses. The only aquatic environments that occur within PEEC are the cooling-water intake and discharge canals. FPL states that no Johnson’s seagrass has been identified in the canal s (BA, page 9). Aquatic environments within the action area adjacent to the PEEC property include the ICW and the Port Everglades slips and turning basin. The entire area of the ICW and P o r t E v e r g l a d e s turning basin contained within the action area has been dredged to depths greater than 10 meters (33 feet) to accommodate deep-draft vessels (BA, page 9).10 3.0 Status of Listed Species in the Action Area

The following listed species under NMFS’s jurisdicti on are known to occur in or near the action

area:

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Sea Turtles

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas 1 E/T Kemp's ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 2 T

Fish

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata 3 E

Marine Mammals North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis E Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E

Plants Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii T

3.1 Species Not Affected

Johnson’s Seagrass

NMFS believes there will be no effect on Johnson ’s seagrass for two reasons: (1) FPL states Johnson’s seagrass is not present in the intake an d discharge canals (BA, page 9), and (2) there are no aspects of the project w ith the potential to affect J ohnson’s seagrass (e.g., dredging). Therefore, we believe Johnson’s se agrass will not be affected, and it will not be discussed further in this opinion.

1 Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except fo r the Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico breeding populations, which are listed as endangered.

2 Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Dist inct Population Segment (DPS).

3 U.S. DPS.11 3.2 Species Not Likely to be Adversely Affected

Smalltooth Sawfish

NMFS believes the project may affect, but is not like ly to adversely affect smalltooth sawfish. In the smalltooth sawfish recovery plan, NMFS identified warm-water discharge from power

stations as a low-level threat to recovery (NMFS 2009, Table 1 in the recovery plan). However, FPL reports there have not been any encounters of smalltooth sawfish at PEEC (BA, page 27). Juvenile sawfish have an affinity for red mangr oves and warm, shallow waters. Most juveniles occur in shallow-water nursery areas along Florid a’s southwest coast. Neither shallow-water habitat nor red mangroves are present in PEEC’s intake or discharge canal. Both canals are dredged, and water depths are greater than one mete r. Therefore, because their preferred habitats are not present and based on FPL’s records of no reported encounters at PEEC, we believe the risk of a sawfish being entrained in the intake canal is discountable. Therefore, smalltooth sawfish will not be discussed further in this opinion.

Marine Mammals

Of the six endangered whale species known to occur in the Atlantic Ocean (North Atlantic right whale, sei whale, fin whale, humpback whale, bl ue whale, and sperm whale), only sperm whales are known to commonly occur over the greatest ra nge of water depths (Scott et al. 1994). Typically, these six species of whales do not occur in nearshore waters (0-200 m depths). Occasionally, North Atlantic right whales may be found in nearshore waters , in particular during calving season in the winter months. The proposed action is not located in a North Atlantic right whale calving area. The action area is on the sout heast Florida coast, ad jacent to the Atlantic ICW and Port Everglades. The onl y aspect of the proposed action with the potential to affect marine mammals under NMFS’s purview is the pote ntial for a vessel inter action with a marine mammal. Part of the proposed action is the prop osed use of ULSD as a backup fuel for the new power unit that will primarily run on natural gas. However, in the unlikely event there is a disruption in the supply of natura l gas, ULSD may be needed. FPL states in the BA (page 7) that, under normal op erations, they anticipate less than one ship per year will be sufficient to maintain the necessary levels of ULSD for reliable and continuous service. They state this is a significant reduction from the 22 plus ships per year necessary under current operations. Given the low frequency of proposed vessel traffi c necessary to supply ULSD to PEEC (i.e., less than one ship per year), NMFS be lieves the risk of a vessel intera ction with an endangered whale is discountable. Thus, endangere d whales will not be discussed further in this opinion. In addition, we believe the potential effects of vessel traffic on listed species under NMFS’s purview should be considered in the ongoing ES A Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed expansion of Port Everglades.12 Sea Turtles

NMFS has analyzed the routes of potential eff ects on five species of sea turtles (loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, hawksbill, and green) from the proposed action. We believe there are two potential routes of effect on sea turtles: (1) the risk of a vessel interaction and (2) the risk of entrainment in FPL’s intake water system. For the same reasons discussed in the marine mammals section above, we believe the risk of a vessel interaction is discountable based on the low frequency of proposed vessel trips (i.e., less than one ship per year). FPL reports this is a significant reduction in vessel traffi c compared to current operations (i.e., 22 ships or more per year). All five sea turtle species may occur in the action area; however, we believe the risk of entrainment in FPL’s intake system for leatherbac k and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles is discountable.

Our determination is based on the best available data 4 compiled in Table 2 of FPL’s BA. There have been no reported encounters with leatherback or Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in PEEC’s intake water system in 22 years (from 1990 through 2012) . Leatherback sea tu rtles tend to be open ocean foragers and are uncommon in shallow nearshore waters, except during nesting season

. They undertake extensive migrations between northern foraging grounds and tropical and subtropical nesting beaches. In Florida, 50 pe rcent of all leatherback nests are found in Palm Beach County (Florida Wildlife Re search Institute or FWRI 2012) , located north of the action

area. Leatherback sea turtles nest in sma ll numbers in Broward County. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of leatherback nests per kilome ter of surveyed nesting beach in Broward County averaged between 0.18 and 2.36 nests (FWRI 2012). Adult Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are primarily found in the Gulf of Mexico basin, but ar e also found on the U.S. Atlantic coast. Their habitat largely consists of sandy and muddy areas in shallow, near shore waters less than 120 feet (37 m) deep, although they can also be found in deeper offshore waters. These areas support the primary prey species of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, which consist of swimming crabs, but may also include fish, jellyfis h, and an array of mollusks.

Of the five sea turtle species that may occu r in the action area, we believe only loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles are likely to be adversely affected by th e proposed action.

3.3 Species Likely to be Adversely Affected

NMFS believes the proposed action is likely to adversely affect green, loggerhead, and hawksbill sea turtles. The status of these species is discussed in the following sections.

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 sea turtle was 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.

4 Sources of sea turtle encounter data in FPL’s BA (Table 2) are from FPL records, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvag e Network, rehabilitation facility records, and necropsy report records.13 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 scal es 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 1997) and nesting occurs in more than 80 countries worldwide (Hirth 1997). The two largest nesting populat ions are found at Tortuguero, on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, and Raine Island, on the Gr eat Barrier Reef in Australia. The complete nesting range of green se a turtles within the southeastern United States includes sandy beaches of mainland shores, barrier islands, coral islands, and volcanic islands be tween Texas and North Carolina as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) and Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS 1991a; Dow et al. 2007). However, the vast majority of green sea turtle nesting within the southeastern United States occurs in Florida (Johnson and Eh rhart 1994; Meylan et al. 1995). Principal U.S. nesting areas for green sea turtles are in eastern Florida, predominantly Brevard through Broward counties. For more information on green sea turt le nesting in other ocean basins, refer to the 1991 Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Green Tu rtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991a) or the 2007 Green

Sea Turtle 5-Year Status Re view (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 (Hildebrand 1982; Doughty 1984; 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 Indian 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 north 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, Nicaragua’s Misk ito Coast, the Caribbean coast of Panama, scattered areas along Colombia and Brazil (Hirth 1971 ), and the northwestern coast of the Yucatán 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 the14 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 were born) to lay eggs (Balazs 1982; Frazer and Ehrhart 1985) and are capable of migrating si gnificant distances (hundr eds 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., Nicaragua) (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 lin es and other debris.

This early oceanic phase remains one of the mo st poorly understood aspects of green turtle life history (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). However, at approximately 20- to 25-cm carapace length, juveniles leave pelagic habitats and enter bent hic foraging habitats wh en they gain enough buoyancy control to dive to the sea floor and adopt a benthic f eeding strategy. Growth studies using skeletochronology indicate th at for green sea turtles in the Western Atlantic shift from the oceanic phase to nearshore development habitats (protected lagoons and open coastal areas rich in sea grass and marine algae) after approximate ly 5-6 years (Zug and Glor1998; Bresette et al. 2006). As adults, they feed almost exclusivel y on sea grasses and algae in shallow bays, lagoons, and reefs (Rebel and Ingle 1974) although some populations are known to also feed heavily on invertebrates (Carballo et al. 2002). While in coastal habitats, green sea turtles exhibit site fidelity to specifi c foraging and nesting grounds and it is clear they are capable of “homing in” on these sites if displaced (McMich ael et al. 2003). Reproductive migrations of Florida green turtles have been identified thr ough flipper tagging and/or satellite telemetry. Based on these studies, the majority of adult female Florida green turtles are believed to reside in15 nearshore foraging areas throughout the Florida Keys from Key Largo to the Dry Tortugas and in the waters southwest of Cape Sable, Florida, with some post-nesting tu rtles also residing in Bahamian waters as well (NMFS and USFWS 2007a).

Abundance and Trends

A summary of green turtle nesting trends is provided in the most recent five-year status review for the species (NMFS and USFWS 2007a) in wh ich the authors collected and organized

abundance data from 46 individu al nesting concentrations or ganized by ocean region (i.e., Western Atlantic Ocean, Central Atlantic Ocean, Eastern Atlan tic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Western Indian Ocean, Northern Indian Ocean, Eastern Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, Western Pacific Ocean, Central Pacific Ocean, and Eastern Pacific Ocean). The authors were able to determine trends at 23 of the 46 nesting sites an d found that ten appeared to be increasing, nine appeared to be stable, and four appeared to be decreasing. With respect to regional trends, the Pacific, the Western Atlantic, a nd the Central Atlantic regions a ppeared to show more positive trends (i.e., more nesting site s increasing than decreasing) wh ile the Southeast Asia, Eastern Indian Ocean, and possibly the Mediterranean Se a regions appeared to show more negative trends (i.e., more nesting sites decreasing than increas ing). These regional determinations should be viewed with caution since trend data was only available for about half of the total nesting

concentration sites examined in th e review and that site specific data availability appeared to vary across all regions.

The Western Atlantic region (focus of this opinion) was one of th e best performing in terms of

abundance in the entire review as there were no s ites that appeared to be decreasing. The fiveyear status review for the species identified eight geographic areas consider ed to be primary sites for green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic/Carib bean and reviewed the tr end in nest count data for each (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). These sites include (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 information about site specific trends for the other major o cean regions can be found in the most recent fiveyear status review for the speci es (see NMFS and USFWS 2007a).

By far, the largest know n 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 nonnes ting events), there appears to be an increasing trend in this16 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 (2005) collected nest counts from 1999-2003 and also reported increasing trends in the population consistent w ith the earlier studies, with nest count data suggesting 17,402-37,290 females per year (N MFS and USFWS 2007a). Modeling by Chaloupka et al. (2008) us ing 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 tota l of 18 nests were found in North Carolina, six nests in South Carolina, and six nests in Georgia (nesting databases maintained on www.seaturtle.org). Increased nesting has also been observed along th e Atlantic 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. Between 2008 and 2012, the num ber of green turtle nests counted on index nesting beaches ranged from a low of 9,228 ne sts in 2008 to a high of 15,352 nests in 2011 (http://myfwc.com/media/2078426/Green TurtleNestingData.pdf). Th ere was an increasing trend from 2009 to 2011, followed by a decrease in the number of nests recorded on index nesting beaches from 2011 (15,352 nests) to 2012 (9,617 ne sts). Modeling by Chaloupka and Balazs (2007) using data sets of 25 years or more has re sulted 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 United 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 Fl orida, Yucatán, and Tortuguero.17 Source: http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/s ea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/

Threats

The principal cause of past declin es and extirpations of green sea turtle assemblages has been the overexploitation of green sea turtles 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 oil spills. For all sea turtle species, the potential impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout are discussed in the Kemp’s ridley

status section below.

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 (Jacobson 1990; Jacobson et al. 1991; Herbst 1994). 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 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Nests



### Year Green nests on Florida core index beaches18 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 below for loggerheads also apply to green turtles. Additionally, green sea turtle hatchling size also appears to be influenced by incubation temperatures, with smaller hatchlings produced at higher temperatures (Glen et al. 2003).

Northwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the L oggerhead Sea Turtle

The loggerhead sea turtle was lis ted as a threatened species throughout its global range on July 28, 1978. NMFS and USFWS subsequently re-listed l oggerheads as nine DPSs that are treated as species for purposes of the ESA (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011; effective October 24, 2011). The DPSs established by this rule are (1 ) Northwest Atlantic Oc ean (threatened); (2) Northeast Atlantic Ocean (endangered); (3) South Atlantic Ocean (threatened); (4) Mediterranean Sea (endangered); (5) North Pacifi c Ocean (endangered); (6) South Pacific Ocean (endangered); (7) North Indian Ocean (enda ngered); (8) Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean (endangered); and (9) Southwest Indian Ocean (threatened). The Northwest Atlantic Ocean (NWA) DPS is the only one that occurs within the action area; therefor e, it is the only one considered in this opinion. No cr itical 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 nonoverlapping 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 the 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 and Morford 1996; Addison 1997), off the southwestern coast of Cuba (Gavilán 2001), and along the coasts of Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, and the

eastern Caribbean Islands.19 Nonnesting, adult female loggerheads are re ported throughout the United States and the

Caribbean Sea. Little is known about the di stribution of adult ma les who are seasonally abundant near nesting beaches. Aerial surveys suggest that loggerheads in U.S. waters are

distributed as a whole in the fo llowing proportions: 54 percent in the southeast U.S. Atlantic, 29 percent in the northeast U.S. Atla ntic, 12 percent in the eastern Gu lf of Mexico, and 5 percent in the western Gulf of Mexico (TEWG 1998). Shallo w water habitats with large expanses of open ocean access, such as Florida Bay, provide ye ar-round resident foraging areas for significant numbers of male and female adult loggerheads while juveniles are also found in enclosed, shallow water estuarine environments not freque nted by adults (Epperly et al. 1995c). Further offshore, adults primarily inhabi t 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 so uthward in the fall as water temperatures cool and then migrate back nor thward in spring (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Keinath 1993; Epperly et al. 1995c; Mo rreale and Standora 1998).

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 five Western Atlantic subpopulations , divided geographically as follows: (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 fo r the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles concluded, based on recent advanc es in genetic analyses, that there is no genetic distinction between loggerheads nesting on adjacent beaches along the Florida Peninsula and that specific boundaries for subpopulations could not be designated based on gene tic differences alone. Thus, the plan uses a combination of geographic di stribution of nesting densities, geographic separation, and geopolitical boundaries , in addition to genetic differences, to identify recovery units. The recovery units 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, Florida); (3) the Dry Tortugas Recovery Un it (islands located west of Key West, Florida); (4) the Northe rn Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (Franklin County, Florida, through Texas); and (5) the Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (Mexico through French Guiana, the Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater An tilles) (NMFS and USFW S 2008). The recovery plan concluded that all recovery units are essential to the rec overy of the species. Although the recovery plan was written prior to the listing of the NWA DPS, the recovery units for what was

then termed the Northwes t Atlantic population ap ply 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 eggs20 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 sea turtles follow the model of circumnavigating the North Atlantic Gyre as pelagic juveniles, followed by permanent settlement into benthic environments (Laurent et al. 1998; Bolten and Witherington 2003). These studies suggest some turtles may either remain in the pelagic habitat in the North Atlantic l onger than hypothesized or move back and forth between pelagic and coastal habita ts interchangeably (Witzell 2002).

As post-hatchlings, loggerheads hatched on United States beaches migrate offshore and become

associated with Sargassum habitats, driftlines, and othe r convergence zones (Carr 1986) (Witherington 2002). Juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988). Subadult and adult loggerheads are primarily found in coastal waters and prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod

crustaceans in hardbottom habitats.

Abundance and Trends

A number of stock assessments and simila r reviews (TEWG 1998; TEWG 2000; NMFS and SEFSC 2001; Heppell et al. 2003; NMFS and USFWS 2008; Cona nt et al. 2009; TEWG 2009; NMFS-SEFSC 2009d) have examined the stock status of loggerheads in th e Atlantic Ocean, but none have been able to develop a reliabl e estimate of absolu te 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 [see 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 (NRU) averaged 5,215 nests from 1989-2008, a period of near-complete su rveys of NRU nesti ng beaches (Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) unpublis hed data, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission unpublished data, South Carolina De partment of Natural Resources (SCDNR) unpublished data), and represent approximately 1,272 nesting females per year [4.1 nests per21 female (Murphy and Hopkins 1984)]. The loggerh ead nesting trend from daily beach surveys showed a significant decline of 1.3 percent annually. Nest tota ls from aerial surveys conducted by SCDNR showed a 1.9 percent an nual decline in nesting in S outh Carolina from 1980 through 2008. Overall, there is strong st atistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline. Data in 2008 showed improved nest ing numbers. In 2008, 841 loggerhead nests were 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 nest s) and 2011 (948 nests). In South Carolina, 2008 was the seventh highest nesti ng year on record since 1980, with 4,500 nests, but this did not 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 survey s located a total of 1,648 nests in 2008. This number surpassed the pr evious 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 established with 1,760 loggerhead nests (GDNR, NC WRC, and SCDNR nesting data located at www.seaturtle.org).

Another consideration that may add to the impor tance and vulnerability of the NRU is the sex ratio of this nesting populati on and its potential importance for genetic diversity. Research

conducted over a limited time frame but acros s multiple years found that while the small Northern nesting population can pr oduce a larger proporti on of male hatchli ngs than the large Peninsular Florida population, the se x ratio is female biased. In most years, 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 nesti ng female loggerhead sea turtles exhibit nest fidelity, the continued existence of the Northern nesting population 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 (PFRU) is the largest loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic. A near-complete nest census (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 fema les per year (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The statewide estimated total for 2010 was 73,702 (Fis h and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) nesting database). An analysis of index nesti ng beach data shows a 26 percent decline in nesting by the PFRU 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 USFW S 2008; Witherington et al. 2009), FWRI nesting database). In 2009, nesting levels, while still higher than the lows of 2004, 2006, and 2007, dropped below 2008 levels to approxi mately 32,717 nests, but in 2010 a large increase was seen, with 47,880 nests on the index nesting beaches (FWRI nesting database). The 2010 Florida index nesting number is the larges t since 2000. With the addition of data through 2010, the nesting trend for the 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 (FWRI nesting database).22 The remaining three recovery units—Dry Tortugas (DTRU), Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGMRU), and Greater Caribbean (GCRU)—are much smaller ne sting assemblages but still

considered essential to the contin ued existence of the species. Nesting surveys for the DTRU are conducted as part of Florida’s statewide survey program. Survey effort was relatively stable during the 9-year period from 1995-2004 (although there was no data for 2002). Nest counts ranged from 168-270, with a mean of 246, but wi th no detectable trend during this period (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Nest counts for th e NGMRU 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 NGMRU nesting, had shown a large in crease 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, nesting survey effort has been inconsistent among the GCRU nesting beaches and no trend can be determined for this recovery unit. Zurita et al. (2003) found a statistically significant increase

in the number of nests on seven of the b eaches on Quintana Roo, Mexico, from 1987-2001, where survey effort was consistent during the period. However, nesting has declined since 2001, and the previously reported increasing trend ap pears to not have been sustained (NMFS and USFWS 2008).

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 percent from the 4-year period of 1982-1985 to the 2002- 2005 periods were found. Epperly et al. (2007) determined the tr ends 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 (SCDNR) found that standardized trawl survey CPUEs for loggerheads from South Carolina to North Florida was 1.5 times higher in summer 2008 than summer 2000. However, even though there were persistent inter-annual increases from 2000-2008, the difference was not statistically significant, likely due to the rela tively short time series. Compar ison to other datasets from the 1950s through 1990s showed much higher CPUEs in recent years regiona lly and in the South Atlantic Bight, leading SCDNR to conclude that it is highly improbable that CPUE increases of such magnitude could occur without a real and substantial increase in actual abundance (Arendt et al. 2009). Whether this in crease in abundance represents a true population increase among juveniles or merely a shift in spatial occurrence is not clear . NMFS and USFWS (2008), citing Bjorndal et al. (2005), caution a bout extrapolating localized in-w ater trends to the broader population and relating localized tre nds in neritic sites to population trends at nesting beaches. The apparent overall increase in the abundance of neritic loggerh eads in the southeastern United States may be due to increased abundance of th e largest Stage III indivi duals (oceanic/neritic juveniles, historically referred to as small bent hic juveniles), which coul d indicate a relatively large cohort that will recr uit to maturity in the near futu re (TEWG 2009). However, in-water studies throughout the eastern United States also indicate a subs tantial decrease in the abundance23 of the smallest Stage III loggerheads, a patt ern also corroborated by stranding data (TEWG 2009). The SEFSC has developed a preliminary stage/ag e demographic model to help determine the estimated impacts of mortality reductions on loggerhead sea turtle population dynamics (NMFSSEFSC 2009d). This model does not incorporate ex isting trends in the data (such as nesting trends) but instead relies on the available informa tion on relevant life-history parameters for sea turtles and then predicts future population tr ajectories based upon m odel runs using those parameters. Therefore, the model results do not build upon, but instead are complementary to, the trend data obtained through ne st 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 remigrat ion interval. Model runs were done for each individual recovery unit as we ll as the western North Atlantic population as a whole, and the resulting trajectories were found to be very simi lar. One of the most robust results from the model was an estimate of the adult female popula tion size for the western North Atlantic in the 2004-2008 time frame. The distribution resulting fr om the model runs sugge sts the adult female population size is likely between 20,000 and 40,000 indi viduals, with a low likelihood of being up to 70,000 (NMFS-SEFSC 2009d). A much less robus t estimate for total benthic females in

the western North Atlantic wa s also obtained, with a likely range of approximately 30,000- 300,000 individuals, up to less than 1 million (NMFS-SEFSC 2009d).

Source: http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/ sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals/ 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012Nests



### Year Loggerhead nests on Florida core index beaches24 Threats

The Loggerhead Biological Review Team determined 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 additi on to domestic fisheries, sea turtles ar e subject to incidental capture in numerous foreign fisheries, furt her exacerbating the ability of sea turtles to survive and recover on a global scale. For example, pelagic, immature loggerhead sea turtles circumnavigating the Atlantic are exposed to international longline fish eries including the Azorean, Spanish, and various other fleets (Bolten et al. 1994; Aguilar et al. 1995; Cr ouse 1999). Bottom set lines in the coastal waters of Madeira, Portugal, are reported to take an estimated 500 pelagic immature loggerheads each year (Dellinger and Encarnaçâo 2000) and gillnet fishing is known to occur in many foreign waters, including (but not lim ited to) the northwest Atlantic, western Mediterranean, South America, West Africa, Cent ral America, and the Caribbean. Shrimp trawl fisheries are also occurring o ff the shores of numerous foreign countries and pose a significant threat to sea turtles similar to the impacts se en in U.S. waters. Many sea turtle takes go unreported or records kept by fore ign fleets are incomplete, making it difficult to characterize the total impact that international fishing pressure is having on listed sea tu rtles. International fisheries represent an ongoing threat to sea turtle survival and recovery throughout their respective ranges.

There are also many nonfishery impacts affecting the 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 sea turtles (NMFS 1997). Sea turtle s entering coastal or inshore areas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling-water systems of el ectrical generating plants (the focus of this opinion). Other nearshore threats include harassment and/or inju ry resulting from 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 armo ring and renourishment, and sand extraction (Lutcavage et al.25 1997; Bouchard et al. 1998). 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 th e water (Witherington and Bjorndal 1991).

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

Multiple municipal, industrial, and household sources, as well as atmospheric transport, introduce various pollutants such as pesticid es, hydrocarbons, organochlorides (e.g., DDT and PCBs), and others that may cause adverse health effects to sea turtles (Iwata et al. 1993; Grant and Ross 2002; Garrett 2004; Hartwell 2004). Logge rheads may be particularly affected by organochlorine contaminants as they were observed to have the highest organochlorine contaminant concentrations in sampled tissues (Storelli et al. 2008). Di etary preferences were likely to be the main differentiat ing factor among species. Storel li et al. (2008) analyzed tissues from stranded loggerhead sea turtles and found that mercury accumulates in sea turtle livers while cadmium accumulates in their kidneys, as ha s been reported for other marine organisms like dolphins, seals, and porpoises (Law et al. 199 1). Recent efforts have led to improvements in regional water quality, although the more persistent chemicals are still det ected and are expected to endure for years (Mearns 2001; Grant and Ross 2002). Acute exposure to hydrocarbons from petroleum products released into the environment via oil spills and other di scharges may directly injure individuals through skin c ontact with oils (Geraci 1990), inhalation at the water’s surface, and ingesting compounds while feed ing (Matkin and Saulitis 1997). Hydrocarbons also have the potential to impact prey populat ions, and therefore may affect listed species indirectly by reducing food availability in the action area. In 2010, there was a massive o il spill in the Gulf of

Mexico at British Petroleum’s Macondo well. At th is time, the assessment of total direct impacts

to sea turtles has not been determined. Additio nally, the long-term impacts to sea turtles as a result of habitat impacts, prey loss, and subs urface oil particles and oil components broken down through physical, chemical, and biological proce sses are not known. More detailed information on the effects of oil spills aff ecting populations in the action ar ea, including the potential impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill are described below in the Environmental Baseline (Section 4) of this opinion.

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. NOA A’s climate information portal provides basic background information on these and other m easured or anticipated effects (see http://www.climate.gov).26 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 (Poloczanska et al. 2009; NMFS and US FWS 2007b). In marine turtles, sex is determined by temperature in the middle third of incubation with female offspring produced at higher temperatures and males at lower temperat ures within a thermal tolerance range of 25°- 35°C (Ackerman 1997). Increases in global temperature could potenti ally skew future sex ratios toward higher numbers of females (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). Modeling suggests an increase of 2°C in air temperature above pre-industrial levels would result in a sex ratio of over 80 percent female offspring for loggerheads nesting near Southport, North Carolina. The same increase in air temperatures at nesting beaches in Cape Canaveral, Florida, would result in close to 100 percent female offspring. More ominousl y, an air temperature increase of 3°C above preindustrial levels is likely to ex ceed the thermal threshold of most clutches, leading to death (Hawkes et al. 2007). Warmer sea surface temperat ures have been correlated with an earlier onset of loggerhead nesting in the spring (Weishampel et al. 2004; Hawkes et al. 2007), as well as short inter-nesting intervals (H ays et al. 2002) and shorter nes ting season (Pike et al. 2006).

The effects of global climate change may be exacerbated on developed nesting beaches where shoreline armoring and construction have denuded vegetation. Erosion cont rol structures could potentially result in the permanent loss of nes ting beach habitat or deter nesting females (NRC 1990). These impacts will be exacerbated by sea leve l rise. If females nest on the seaward side of the erosion control structures, nests may be exposed to repeated tidal overwash (NMFS and USFWS 2007b). Sea level rise from global climate change is also a potential problem for areas with low-lying beaches where sand depth is a li miting factor, as the sea may inundate nesting

sites and decrease available nesti ng habitat (Daniels et al. 1993; Fish et al. 2005; Baker et al. 2006). The loss of habitat as a result of c limate change could be accelerated due to a combination of other environmental and oceanogr aphic 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 immatures, and sexually mature age classes from various

fisheries and other marine activities. Recen t actions have taken 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 Fe bruary 21, 2003 (68 FR 8456), re presents a significant27 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 sources of anthropogenic mortality on loggerheads (NMFS-SEFSC 2009).

Hawksbill Sea Turtle

The hawksbill turtle was listed as endangered under the precursor of the ESA on June 2, 1970, and is considered critically endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The hawksbill is a medium-sized sea turtle , with adults in the Ca ribbean ranging in size from approximately 62.5 to 94.0 cm straight carap ace length. The species occurs in all ocean basins, although it is rela tively rare in the Easter n Atlantic and Eastern P acific, and absent from

the Mediterranean Sea. Hawksbills are the mo st tropical sea turtle species, ranging from approximately 30°N latitude to 30°S latitude. Th ey are closely associated with coral reefs and other hardbottom habitats, but they are also foun d in other habitats including inlets, bays, and coastal lagoons (NMFS and USFWS 1993). There are only five remaining regional nesting populations with more than 1,000 females nes ting annually. These popul ations are in the Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Au stralia (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). There has been a global population decline of over 80 percent during the last three generations (105 years) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999).

In the western Atlantic Ocean, the largest ha wksbill nesting population occurs on the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico (Garduño-Andrade et al. 1999) . With respect to the United States, nesting occurs in Puerto Rico, USVI, and along the sout heast coast of Florida. Nesting also occurs

outside of the United States a nd its territories, in Antigua, Ba rbados, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Jamaica (Meylan 1999). Outside of the nesting areas, hawksbills have been seen off the U.S.

Gulf of Mexico states and al ong the Eastern Seaboard as far north as Massachusetts, although sightings north of Florida are rare (NMFS and USFWS 1993).

Life History and Distribution

The best estimate of age at sexual maturity for hawksbill sea turtles is about 20-40 years (Chaloupka and Limpus 1997, Crouse 1999). Reproductive females undertake periodic (usually nonannual) migrations to their natal beach to ne st. Movements of reproductive males are less well known, but are presumed to involve migrati ons to their nesting beach or to courtship stations along the migratory corridor (Meylan 19 99). Females nest an average of 3-5 times per season (Meylan and Donnelly 1999, Rich ardson et al. 1999). Clutch size is larger on average (up to 250 eggs) than that of other sea turtles (Hirth 1 980). Reproductive females may exhibit a high degree of fidelity to their nest sites.

The life history of hawksbills consists of a pelagic stage that lasts from the time they leave the nesting beach as hatchlings until they are approximately 22-25 cm in straight carapace length (Meylan 1999, Meylan and Donnelly 1999), followed by residency in developmental habitats (foraging areas where juveniles re side and grow) in coastal wate rs. Adult foraging habitat,28 which may or may not overlap with developmental habitat, is typically coral reefs, although

other hardbottom communities a nd occasionally mangrove-fringed bays may be occupied. Hawksbills show fidelity to their foraging areas over several years (van Dam and Díez 1998).

The hawksbill’s diet is highly specialized and consists primarily of sponges (Meylan 1999). Other food items, notably corallimorphs and zooant hids, have been documented to be important in some areas of the Caribbean (van Dam and Díez 1998, Mayor et al. 1998).

Population Dynamics and Status

Nesting within the southeastern United States an d U.S. Caribbean is restricted to Puerto Rico (>650 nests/yr), the USVI (~400 nests/yr), a nd, rarely, Florida (0-4 nests/yr) (Eckert 1995, Meylan 1999, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conser vation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute’s Statewide Nesting Beach Survey data 2002). At the two principal nesting beaches in the U.S. Caribbean where long-term monitoring has been carried out, popul ations appear to be increasing (Mona Island, Puerto Rico) or stab le (Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, USVI) (Meylan 1999).

Threats

As with other sea turtle species, hawksbill sea turtles are affected by habitat loss, habitat degradation, marine pollution, mari ne debris, fishery interactions, and poaching in some parts of their range. There continues to be a black market for hawksbill shell products (“tortoiseshell”), which likely contributes to the harvest of this species.

There is a large and growing body of literature on past, present, and future impacts of global climate change exacerbated and accelerated by hu man 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. NOA A’s climate information portal provides basic background information on these and other measured or anticipated effects (see http://www.climate.gov).

Impacts on sea turtles currently cannot, for the most part, be predicte d with any degree of certainty; however, significant impacts to the hatc hling sex ratios of hawksbill turtles may result (NMFS and USFWS 2007c). In marine turtles, sex is determined by temperature in the middle third of incubation with female offspring produc ed at higher temperatures and males at lower temperatures within a thermal tolerance range of 25°-35°C (Ackerman 1997). Increases in global temperature could potentially skew future sex ratios toward a higher numbers of females (NMFS and USFWS 2007c).

The effects from increased temperatures ma y be exacerbated on developed nesting beaches where shoreline armoring and construction has denuded vegetation. Sea level rise from global climate change is also a potential problem for ar eas with low-lying beaches where sand depth is a limiting factor, as the sea may inundate nesting sites and decr ease available nesting habitat (Daniels et al. 1993, Fish et al. 2005, Baker et al. 2006). The loss of habitat as a result of climate29 change could be accelerated due to a combina tion of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as increased frequency of storms an d/or changes in prevailing currents, both of

which could lead to increased be ach loss via erosion (Antonelis et al. 2006, Baker et al. 2006).

Other changes in the marine ecosystem caused by global climate change (e.g., salinity, oceanic currents, dissolved oxygen levels, nutrient distri bution, etc.) could influence the distribution and abundance of phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, co ral reefs, forage fish, etc. Since hawksbills are typically associ ated with coral reef ecosystems, increases in global temperatures leading to coral death (Sheppard 2006) could adversely affect the foraging habitats of this species.

Summary of Status for Hawksbill Sea Turtles

Worldwide, hawksbill sea turtle populations are declining. They face many of the same threats affecting other sea turtle species . In addition, there continues to be a commercial market for hawksbill shell products, despite protections a fforded to the species under U.S. law and

international conventions.

4.0 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. We 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).

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 thatoccur 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.30 In this opinion, because sea turtles affected by the proposed action also have life stages that overlap with a broad range of mari ne habitats (outside the action area) during hatchling, juvenile, and mature stages of development, we chose to include a broad discussion of federal activities (Section 4.2) as well as state and pr ivate activities (Section 4.3) that may affect them. In general, these activities are not occurring within the geog raphic limits of the action area. However,

because sea turtles in the acti on area subject to being affected by the proposed action are also highly migratory, and may spend significant amount s of time (and life stages) in areas where other federally-permitted activities are ongoing, thes e latter activities may affect sea turtles that

are found in the action area.

4.1 Sea Turtle Stranding Data in the Action Area

The Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) was established in 1980 to collect information on and document strandings of marine turtles along the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts. The network, which includes federal, state, and private partners, encompasses the coastal areas of the eighteen-s tate region from Maine to Texa s, and includes portions of the U.S. Caribbean. STSSN uses this extensive regi onal and partner collaboration to report data on

dead sea turtles and live strandi ngs. The action area in this opin ion falls entirely within South Atlantic Zone 26 (data available at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/STSSN/JDBCSTSSNYear ZonesSpeciesViewCrite ria.jsp#). NMFS searched the database on June 26, 2013 to ascert ain annual turtle strandings by year, zone, and species. For Zone 26, data is available from 1986 through 2007. We l ooked at only the most recent five years available (2002-2007) by species th at are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action (i.e., loggerhead, green, and hawksbill turtles). From 2002-2007, 398 green, 343 loggerhead, and 41 hawksbill strandings were recorded in Zone 26.

4.2 Federal Actions Affecting Se a Turtles in the Action Area

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 effects of the action on sea turtles. Similarly, recove ry actions NMFS has undertaken under the ESA are addressing the problem of interactions with sea turtles by the fishing and oil and gas industries, vessel operations, and other activities such as USACE dredging operations.

4.2.1 Dredging

Sea turtle interactions with hopper dredges within the USACE J acksonville District show that during the past 25-year re porting period (1981-1982, 1985-2012) since monitoring began, 330 sea turtles (199 loggerheads; 58 greens; 19 Kemp’s ridleys; 1 leatherback; and 53 sea turtles in which the species could not be id entified) have been taken by hopper dredging-rela ted projects. This is germane to this cons ultation because maintenance dr edging using a hopper dredge is ongoing at Port Everglades, which is part of th e action area (FPL’s inta ke water is drawn, via culverts, from one of the slips at Port Everglades ). Any sea turtle take that is a result of maintenance dredging at Port Everglades by th e USACE Jacksonville District is authorized31 under NMFS’s biological opinion on the contin ued hopper dredging of channels and borrow areas in the southeastern United States (NMFS 1997). The most recent maintenance dredging at Port Everglades began on February 2 6, 2013, and was completed on April 15, 2013. The USACE reports the use of a hopper dredge, clamsh ell dredge, and a backhoe dredge, and no sea turtles were taken during the most recent mainte nance dredging at Port Everglades (T. Jordan, USACE, pers comm. to A. Livergood, NMFS, June 12, 2013).

NMFS is not aware of any quantitative studies within the action area assessing the trend or density of in-water loggerhead, green, or hawksbill sea turtle populations. However, valuable stranding data is availabl e for the action area and is discussed in the sections below. It can be used for estimation purposes of project effects.

4.2.2 Shoreline Stabilization

On June 19, 2013, NMFS concluded informal ES A Section 7 consultation with the USACE Jacksonville District (SAJ-1996- 5163) for a proposed embankment stabilization project along the shoreline of the FPL PEEC discharge canal (par t of the action area). NMFS determined the proposed work may affect, but is not likely to ad versely affect sea turtle s or smalltooth sawfish.

4.2.3 Fisheries

Threatened and endangered sea tu rtles are adversely affected by fishing gears used throughout

the continental shelf of the action area. Gilln et, pelagic and bottom longline, other types of hook-and-line gear, trawl, and pot fisheries have all been docume nted as interacting with sea

turtles. For all fisheries for which there is a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) or for which any federal action is taken to manage that fishery, impacts have been evaluated under ESA Section 7.

4.2.3.1 Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic Shrimp Trawl Fisheries

Southeast shrimp fisheries target primarily br own, white, and pink shrimp in inland waters and estuaries through the state -regulated territorial seas and in fede ral waters of the South Atlantic.

Fisheries in state and federal waters must co mply with sea turtle conservation regulations promulgated under the ESA, including requirements to use turtle excluder devices. Fisheries in federal waters (relevant to th e action area) are managed by NMFS and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson- Steven s Fishery Conservation and Management Act and associated FMPs. Brown shrimp are caught out to at least 50 fathoms (1 fathom = 6 ft = approximately 1.83 meters), but most come from waters less than 30 fathoms. White shrimp, second in value, are found in nearshore waters to 20 fathoms, with most of the catch coming from less than 15 fathoms (i.e., mainly inshore of the action area). Pink shrimp are most

abundant off Florida’s west coas t and particularly in the Dry Tortugas off the Florida Keys.

Of all anthropogenic stressors, shrimp trawling ha s had the greatest adverse effect on sea turtles

in the southeast United States. As sea turtles re st, forage, or swim on or near the bottom, they are captured by shrimp trawls pulled along the bo ttom. Shrimp trawling can be conducted for hours to days continuously, day and night, withou t the net being retrieved. Shrimp trawling32 increased dramatically between the 1940s and th e 1960s. By the late 1970s, there was evidence

that thousands of sea turtles we re being killed annually in the southeast United States (Henwood and Stunz 1986). In 1990, the National Re search Council, Committee on Sea Turtle Conservation (NRC) concluded the Southeast shrimp trawl fishery a ffected more sea turtles than

all other activities combined and was the most significant anthropogenic s ource of sea turtle mortality in U.S. waters, in part due to the hi gh reproductive value of la rger and older turtles taken in this fishery (NRC 1990).

NMFS has prepared biological opinions on shrimp trawling in the southeast United States numerous times over the years (most recently 2002 and 2012). The consultation history is closely tied to the lengthy regulatory histor y governing the use of TEDs and a series of regulations aimed at reducing poten tial for incidental mortality of sea turtles in commercial shrimp trawl fisheries. The level of annual mo rtality described in NRC (1990) is believed to have continued until 1992-1994, when U.S. law requi red all shrimp trawlers in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico to use TEDs, a llowing at least some sea turtles to escape nets before drowning (NMFS 2002c). 5 TEDs approved for use have had to demonstrate 97 percent effectiveness in excluding sea turtles from trawls in controlled testing. These regul ations have been refined over the years to ensure that TED effectiven ess is maximized through proper placement and installation, conf iguration (e.g

., width of bar spacing), flotation, and more widespread use.

Despite the apparent success of TEDs for some sp ecies of sea turtles (e.g., Kemp’s ridleys), it

was later discovered that TEDs were not adequately protecting all species and size classes of sea turtles. Analyses by Epperly and Teas (2002) indicated that the minimum requirements for the escape opening dimension in TEDs in use at that time were too small for some sea turtles and that as many as 47 percent of the loggerheads stranding annually along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were too large to fit the existing ope nings. On December 2, 2002, NMFS completed an opinion on shrimp trawling in the southeaste rn United States (NMFS 2002) under proposed revisions to the TED regulations requiring larger escape openings (68 FR 8456, February 21, 2003). This opinion determined that the shrimp trawl fishery under the re vised TED regulations would not jeopardize the continue d existence of any sea turtle species. The determination was based in part, on the opinion’s analysis that show s the revised TED regulations are expected to reduce shrimp trawl related mortality by 94 percent for loggerheads and 97 percent for leatherbacks. In February 2003, NMFS implemen ted the revisions to the TED regulations.

On May 9, 2012, NMFS completed the new opi nion which analyzed the continued implementation of the sea turtle conservation regu lations and the continue d authorization of the southeast U.S. shrimp fisheries in federa l waters under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (NMFS 2012). The opinion also considered a proposed amendment to the sea turtle conservation regulations that would wit hdraw the alternative tow time restriction at 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(ii)(A)( 3 ) for skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls , and wing nets (b utterfly trawls) and instead require all of these vessels to us e TEDs. The opinion concluded that the proposed action would not jeopardize the c ontinued existence of any sea tu rtle species. Sea turtle

5 TEDs were mandatory on all shrimping vessels. However, certain shrimpers (e.g., fish ers using skimmer trawls or targeting bait shrimp) could operate without TEDs if they agreed to follow specific tow time restrictions.33 interactions and captures were estimated to be significantly higher than estimated in the 2002 opinion due to increases in Kemp’s ridley and green sea turtle population abundance, incorporation of the TED complian ce data and the effects those vi olations have on expected sea turtle captures rates, and incorporation of interac tions in shrimp trawl gear types previously not estimated (i.e. skimmer trawls and try nets). An Incidental Take Statement was provided that used trawl effort and capture rates as proxies fo r sea turtle take levels. The new biological opinion requires NMFS to minimize the impacts of incidental takes through monitoring of shrimp effort and regulatory compliance le vels, conducting TED training and outreach, and continuing to research the effects of shrimp trawling on listed species. On November 21, 2012, NMFS determined that a final rule requiring TED s in skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets was not warranted at this time and withdrew the proposal. The decision to not implement the final rule at this time created a change to the proposed action analyzed in the 2012 opinion, with effects to listed speci es that have not previously been considered, thus triggered the need to reinitiate consultation. Consequen tly, on November 26, 2012, via a memorandum from the Southeast Regional Administrator to the file , NMFS reinitiated consultation; the consultation is ongoing.

4.2.3.2 Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fisheries

Atlantic pelagic longline fisherie s targeting swordfish and tuna are also known to incidentally capture large numbers of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. U.S. pelagic longline fishermen began targeting highly migratory species in the A tlantic Ocean in the early 1960s. The fishery is comprised of five relatively distinct segmen ts, including the Gulf yellowfin tuna fishery; southern Atlantic (Florida East Coast to Cape Hatteras) swordfis h fishery; Mid-At lantic and New England swordfish and bigeye tuna fishery; U.S. Atlantic Distan t Water swordfish fishery; and the Caribbean tuna and swordfish fishery. A lthough the swordfish fishery does occur in the federal waters of the South Atlantic, fishing typi cally occurs further offshore and east of where the proposed action will occur. The fishery main ly interacts with leatherback sea turtles and pelagic juvenile loggerhead sea turtles; thus, younger, smaller loggerhead sea turtles than the

other fisheries described in th is environmental baseline.

Over the past two decades, NMFS has conducted nu merous consultations on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for highly migr atory species, some of which required Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) to avoid jeopardy of loggerhead and/or le atherback sea turtles. The estimated historical total numbers of loggerh ead and leatherback sea turtles caught between 1992-2002 (all geographic areas) are 10,034 loggerhead and 9,302 l eatherback sea turtles of

which 81 and 121 were estimated to be dead wh en brought to the vessel (NMFS 2004b). This does not account for post-release mortalities, whic h historically were likely substantial.

NMFS most recently reinitiated consultation in 2 004 on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery as a

result of exceeded incidental take levels for loggerheads and leathe rbacks (NMFS 2004b). The resulting opinion (NMFS 2004b) stated the long-term continued operation of this fishery was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of l eatherback sea turtles, but RPAs were identified allowing for the continued authorization of the pe lagic longline fishery that would not jeopardize

leatherback sea turtles.34 On July 6, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to implement management measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of sea turtles in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery (69 FR 40734). The management measures include manda tory circle hook and bait requirements, and mandatory possession and use of sea turtle releas e equipment to reduce bycatch mortality. The rulemaking, based on the results of the three-year Northeast Distant Clos ed Area research experiment and other available sea turtle by catch reduction studies, is expected to have significant benefits to endangered and threatened sea turtles by re ducing mortality attributed to this fishery.

4.2.4 Oil and Gas Exploration and Extraction

Although oil and gas exploration, production, and development do not occur within the action area, oil and gas activities may i ndirectly impact sea turtles found in the action area. Oil spills and marine debris from oil and gas activities in th e Gulf of Mexico could affect sea turtles within the action area. Many ESA Section 7 consul tations have been completed on Minerals Management Service (MMS; now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management or BOEM) oil and gas lease activities. Biological opinions i ssued on July 11, 2002 (NMFS 2002b), November 29, 2002 (NMFS 2002c), August 30, 2003 [Lease Sales 189 and 197, (NMFS 2003)], and June 29, 2007 [2007-2012 Five-Year Lease Plan, (NMFS 2007c)] have concluded that sea turtle takes may result from vessel strikes, ma rine debris, and oil spills.

NMFS’s June 29, 2007, opinion, issued to MMS, conc luded that the five-year leasing program for oil and gas development in the coastal and th e Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico

and its associated actions were not likely to jeopardize the conti nued existence of threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify designated cri tical habitat. NMFS estimated the number of listed species thatcould potentially experience a dverse effects as the result of exposure to an oil spill over the lifetime of the action. However, as discussed below, on April 20, 2010, a massive oil well explosion, and then s ubsequent release of oil at the DWH MC252

well occurred. Given the effects of the spill, on July 30, 2010, BOEM requested reinitiation of interagency consultation under Section 7 of th e ESA on the June 29, 2007, opinion on the FiveYear Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012) in the Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

NMFS has begun synthesizing data from the spill, and it is clear that BOEM underestimated the size, frequency, and impacts associated with a catastrophic spill unde r the 2007-2012 lease sale program. The size and duration of the DWH oil spill were greater than anticipated, and the effects on listed species have exceeded NMFS’s pr ojections. However, NMFS has not yet issued an opinion concluding the rein itiated consultation.

Oil from the DWH spill flowed into the Gulf of Mexico for 86 days, until finally being capped on July 15, 2010. Millions of barrels of oil we re released into the Gulf. Additionally, approximately 1.84 million gallons of chemical di spersant was applied both subsurface and on the surface to attempt to break down the oil. There is no que stion that the unprecedented DWH35 spill and associated response activities (e.g., sk imming, burning, and applica tion of dispersants)

have resulted in adverse eff ects on listed sea turtles.

At this time, the total effects of the oil spill on sea turtles are not known. Potential DWH-related impacts to all sea turtle species include direct oiling or contact with dispersants from surface and subsurface oil and dispersants, inhalation of volatile compounds, disruption of foraging or migratory movements due to surface or subsurface oil, ingestion of prey species contaminated with oil and/or dispersants, loss of foraging re sources which could lead to compromised growth and/or reproductive potential, harm to foraging, re sting and/or nesting hab itats, and disruption of nesting turtles and nests. Th ere is currently an ongoing inve stigation and analysis being conducted under the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S. C. 2701 et seq.) to assess natural resource damages and to develop and implement a plan fo r the restoration, rehabi litation, replacement or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources. The final outcome of that investigation may not be known for many months to years from the time of this opinion. Consequently, other than some em ergency restoration efforts, most restoration efforts that occur pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act have yet to be determined and implemented; thus, the ultimate restoration impacts on the species are unknown at this time.

During the response phase to the DWH oil spill (April 26–October 20, 2010) a total of 1,146 sea turtles were recovered, either as strandings (dead or debilitated generally onshore or nearshore) or were collected offshore during sea turtle search and rescue operations (Table 1). Subsequent to the response phase a few sea turtles with vi sible evidence of oiling have been recovered as strandings. The available data on sea turtle strandings and response collections during the time of the spill are expected to represent a fraction (currently unknown) of th e actual losses to the species, as most individuals li kely were not recovered. The number of strandings does not provide insights into potential sublethal impacts that could reduce long-term survival or fecundity of individuals affected. However, it does provide some insight into the potential relative scope of the imp act among the sea turtle sp ecies in the area.

Table 1. Sea Turtles Recovered in the DWH Spill Response Area (April 26 – October 20, 2010).
Turtle Species Alive Dead Total

Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) 172 29 201

Hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) 16 0 16

Kemp's ridley turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ) 328 481 809

Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ) 21 67 88

Unknown turtle species 0 32 32

Total 537 609 1146 Source: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr /health/oilspill/turtles.htm

Another period of high stranding levels occurred in 2011, similar to that in 2010. Investigations, including necropsies, were undertaken by NMFS to attempt to determine the cause of those strandings. Based on the findings, the two primary considerations for the cause of death of the36 turtles that were necropsied are forced submergence or acute toxi cosis. With regard to acute toxicosis, sea turtle tissue samples were tested for biotoxins of concern in the northern Gulf of

Mexico. Environmental information did not indica te a harmful algal bloom of threat to marine animal health was present in the area. With regard to forced submergence, the only known plausible cause of forced submergence that coul d explain this event is incidental capture in fishing gear. NMFS has assembled information re garding fisheries operating in the area during and just prior to these strandings. While there is some indication that l ack of compliance with existing TED regulations and the operations of other trawl fisheries th at do not require TEDs may have occurred in the area at the time of th e strandings, direct evidence that those events

caused the unusual level of strandi ngs is not available. More information on the stranding event, including number of strandings, locations , and species affected, can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/speci es/turtles/gulfofmexico.htm.

In addition to effects on subadult and adult s ea turtles, the 2010 May through September sea turtle nesting season in the north ern Gulf may also have been a dversely affected by the DWH oil spill. Setting booms to protect beaches, cleanup activities, lights, people, and equipment all may have had unintended effects, such as preven ting females from reaching nesting beaches and thereby reducing nesting in the no rthern Gulf. The spill could ha ve also affected the emergence success of hatchlings from nests along the Gulf co ast. In an attempt to reduce the loss of the 2010 northern Gulf cohort, many of nests were reloca ted to the east coast of Florida to reduce the risk to hatchlings. The survivorship and future nesting success of indivi duals from one nesting beach being transported to and released at another nesting beach is unknown.

4.2.5 ESA Section 10 Permits

The ESA allows the issuance of permits to captu re/interact with ESA-listed species for the purposes of scientific research, under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). Authorized activities range from photographing, weighing, and tagging protected species incidentally taken in fisheries, to blood sampling, tissue sampling (biopsy), and perfor ming laparoscopy on intentionally-captured organisms. The number of authorized takes vari es widely depending on the research and species involved, but may involve the taking of hundreds of individuals annually. Most captures/interactions authorized under these permits are nonlethal. Before any research permit is issued, the proposal must be reviewed under the pe rmit regulations (i.e., must show a benefit to the species). In addition, issuance of rese arch permits by NMFS must be reviewed for compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to ensu re that issuance of the permit is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of affected species.

4.3 State or Private Actions

4.3.1 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.37 4.3.2 State Fisheries

Recreational fishing from private vessels, privat e and public piers, and from shore does occur in

the area. Observations of state recreational fi sheries have shown that green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles ar e known to bite baited hooks, and loggerheads frequently ingest the hooks. H ooked turtles 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 a nd bottom longlines (NMFS 2001b). A dditionally, lost fishing gear such as line cut after snagging on rocks, or discarded hooks and line, can also pose an entanglement threat to sea tur tles in the area. A detailed summary of the known impacts of hook-and-line incidental captures to loggerhead sea turtles can be found in the TEWG reports (1998; 2000).

Although few of these state-regulated fisheries are cu rrently authorized to in cidentally capture or kill listed species, several state agencies have approached NMFS to discuss applications for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit. Since NMFS’s issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit requires formal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA, the effects of these activities are considered in Section 7 consultation. Any fish eries that come under a Se ction 10(a)(1)(B) permit in the future will likewise be subject to Sect ion 7 consultation. Although the past and current effects of these fisheries on listed species ar e currently unknown, based upon observations of sea

turtles stranded as a result of recreational fish ing activities (STSSN data provided by W. Teas, NMFS, pers. comm. to A. Brame, NMFS, April 22, 2011), NMFS believes that ongoing state fishing activities may be respons ible for seasonally high levels of observed strandings of sea

turtles on both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

4.3.3 In-water Research

In Florida, in-water sea turtle research has in creased in recent years, but no coordinated trend monitoring program exists for in-water populations. The first step in developing such a program involves determining what research is actually taking place. Researchers in FWRI’s marine turtle program inventoried all in-water marine turtle research that has been conducted in Florida. Through the use of interviews, questionnaires, an d literature reviews, researchers compiled a comprehensive database containi ng detailed information on 36 rese arch projects (21 active, 15 inactive) focusing on in-water aggregations of sea turtles. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps were also developed for each project that will serve as ex amples to in-water

researchers of how GIS can be used to e nhance their studies (FWRI online article 2008 http://research.myfwc.com/publications/publication info. asp?id=5 9157). The vast majority of in-water projects (24) are, or were, located on the southeast co ast of Florida. Based on the information compiled, candidate projects were iden tified for inclusion in a statewide in-water index monitoring program that would provide tr end information on sea turtles in Florida’s waters. Recommendations were presented on how to develop such a program, which would include the measurement of captu re effort, promotion of cooper ation among in-water research groups, and standardization of data collection methods resulting in a consistent set of

measurements.38 In addition to dedicated in-water studies, other pr ojects and activities were identified that involve the collection of sea turtle data, often secondary to the primary purpose. These projects provide important data on general species distributions and can identify target areas for future in-depth studies. Many of these projects are conducted by other secti ons of FWRI, including capture efforts and aerial surveys for ma natees or fish. Other data co me from incidental capture in fisheries research projects, or by the fisheries themselves. Pre- dredge trawling, aerial surveys, stranding networks, and satellite tracking also provide impor tant distributional data. The end result of this project is a narrative document that will function as a guide to in-water research in

Florida.

4.4 Other Potential Sources of Impac ts in the Environmental Baseline

4.4.1 Marine Debris and Acoustic Impacts

A number of activities that may indirectly aff ect listed species in the action area of this consultation include anthropogenic marine debris (e.g., plastic bags, balloons, tar balls, ghost fishing line, etc.) and acoustic impacts. The impact s to sea turtles from marine debris range from ingesting plastics when feeding to entanglements in discarded fishing line, ghost traps, and nets. These effects are difficult to quantify since morta lities often go uncounted, especially in the case of entanglements. However, recent studies have begun to quantify the effects of plastics in the oceans to sea turtles (Wabnitz and Nichols 2010) and targeted re search demonstrates that the volume and spatial coverage of plastics in the ocean environment is astounding (Law et al. 2010). Sea turtles are particularly prone to harm from feeding on anthropogenic marine debris (Balazs 1985; Carr 1987; Barreiros and Barcelos 2001). Sea turt les foraging on floating plastic bags they mistake for jellyfish represents an acute problem, but ingesti on of even very small plastic particles in small amounts can obstr uct the esophagus or pe rforate the bowel. Approximately 0.2-0.3 percent of pl astics eventually migrate into the ocean through one pathway or another (Andrady and Neal 2009) and consider ing the large volume of plastics produced each year, this small percentage resu lts in an enormous amount of pl astics that find their way into every trophic niche from plankton to whales. Sea turtles are part icularly susceptible to these impacts due to their life cycles that increase their encounter rates with plastics when foraging resources and plastics converge together (e.g., juve nile pelagic foraging habits, large home range sizes, etc.). For instance, juveni le sea turtles (e.g., j uvenile loggerheads and gr een turtles) in the pelagic life cycle will drif t along the surface within la rge, floating mats of Sargassum and other seaweeds where floating plastics also concentrat e by the same advection currents (Pichel et al. 2007; Wong et al. 1974). Fishing line ingestion is also an ac ute problem whereby sea turtles clog up their digestive tracts, tear their tracts apart, or slowly starve to death from plastics, displacing surface area needed in the gut for energy absorption (Bjorndal et al. 1994).

Discarded fishing gear (e.g., fish ing lines, drift nets) also presents significant impacts to sea turtles through entanglement (Bugo ni et al. 2001). However, an unknown number of sea turtles killed by entanglement in disgarded (ghost) fishing gear are unrecoverable because they either remain ensnared in the gear or suffer lethal in juries upon freeing themselves and are then eaten by predators. Sea turtle stranding networks wo rldwide have recorded liv e and dead sea turtles washed ashore that entangled are entangled in fi shing gear or have lacerations from previous entanglements. Anthropogenic marine debris, whether ghost fishing gear , plastics, or other39 sources, now poses a significant, but as yet unquantifiable, negativ e impact to sea turtles when their life cycles intersect with these debris.

Although the ecological role of heari ng in sea turtles is still nascen t, we do know that sea turtles hear in the low frequency range of 100 to 1000 Hz with greatest sensitivity at 200 to 400 Hz (Southwood et al. 2008). Acoustic sources of impacts to sea turt les include vessel noise ranging

from small recreation craft to th e largest ships on the oceans to a suite of nearshore construction activities ranging from noise gene rated from dredging equipment, pipeline construction, pile driving associated with bridges and docks, and military in-water ordnance testing. Because sea turtle life cycles overlap with a broad range of marine habitats during hatchling, juvenile, and mature stages of development, sea turtles are exposed to myriad noises during their lifetime. Noise-related stress can alter sea turtle migratory pathways costing them increased energetic demand; noise below water and above the surfa ce can impede sea turtles from egg deposition on beaches; and high-decibel, low-frequency sound s from naval military operations can cause injurious effects to sea turtles. NMFS is workin g to better understand the impacts to sea turtles

from noise associated with construction activitie s and the impacts to the specific life stages affected (i.e., hatchlings , juveniles, adults).

4.4.2 Marine Pollution

Sources of pollutants along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean include atmospheric loading of pollutants such as polychlorinated bi phenyls, stormwater runoff from coastal towns into rivers and canals emptying into bays and the ocean, and groundwater and other discharges. Nutrient loading from land-based sources such as coastal community di scharges is known to stimulate plankton blooms in closed or semi-clo sed estuarine systems. The effects on larger embayments are unknown. Although pathological effects of oil spills have been documented in laboratory studies of marine mammals and sea tu rtles (Vargo et al. 1986), the impacts of many other anthropogenic toxins ha ve not been investigated.

Coastal runoff, marina and dock construction, dredging, aquaculture, oil and gas exploration and extraction, increased underwater noise and boat traffic can degrad e marine habitats used by sea turtles. The development of marinas and docks in inshore waters can l ead to the loss and/or degradation of nearshore habitats. Fueling facilities at marinas can sometimes discharge oil, gas, and sewage into sensitive es tuarine and coastal habitats . Although these contaminant concentrations do not likely affect the more pe lagic waters, sea turtle s found in the action area are likely to travel between nearshore and offshore habitats and may be exposed to and accumulate these contaminants during their life cycles.

4.4.3 Conservation and Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Baseline

NMFS has implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing the 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 Mi gratory Species fisheries and TED requirements for the southeastern shrimp trawl fisheries. These regulations have relieved some of the pressure on sea turtle populations.40 Under Section 6 of the ESA, NMFS may enter into cooperative research 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.

4.4.4 Outreach and Education, Sea Turtle Entanglements, and Rehabilitation

NMFS and cooperating states have established an extensive network of STSSN participants along the Atlantic coast that collect data on dead sea turtles and also resc ue and rehabilitate any

live stranded sea turtles.

4.4.5 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.

4.5 Other Actions

A revised recovery plan for the loggerhead sea 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 re views 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, and41 loggerhead sea turtles was recommended, to evaluate whether DPSs should be established for these species (NMFS and USFWS 2007a; NMFS and USFWS 2007b; NMFS and USFWS 2007c). The Services published a final rule on September 22, 2011, listing loggerhead sea turtles as separate DPSs. 4.6 Summary and Synthesis of Environmental Baseline

There are many factors adversely affecting sea turtles in the ac tion area. These factors are ongoing and are expected to occur contemporaneously with the proposed acti on. Fisheries in the action area likely had the greatest adverse impact s on sea turtles in the mid to late 80s, when

effort in most fisheries was near or at peak levels. With the decline of the health of managed species, effort since that time has generally been declining. Over th e past five years, the impacts

to turtles associated with fisheries have also been re duced through the ESA Section 7 consultation process and regulations implemen ting effective bycatch reduction strategies. However, interactions with commercial a nd recreational fishing gear are ongoing and are expected to occur contemporaneously with the proposed action. Ot her activities, including effects of commercial vessel operations, dre dging, permits allowing take under the ESA, recreational vessel traffic, and marine pollution have also had and continue to have adverse

effects on sea turtles in the action area.

5.0 Effects of the Action

In this section of the opinion, we assess the effects of the pr oposed action on loggerhead, green,

and hawksbill sea turtles within the action area. The analysis in this section forms the foundation for our jeopardy analysis in Section 7. A je opardy determination is reached if we would reasonably expect a proposed action to cau se a reduction in numb ers, reproduction, or distribution that would appreciably reduce a listed species’ likeli hood of survival and recovey in

the wild.

The quantitative and qualitative analyses in this section are based on th e best scientific and commercial data available on sea turtle biology a nd the effects of the pr oposed action. When analyzing the effects of any action, it is important to consider indirect and di rect effects. Indirect effects are caused by or result from the propos ed action, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur. Indirect effects include aspe cts such as habitat loss and degradation, reduction of prey/foraging base, etc. NMFS believes the continued operation of th e cooling-water intake system at PEEC is likely to adversely affect loggerhead, green, and ha wksbill sea turtles. The source of cooling water at PEEC comes from the Atlantic ICW. A series of culverts connect the Atlantic ICW to the intake canal at PEEC (s ee Figure 3). Sea turtles that swim into the

culverts often become entrained in the intake canal. Some of these individuals also become

entrained in the intake wells (Figures 6 and 7).42 Figure 5. Typical Intake Structure (FPL BA 2012).43 Figure 6. Photograph of an intake well at PEEC (Photo credit: FPL 2013).

Under current operations, FPL moni tors the intake wells for sea turtles four times in a 24-hour period (every six hours). However, FPL is not au thorized to incidentally take sea turtles under current operations (hence, the need for this opin ion). FPL agreed to increase their monitoring frequency to six times in a 24-hour period (every four hours). Section 9.4 of this opinion (Terms and Conditions) outlines the requ ired procedure going forward.44 Figure 7. Photograph of a loggerhead sea turt le being lifted on the bar rack from the intake well (Photo credit: FPL).

Table 2 in FPL’s BA is a summary of sea turtle encounters in the PEEC intake system from 1990-2012 (22 years). The data compiled in Table 2 of the BA is from FPL records, the STSSN, rehabilitation facility records, and necropsy report records. NMFS used this data to inform our effects analysis and to estimate the amount and ex tent of incidental take authorized in this opinion. NMFS believes direct effects of the proposed action on loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles may be nonlethal or lethal. Nonlethal effects include injury sustained during removal from the intake well (e.g., pinchi ng or abrasion) and debi litation of condition due to prolonged entrainment in the intake system (e.g., loss of fitness). Lethal effects include drowning in the intake well if an animal is alread y sick or injured prior to entrainment and FPL is

unable to recover the animal in time. We note here that the maximum entrainment time in the

intake well would be four hours based on the mon itoring procedures required in Section 9.4 of this opinion (see Term and Condition #2). A potentia lly beneficial effect is the opportunity for sick or injured sea turtles (e.g., infected with fi bropapillomatosis or injured due to a vessel strike) entrained in and recovered from the intake system to receive veterinary care at a rehabilitation facility. Of the 20 sea turtles f ound alive in the intake system, eight animals were either sick or injured (e.g., vessel strike wounds, entanglement in marine debris, fibropapilloma tumors). All of these animals were transported to a rehabilitation facility (BA, Table 2).45 Of the 12 sea turtles found dead in the inta ke system during the 22 years (1990-2012) FPL has been keeping records, FPL stated the cause of death is unknown for nine of the animals (BA, Table 2). For the remaining three, FPL stated the cause of death is believed to be a vessel strike (BA, Table 2). It is FPL’s opini on that all of the sea turtles rec overed dead from the intake wells were already dead prior their entrainment; thus, FPL believes these animals were not killed as a result of plant operations (J. Gless, FPL, pe rs comm. to A. Livergood, NMFS, May 3, 2013). NMFS does not have enough information to determ ine whether or not these animals died as a result of plant operations. Nevertheless, we beli eve lethal take (by drowning), described in the paragraph above, is a reasonable, worst-case scenar io for sick or injure d turtles that become entrained in the intake system.

NMFS has not identified any indir ect effects associated with the proposed action (e.g., habitat loss or loss of prey/foraging base ). The proposed action would not adversely affect sea turtle foraging or nesting habitat. Mo reover, we do not anticipate a re duction in prey species from the proposed action. Similarly, we are not aware of any interrelated or in terdependent actions.

As previously stated, we used the data compile d in Table 2 of the FPL BA to estimate the

amount and extent of incidental take, by species, within the fi ve-year time frame of the EPA permit. For the dataset as a whole (22 years), the mean incidental take pe r year is 1.45 turtles,

with a standard deviation of 1.37. The mean itself does not reflect the inhere nt natural variability in the population of sea turtles or their occurrence in the action ar ea. In order to account for variability in the data, we used the standard de viation in addition to th e mean. The standard

deviation shows how much variance, or dispersion, there is fro m the average or expected value, based on the historic take data. By adding th e mean and the standard deviation and then multiplying that sum by the duration of the EPA permit (five years), the total number of takes can be estimated in a way that captures much of the variation over a five-year period. This

calculation is based on historic data. It does not take into account pot ential increases or decreases in future sea turtle populations.

In order to estimate total take over a five-y ear period, we added the mean (1.45) plus the standard deviation (1.37) and multiplied by 5 ([1.45 + 1.37] x 5). Thus, the total take estimate is 14.1 or 14 turtles in five years. Next, we broke down the take estimate by species. Based on 22 years of data provided by FPL, 59 percent of the entrained turtles were lo ggerheads, 13 percent were greens, six percent were hawksbills, and 22 percent were “unknown” (the species could not be determined). Then we multiplied these percen tages by the total take number (14) to estimate the take by species. Thus, 59 percent x 14 = 8.26 or eight loggerheads; 13 percent x 14 = 1.82 or two greens; 6 percent x 14 = 0.84 or one hawksbill ; and 22 percent of 14 = 3.08 or three species

unknown.

For the “species unknown” category, we used the percentage of loggerhea ds (59 percent) and divided it by 78 percent (78 per cent is the sum of all known species captured). Thus, 59 percent/78 percent = 76 percent. 76 percent of th ree turtles = 2.28 or two loggerheads. Therefore, we estimated two of the “unknown” species would be loggerheads and one of the “unknown” species would be a green turtle.46 Thus, we believe the proposed ac tion is likely to take ten loggerheads, three greens, and one hawksbill in a five-year period.

Using FPL’s historic records as a proxy, we can pr edict lethal versus nonlet hal take by species. For loggerheads (n = 19), ten were captured a live and nine were captured dead. Thus, for loggerheads, we would expect a 50/50 split. Th at is, we would expect the proposed action to lethally take five loggerhead s and nonlethally take five loggerheads (total take = ten loggerheads). For greens (n=4), three were captured al ive and one was captured dead. Thus for greens, we would expect a 75/25 split. That is, we would expect the proposed action to nonlethally take two greens and lethally take one green (total take = three greens). For hawksbills (n=2), both were captured alive. T hus, we would expect th e nonlethal take of one

hawksbill.

At this stage, for each species, we will estimat e take by lifestage. Based on FPL’s data (BA, Table 2), approximately twice as many subadult l oggerhead turtles were captured in the intake system compared to adult females captured (nine s ubadults compared to four adult females). As discussed in the previous paragr aph, we anticipate the lethal take of five loggerheads and the nonlethal take of five loggerheads. Using the data FPL compiled as a proxy (BA, Table 2), we

believe a reasonable worst-case scenario is the lethal capture of two adult female loggerheads and the lethal capture of three subadult loggerheads. Furthermore, we believe the proposed action may result in the nonlethal capture of two adult female loggerheads and the nonlethal capture of three subadult loggerheads.

Now, we will estimate take by lifestage for green turtles followed by hawksbill turtles. Based on FPL’s data (BA, Table 2), three juvenile green tu rtles were captured and one adult female green turtle was captured in FPL’s intake system (BA, Table 2). We anticipate the lethal take of one green turtle and the nonlethal take of two green turtles. Using the data FPL compiled as a proxy (BA, Table 2), we believe a reasonable, worst-case scenario is the lethal take of one adult female green turtle and the nonlethal take of two juvenile green turtles. Based on FPL’s data (BA, Table 2), only one hawksbill turtle was captured in the in take system in 22 years, and that individual was a juvenile that was released alive. NMFS is not authorizing any lethal take of hawksbill sea turtles in this opinion. Moreover, we believe the proposed action will result in the nonlethal take of one juvenile hawksbill turtle.

Based on the preceding, NMFS estimates the pr oposed action will nonlethally take five loggerheads (two adult females and three subadults ) and lethally take five loggerheads (two adult females and three subadults); nonlethally take two greens (both juveniles) and lethally take one green (adult fe male); and nonlethally take one juvenile hawksbill in a fiveyear period.

6.0 Cumulative Effects

ESA Section 7 regulations require NMFS to consid er cumulative effects in formulating their biological opinions (50 CFR 402.14). Cumulative effects include the effects of future state,47 tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this opinion.

Cumulative effects from unrelated, nonfederal actions occurring in the area may affect sea turtles and their habitats. Stranding data indicate sea turt les in the Atlantic Ocea n die of various natural causes, including cold stunning and hurricanes, as well as anthropogenic causes, such as incidental capture in state fisherie s, ingestion of and/or entangleme nt in debris, ship strikes, and degradation of nesting habitat. The cause of death of most sea turtles recovered by the stranding

network is unknown.

Within the action area, major future changes ar e not anticipated in th e ongoing human activities

described in the environmental baseline. The present human uses of the action area, such recreational boating/fishing and commercial vessel tr affic in the vicinity of Port Everglades, are expected to continue and may even increase in intensity as coastal popula tions increase and with the potential expansion of Port Everglades. Thus, the associated risks of injury or mortality to sea turtles posed by incidental capture by fish ermen, accidental oil spills, vessel collisions, marine debris, chemical discharges, and anthrop ogenic noise are expected to continue and may

increase in the future.

The fisheries described as potentia lly affecting the same sea turtle s that are in the action area (see Section 4, Environmental Baseline) are expected to continue as described into the foreseeable future, concurrent with the proposed action. Nume rous fisheries in state waters of the Atlantic Ocean have also been known to adversely affect sea turtles. The past and present impacts of

these activities have been discussed in the Environmental Baseline section of this opinion. NMFS is not aware of any proposed or anticipated cha nges in these fisheries (except perhaps the southeastern shrimp fisheries) th at would substantially change the impacts each fishery has on sea turtle s covered by this opinion.

In addition to fisheries, NMFS is not aware of any proposed or anticipated changes in other human-related actions (e.g., poachin g) or natural conditions (e.g., tr ophic level shifts that might change predator/prey dynamics, for instance, et c.) that would substantially change the impacts that each threat has on the sea turtles covered by this opinion. NMFS will continue to work with states to develop ESA Section 6 agreements and with researchers in ESA Section 10 permits to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate these takes. Effects to sea turtles from humaninduced climate change have a large degree of uncertainty, but NMFS does not yet have data to extrapolate how significant these effects will be in the next few years, beyond what was discussed in Section 3. Therefore, NMFS expects th at the levels of interactions with sea turtles

described for each of the fisheries and nonfisheries will continue at similar levels into the next five years when the proposed action will occur.

7.0 Jeopardy Analysis

This section evaluates the lik elihood that the proposed acti on will jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles in the wild. To jeopardize the continued existence of is defined as “to engage in an acti on that reasonably would be expected,48 directly or indirectly, to redu ce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 CFR 402.02). Section 5.0 (Effects of the Action) describes the effects of the proposed action on loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles, and the amount and extent of those effects in

terms of an estimate of the numbe r of sea turtles that would be injured, killed, or otherwise “taken.” Under the ESA, “take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attemp t to engage in any such conduct.

The following jeopardy analysis firs t considers the effects of the act ion to determine if we would reasonably expect the action to re sult in reductions in reproduc tion, numbers, or distribution of these sea turtle species. The analysis next cons iders whether any such re duction would in turn result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival a nd recovery of these species in

the wild.

In the following analysis, we find that although ther e is likely to be a slig ht reduction in numbers and reproduction for loggerhead and green turt les, we do not believe the proposed action will appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of these species in the wild.

All life stages are important to the survival a nd recovery of endangered and threatened species; however, it is important to note that individuals of one life stage are not e quivalent to those of other life stages. For example, th e take of male juvenile sea turtles may affect survivorship and recruitment rates into the repr oductive population in any given y ear, and yet not significantly reduce 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. Sublethal effects on adult females may also reduce reproduction by hindering foraging su ccess, as sufficient energy reserves are necessary for producing multiple clutches of eggs in a breeding year. Different age classes may experience varying rates of mort ality and resilience (Crouse et al. 1987). Similarly, different actions are more likely to affect some sea turtle life stages over others depending on the location and timing of the action.

Based on 22 years of data (BA, Table 2), only on e hawksbill sea turtle was captured in FPL’s intake system. This individual was a juvenile th at was captured alive and released back to the wild on September 8, 1991. Using the data compiled by FPL as a proxy (BA, Table 2), we believe the proposed action will nonlethally take one juvenile hawksbill turtle. We believe the nonlethal take of one juvenile hawksbill turtle will not reduce hawksbill numbers, reproduction, or distribution. Therefore, we believe the proposed action will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of their survival and recovery in the wild. Based on the preceding, we believe the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued exis tence of hawksbill sea turtles, and we have omitted this species from further discussion in this section.

The following jeopardy analysis for loggerhead and green turtles focuses on reproductive-aged female sea turtles because we can somewhat quan tify lost reproductive fitness to species based upon published fecundity for adult females (i.e ., numbers of eggs produced over time) and survivability of hatchlings.49 7.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtles We believe the proposed action may result in the nonlethal capture of five loggerheads (three subadults and two adult females) and the lethal capture of five loggerheads (three subadults and two adult females) (Section 5). We do not expect a reduction in the species’ distribution based on the amount (by lifestage) and ex tent (nonlethal v. lethal) of the take estimated in Section 5 of this opinion. The lethal capture of two adult fema le loggerhead turtles is a slight reduction in the species’ numbers. However, we do not believe this slight reduction wi ll cause an appreciable reduction in the species’ numbers. Moreover, we believe the leth al capture of two adult female loggerhead turtles and the nonlethal capture of tw o adult female loggerhead turtles may cause a slight reduction in the species’ reproduction. The death of two mature, breeding females can

have an immediate effect on the re productive rate of the species. Sublethal effects (e.g., loss of fitness) on two adult females may also reduce reproduction by hindering foraging success, as sufficient energy reserves are necessary for producing multiple clutches of eggs in a breeding year. All turtles that are captured alive and appear healthy will be released back to the wild (See Term and Condition 3 for healthy turtles). We expect these individuals to recover from a temporary loss of fitness. Turtles that are sick or injured when captured will be transported to a rehabilitation facility (See Term and Condition 4 for sick or injured turtles). The outcome of these sick or injured turtles is unknown. While we do expect a slight redu ction in the species’ reproduction, we do not believe the proposed action will cause an appreciable reduction in the species’ reproduction.

The Services’ recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead turtle (NMFS and USFWS 2008), which is in essence th e same population of turtles as comprise the NWA DPS, provides additional explanation of the goals and vision for recovery for this population. The Services did not include any recovery objectives specific to power generation

activities.

The recovery plan anticipates that, with impl ementation of the plan, the Northwest Atlantic population will recover within 50 to 150 years, but notes that reach ing recovery in only 50 years would require a rapid reversal of the declining trends of the No rthern, Peninsular Florida, and Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Units.

We believe the proposed action will not interfere with achieving the recovery objectives and will not result in an appreciable redu ction in the likelihood of loggerhead sea turtles’ survival and recovery in the wild.

7.2 Green Sea Turtles We believe the proposed action may result in the nonlethal capture of tw o green turtles (both juveniles) and the lethal capture of one adult female green turtle (Section 5). We do not expect a reduction in the species’ distri bution based on the amount (by lifes tage) and extent (nonlethal v. lethal) of the take estimated in Section 5 of this opinion. The leth al capture of one adult female green turtle is a slight reduction in the species’ numbers. However, we do not believe this slight reduction (i.e., the loss of one adult female) will cause an appreciable reduction in the species’ numbers. Moreover, we believe the lethal capture of one adult female green turtle may cause a50 slight reduction in the sp ecies’ reproduction. The death of on e mature, breeding female can have an immediate effect on the reproductive rate of th e species. All turtles th at are captured alive and appear healthy will be released back to the wild (See Term and Condition 3 for healthy turtles). We expect these individuals to recover from a tempor ary loss of fitness. Turtles that are sick or injured when captured will be transported to a re habilitation facility (S ee Term and Condition 4 for sick or injured turtles). The outcome of th ese sick or injured tur tles is unknown. While we do expect a slight reduction in th e species’ reproduction based on the loss of one mature female, we do not believe the proposed action will cause an appreciable reduction in the species’ reproduction.

The Services’ recovery plan for the U.S. Popul ation of the Atlantic Green Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991a) provides additional explanation of the goals and vision for recovery for this population. The Services did not include any recovery objectives specific to power generation

activities.

The recovery plan anticipates that the U.S. population of the Atlantic green turtle can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 y ears, the following conditions are met: (1) the level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at least six years, (2) at least 25 percent (105 km) of all av ailable nesting beaches (420 km) is in public ownership and encompasses at l east 50 percent of the nesting activity, (3) a reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging grounds, and (4) all priority one tasks have been successfu lly implemented (NMFS and USFWS 1991a).

We believe the proposed action will not interfere with achieving the recovery objectives and will not result in an appreciable reduction in the like lihood of green sea turtles’ survival and recovery

in the wild.

8.0 Conclusion

Based on the preceding analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existen ce of the NWA DPS of the loggerh ead turtle, the U.S. population of the Atlantic green turtle, or hawk sbill turtles in the Atlantic Ocean.

9.0 Incidental Take Statement

Section 9 of the ESA and protec tive regulations issued pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangere d and threatened species, re spectively, without a special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm , pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is de fined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherw ise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Secti on 7(o)(2), taking that is incident al to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement (ITS).51 Section 7(b)(4)(c) of the ESA specifies that in order to provide an ITS for an endangered or threatened species of marine mammal, the taking must be authorized und er Section 101(a)(5) of

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Since no incident al take of listed marine mammals is expected or has been authori zed under Section 101( a)(5) of the MMPA, no statement on incidental take of endangered whal es is provided, and no take is authorized. Nevertheless, EPA must immediately notify (wit hin 24 hours, if communication is possible) Mr. David Bernhart, Assistant Regional Admini strator, NMFS Southeast Region, Protected Resources Division at (727) 824-5312 should a take of a lis ted marine mammal occur.

9.1 Anticipated Amount or Extent of Incidental Take

Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuan t to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit take of endangered and threatened species , respectively, without special ex emption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further de fined by NMFS to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, includ ing breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental

take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the pu rpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Unde r the terms of ESA Section 7(b)(4 ) and Section 7(o)(2), taking

that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking provided that su ch taking is in compliance with the Terms and Conditions of

this ITS.

NMFS believes the proposed action will nonl ethally take five loggerheads (two adult females and three subadults) and lethally take five loggerheads (two adult females and three subadults); nonlethally take two greens (b oth juveniles) and lethally take one green (adult female); and nonlethally take one juvenile hawksbill in a five-year period. Thus, we believe the proposed action is likely to take ten (10) loggerh eads, three (3) greens, and one (1) hawksbill in a five-year period.

9.2 Effect of the Take

NMFS has determined the anticipated level of in cidental take specified in Section 9.1 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of green, loggerhead, or hawksbill sea turtles.

9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures

Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires NMFS to is sue a statement specifying the impact of any incidental take on listed species , which results from an agency action otherwise found to comply with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. It also states the Reasonable and Prude nt Measures necessary to minimize the impacts of take and the Terms and Conditions to implement those measures, must be provided and must be followed to mi nimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the federal agency that complies with the specified Terms and Conditions is authorized.52 The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Term s and Conditions are specified, as required, by 50 CFR 402.01(i)(1)(ii) and (iv), to document the incidental take by the proposed action and to minimize the impact of that take on ESA-listed species. The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions are nondiscretionary, and must be implemented by EPA in order for the protection of Section 7(o)(2) to apply. EPA has a continui ng duty to regulate the activity covered by this ITS. If EPA fails to adhere to the Terms and Conditions through enforceable terms, and/or fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance wi th these Terms and Conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse.

NMFS has determined that the following reasonab le and prudent measure must be implemented by EPA:

FPL shall have measures in place to monitor and report all interactions with any protected species resulting from the proposed action. Repo rts shall be sent to the Assistant Regional Administrator (Mr. David Bernhart) for NMFS 's Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Pe tersburg, Florida 33701-5505. Notifications of

interactions shall be e-mailed to NMFS’s Pr otected Resources Division within 24 hours.

9.4 Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, EPA and the permittee (FPL) are required to comply with the Terms a nd Conditions that implement the Reasonable and Prudent Measure. The following terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. EPA shall condition the permit to require the following terms a nd conditions to minimize the effects of take on loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles:

1. An annual report summarizing the number of takes, by species and life stage. Annual reports shall contain information on the date of the turtle encounter , the condition of the turtle (include photographs, if available), problems encountered, mitigative actions taken (e.g., the animal was transported to a rehabili tation facility or wa s released alive and uninjured), and any other information the EPA and FPL deem relevant. This report must be provided to NMFS’s PRD at the address pr ovided in the RPM above and notification of take shall be provided to NMFS at the following e-mail address within 24 hours, referencing the present opinion by NMFS identifier number (SER-2012-657), title, and

date: takereport.nmfsser@noaa.gov

. 2. FPL shall monitor the intake wells six times in a 24-hour period (every four hours) for the presence of sea turtles. In the event a sea tu rtle is found in the intake wells, FPL shall:

 Observe the turtle to determine if it has any injuries or appears stressed or unhealthy.

 Determine the turtle species.

 Complete the Endangered Species Respons e Form, which includes taking photos

of the turtle in the intake well (Appendix 1 of this opinion).

 Enter the event in FPL’s Endangered Species Log.

 For healthy turtles, FPL shall follow the procedure in Term and Condition #2.53  For sick or injured turtles, FPL shall follow the procedure in Term and Condition

#3.

 For dead turtles, FPL shall follow th e procedure in Term and Condition #4.

 For required documentation, FPL shall follow Term and Condition #5.

3. HEALTHY SEA TURTLES: If an a pparently healthy turtle is seen in the intake well,

FPL shall:

 Close the covers to the intake well. Th e animal should be able swim out of the

area on its own with the assistance of sunlight entering the well through the

entrance.

 If after one hour the turtle has not left the well, reduce load as necessary and, if safe to do so, turn off one of the cooli ng water pumps to redu ce the current in the

well.

 Contact all personnel listed in Appendix 2 of this opinion to notify them of the

situation.
 Classify the call as an environmental emergency.
 Be prepared to answer the quest ions found on the Endangered Species Response Form (Appendix 1 of this opinion).
 Provide the Fleet Performance Di agnostic Center (FPDC) with information regarding the animal’s condition, approximate size, and apparent injuries (if any).

 An FWC-approved Marine Turtle Permit Holder, or their designee, should arrive

at PEEC within three hours of notification.

 Continue to monitor the intake well every 15 minutes to determine if the turtle has

left the well.

 If the turtle exits the well, another ca ll should be made to the Marine Turtle Permit Holder. At this time, FPL personne l shall continue ro utine inspection of the intake wells every four hours.

 If the turtle remains in the well, the Ma rine Turtle Permit Holder will handle the animal as required by state and federal regul ations. It may be necessary for plant personnel to work closely w ith the Marine Turtle Pe rmit Holder in order to

retrieve the animal.

 Only plant personnel shall operate plan t equipment (intake rakes, etc).

 All normal safety precautions and equipment shall be used.

 Depending on the water level and size of the turtle, employ one of the following

methods to remove the turtle from the we ll. Use caution when handling the turtle, so as not to injure it.

 For sm all turtles that can fit on the rake, carefully lift the turtle ensuring it is

situated on the rake in such a manner th at it cannot fall off. If needed and feasible, utilize the dip net with a long ex tension to assist the rake and keep the turtle from coming off the rake.

 For larger turtles, unbolt and remove th e intake well covers and deploy the Sea Turtle Retrieval Device lowering it with the intake crane. After ensuring the turtle is secure in the device, lift the device with the crane’s assistance.54  After removing the turtle, pl ace it in an appropriate cont ainer located in an area that complies with FWC’s Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines. Ambient air temperature will determine the holdi ng location of the container.

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will co mplete a full assessment. All data will be collected and recorded on either the FWC Tagging Form or the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (ST SSN) – Stranding Report and the Fibropapilloma Documentation Form (if applicable).

 If the turtle is not tagged, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder will properly tag the animal with Passive Integrated Trans ponder (PIT) tags and flipper tags and complete a Tagging Form.

 If the Marine Turtle Permit Holder deems th e turtle healthy and all data have been collected, the Marine Turtle Permit Hold er will release the turtle into the discharge canal at the first bend.

4. SICK OR INJURED SEA TURTLES: If a sick or injured sea turtle is seen in the intake well, FPL shall:

 Immediately contact all pe rsonnel listed in Appendix 2 to notify them of the

situation.
 Classify the call as an environmental emergency.
 Be prepared to answer the quest ions found on the Endangered Species Response Form (Appendix 1).
 Provide the FPDC with information regarding the animal’s condition, approximate size, and appa rent injuries (if any).

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder should arrive at PEEC within three hours of

notification.

 Continue to monitor the intake well every 15 minutes or less.

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will ha ndle the animal as required by state and federal regulations. It may be necessary for plant personnel to work closely with

the Marine Turtle Permit Holder in order to retrieve the animal.

 Only plant personnel shall operate plan t equipment (intake rakes, etc).

 All normal safety precautions and equipment shall be used.

 Depending on the water level and size of the turtle, employ one of the following

methods to remove the turtle from the we ll. Use caution when handling the turtle, so as not to injure it.

 For small turtles that can fit on the rack, carefully lift the turtle ensuring it is

situated on the rake in such a manner th at it cannot fall off. If needed and feasible, utilize the dip net with a long ex tension to assist the rake and keep the turtle from coming off the rake.

 For larger turtles, unbolt and remove th e intake well covers and deploy the Sea Turtle Retrieval Device lowering it with the intake crane. A fter ensuring the turtle is secure in the device, lift the device with the crane’s assistance.

 After removing the turtle, pl ace it in an appropriate cont ainer located in an area that complies with FWC’s Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines. Ambient air temperature will determine the holdi ng location of the container.55  The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will co mplete a full assessment. All data will be collected and recorded on either the FWC Tagging Form or the STSSN – Stranding Report and the Fibropapilloma Docu mentation Form (if applicable). If the turtle is not tagged, the Marine Turt le Permit Holder will properly tag the animal with PIT tags and flipper tags and complete a Tagging Form.

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder notifi es FWC via the E-mail Stranding Pager: seaturtlestranding@myfwc.com . If there is no respons e, the Marine Turtle

Permit Holder will call the FWC Hotline at 1-888-404-3922.

 In consultation with FWC, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder determines if the turtle needs to be transp orted to a rehabilitation fa cility or released.

 If the Marine Turtle Permit Holder deems th e turtle healthy and all data have been collected, the Marine Turtle Permit Hold er will release the turtle into the discharge canal at the first bend.

 If rehabilitation is required, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder will transport the animal to the FWC-designated rehabilitation facility.

5. DEAD SEA TURTLES: If a dead sea turtle is seen in the intake well, FPL shall:

 Immediately contact all pe rsonnel listed in Appendix 2 to notify them of the

situation.
 Classify the call as an environmental emergency.
 Be prepared to answer the quest ions found on the Endangered Species Response Form (Appendix 1).
 Provide the FPDC with information regarding the animal’s condition, approximate size, etc.

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder should arrive at PEEC within three hours of

notification.

 Continue to monitor the intake well every 15 minutes.

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will ha ndle the animal as required by state and federal regulations. It may be necessary for plant personnel to work closely with

the Marine Turtle Permit Holder in order to retrieve the animal.

 Only plant personnel shall operate plan t equipment (intake rakes, etc).

 All normal safety precautions and equipment shall be used.

 Depending on the water level and size of the turtle, employ one of the following

methods to remove the turtle from the we ll. Use caution when handling the turtle, so as not to cause post-mortem injuries.

 For small turtles that can fit on the rake, carefully lift the turtle ensuring it is

situated on the rake in such a manner th at it cannot fall off. If needed and feasible, utilize the dip net with a long ex tension to assist the rake and keep the turtle from coming off the rake.

 For larger turtles, unbolt and rem ove th e intake well covers and deploy the Sea Turtle Retrieval Device lowering it with the intake crane. After ensuring the turtle is secure in the device, lift the device with the crane’s assistance.

 After removing the turtle, place it in an appropriate container provided by the

Marine Turtle Permit Holder.56  The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will co mplete a full assessment. All data will

be collected and recorded on th e STSSN – Stranding Report and the Fibropapilloma Documentation Form (if applicable).

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder notifi es FWC via the E-mail Stranding Pager: seaturtlestranding@myfwc.com . If there is no respons e, the Marine Turtle

Permit Holder will call the FWC Hotline at 1-888-404-3922.

 In consultation with FWC, the Marine Tu rtle Permit Holder decides if a necropsy is required to determine the cause of deat h and if the mortality was causal to plant operation or due to another f actor that occurred outside of the intake canal. If a necropsy is required, the Marine Turtle Pe rmit Holder will transport or ship the animal to the FWC-designated veterinarian.

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder would be responsible for handling all of the sea turtles at PEEC, unless the immediate re moval is essential to the safety of employees or the turtle or reliability of the electric power system. In order for FPL personnel to remove the turtle from the intake well, they must have completed the training provided by the Mari ne Turtle Permit Holder. If trained, the FPL employee may remove the turtle from the rake and place it in an appropriate container provided by the Mari ne Turtle Permit Holder. Ambient air temperature will determine the holding locat ion of the container. If outside temperatures stay above 70°F, cover the turtle with a wet towel.

 If the ambient temperature is below 70°F but above 60°F, place a dry towel over

the turtle.

 If ambient temperature is be low 60°F, move it indoors.

 Once the Marine Turtle Permit Holder ar rives at PEEC, the procedures written

above will be followed.

6. DOCUMENTATION

 The original STSSN – Stranding Report and Fibropapilloma Documentation Form

must be mailed to FWC at:

Florida STSSN Coordinator

Florida Fish and Wild life Conservation Commission

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 19100 SE Federal Highway Tequesta, FL 33469

 E-mail the Stranding Report to STSSNForm@myfwc.com

 If a tagging form is completed in the place of the STSSN – Stranding Report, it must be mailed to FWC at the address provided above.

 Make four copies of both the STSSN – Stranding Report, the Tagging Form and the Fibropapilloma Documentation Form. One copy goes to each:
 FPL Juno Environmental Service (JES)
 FPL PEEC
 Receiving facility
 Stranding folder with fax/email confir mation attached (held by the Marine Turtle Permit Holder).57  A scanned copy of the Endangered Species Response Form and any photos shall be entered into FPL’s Endangered Species Log. The hard copy shall be returned

to the Environmental Lead at PEEC.

10.0 Conservation Recommendations

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authority to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed acti on on listed species or crit ical habitat to help implement recovery plans or to develop information.

NMFS does not have any Cons ervation Recommendations.

11.0 Reinitiation of Consultation

This concludes formal consultation on EPA’s pr oposed issuance of a five-year greenhouse gas permit to FPL PEEC for the dismantlement of ex isting power units, the co nstruction of a new 3- on-1 combined cycle unit that will run primarily on natural gas, and the continued use of the intake water and discharge water systems at PEEC. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is requi red where discretionary federal agency involvement or control

over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the ITS is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the action may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not pr eviously considered; (3)

the identified action is s ubsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species

or critical habitat that was not c onsidered in the biological opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that ma y be affected by the identified action.

12. Literature Cited

Ackerman, R.A. 1997. The nest environment a nd embryonic development of sea turtles, pp. 83- 106. In:Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, New York. 432 pp.

Aguilar, R., J. Mas and X. Pastor. 1995. Imp act of Spanish swordfish longline fisheries on the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta , population in the western Mediterranean, pp. 1.

In :12th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation, February 25-29, 1992, Jekyll Island, Georgia.

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 3:31-36.58 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.

Andrady, A.L. & M.A. Neal. 2009. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Societ y B: Biological Sciences 364: 1977-1984.

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., J. Byrd, A. Segars, P. Maier, J. Schw enter, D. Burgess, J. Boynton, J.D. Whitaker, L. Ligouri, L. Parker, D. Owens, and G. Blanvillain. 2009. Ex amination of local movement and migratory behavior of s ea turtles during spring and su mmer along the Atlantic Coast

off the Southeastern United States. Final Pr oject Report to the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service. Prepared by: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 164pp.

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 20 06. Potential effects of sea level rise on the

terrestrial habitats of enda ngered and endemic megafauna on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Speci es Research 2:21-30.

Bagley, D.A., A.L. Bass, S.A. Johnson, L.M. Ehrhart, and B.W. Bowen. 2000. Origins of juvenile green turtles from an east central Fl orida developmental hab itat as detennined by mtDNA analysis. Pages 37-38 in Abreu-Grobois, F.Z. R Brise no-Duenas, R Marquez, and L. Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Ei ghteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436.

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 20 06. Potential effects of sea level rise on the

terrestrial habitats of enda ngered and endemic megafauna on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Speci es Research 2:21-30.

Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature gr een turtles in the Ha waiian Archipelago, pp.

117-125. In: Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Biol ogy and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Balazs, G.H. 1983. Recovery records of adult gree n turtles observed or originally tagged at French Frigate Shoals, northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NMFSSWFC.

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Sea turtles and debris: Ingesti on and entanglement. Marine Turtle Newsletter

32:8-9.

Baldwin, R., G.R. Hughes, and R.I.T. Prince. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Indian Ocean. Pages 218-232 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (e ditors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.59 Barreiros, J.P. & J. Barcelos. 2001. Plas tic ingestion by a leatherback turtle Dermochelys

coriacea from the Azores (NE Atlantic). Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1196-1197.

Bass, AL. and W.N. Witzell. 2000. Demogra phic composition of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the east central Florida coas t:evidence from mtDNA markers. Herpetologica 56(3):357-367.

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., A.B. Bolten & C.J. Lageux. 1994. I ngestion of marine debris by juvenile sea

turtles in coastal Flor ida habitats. Marine Po llution Bulletin 28: 154-158.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecol ogy and nutrition of sea turtles. In :Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turt les. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

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.

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.

Blumenthal, J.M., J.L. Solomon, C.D. Bell, T.J. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, M.S. Coyne, A.C. Broderick, B.J. Godley. 2006. Satellite track ing highlights the need for international cooperation in marine turtle management . Endangered Species Research 7:1-11.

Bolten, A.B., K.A. Bjorndal, and H.R. Martins. 1994. Life history model for the loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) populations in the Atlantic:Poten tial impacts of a longline fishery. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-201:48-55.

Bolten, A.B., J.A. Wetheral, G.H. Balazs, and S.G. Pooley (compilers). 1 996. Status of marine

turtles in the Pacific Ocean relevant to incide ntal take in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline

fisheries. NOAA Tech. Mem o. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-230.

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. AL. Bass, S. Chow'M. Bostrom' K. A. Bjorndal, AB. Bolten'T. Okuyama, B.M. Bolker, S. Epperly, E. LaCasella'D. Shaver , M. Dodd, S.R Hopkins-Murphy, J. A. Musick, M. Swingle, K. Rankin-Baransky, W. Teas , W.N. Witzell, and P.H. Dutton. 2004. In

Press. Natal homing in juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta).60 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.

Bugoni. L., L. Krause & M. Virginia Petry. 2001. Marine debris and human impacts on sea

turtles in southern Brazil. Ma rine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1330-1334.

Caldwell, D.K. and A. Carr. 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida. Transactions of the

22nd North American Wildlife Conf erence, March 4-7, 1957, pp. 457-463.

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.

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

Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic st age of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 1: 103-121.

Chaloupka, M.Y. and J.A Musick. 1997. Age, gr owth, and population dynamics. In:Lutz, P.L., and Musick, J.A (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 233-

276.

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., 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.

Chaloupka, M., K.A. Bjorndal, G.H. Balazs, A. B. Bolten, L.M. Ehrhart, C.J. Limpus, H. Suganuma, S. Troëng, and M. Yamaguchi. 2007 . Encouraging outlook for recovery of a once severely exploited marine megaherbivor e. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. (Published online Dec. 11, 2007; to be published in the journal in 2008).

Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Eppe rly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E.61 Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of th e Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the

National Marine Fisheries Se rvice, August 2009. 222 pages.

Cooper, K. 1989. Effects of polychlorinat ed dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans on aquatic organisms. Re views in Aquatic Sciences 1(2):227-242.

Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehmna, S. Joye, R. Pa rk, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 2008. Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal march ecosystem

services. Frontiers in Ecol ogy and the Environment.

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswe ll. 1987. A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implicatio ns for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423.

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

Crowder, L.B., D.T. Crouse, S.S. Heppell, and, T.H. Martin. 1994. Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ec ological Applications

4:437-445.

Daniels, R.C., T.W. White, and K.K. Chapman. 1993. Sea-level rise:destruction of threatened and endangered species habitat in South Carolina. Envir onmental Management, 17(3):373-

385.

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.

Dodd, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 88-14, 1988. 110 pp.

Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: A for gotten 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.

Dutton, P.H. 2003. Molecular ecology of Chelonia mydas in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, April 4-7, 2002. Miami, Florida.62 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.

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.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status Report of the Logge rhead Turtle. Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina , H. Reichart, and R. Witham (Eds.). Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Sympos ium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-226, pp. 122-139.

Ehrhart, L.M., W.E. Redfoot, D.A. Bagley. 2007. Marine turtles of the central region of the Indian River Lagoon system. Fl orida Scientist 70(4): 415-434.

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status Report of the Logge rhead Turtle. Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina , H. Reichart, and R. Witham (Eds.). Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Sympos ium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-226, pp. 122-139.

Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 2002. Turtle ex cluder devices: Are the escape openings large enough? Fish Bull. 100:466-474.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93:254-261.

Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995b. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters.

Conserv. Biol. 9:384-394.

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, A. J. Chester, F.A. Cross, J. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995c. Winter distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the summer flounder trawl fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56(2):519-540.

Epperly, S., L. Avens, L. Garrison, T. Henw ood, W. Hoggard, J. Mitchell, J. Nance, J. Poffenberger, C. Sasso, E. Scott-Denton, and C. Yeung. 2002. Analysis of sea turtle bycatch in the commercial shrimp industry of southeast U.S. waters and the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of Commer ce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC490. 88 pp.63 Epperly, S.P., J. Braun-McNeill, P.M. Richards. 2007. Trends in the catch rates of sea turtles in North Carolina, U.S.A. Endange red Species Research. 3:283-293.

Ferreira, M.B., M. Garcia, and A. Al-Kiyumi. 2003. Human and natural threats to the green turtles, Chelonia mydas, at Ra's al Hadd turtle reserve, Arabian Sea, Sultanate of Oman.

In: J.A. Seminoff(ed). Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tec hnical Memoradum. NMFS-SEFSC-503, 308 p.

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea-level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology, 19(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.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Co mmission (FWC). 2008. Long-term Monitoring Program Reveals a Continuing Loggerhead De cline, Increases in Green Turtle and Leatherback Nesting. Fish and W ildlife Research Institute web page:http://www.tloridamarine.orglf eatures/view article.asp?id=27537

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Co mmission (FWC). 2008. Developing a Statewide Program of In-Water Monitoring of Sea Turtle s in Florida. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute web page:http://research.myfur c.comlfeatures/view article.asp?id=27486

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conser vation Commission (FWC). 2004. Statewide nesting database. Nesting trends of Florida's sea turtles. Fish and Wildlife Re search Institute web page:http://www.tloridamarine.orglf eatures/view article.asp?id=2377

Fish, M.R., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A.P. Jones, S. Renshoff, and A.R. Watkinson. 2005. Predicting the impact of sea-level rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat. Conservation Biology, 19(2):482-491.

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). 2012. FWC-FWRI Sea turtle nesting activity in Florida. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/leatherback/. Last visited June 24, 2013.

FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Bi ological Assessment for the Port Everglades Next Generation Energy Center . Juno Beach, Florida.

FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2002. Annual environmental operating report 2001. Juno Beach, Florida.64 Frazer, N.B. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas

, and loggerhead, Caretta caretta , turtles in the wil d. Copeia 1985:73-79.

Frazer, N.B., C.J. Limpus, and J.L. Greene. 1994. Growth and age at maturity of Queensland loggerheads. U.S. Department of Comme rce. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFSSEFSC-351:42-45.

Garduño-Andrade, M., V. Guzman, E. Miranda, R. Briseno-Duenas, and F.A. Abreu-Grobois. 1999. Increases in hawksbill turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) nestings in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, 1977-1996: data in suppor t of successful conservation? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):286-295.

Geraci, J. R. 1990. Physiological and toxic 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.

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.

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.

Guseman, J.L. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecologi cal geography of Wester n Atlantic loggerheads and green turtles: evidence fr om remote tag recoveries. In Salmon M. and J. Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-302. 50 pp.

Hartwell, S. I. 2004. Distribution of DDT in sedime nts off the central California coast. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 49:299-305.

Hatase, H., M. Kinoshita, T. Bando, N. Kamezaki, K. Sato, Y. Matsuzawa, K. Goto, K. Omuta, Y. Nakashima, H. Takeshita, and W. Sakamo to. 2002. Population st ructure of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta , nesting in Japan: Bottlenecks on the Pacific population. Marine Biology 141:299-305.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godfrey, L.-F. Lopez-Jurado, P. LopezSuarez, S.E. Merino, N. Varo-Cruz, and B.J. Godley. 2006. Phenotypically linked65 dichotomy in sea turtle foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. Current Biology 16:990-995.

Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H.Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a mari ne turtle population. Global Change Biology,

13:923-932.

Hays, G.C., A.C. Broderick, F. Glen, B.J. Godl ey, J.D.R. Houghton, and J.D. Metcalfe. 2002. Water temperature and internes ting intervals for loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) and green ( Chelonia mydas ) sea turtles. Journal of Thermal Biology, 27:429-432.

Henwood, T.A. and L.H. Ogren. 1987. Distribution and migrations of immature Kemp’s ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) off Florida, Georgia, and South

Carolina. Northeast Gulf Sci. 9:153-159.

Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, D.T. Crouse, S. P. Epperly, and N.B. Frazer. 2003. Population models for Atlantic loggerheads: past, present, and future. In :Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (eds.) . Smithsonian Books, Washington. pp 255-273.

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

4:389-425.

Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea tu rtle populations in the Western Gulf of Mexico. In Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.

Smithsonian Institution Pre ss, Washington D.C. pp 447-453.

Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1), U.S. Fish and Wild life Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 120 pp.

Hulme, P.E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for ecological management in the face of global threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 43:617-627.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Clim ate Change). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In:Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Re port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds)] Cambri dge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

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- 1098.66 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-s ite fidelity of the Florida green turtle. In Schroeder, B.A. and B.E. Witherington (comp ilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and C onservation, NOAA Tec hnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. 83 pp.

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.

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

Laurent, L., P. Casale, M.N. Bradai, B.J. Godl ey, G. Gerosa, A.C. Broderick, W. Schroth, B. Schierwater, A.M. Levy, D. Freggi, E.M. Abd El-Mawla, D.A. Hadoud, H.E. Gomati, M. Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L. Kornaraki, F. Demirayak, and C. Gautier. 1998.

Molecular resolution of the marine turtle st ock composition in fish ery bycatch:A case study in the Mediterranean. 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.

León, Y.M. and C.E. Diez, 2000. Ecology and population biology of hawksbill turtles at a Caribbean feeding ground (Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Sea Turtle Symposium. U.S. Dept. of Commer ce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC436, 293 pp.; 2000, p. 32-33)

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. and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead tu rtles in the equatorial Pacific and southern Pacific Ocean: A species in decline. In : Bolten, A.B., and B.E. Witherington (eds.), Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution.

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.67 Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentiv egna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Camiñas, P. Casale, G.De Metrio, A. Demetropoulos, G. Gerosa, B.J. Godley, D.A. Haddoud, J. Houghton, L.Laurent, and B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead turt les in the Mediterranean Sea: present knowledge and conservation perspectives. Pages 175-198 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E.Witherington (editors). L oggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.

Márquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 11. Sea turtles of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea turtle species know n to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 125. 81

pp.

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.

Matkin, C. O., and E. Saulitis. 1997. Restoratio n notebook: killer whale (Orcinus orca). Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage, Alaska.

McClellan, C.M. and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity a nd variation in loggerhead sea turtle life history. Biology Letters 3:592-594.

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 Technical

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.

Mendonca, M.T., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1982. Activity, Population Size and Structure of Immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Copeia 1:161-167.

Meylan, A. 1999. Status of the Hawksbill Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2): 177B184. Availabl e at (http://www.bionica.info/biblioteca/Meylan1999EretmochelysImbricata.pdf).

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting act ivity in the state of

Florida. Florida Marine Re search Publications, No. 5268 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 Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. National Malrine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Hilton Head, SC.

Milton, S.L., S. Leone-Kabler, A.A. Schulman, and P.L. Lutz. 1994. Effects of Hurricane

Andrew on the sea turtle nesti ng beaches of South Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 54(3):974-981.

Milton, S.L., Lutz , P.L. 2003 Physiological and genetic responses to environmental stress.

In :Lutz PL, Musick JA, Wyneken J (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 163–197

Morreale, S. J., and E. A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology of sea tu rtles in northeastern

U.S. waters. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-413.

Murdoch, P.S., J.S. Baron and T.L. Miller. 2000. Potential effects of climate change on surfacewater quality in North America. Journal of the American Water Res ources Association 36:

347-366.

Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the Southeast region, U.S. Fina l Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service; NMFS Contract No. NA83-GA-C-00021. 73 pp.

Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of l ong-lived marine animals. Pp 1-10 In: J.A. Musick (ed.) Life in the slow land: ecology a nd conservation of long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habita t utilization in juve nile sea turtles. In Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtle s. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 137-

163.

NAST (National Assessment Synthesis Team). 2000. Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climat e variability and change. US Global Change Research Program, Washington D.C.

NMFS (1992). ESA Section 7 consultation on Shri mp Trawling, as proposed by the Councils, in

the Southeastern United States from North Carolina through Texas under the 1992

revised Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations. Biological Opinion : 26.

NMFS (1994). ESA Section 7 consultation on Shri mp Trawling in the Southeastern United

States under the Sea Turtle Conserva tion Regulations. Biological Opinion : 26.

NMFS (1996a). ESA Section 7 consultation on Sh rimp Trawling in the Southeastern United

States under the Sea Turtle Conserva tion Regulations. Biological Opinion : 28.69 NMFS (1996b). ESA Section 7 consultation on Shri mp Trawling in the Southeastern United

States under the Sea Turtle Conserva tion Regulations. Biological Opinion 38.

NMFS. 1997. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on the continued hopper dredging

of channels and borrow areas in the south eastern United States. Biological Opinion. September 25.

NMFS. 2001a. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhea d and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Techni cal Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-455.

NMFS. 2002. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on shrimp trawling in the

southeastern United States unde r the sea turtle conservation regulations and as managed by the fishery management plans for shrimp in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Opinion, December 2.

NMFS. 2003. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on the continued operation of Atlantic shark fisheries (commercial shark bot tom longline and drift gillnet fisheries and recreational shark fisheries) under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) and the Pr oposed Rule for Draft Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP. Biological Opinion. July 2003.

NMFS. 2004. Evaluating Bycatch : A National Approach to Sta ndardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs.

NMFS. 2004a. Endangered Species Act S ection 7 consultation on proposed regulatory amendments to the FMP for the pelagic fi sheries of the western Pacific region. Biological opinion. February 23.

NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act Sectio n 7 reinitiation of th e consultation on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for highly migratory species. Biological Opinion. June

1.

NMFS (2009). Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan. Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS. 2012. Endangered Species Act Section 7 reinitiation consulta tion on the continued implementation of the sea turtle conservati on regulations, as propos ed to be amended,

and the continued authorization of the southeas t U.S. shrimp fisheries in federal waters under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Biological Opinion. May 8.

NMFS SEFSC (Southeast Fisheries Science Cente r). 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead

and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherb ack sea turtles of the West ern North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, Nati onal Marine Fisheries Servic e, Miami, Florida, SEFSC Contribution PRD-00/01-08; Part s I-III and Appendices I-V1.70 NMFS-SEFSC. 2009. Estimated impacts of mort ality 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, June 16, 2009, Tampa, Florida, 20p. (Posted 6/2009 at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/se aturtleabstracts.jsp).

NMFS. 2012. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protect ed Resources, Species Information. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/. Last visited January 8, 2013.

NMFS and USFWS. 1991a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.

NMFS and USFWS. 1991b. Recovery Plan for U. S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle. National

Marine Fisheries Serv ice, Washington, D.C.

NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for Ha wksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. Nationa l Marine Fisheries Serv ice, St. Petersburg,

Florida.

NMFS and USFWS. 1995. Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS and USFWS. 1998a. Recovery Plan for U. S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle. Prepared by the Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team.

NMFS and USFWS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007a. Green Sea Turtle (C helonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and

Evaluation. National Marine Fisherie s Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007b. Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta ) 5-Year Review: Summary

and Evaluation. National Marine Fisher ies Service, Silv er Spring, Maryland.

NMFS and USFWS. 2007c. Hawksbill Sea Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Na tional Marine Fisheries Serv ice, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS and USFWS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta ), Second Revision. Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

NMFS-SEFSC. 2009. Estimated impacts of mort ality 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, June 16, 2009, Tampa, Florida, 20p. (Posted 6/2009 at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/seaturtleabstracts.jsp)71 NMFS and USFWS. 2010. Unpublished Final Draf t Report: Summary Repor t of a Meeting of the NMFS/USFWS Cross-Agency Working Group on Joint Listing of North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle Di stinct Population Segments, 4-5 November 2010, Washington, D.C. November 29, 2010, final version.

NRC (National Research Council, Committee on S ea Turtle Conservation). 1990. Decline of

the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Palmer, M.A., C.A. Reidy Liermann, C. Nilsson, M. Florke, J. Alcama, P.S. Lake and N. bond. 2008. Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:81-89.

Park, R.A., J.K. Lee, P.W. Mausel, and R.C. Ho we. 1991. The effects if sea level rise on US

coastal wetlands. In: J.B. Smith and D.A. Ti rpak (eds), The potential effects of global climate change on the United States. Appe ndix B – sea-level rise. Washington DC:US Environmental Protection Agency.

Pichel, W.G., J.H. Churnside, T.S. Veenstra, D. G. Foley, K.S. Friedman, R.E. Brainard, J.B. Nicoll, Q. Zheng & P. Clemente-Coln. 2007. Ma rine debris collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1207-1211. Pike, D.A., R.L. Antworth, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Earlier nesting contributes to shorter nesting seasons for the Loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta . Journal of Herpetology, 40(1):91-

94.

Poloczanska, E.S., Limpus, C.J., and G.C. Hays . 2009. Vulnerability of marine turtles to climate change. Adv. Mar. Biol. 56:151-211.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1997. Evoluti on, phylogeny, and current status. In :Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (ed). The Biology of Sea Turtles. pp 1-28. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

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.

SCDNR. 2008. Loggerheadlines. July-December 2008.

Schroeder, B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Populati on studies of marine turtles in Florida Bay. In Richardson, J.I. and T. H. Richardson (compilers), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and C onservation, NOAA Tec hnical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361. 117 pp.

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.72 Scott, G., B. Würsig, G. Fargion, R. Benson, W. Evans, L. Hansen, B. Mate, N. May, K. Mullin, T. Leming, and D. Schmidly. 1994. Distri bution and Abundance of Marine Mammals in

North-Central and western Gulf of Me xico. MMS Publication 94-0003 & 94-0004. Interim Report. Volumes I and II. December 1994.

Seminoff, J. A. 2004. Chelonia mydas . 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Shaver, D.J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. J ournal of Herpet ology 28:491-497.

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.

Stabenau, E.K. and K.R. Vietti. 1999. Physio logical effects of shor t-term submergence of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta , in TED-equipped commercial fishing nets. Final Report to National Marine Fi sheries Service, Pascagoul a Laboratory, Pascagoula, Mississippi.73 Standora, E.A., S.J. Morreale, A. Bolten, M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauer, T.S. Ryder, and K.L. Williams. 1993. Diving behavior, daily move ments, and homing of loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Ma rch and April 1993. Contr. Report to

USACE.

Stevenson, J.C. and M.S. Kearney. In press. Imp acts of global climate change and sea level rise on tidal wetlands. In: B.R. Silliman, M.D. Bertness and D. Strong (eds.), Anthropogenic

modification of North American salt marshes. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

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 (Turtle Expert Working Group). 1998. An Assessment of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ) and loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtle popul ations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Departme nt of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp.

TEWG. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridl ey and loggerhead sea turtle populations in

the western North Atlantic: A re port 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, Florida.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 2009. An Assessment of the Loggerhead Turtle Population in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-575, 131p.

Troëng, S., and E. Rankin. 2005. Long-term conserva tion efforts contribute to positive green turtle, Chelonia mydas, nesting trend at Tortuguero, Cost a Rica. Biological Conservation 121(1):111-116.

Tucker, A. D. 2010. Nest site fidelity and clutch 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.

USFWS and NMFS. 1998. Consultation Handbook: Procedures for conducting consultation and

conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

van Dam, R.P., and C.E. Díez. 1998. Home range of immature hawksbill turtles ( Eretmochelys

imbricata ) at two Caribbean islands. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 220:15-24.

Vargo, S., P. Lutz, D. Odell, E. van Vleet, and G. Bossart. 1986. The effects of oil on marine turtles. Final Report, Vol. 2. Prepared for Mineral Management Services, U.S. Department of Interior . OCS Study MMS 86-0070.74 Wabnitz, C. and W.J. Nichols. 2010. Pl astic Pollution: An Ocean Emergency. Marine Turtle

Newsletter 129:1-4. http://www.seaturtle.or g/mtn/archives/mtn129/mtn129p1.shtml.

Wallace, B.P., S.S. Heppell, R.L. Lewison, S. Kelez, and L.B. Crowder. 2008. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on loggerh ead turtles worldwide inferre d from reproductive value analyses. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1076–1085.

Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrh art. 2004. Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles following sea surface warming. Global Change Biology, 10:1424-1427

Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in thei r nearshore habitat of Broward County, Florida: a five year review. In Salmon M. and J. Wyneken (compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Work shop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation,

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-302:121-123.

Wilcox, J.R., G. Bouska, J. Gorham, B. Peery, a nd M. Bresette. 1998. Knee deep in green turtles: recent trends in capture rates at the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. In Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual symposium on sea turtle biology and

conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-412.

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 loggerhead 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.

Witzell, W.N. 2002. Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ): suggested changes to the life history model. Herp etological Review 33(4):266-269.75 Wong, C.S., D.R. Green & W.J. Cretney. 1974. Quantita tive tar and plastic waste distributions in

the Pacific Ocean. Nature 247: 30-32.

Wyneken, J., K. Blair, S. Epperly, J. Vaughan, a nd L. Crowder. 2004. Surprising sex ratios in west Atlantic loggerhead hatchl ings – an unexpected 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.

Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Torres, C. Calderon, L. Gomez, J.C. Alvarado, and R. Villavicencio. 2003. Nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Pp. 125-127 In : Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum. NMFS SEFSC.76 Appendix 1: Endangered Species Response Form

Date and Time Turtle was found:

__________________________________________________

Turtle Species (i.e., Logg erhead, Green, etc.): ________________________

Name of individual who found the turtle:

__________________________________________

Does the turtle appear to be healthy, injured, or dead?

________________________________________

Take a photo(s) of the turtle (digital if po ssible / record photo numb ers) and save in the

PEEC server:

_____________________________________________________________________

If possible, document a gene ral description of th e turtle and any notic eable old or fresh injuries:

_____________________________________________________________________ o Dimensions _______________

o Approximate Weight _________

o Indicate any tagging on its flippers or spray paint markings on its shell

________________

______________________________________________________________________

Identify the location in the intake system where the animal was found:

___________________________________________________________________

Identify if there are structures nearby that could have resulted in the injury or fatality:

______________________________________________________________________

Contact the Plant Manager, Juno En vironmental Service (JES) and the PGD Environmental Wildlife Subject Matter E xperts (Email photos, if possible)

Date and Time Marine Turtle Pe rmit Holder was contacted: ____________________
Marine Turtle Permit Holder’s Name: __________________________

Note: Please refer to the PGD Environmental Website for the most current information on

Contacts. Give completed form to FPL’s E nvironmental Specialist for filing.77 Appendix 2 – Contact List

Name Title Phone # Cell # Idayna Stokes Plant Environmental Specialist 954-527-3507 561-654-6920

TBD Plant Operations Specialist TBD TBD

Chris Carmona Production Ma nager 954-527-3640 305-753-1154

FPDC 561-634-3600

Jodie Gless JES Senior

Environmental Specialist 561-691-2801 561-358-0374

Jim Lindsay JES Environmental Project Manager 561-691-7032 561-762-1296 Rich Piper JES Environmental Services Manager 561-691-7058 561-301-5621

Susan Mazur PGD Technical Services Manager 561-691-2315 561-310-6028

TBD Marine Turtle Permit

Holder TBD TBD