Atlanta Federal Center61 Forsyth Street

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Ref.: Greenhouse Gas Permit Application submitted by Florida Power and Light Port Everglades Next

Generation Clean Energy Center, Fort Lauderdale. Broward County, Florida

Dear Mr. Parks:

This responds to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) letter dated February 22, 2012, and

biological assessment (BA) dated November 16, 2012, designating Florida Power and Light as your nonfederalrepresentative and requesting informal consultation (and concurrence with your “no adverse effect”determination on the referenced project) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).

Enclosed is the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) biological opinion, issued in accordance withSection 7 of the ESA, based on our review of your proposed action to issue a greenhouse gas permit to FloridaPower and Light Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center. The permit is for the dismantlement

of existing power units, the construction of a new 3-on-I combined cycle unit that runs primarily on naturalgas, and the continued use of the cooling-water intake canal and the warm-water discharge canal adjacent to

the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

The biological opinion analyzes the project’s effects on loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles. It is

based on information provided in your BA; the ESA five-year status reviews for loggerhead, green, andhawksbill sea turtles; NMFS’s and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery plans for these species;

information from previous NMFS’s consultations involving sea turtles; and other sources. It is our biological

opinion that the action, as proposed, is likely to adversely affect loggerhead, green, and hawksbill sea turtles,

but is not likely to jeopardize their continued existence.

We look forward to further cooperation with you on other EPA projects to ensure the conservation and

recovery of our threatened and endangered marine species. If you have any questions regarding this

consultation, please contact Audra Livergood, consultation biologist, at AudraLivergood@noaa.gov or (786)

351-2225.

Sincerely,

Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D.

\ Regional Administrator

Enclosure

File: 1514-22K
proposed improvements at the Port Everglades Next Generation

Clean Energy Center

Consulting Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Protected

Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida

(Consultation Number SER-20 12-657)

Approved by: ‘S-‘L

Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional Administrator

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office

St. Petersburg, Florida

SP 182013 Date Issued:

1. Consultation History 4

2. Description of the Action and Action Area 4

3. Status of Listed Species in the Action Area 10

4. Environmental Baseline 29

5. Effects of the Action 41

6. Cumulative Effects 46

7. Jeopardy Analysis 47

8. Conclusion 50

9. Incidental Take Statement 50

10. Conservation Recommendations 57

11. Reinitiation of Consultation 57

12. Literature Cited 57

Appendix 1 76

Appendix 2 77
2

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 Department of Natural Resources 

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

TED Turtle Excluder Device 

TEWG Turtle Expert Working Group 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
3

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 ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried 

out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such 

species. When the action of a federal agency may affect a protected species, that agency is 

required to consult with either the National Oceanic 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 continued operation of the Florida Power & Light 

(FPL) Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center (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 nominal 1,250-megawatt 3-on-1 combined cycle unit 

that runs on natural gas. We also evaluated potential effects on listed species from operation of 

the new unit that will run on natural gas. 

Formal consultations are required when action agencies determine that a proposed action “may 

affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. Formal consultations on most listed marine 

species are conducted between the action agency and NMFS. Consultations are concluded after 

NMFS’s issuance of an opinion that identifies whether 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 incidental taking that may occur. Nondiscretionary 

measures (“reasonable and prudent measures” - RPMs) to reduce the likelihood of interactions 

are developed, and conservation recommendations are made. Notably, there are no reasonable 

and prudent measures associated with critical habitat, only reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

This opinion is based on information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), FPL, Inwater Research Group, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWC). 
4

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

1.0 Consultation History 

On February 22, 2012, EPA requested informal consultation with NMFS under Section 7 of the 

ESA for FPL’s proposed improvements at the PEEC in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, 

Florida. In the same letter, EPA also designated FPL as their nonfederal representative for the 

ESA Section 7 consultation. We requested additional 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 consultations 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 gas 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 runs 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 dismantling and operation phases 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. The 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 cycle unit is complete and operational, primary 

water uses at the PEEC will be for cooling water 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 cooling water intake and discharge systems for 

condenser cooling. Cooling water is withdrawn from the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) via 

culverts that flow into FPL’s intake canal. After 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 flow 
6

rate. The velocity at the intake culverts will 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 Everglades. 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 reliable 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 disrupted natural gas supply, FPL states additional 

ships may be required. 

2.2 Action Area 

“Action area” means all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not 

merely the immediate area involved in the action area (50 CFR 402.02). The action area for 

PEEC includes the upland area of the power plant 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 the ICW). In addition, the action area includes the 

ICW in the vicinity of Port Everglades. The action 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 action area includes this area of direct influence 

and the adjacent aquatic habitats that may experience 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 coordinates 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 expected to be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed 

action. 
7

Figure 2. Black line delineates the Action 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 PEEC 
8

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 canal (Photo credit: A. Livergood, NMFS). 
9

Figure 4. Warm-water discharge canal (Photo Credit: A. Livergood, NMFS). 

The proposed action will not 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 canals (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 jurisdiction are known to occur in or near the action 

area: 

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Sea Turtles 

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas1 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 caretta2 T

Fish 

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata3

 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 and discharge canals (BA, page 9), and (2) there 

are no aspects of the project with the potential to affect Johnson’s seagrass (e.g., dredging). 

Therefore, we believe Johnson’s seagrass 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 for the Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico breeding populations, 

which are listed as endangered.

2 Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Distinct 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 likely 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 mangroves and warm, shallow waters. Most juveniles 

occur in shallow-water nursery areas along Florida’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 meter. 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, blue whale, and sperm whale), only sperm whales 

are known to commonly occur over the greatest range 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 southeast Florida coast, adjacent to the Atlantic 

ICW and Port Everglades. The only aspect of the proposed action with the potential to affect 

marine mammals under NMFS’s purview is the potential for a vessel interaction with a marine 

mammal. Part of the proposed action is the proposed 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 natural gas, ULSD may be needed. 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 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 traffic necessary to supply ULSD to PEEC (i.e., less 

than one ship per year), NMFS believes the risk of a vessel interaction with an endangered whale 

is discountable. Thus, endangered 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 ESA 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 effects 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 traffic 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 leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles is discountable. 

Our determination is based on the best available data4

 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 turtles 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 percent of all leatherback nests are found in Palm 

Beach County (Florida Wildlife Research Institute or FWRI 2012), located north of the action 

area. Leatherback sea turtles nest in small numbers in Broward County. Between 2008 and 

2012, the number of leatherback nests per kilometer 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 are also found on the U.S. Atlantic coast. Their 

habitat largely consists of sandy and muddy areas in shallow, nearshore 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, jellyfish, and an array of mollusks.

Of the five sea turtle species that may occur in the action area, we believe only loggerhead, 

green, and hawksbill sea turtles are likely to be adversely affected by the 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 listed as threatened under the ESA on July 28, 1978, except for the 

Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico 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 Salvage Network, rehabilitation facility records, and necropsy 

report records. 
13

Species Description, Distribution, and Population Structure 

Green sea turtles have a smooth carapace with four pairs of lateral (or costal) scutes and a single 

pair of elongated prefrontal scales between the eyes. They typically have a black dorsal surface 

and a white ventral surface although the carapace of green sea turtles 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 irregular patterns (Lagueux 2001). 

Green sea turtles are distributed circumglobally, mainly in waters between the northern and 

southern 20o

C isotherms (Hirth 1997) and nesting occurs in more than 80 countries worldwide 

(Hirth 1997). The two largest nesting populations are found at Tortuguero, on the Caribbean 

coast of Costa Rica, and Raine Island, on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The complete 

nesting range of green sea turtles within the southeastern United States includes sandy beaches of 

mainland shores, barrier islands, coral islands, and volcanic islands between 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 Ehrhart 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 turtle nesting in other ocean basins, refer to the 

1991 Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Green Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991a) or the 2007 Green 

Sea Turtle 5-Year Status Review (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). 

In U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, green turtles are found in inshore and nearshore 

waters from Texas to Massachusetts. Principal benthic foraging areas in the southeastern United 

States include Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay, Laguna Madre, and the Gulf inlets of Texas 

(Hildebrand 1982; Doughty 1984; Shaver 1994), the 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 coastal 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 Miskito 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 migrate 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 distinctive mitochondrial DNA properties for each nesting rookery 

(Bowen et al. 1992; Fitzsimmons et al. 2006). Despite the genetic differences, turtles from 

separate nesting origins are commonly found mixed together on foraging grounds throughout the 

 
14

species’ range. However, such mixing occurs at extremely low levels in Hawaiian foraging 

areas, perhaps making this central Pacific population the most isolated of all green turtle 

populations occurring worldwide (Dutton et al. 2008). 

Life History Information 

Green sea turtles exhibit particularly slow growth rates [about 1-5 centimeters per year (Green 

1993; McDonald-Dutton and Dutton 1998)] and also have one of the longest ages to maturity of 

any sea turtle species [i.e., 20-50 years (Chaloupka and Musick 1997; Hirth and USFWS 1997)]. 

The slow growth rates are believed to be a consequence of their largely 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 significant distances (hundreds 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 off nesting beaches. In the southeastern United 

States, females generally nest between June and September, 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 around 110-115 eggs. In Florida, 

green sea turtle nests contain an average of 136 eggs (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989), which 

will incubate for approximately two months before 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 Australia) showing higher 

survivorship values than nesting sites known to be highly disturbed (e.g., Nicaragua) (Campbell 

and Lagueux 2005; Chaloupka and Limpus 2005). After emerging from the nest, hatchlings 

swim to offshore areas and go through a posthatchling pelagic stage where they are believed to 

live for several years, feeding close to the surface on a variety of marine algae and other life 

associated with drift lines and other debris. 

This early oceanic phase remains one of the most 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 benthic foraging habitats when they gain enough 

buoyancy control to dive to the sea floor and adopt a benthic feeding strategy. Growth studies 

using skeletochronology indicate that 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 approximately 5-6 years (Zug and Glor 1998; Bresette et al. 

2006). As adults, they feed almost exclusively 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 specific foraging and nesting grounds and it is clear they are capable of 

“homing in” on these sites if displaced (McMichael et al. 2003). Reproductive migrations of

Florida green turtles have been identified through flipper tagging and/or satellite telemetry. 

Based on these studies, the majority of adult female Florida green turtles are believed to reside in 

 
15

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 turtles 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 which the authors collected and organized 

abundance data from 46 individual nesting concentrations organized by ocean region (i.e., 

Western Atlantic Ocean, Central Atlantic Ocean, Eastern Atlantic 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 and 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, and the Central Atlantic regions appeared to show more positive 

trends (i.e., more nesting sites increasing than decreasing) while the Southeast Asia, Eastern 

Indian Ocean, and possibly the Mediterranean Sea regions appeared to show more negative 

trends (i.e., more nesting sites decreasing than increasing). 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 the review and that site specific data availability appeared to 

vary across all regions. 

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

abundance in the entire review as there were no sites that appeared to be decreasing. The fiveyear status review for the species identified eight geographic areas considered to be primary sites 

for green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic/Caribbean and reviewed the trend in nest count data 

for each (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). These sites include (1) Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico; (2) 

Tortuguero, Costa Rica; (3) Aves Island, Venezuela; (4) Galibi Reserve, Suriname; (5) Isla 

Trindade, Brazil; (6) Ascension Island, United Kingdom; (7) Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea; 

and (8) Bijagos Achipelago, Guinea-Bissau. Nesting at all of these sites was considered to be 

stable or increasing with the exception of Bioko Island and the Bijagos Archipelago 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 nesting data for eight sites 

in the western, eastern, and central Atlantic, including all of the above with the exception that 

nesting in Florida was reviewed in place of Isla Trindade, Brazil. Seminoff (2004) concluded 

that all sites in the central and western Atlantic showed increased nesting, with the exception of 

nesting at Aves Island, Venezuela, while both sites in the eastern Atlantic demonstrated 

decreased nesting. These sites are not inclusive of all green sea turtle nesting in the Atlantic. 

However, other sites are not believed to support nesting levels high enough that would change 

the overall status of the species in the Atlantic (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). More information 

about site specific trends for the other major ocean regions can be found in the most recent fiveyear status review for the species (see NMFS and USFWS 2007a). 

By far, the largest known nesting assemblage in the Western Atlantic region occurs at 

Tortuguero, Costa Rica. According to monitoring data on nest counts as well as documented 

emergences (both nesting and nonnesting events), there appears to be an increasing trend in this 
16

nesting assemblage since monitoring began in the early 1970s. For instance, from 1971-1975 

there were approximately 41,250 average emergences documented per year and this number 

increased to an average of 72,200 emergences documented 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 with the earlier studies, with nest count data 

suggesting 17,402-37,290 females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). Modeling by 

Chaloupka et al. (2008) using data sets of 25 years or more resulted in an estimate of the 

Tortuguero, Costa Rica, population growing at 4.9 percent annually. 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, depending on the site (NMFS and USFWS 2007a). 

In the continental United States, green turtle nesting occurs along the Atlantic coast, primarily 

along the central and southeast 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 turtle nesting occurred on Bald Head Island, North 

Carolina; just east of the mouth of the Cape Fear River; on Onslow Island; and on Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. In 2010, a total 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 the 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 collection methods and effort on 

key nesting beaches. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of green turtle nests counted on index 

nesting beaches ranged from a low of 9,228 nests in 2008 to a high of 15,352 nests in 2011 

(http://myfwc.com/media/2078426/GreenTurtleNestingData.pdf). There 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 nests). Modeling by Chaloupka and Balazs 

(2007) using data sets of 25 years or more has resulted in an estimate of the Florida nesting stock 

at the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge growing at an annual rate of 13.9 percent. 

There are no reliable estimates of the number of immature green sea turtles that inhabit coastal 

areas of the southeastern United States, where they come to forage. Ehrhart et al. (2007) have 

documented a significant increase in in-water abundance of green turtles in the Indian River 

Lagoon area. It is likely that immature green sea turtles foraging in the southeastern United 

States come from multiple genetic stocks; therefore, the status of immature green sea turtles in 

the southeastern United States might also be assessed from trends at all of the main regional 

nesting beaches, principally Florida, Yucatán, and Tortuguero. 
17

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

Threats 

The principal cause of past declines 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 southeastern United States, green sea 

turtles that nest and forage in the region may spend large portions of their life history outside the 

region and outside U.S. jurisdiction, where exploitation is still a threat. There are also significant 

and ongoing threats to green sea turtles from human-related causes in the United States. Similar 

to that described in more detail above for loggerhead sea turtles, these threats include beach 

armoring, erosion control, artificial lighting, beach disturbance (e.g., driving on the beach), 

pollution, foraging habitat loss as a result of direct destruction by dredging, 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 increasing threat to green sea turtles. 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-stunning is not considered a 

major source of mortality in most cases. As temperatures fall below 8°-10°C, turtles may lose 

their ability to swim and dive, often 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 inshore waters are most susceptible to coldstunning because temperature changes are most rapid in shallow water (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 2012

Nests

Year

Green nests on Florida core index beaches 
18

United States resulted in around 4,600 sea turtles, mostly greens, found cold-stunned, with 

hundreds found dead or dying. A large cold-stunning event occurred in the western Gulf of 

Mexico in February 2011, resulting in approximately 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-stunned in Mexico, with approximately 300 of 

those reported as being subsequently released. 

The likely effects of global climate change discussed 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 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a threatened species throughout its global range on July 

28, 1978. NMFS and USFWS subsequently re-listed loggerheads 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 Ocean (threatened); (2) 

Northeast Atlantic Ocean (endangered); (3) South Atlantic Ocean (threatened); (4) 

Mediterranean Sea (endangered); (5) North Pacific Ocean (endangered); (6) South Pacific Ocean 

(endangered); (7) North Indian Ocean (endangered); (8) 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; therefore, it is the only one 

considered in this opinion. No critical habitat has been designated as of the time of this opinion. 

Species Description, Distribution, and Population Structure 

Loggerheads are large sea turtles with the mean straight carapace 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 sea turtles typically have a 

light yellow plastron and a reddish-brown carapace covered by nonoverlapping scutes that meet 

along seam lines. They typically have 11 or 12 pairs of marginal scutes, five pairs of costals, 

five vertebrals, and a nuchal (precentral) scute that is in contact with the first pair of costal scutes 

(Dodd 1988). 

The loggerhead sea turtle inhabits continental shelf and estuarine 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 subtropics (NRC 1990). 

In the western North Atlantic, the majority of loggerhead 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 Gulf 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 reported throughout the United States and the 

Caribbean Sea. Little is known about the distribution of adult males who are seasonally 

abundant near nesting beaches. Aerial surveys suggest that loggerheads in U.S. waters are 

distributed as a whole in the following proportions: 54 percent in the southeast U.S. Atlantic, 29 

percent in the northeast U.S. Atlantic, 12 percent in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and 5 percent in 

the western Gulf of Mexico (TEWG 1998). Shallow water habitats with large expanses of open 

ocean access, such as Florida Bay, provide year-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 frequented by adults (Epperly et al. 1995c). Further 

offshore, adults primarily inhabit continental shelf waters, from New England south to Florida, 

the Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (Schroeder et al. 2003). Benthic, immature loggerheads 

foraging in northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward in the fall as water 

temperatures cool and then migrate back northward in spring (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Keinath 

1993; Epperly et al. 1995c; Morreale and Standora 1998). 

Within the NWA DPS, most loggerhead sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and 

along the Gulf coast of Florida. Previous Section 7 analyses have recognized at least five 

Western Atlantic subpopulations, divided geographically as follows: (1) a Northern nesting 

subpopulation, occurring from North Carolina to Northeast Florida at about 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 subpopulation, occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the 

beaches near Panama City, Florida; (4) a Yucatán nesting subpopulation, occurring on the 

Eastern Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico (Márquez M 1990; TEWG 2000); and (5) a Dry Tortugas 

nesting subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida 

(NMFS-SEFSC 2001). The recovery plan for the NWA DPS of loggerhead sea turtles 

concluded, based on recent advances 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 genetic differences alone. Thus, 

the plan uses a combination of geographic distribution 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 Unit (islands located west of 

Key West, Florida); (4) the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (Franklin County, Florida, 

through Texas); and (5) the Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (Mexico through French Guiana, 

the Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles) (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The recovery 

plan concluded that all recovery units are essential to the recovery of the species. Although the 

recovery plan was written prior to the listing of the NWA DPS, the recovery units for what was 

then termed the Northwest Atlantic population apply to the NWA DPS. 

Life History Information 

Loggerhead sea turtles reach sexual maturity between 20 and 38 years of age, although this 

varies widely among populations (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985; NMFS and SEFSC 2001). The 

annual mating season for loggerhead sea turtles occurs from late March to early June, and eggs 
20

are laid throughout the summer months. Female loggerheads deposit an average of 4.1 nests 

within a nesting season (Murphy and Hopkins 1984) and 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 for a period as long as 7-12 years (Bolten et al. 

1998). Stranding records indicate that when immature loggerheads 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 longer than hypothesized or move back and forth 

between pelagic and coastal habitats interchangeably (Witzell 2002). 

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

associated with Sargassum habitats, driftlines, and other 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 similar reviews (TEWG 1998; TEWG 2000; NMFS and 

SEFSC 2001; Heppell et al. 2003; NMFS and USFWS 2008; Conant et al. 2009; TEWG 2009; 

NMFS-SEFSC 2009d) have examined the stock status of loggerheads in the Atlantic Ocean, but 

none have been able to develop a reliable estimate of absolute population size. 

Numbers of nests and nesting females can vary widely 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 frequency, 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 Northern Recovery Unit (NRU) averaged 5,215 nests 

from 1989-2008, a period of near-complete surveys of NRU nesting beaches (Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) unpublished data, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission unpublished data, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 

unpublished data), and represent approximately 1,272 nesting females per year [4.1 nests per 
21

female (Murphy and Hopkins 1984)]. The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys 

showed a significant decline of 1.3 percent annually. Nest totals from aerial surveys conducted 

by SCDNR showed a 1.9 percent annual decline in nesting in South Carolina from 1980 through 

2008. Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term 

decline. Data in 2008 showed improved nesting 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 nests) and 2011 (948 nests). In South Carolina, 2008 

was the seventh highest nesting 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 surveys located a total of 

1,648 nests in 2008. This number surpassed the previous statewide record of 1,504 nests in 

2003. In 2009, the number of nests declined to 998, and in 2010, a new statewide record was 

established with 1,760 loggerhead nests (GDNR, NCWRC, and SCDNR nesting data located at 

www.seaturtle.org). 

Another consideration that may add to the importance and vulnerability of the NRU is the sex 

ratio of this nesting population and its potential importance for genetic diversity. Research 

conducted over a limited time frame but across multiple years found that while the small 

Northern nesting population can produce a larger proportion of male hatchlings than the large 

Peninsular Florida population, the sex 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 nesting 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 females per year (NMFS and USFWS 2008). The 

statewide estimated total for 2010 was 73,702 (Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) 

nesting database). An analysis of index nesting 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 USFWS 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 approximately 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 largest 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 USFWS 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 nesting assemblages but still 

considered essential to the continued 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 with no detectable trend during this period 

(NMFS and USFWS 2008). Nest counts for the NGMRU are focused on index beaches rather 

than all beaches where nesting occurs. Analysis of the 12-year dataset (1997-2008) of index 

nesting beaches in the area shows a significant declining trend of 4.7 percent annually (NMFS 

and USFWS 2008). Nesting on the Florida Panhandle index beaches, which represents the 

majority of NGMRU nesting, had shown a large increase in 2008, but then declined again in 

2009 and 2010 before rising back to a level similar to the 2003-2007 average in 2011. Similarly, 

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 beaches 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 appears to not have been sustained (NMFS and 

USFWS 2008). 

Determining the meaning of the long-term nesting decline data is confounded by various inwater research that suggests the abundance of neritic juvenile 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 trends of increasing loggerhead 

catch rates from all the aforementioned studies in combination provide evidence there has been 

an increase in neritic juvenile loggerhead abundance 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 relatively short time series. Comparison to other datasets from the 

1950s through 1990s showed much higher CPUEs in recent years regionally 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 increase 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 about extrapolating localized in-water trends to the broader 

population and relating localized trends in neritic sites to population trends at nesting beaches. 

The apparent overall increase in the abundance of neritic loggerheads in the southeastern United 

States may be due to increased abundance of the largest Stage III individuals (oceanic/neritic 

juveniles, historically referred to as small benthic juveniles), which could indicate a relatively 

large cohort that will recruit to maturity in the near future (TEWG 2009). However, in-water 

studies throughout the eastern United States also indicate a substantial decrease in the abundance 
23

of the smallest Stage III loggerheads, a pattern also corroborated by stranding data (TEWG 

2009). 

The SEFSC has developed a preliminary stage/age demographic model to help determine the 

estimated impacts of mortality reductions on loggerhead sea turtle population dynamics (NMFSSEFSC 2009d). This model does not incorporate existing trends in the data (such as nesting 

trends) but instead relies on the available information on relevant life-history parameters for sea 

turtles and then predicts future population trajectories based upon model runs using those 

parameters. Therefore, the model results do not build upon, but instead are complementary to, 

the trend data obtained through nest counts and other observations. The model uses the range of 

published information for the various parameters including mortality by stage, stage duration 

(years in a stage), and fecundity parameters such as eggs per nest, nests per nesting female, 

hatchling emergence success, sex ratio, and remigration interval. Model runs were done for each 

individual recovery unit as well as the western North Atlantic population as a whole, and the 

resulting trajectories were found to be very similar. One of the most robust results from the 

model was an estimate of the adult female population size for the western North Atlantic in the 

2004-2008 time frame. The distribution resulting from the model runs suggests the adult female 

population size is likely between 20,000 and 40,000 individuals, with a low likelihood of being 

up to 70,000 (NMFS-SEFSC 2009d). A much less robust estimate for total benthic females in 

the western North Atlantic was 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

199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

Nests

Year

Loggerhead nests on Florida core index beaches 
24

Threats 

The Loggerhead Biological Review Team determined that the greatest threats to the NWA DPS 

of loggerheads result from cumulative fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic habitats (Conant et 

al. 2009). Domestic fishery operations often capture, injure, and kill sea turtles at various life 

stages. Loggerheads in the pelagic environment are exposed to U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline 

fisheries. Although loggerhead sea turtles are most vulnerable to pelagic longlines during their 

immature life history stage, there is some evidence that benthic juveniles may also be captured, 

injured, or killed by pelagic fisheries 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 waters including trawl, gillnet, purse seine, hook-andline, including bottom longline and 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 managed fisheries affecting sea turtles within the 

action area). In addition to domestic fisheries, sea turtles are subject to incidental capture in 

numerous foreign fisheries, further 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 fisheries including the Azorean, Spanish, and 

various other fleets (Bolten et al. 1994; Aguilar et al. 1995; Crouse 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 limited to) the northwest Atlantic, western 

Mediterranean, South America, West Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean. Shrimp trawl 

fisheries are also occurring off the shores of numerous foreign countries and pose a significant 

threat to sea turtles similar to the impacts seen in U.S. waters. Many sea turtle takes go 

unreported or records kept by foreign fleets are incomplete, making it difficult to characterize the 

total impact that international fishing pressure is having on listed sea turtles. 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 nearshore 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 turtles entering coastal or inshore areas have been affected by 

entrainment in the cooling-water systems of electrical generating plants (the focus of this 

opinion). Other nearshore threats include harassment and/or injury 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 impacts to nesting habitat include the construction of 

buildings and pilings, beach armoring and renourishment, and sand extraction (Lutcavage et al. 
25

1997; Bouchard et al. 1998). These factors may directly, through loss of beach habitat, or 

indirectly, through changing thermal profiles and increasing erosion, serve to decrease the 

amount of nesting area available to females and may 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 artificial lighting which has been 

known to alter the behavior of nesting adults (Witherington 1992) and is often fatal to emerging 

hatchlings that are drawn away from the water (Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). 

Predation by various land predators is a threat to developing nests and emerging hatchlings. 

Additionally, direct human harvest of eggs and adults from beaches in foreign countries 

continues to be a problem for various sea turtle species throughout their ranges (NMFS and 

USFWS 2008). 

Multiple municipal, industrial, and household sources, as well as atmospheric transport, 

introduce various pollutants such as pesticides, 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). Loggerheads 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). Dietary preferences were 

likely to be the main differentiating factor among species. Storelli 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 has been reported for other marine organisms 

like dolphins, seals, and porpoises (Law et al. 1991). Recent efforts have led to improvements in 

regional water quality, although the more persistent chemicals are still detected 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 discharges may directly 

injure individuals through skin contact with oils (Geraci 1990), inhalation at the water’s surface, 

and ingesting compounds while feeding (Matkin and Saulitis 1997). Hydrocarbons also have the 

potential to impact prey populations, and therefore may affect listed species indirectly by 

reducing food availability in the action area. In 2010, there was a massive oil spill in the Gulf of 

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

to sea turtles has not been determined. Additionally, the long-term impacts to sea turtles as a 

result of habitat impacts, prey loss, and subsurface oil particles and oil components broken down 

through physical, chemical, and biological processes are not known. More detailed information 

on the effects of oil spills affecting populations in the action area, 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 level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and 

change in air and water temperatures. NOAA’s climate information portal provides basic 

background information on these and other measured or anticipated effects (see 

http://www.climate.gov). 
26

Climate change impacts on sea turtles currently cannot, for the most part, be predicted with any 

degree of certainty; however significant impacts to the hatchling sex ratios of loggerhead turtles 

may result (Poloczanska et al. 2009; NMFS and USFWS 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 temperatures within a thermal tolerance range of 25°-

35°C (Ackerman 1997). Increases in global temperature could potentially 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 ominously, an air temperature increase of 3°C above preindustrial levels is likely to exceed the thermal threshold of most clutches, leading to death 

(Hawkes et al. 2007). Warmer sea surface temperatures have been correlated with an earlier 

onset of loggerhead nesting in the spring (Weishampel et al. 2004; Hawkes et al. 2007), as well 

as short inter-nesting intervals (Hays et al. 2002) and shorter nesting 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 control structures could 

potentially result in the permanent loss of nesting beach habitat or deter nesting females (NRC 

1990). These impacts will be exacerbated by sea level rise. If females nest on the seaward side 

of the erosion control structures, nests may be exposed to repeated tidal overwash (NMFS and 

USFWS 2007b). Sea level rise from global climate change is also a potential problem for areas 

with low-lying beaches where sand depth is a limiting factor, as the sea may inundate nesting 

sites and decrease available nesting habitat (Daniels et al. 1993; Fish et al. 2005; Baker et al. 

2006). The loss of habitat as a result of climate change could be accelerated due to a 

combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an increase in the 

frequency of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents, both of which could lead to increased 

beach loss via erosion (Antonelis et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2006). 

Other changes in the marine ecosystem caused by global climate change (e.g., ocean 

acidification, salinity, oceanic currents, dissolved oxygen levels, nutrient distribution, etc.) could 

influence the distribution and abundance of phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, crustaceans, mollusks, forage fish, etc., which could ultimately affect the primary 

foraging areas of sea turtles. 

Actions have been taken to reduce anthropogenic impacts to loggerhead sea turtles from various 

sources, particularly since the early 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. Recent 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 February 21, 2003 (68 FR 8456), represents a significant 

 
27

improvement in the baseline effects of trawl fisheries on loggerhead sea turtles, though shrimp 

trawling is still considered to be one of the 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 Caribbean ranging in size 

from approximately 62.5 to 94.0 cm straight carapace length. The species occurs in all ocean 

basins, although it is relatively rare in the Eastern Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, and absent from 

the Mediterranean Sea. Hawksbills are the most tropical sea turtle species, ranging from 

approximately 30°N latitude to 30°S latitude. They are closely associated with coral reefs and 

other hardbottom habitats, but they are also found 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 nesting annually. These populations are in the 

Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia (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 hawksbill 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 southeast coast of Florida. Nesting also occurs 

outside of the United States and its territories, in Antigua, Barbados, 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 along 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 nest. Movements of reproductive males are less 

well known, but are presumed to involve migrations to their nesting beach or to courtship 

stations along the migratory corridor (Meylan 1999). Females nest an average of 3-5 times per 

season (Meylan and Donnelly 1999, Richardson et al. 1999). Clutch size is larger on average (up 

to 250 eggs) than that of other sea turtles (Hirth 1980). 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 reside and grow) in coastal waters. Adult foraging habitat, 

 
28

which may or may not overlap with developmental habitat, is typically coral reefs, although 

other hardbottom communities and 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 zooanthids, 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 and U.S. Caribbean is restricted to Puerto Rico 

(>650 nests/yr), the USVI (~400 nests/yr), and, rarely, Florida (0-4 nests/yr) (Eckert 1995, 

Meylan 1999, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 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, populations appear to be 

increasing (Mona Island, Puerto Rico) or stable (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, marine 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 human activities. Some of the likely effects 

commonly mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and 

change in air and water temperatures. NOAA’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 predicted with any degree of 

certainty; however, significant impacts to the hatchling 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 produced 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 may 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 areas with low-lying beaches where sand depth is a 

limiting factor, as the sea may inundate nesting sites and decrease available nesting habitat 

(Daniels et al. 1993, Fish et al. 2005, Baker et al. 2006). The loss of habitat as a result of climate 
29

change could be accelerated due to a combination of other environmental and oceanographic 

changes such as increased frequency of storms and/or changes in prevailing currents, both of 

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

Other changes in the marine ecosystem caused by global climate change (e.g., salinity, oceanic 

currents, dissolved oxygen levels, nutrient distribution, etc.) could influence the distribution and 

abundance of phytoplankton, zooplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, coral reefs, forage 

fish, etc. Since hawksbills are typically associated 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 afforded 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 natural factors leading to 

the current status of the species, its habitat (including designated critical habitat), and ecosystem, 

within the action area. The environmental baseline is a "snapshot" of a species' health at a 

specified point in time. It does not include the effects of the action under review in the 

consultation. 

By regulation, environmental baselines for biological opinions include the past and present 

impacts of all state, federal, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. 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 early Section 7 consultation as well 

as the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in 

process (50 CFR 402.02). 

Focusing on the impacts of the activities in the action area specifically, allows us to assess the 

prior experience and state (or condition) of the endangered and threatened individuals, and areas 

of designated critical habitat that occur in an action area, and that will be exposed to effects from 

the action under consultation. This is important because, in some phenotypic states or life 

history stages, listed individuals will commonly exhibit, or be more susceptible to, adverse 

responses to stressors than they would be in other states, stages, or areas within their 

distributions. The same is true for localized populations of endangered 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 marine 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 private activities (Section 4.3) that may affect them. In general, 

these activities are not occurring within the geographic limits of the action area. However, 

because sea turtles in the action area subject to being affected by the proposed action are also 

highly migratory, and may spend significant amounts of time (and life stages) in areas where 

other federally-permitted activities are ongoing, these 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-state region from Maine to Texas, and includes portions of the 

U.S. Caribbean. STSSN uses this extensive regional and partner collaboration to report data on 

dead sea turtles and live strandings. The action area in this opinion falls entirely within South 

Atlantic Zone 26 (data available at 

http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/STSSN/JDBCSTSSNYearZonesSpeciesViewCriteria.jsp#). NMFS 

searched the database on June 26, 2013 to ascertain annual turtle strandings by year, zone, and 

species. For Zone 26, data is available from 1986 through 2007. We looked at only the most 

recent five years available (2002-2007) by species that 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 Sea 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 federal actions on threatened and endangered species. 

Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability of adverse effects 

of the action on sea turtles. Similarly, recovery 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 Jacksonville District show that 

during the past 25-year reporting 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 identified) have been taken by hopper dredging-related projects. 

This is germane to this consultation because maintenance dredging using a hopper dredge is 

ongoing at Port Everglades, which is part of the action area (FPL’s intake 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 the USACE Jacksonville District is authorized 
31

under NMFS’s biological opinion on the continued 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 26, 2013, and was completed on April 15, 2013. The 

USACE reports the use of a hopper dredge, clamshell dredge, and a backhoe dredge, and no sea 

turtles were taken during the most recent maintenance 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 available 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 ESA 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 (part of the action area). NMFS determined the 

proposed work may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish. 

4.2.3 Fisheries 

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

the continental shelf of the action area. Gillnet, pelagic and bottom longline, other types of 

hook-and-line gear, trawl, and pot fisheries have all been documented 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 brown, white, and pink shrimp in inland waters and 

estuaries through the state-regulated territorial seas and in federal waters of the South Atlantic. 

Fisheries in state and federal waters must comply with sea turtle conservation regulations 

promulgated under the ESA, including requirements to use turtle excluder devices. Fisheries in 

federal waters (relevant to the action area) are managed by NMFS and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council under the Magnuson- Stevens 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 coast and particularly in the Dry Tortugas off the Florida Keys. 

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

in the southeast United States. As sea turtles rest, forage, or swim on or near the bottom, they 

are captured by shrimp trawls pulled along the bottom. Shrimp trawling can be conducted for 

hours to days continuously, day and night, without the net being retrieved. Shrimp trawling 
32

increased dramatically between the 1940s and the 1960s. By the late 1970s, there was evidence 

that thousands of sea turtles were being killed annually in the southeast United States (Henwood 

and Stunz 1986). In 1990, the National Research Council, Committee on Sea Turtle 

Conservation (NRC) concluded the Southeast shrimp trawl fishery affected more sea turtles than 

all other activities combined and was the most significant anthropogenic source of sea turtle 

mortality in U.S. waters, in part due to the high reproductive value of larger 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 history governing the use of TEDs and a series of 

regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of sea turtles in commercial 

shrimp trawl fisheries. The level of annual mortality described in NRC (1990) is believed to 

have continued until 1992-1994, when U.S. law required all shrimp trawlers in the Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico to use TEDs, allowing 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 regulations have been refined over 

the years to ensure that TED effectiveness is maximized through proper placement and 

installation, configuration (e.g., width of bar spacing), flotation, and more widespread use. 

Despite the apparent success of TEDs for some species 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 openings. On December 2, 2002, NMFS completed an 

opinion on shrimp trawling in the southeastern 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 revised TED regulations 

would not jeopardize the continued existence of any sea turtle species. The determination was 

based in part, on the opinion’s analysis that shows 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 implemented the revisions to the TED regulations. 

On May 9, 2012, NMFS completed the new opinion which analyzed the continued 

implementation of the sea turtle conservation regulations and the continued authorization of the 

southeast U.S. shrimp fisheries in federal waters under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (NMFS 

2012). The opinion also considered a proposed amendment to the sea turtle conservation 

regulations that would withdraw the alternative tow time restriction at 50 CFR 

223.206(d)(2)(ii)(A)(3) for skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) 

and instead require all of these vessels to use TEDs. The opinion concluded that the proposed 

action would not jeopardize the continued existence of any sea turtle species. Sea turtle 

 

5

 TEDs were mandatory on all shrimping vessels. However, certain shrimpers (e.g., fishers 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 compliance data and the effects those violations have on expected sea 

turtle captures rates, and incorporation of interactions 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 for 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 levels, 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 TEDs 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 species that have not previously been considered, thus triggered the 

need to reinitiate consultation. Consequently, 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 fisheries 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 Atlantic Ocean in the early 1960s. The fishery is 

comprised of five relatively distinct segments, including the Gulf yellowfin tuna fishery; 

southern Atlantic (Florida East Coast to Cape Hatteras) swordfish fishery; Mid-Atlantic and New 

England swordfish and bigeye tuna fishery; U.S. Atlantic Distant Water swordfish fishery; and 

the Caribbean tuna and swordfish fishery. Although the swordfish fishery does occur in the 

federal waters of the South Atlantic, fishing typically occurs further offshore and east of where 

the proposed action will occur. The fishery mainly interacts with leatherback sea turtles and 

pelagic juvenile loggerhead sea turtles; thus, younger, smaller loggerhead sea turtles than the 

other fisheries described in this environmental baseline. 

Over the past two decades, NMFS has conducted numerous consultations on the Atlantic pelagic 

longline fishery for highly migratory species, some of which required Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternatives (RPAs) to avoid jeopardy of loggerhead and/or leatherback sea turtles. The 

estimated historical total numbers of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles caught between 

1992-2002 (all geographic areas) are 10,034 loggerhead and 9,302 leatherback sea turtles of 

which 81 and 121 were estimated to be dead when brought to the vessel (NMFS 2004b). This 

does not account for post-release mortalities, which historically were likely substantial. 

NMFS most recently reinitiated consultation in 2004 on the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery as a 

result of exceeded incidental take levels for loggerheads and leatherbacks (NMFS 2004b). The 

resulting opinion (NMFS 2004b) stated the long-term continued operation of this fishery was 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles, but RPAs were identified 

allowing for the continued authorization of the pelagic 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 mandatory circle hook and bait requirements, and 

mandatory possession and use of sea turtle release equipment to reduce bycatch mortality. The 

rulemaking, based on the results of the three-year Northeast Distant Closed Area research 

experiment and other available sea turtle bycatch reduction studies, is expected to have 

significant benefits to endangered and threatened sea turtles by reducing 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 indirectly impact sea turtles found in the action area. Oil spills 

and marine debris from oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico could affect sea turtles within 

the action area. Many ESA Section 7 consultations have been completed on Minerals 

Management Service (MMS; now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management or BOEM) oil and 

gas lease activities. Biological opinions issued 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, marine debris, and oil spills. 

NMFS’s June 29, 2007, opinion, issued to MMS, concluded that the five-year leasing program 

for oil and gas development in the coastal and the Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

and its associated actions were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or 

endangered species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. NMFS estimated 

the number of listed species that could potentially experience adverse 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 subsequent 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 the 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 under 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 projections. However, NMFS has not yet issued 

an opinion concluding the reinitiated 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 were released into the Gulf. Additionally, 

approximately 1.84 million gallons of chemical dispersant was applied both subsurface and on 

the surface to attempt to break down the oil. There is no question that the unprecedented DWH 
35

spill and associated response activities (e.g., skimming, burning, and application of dispersants) 

have resulted in adverse effects 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 resources which could lead to compromised growth 

and/or reproductive potential, harm to foraging, resting and/or nesting habitats, and disruption of 

nesting turtles and nests. There is currently an ongoing investigation 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 for the restoration, rehabilitation, 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 emergency 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 visible 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 the actual losses to the 

species, as most individuals likely 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 impact among the sea turtle species 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 the 
36

turtles that were necropsied are forced submergence or acute toxicosis. 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 indicate 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 could explain this event is incidental capture in 

fishing gear. NMFS has assembled information regarding fisheries operating in the area during 

and just prior to these strandings. While there is some indication that lack of compliance with 

existing TED regulations and the operations of other trawl fisheries that do not require TEDs 

may have occurred in the area at the time of the strandings, direct evidence that those events 

caused the unusual level of strandings 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/species/turtles/gulfofmexico.htm. 

In addition to effects on subadult and adult sea turtles, the 2010 May through September sea 

turtle nesting season in the northern Gulf may also have been adversely 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 preventing females from reaching nesting beaches and 

thereby reducing nesting in the northern Gulf. The spill could have also affected the emergence 

success of hatchlings from nests along the Gulf coast. In an attempt to reduce the loss of the 

2010 northern Gulf cohort, many of nests were relocated to the east coast of Florida to reduce the 

risk to hatchlings. The survivorship and future nesting success of individuals 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 capture/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 performing laparoscopy on intentionally-captured 

organisms. The number of authorized takes varies 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 permit regulations (i.e., must show a benefit to 

the species). In addition, issuance of research permits by NMFS must be reviewed for 

compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to ensure 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, private and public piers, and from shore does occur in 

the area. Observations of state recreational fisheries have shown that green, hawksbill, Kemp’s 

ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles are known to bite baited hooks, and loggerheads 

frequently ingest the hooks. Hooked turtles have been reported by the public fishing from boats, 

piers, beaches, banks, and jetties and from commercial fishermen fishing for reef fish and for 

sharks with both single rigs and bottom longlines (NMFS 2001b). Additionally, lost fishing gear 

such as line cut after snagging on rocks, or discarded hooks and line, can also pose an 

entanglement threat to sea turtles in the area. A detailed summary of the known impacts of 

hook-and-line incidental captures to loggerhead sea turtles can be found in the TEWG reports 

(1998; 2000). 

Although few of these state-regulated fisheries are currently authorized to incidentally 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 fisheries that come under a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit 

in the future will likewise be subject to Section 7 consultation. Although the past and current 

effects of these fisheries on listed species are currently unknown, based upon observations of sea 

turtles stranded as a result of recreational fishing 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 responsible 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 increased 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, and literature reviews, researchers compiled a 

comprehensive database containing detailed information on 36 research 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 examples to in-water 

researchers of how GIS can be used to enhance 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 coast of Florida. Based on the 

information compiled, candidate projects were identified for inclusion in a statewide in-water 

index monitoring program that would provide trend information on sea turtles in Florida’s 

waters. Recommendations were presented on how to develop such a program, which would 

include the measurement of capture effort, promotion of cooperation 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 projects 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 sections of FWRI, including capture 

efforts and aerial surveys for manatees or fish. Other data come from incidental capture in 

fisheries research projects, or by the fisheries themselves. Pre-dredge trawling, aerial surveys, 

stranding networks, and satellite tracking also provide important 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 Impacts in the Environmental Baseline 

4.4.1 Marine Debris and Acoustic Impacts 

A number of activities that may indirectly affect 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 impacts 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 mortalities 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 research 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 turtles foraging on floating plastic 

bags they mistake for jellyfish represents an acute problem, but ingestion of even very small 

plastic particles in small amounts can obstruct the esophagus or perforate the bowel. 

Approximately 0.2-0.3 percent of plastics eventually migrate into the ocean through one pathway 

or another (Andrady and Neal 2009) and considering the large volume of plastics produced each 

year, this small percentage results in an enormous amount of plastics that find their way into 

every trophic niche from plankton to whales. Sea turtles are particularly 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., juvenile pelagic foraging habits, large home range 

sizes, etc.). For instance, juvenile sea turtles (e.g., juvenile loggerheads and green turtles) in the 

pelagic life cycle will drift along the surface within large, floating mats of Sargassum and other 

seaweeds where floating plastics also concentrate by the same advection currents (Pichel et al. 

2007; Wong et al. 1974). Fishing line ingestion is also an acute 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., fishing lines, drift nets) also presents significant impacts to sea 

turtles through entanglement (Bugoni 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 injuries upon freeing themselves and are then eaten 

by predators. Sea turtle stranding networks worldwide have recorded live and dead sea turtles 

washed ashore that entangled are entangled in fishing gear or have lacerations from previous 

entanglements. Anthropogenic marine debris, whether ghost fishing gear, plastics, or other 
39

sources, now poses a significant, but as yet unquantifiable, negative impact to sea turtles when 

their life cycles intersect with these debris. 

Although the ecological role of hearing in sea turtles is still nascent, 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 turtles include vessel noise ranging 

from small recreation craft to the largest ships on the oceans to a suite of nearshore construction 

activities ranging from noise generated 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 surface can impede sea turtles from egg deposition on 

beaches; and high-decibel, low-frequency sounds from naval military operations can cause 

injurious effects to sea turtles. NMFS is working to better understand the impacts to sea turtles 

from noise associated with construction activities 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 biphenyls, 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 discharges is known to 

stimulate plankton blooms in closed or semi-closed 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 turtles (Vargo et al. 1986), the impacts of many 

other anthropogenic toxins have not been investigated. 

Coastal runoff, marina and dock construction, dredging, aquaculture, oil and gas exploration and 

extraction, increased underwater noise and boat traffic can degrade marine habitats used by sea 

turtles. The development of marinas and docks in inshore waters can lead to the loss and/or 

degradation of nearshore habitats. Fueling facilities at marinas can sometimes discharge oil, gas, 

and sewage into sensitive estuarine and coastal habitats. Although these contaminant 

concentrations do not likely affect the more pelagic waters, sea turtles 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 commercial fisheries in the action area. These include sea turtle 

release gear requirements for Atlantic Highly Migratory 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 actions of listed species. Prior to issuance of these 

agreements, the proposal must be reviewed for compliance with Section 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 rescue 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 incidentally caught during scientific research or 

fishing activities. Persons participating in fishing activities or scientific research are required to 

handle and resuscitate (as necessary) sea turtles as prescribed in the final rule. These measures 

help to prevent mortality of hard-shelled turtles caught in fishing or scientific research gear. 

A final rule (70 FR 42508) published on July 25, 2005, allows any agent or employee of NMFS, 

the USFWS, the U.S. Coast Guard, or any other federal land or water management agency, or 

any agent or employee of a state agency responsible for fish and wildlife, when acting in the 

course of his or her official duties, to take endangered sea turtles encountered in the marine 

environment if such taking is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or entangled endangered sea turtle, 

or dispose of a dead endangered sea turtle, or salvage a dead endangered sea turtle that may be 

useful for scientific or educational purposes. NMFS already affords the same protection to sea 

turtles listed as threatened under the ESA [50 CFR 223.206(b)]. 

On August 3, 2007, NMFS published a final rule requiring selected fishing vessels to carry 

observers on board to collect data on sea turtle interactions with fishing operations, to evaluate 

existing measures to reduce sea turtle takes, and to determine whether additional measures to 

address prohibited sea turtle takes may be necessary (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 the Assistant Administrator that the unauthorized take of sea 

turtles may be likely to jeopardize their continued existence under existing 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-national recovery plan for the Kemp’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 towards revising other plans based upon the latest and 

best available information. Five-year status reviews have recently been completed for green, 

hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles. These reviews were 

conducted to comply with the ESA mandate for periodic evaluation of listed species to ensure 

that their threatened or endangered 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 species data for the green, hawksbill, leatherback, and 
41

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 action area. These factors are 

ongoing and are expected to occur contemporaneously with the proposed action. Fisheries in the 

action area likely had the greatest adverse impacts 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 the past five years, the impacts 

to turtles associated with fisheries have also been reduced through the ESA Section 7 

consultation process and regulations implementing effective bycatch reduction strategies. 

However, interactions with commercial and recreational fishing gear are ongoing and are 

expected to occur contemporaneously with the proposed action. Other activities, including 

effects of commercial vessel operations, dredging, 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 proposed 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 jeopardy determination is reached if we would 

reasonably expect a proposed action to cause a reduction in numbers, reproduction, or 

distribution that would appreciably reduce a listed species’ likelihood of survival and recovey in 

the wild. 

The quantitative and qualitative analyses in this section are based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available on sea turtle biology and the effects of the proposed action. When 

analyzing the effects of any action, it is important to consider indirect and direct effects. Indirect 

effects are caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably 

certain to occur. Indirect effects include aspects such as habitat loss and degradation, reduction 

of prey/foraging base, etc. NMFS believes the continued operation of the cooling-water intake 

system at PEEC is likely to adversely affect loggerhead, green, and hawksbill 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 (see 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 monitors the intake wells for sea turtles four times in a 24-hour 

period (every six hours). However, FPL is not authorized to incidentally take sea turtles under 

current operations (hence, the need for this opinion). 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 required procedure going forward. 
44

Figure 7. Photograph of a loggerhead sea turtle 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 extent 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., pinching or abrasion) and debilitation 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 already 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 monitoring procedures required in Section 9.4 of 

this opinion (see Term and Condition #2). A potentially beneficial effect is the opportunity for 

sick or injured sea turtles (e.g., infected with fibropapillomatosis 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 found 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 intake 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 opinion that all of the sea turtles recovered 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, pers comm. to A. Livergood, NMFS, May 3, 2013). 

NMFS does not have enough information to determine whether or not these animals died as a 

result of plant operations. Nevertheless, we believe lethal take (by drowning), described in the 

paragraph above, is a reasonable, worst-case scenario for sick or injured turtles that become 

entrained in the intake system. 

NMFS has not identified any indirect 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. Moreover, we do not anticipate a reduction in prey species from the 

proposed action. Similarly, we are not aware of any interrelated or interdependent actions. 

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

amount and extent of incidental take, by species, within the five-year time frame of the EPA 

permit. For the dataset as a whole (22 years), the mean incidental take per year is 1.45 turtles, 

with a standard deviation of 1.37. The mean itself does not reflect the inherent natural variability 

in the population of sea turtles or their occurrence in the action area. In order to account for 

variability in the data, we used the standard deviation in addition to the mean. The standard 

deviation shows how much variance, or dispersion, there is from the average or expected value, 

based on the historic take data. By adding the 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 potential increases or 

decreases in future sea turtle populations. 

In order to estimate total take over a five-year 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 loggerheads, 13 percent 

were greens, six percent were hawksbills, and 22 percent were “unknown” (the species could not 

be determined). Then we multiplied these percentages 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 loggerheads (59 percent) and 

divided it by 78 percent (78 percent is the sum of all known species captured). Thus, 59 

percent/78 percent = 76 percent. 76 percent of three 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 action 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 predict lethal versus nonlethal take by species. 

For loggerheads (n = 19), ten were captured alive and nine were captured dead. Thus, for 

loggerheads, we would expect a 50/50 split. That is, we would expect the proposed action to 

lethally take five loggerheads and nonlethally take five loggerheads (total take = ten 

loggerheads). For greens (n=4), three were captured alive 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. Thus, we would expect the nonlethal take of one 

hawksbill. 

At this stage, for each species, we will estimate take by lifestage. Based on FPL’s data (BA, 

Table 2), approximately twice as many subadult loggerhead turtles were captured in the intake 

system compared to adult females captured (nine subadults compared to four adult females). As 

discussed in the previous paragraph, 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 turtles 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 intake 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 proposed 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 female); and nonlethally take one juvenile hawksbill in a fiveyear period. 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

ESA Section 7 regulations require NMFS to consider 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 turtles in the Atlantic Ocean die of various natural 

causes, including cold stunning and hurricanes, as well as anthropogenic causes, such as 

incidental capture in state fisheries, ingestion of and/or entanglement in debris, ship strikes, and 

degradation of nesting habitat. The cause of death of most sea turtles recovered by the stranding 

network is unknown. 

Within the action area, major future changes are not anticipated in the ongoing human activities 

described in the environmental baseline. The present human uses of the action area, such 

recreational boating/fishing and commercial vessel traffic in the vicinity of Port Everglades, are 

expected to continue and may even increase in intensity as coastal populations 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 fishermen, accidental oil spills, vessel collisions, 

marine debris, chemical discharges, and anthropogenic noise are expected to continue and may 

increase in the future. 

The fisheries described as potentially affecting the same sea turtles 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. Numerous 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 changes in these fisheries (except 

perhaps the southeastern shrimp fisheries) that would substantially change the impacts each 

fishery has on sea turtles 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., poaching) or natural conditions (e.g., trophic level shifts that might 

change predator/prey dynamics, for instance, etc.) 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 that 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 likelihood that the proposed action 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 action that reasonably would be expected, 
48

directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a 

listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” 

(50 CFR 402.02). 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 number 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 attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

The following jeopardy analysis first considers the effects of the action to determine if we would 

reasonably expect the action to result in reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribution of 

these sea turtle species. The analysis next considers whether any such reduction would in turn 

result in an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival and recovery of these species in 

the wild. 

In the following analysis, we find that although there is likely to be a slight reduction in numbers 

and reproduction for loggerhead and green turtles, 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 and recovery of endangered and threatened species; 

however, it is important to note that individuals of one life stage are not equivalent to those of 

other life stages. For example, the take of male juvenile sea turtles may affect survivorship and 

recruitment rates into the reproductive population in any given year, 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 success, as sufficient energy reserves are 

necessary for producing multiple clutches of eggs in a breeding year. Different age classes may 

experience varying rates of mortality 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 one hawksbill sea turtle was captured in FPL’s 

intake system. This individual was a juvenile that 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 existence 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 quantify 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 extent (nonlethal v. lethal) of the take estimated in Section 5 of 

this opinion. The lethal capture of two adult female loggerhead turtles is a slight reduction in the 

species’ numbers. However, we do not believe this slight reduction will cause an appreciable 

reduction in the species’ numbers. Moreover, we believe the lethal capture of two adult female 

loggerhead turtles and the nonlethal capture of two 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 reproductive 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 reduction 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 the 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 implementation of the plan, the Northwest Atlantic 

population will recover within 50 to 150 years, but notes that reaching recovery in only 50 years 

would require a rapid reversal of the declining trends of the Northern, 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 reduction 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 two 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’ distribution based on the amount (by lifestage) and extent (nonlethal v. 

lethal) of the take estimated in Section 5 of this opinion. The lethal 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 a 
50

slight reduction in the species’ reproduction. The death of one mature, breeding female can have 

an immediate effect on the reproductive rate of the species. 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 reduction in the 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. Population 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 years, 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 available nesting beaches (420 km) is in public 

ownership and encompasses at least 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 successfully 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 likelihood 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 existence of the NWA DPS of the loggerhead turtle, the U.S. population 

of the Atlantic green turtle, or hawksbill turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. 

9.0 Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the ESA and protective regulations issued pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA 

prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special 

exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or 

collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the 

terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part 

of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under 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 under Section 101(a)(5) of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Since no incidental take of listed marine 

mammals is expected or has been authorized under Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, no 

statement on incidental take of endangered whales is provided, and no take is authorized. 

Nevertheless, EPA must immediately notify (within 24 hours, if communication is possible) Mr. 

David Bernhart, Assistant Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, Protected 

Resources Division at (727) 824-5312 should a take of a listed marine mammal occur. 

9.1 Anticipated Amount or Extent of Incidental Take 

Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit take of 

endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by NMFS to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental 

take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 

otherwise lawful activity. Under 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 such taking is in compliance with the Terms and Conditions of 

this ITS. 

NMFS believes the proposed 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 female); and nonlethally take one juvenile hawksbill in a five-year period. Thus, we 

believe the proposed action is likely to take ten (10) loggerheads, 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 incidental 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 issue 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 Prudent 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 minimize 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 Terms 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 continuing 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 with these Terms and Conditions, the 

protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse. 

NMFS has determined that the following reasonable 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. Reports 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. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505. Notifications of 

interactions shall be e-mailed to NMFS’s Protected 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 and 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 and 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 rehabilitation facility or was 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 provided 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 turtle 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 Response 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 the procedure in Term and Condition #4. 

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

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

FPL shall: 

 Close the covers to the intake well. The 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 cooling water pumps to reduce 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 questions found on the Endangered Species 

Response Form (Appendix 1 of this opinion). 

 Provide the Fleet Performance Diagnostic 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 call should be made to the Marine Turtle 

Permit Holder. At this time, FPL personnel shall continue routine inspection of 

the intake wells every four hours. 

 If the turtle remains in the well, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder will handle 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 plant 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 well. Use caution when handling the turtle, 

so as not to injure it. 

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

situated on the rake in such a manner that it cannot fall off. If needed and 

feasible, utilize the dip net with a long extension to assist the rake and keep the 

turtle from coming off the rake. 

 For larger turtles, unbolt and remove the 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, place it in an appropriate container located in an area 

that complies with FWC’s Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines. Ambient air 

temperature will determine the holding location of the container. 

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will complete a full assessment. All data will 

be collected and recorded on either the FWC Tagging Form or the Sea Turtle 

Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) – 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 Transponder (PIT) tags and flipper tags and 

complete a Tagging Form. 

 If the Marine Turtle Permit Holder deems the turtle healthy and all data have been 

collected, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder 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 personnel listed in Appendix 2 to notify them of the 

situation. 

 Classify the call as an environmental emergency. 

 Be prepared to answer the questions found on the Endangered Species 

Response Form (Appendix 1). 

 Provide the FPDC with information regarding the animal’s condition, 

approximate size, and apparent 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 handle 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 plant 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 well. 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 that it cannot fall off. If needed and 

feasible, utilize the dip net with a long extension to assist the rake and keep the 

turtle from coming off the rake. 

 For larger turtles, unbolt and remove the 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 located in an area 

that complies with FWC’s Marine Turtle Conservation Guidelines. Ambient air 

temperature will determine the holding location of the container. 
55

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder will complete a full assessment. All data will 

be collected and recorded on either the FWC Tagging Form or the STSSN – 

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 PIT tags and flipper tags and complete a Tagging Form. 

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder notifies FWC via the E-mail Stranding Pager: 

seaturtlestranding@myfwc.com. If there is no response, 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 transported to a rehabilitation facility or released. 

 If the Marine Turtle Permit Holder deems the turtle healthy and all data have been 

collected, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder 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 personnel listed in Appendix 2 to notify them of the 

situation. 

 Classify the call as an environmental emergency. 

 Be prepared to answer the questions 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 handle 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 plant 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 well. 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 that it cannot fall off. If needed and 

feasible, utilize the dip net with a long extension to assist the rake and keep the 

turtle from coming off the rake. 

 For larger turtles, unbolt and remove the 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 complete a full assessment. All data will 

be collected and recorded on the STSSN – Stranding Report and the 

Fibropapilloma Documentation Form (if applicable). 

 The Marine Turtle Permit Holder notifies FWC via the E-mail Stranding Pager: 

seaturtlestranding@myfwc.com. If there is no response, the Marine Turtle 

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

 In consultation with FWC, the Marine Turtle Permit Holder decides if a necropsy 

is required to determine the cause of death and if the mortality was causal to plant 

operation or due to another factor that occurred outside of the intake canal. If a 

necropsy is required, the Marine Turtle Permit 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 removal 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 Marine 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 Marine Turtle Permit Holder. Ambient air 

temperature will determine the holding location 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 below 60°F, move it indoors. 

 Once the Marine Turtle Permit Holder arrives 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 Wildlife 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 confirmation 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 action on listed species or critical habitat to help 

implement recovery plans or to develop information. 

NMFS does not have any Conservation Recommendations. 

11.0 Reinitiation of Consultation 

This concludes formal consultation on EPA’s proposed issuance of a five-year greenhouse gas 

permit to FPL PEEC for the dismantlement of existing power units, the construction 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 required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control 

over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of 

taking specified in the 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 previously considered; (3) 

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

or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) a new species is listed 

or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. 

12. Literature Cited 

Ackerman, R.A. 1997. The nest environment and 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. Impact 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 Biology and Conservation, February 25-29, 

1992, Jekyll Island, Georgia. 

Addison, D. S. 1997. Sea turtle nesting on Cay Sal, 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 western Mediterranean. Pages 1 in

12th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Jekyll Island, Georgia. 

Andrady, A.L. & M.A. Neal. 2009. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society 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. Schwenter, D. Burgess, J. Boynton, J.D. Whitaker, L. 

Ligouri, L. Parker, D. Owens, and G. Blanvillain. 2009. Examination of local movement 

and migratory behavior of sea turtles during spring and summer along the Atlantic Coast 

off the Southeastern United States. Final Project Report to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Prepared by: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 164pp. 

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the 

terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna on the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. Endangered Species 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 Florida developmental habitat as detennined by 

mtDNA analysis. Pages 37-38 in Abreu-Grobois, F.Z. R Briseno-Duenas, R Marquez, and 

L. Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436. 

Baker, J.D., C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston. 2006. Potential effects of sea level rise on the 

terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna on the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands. Endangered Species Research 2:21-30. 

Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago, pp. 

117-125. In: Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Balazs, G.H. 1983. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at 

French Frigate Shoals, northwestern Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFSSWFC. 

Balazs, G.H. 1985. Sea turtles and debris: Ingestion 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 (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. 

Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. 
59

Barreiros, J.P. & J. Barcelos. 2001. Plastic 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. Demographic composition of immature green turtles 

(Chelonia mydas) from the east central Florida coast:evidence from mtDNA markers. 

Herpetologica 56(3):357-367. 

Bjorndal, K. A. 1982. The consequences of herbivory for the life history pattern 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. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea 

turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin 28: 154-158. 

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In:Lutz, P.L. and J.A. 

Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 

Bjorndal, K. A., J. A. Wetherall, A. B. Bolten, and J. A. Mortimer. 1999. Twenty-Six Years of 

Green Turtle Nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: An Encouraging 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 tracking 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:Potential 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). 1996. Status of marine 

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

fisheries. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-230. 

Bowen, B. W., and coauthors. 1992. Global Population Structure and Natural 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 nearshore reefs on Florida’s east coast. Page 288 In: Frick, M., A. 

Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees, and K. Williams (compilers). Book of Abstracts. Twenty-sixth 

annual symposium on sea turtle biology and 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. Marine 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 Conference, March 4-7, 1957, pp. 457-463. 

Campbell, C. L., and C. J. Lagueux. 2005. Survival probability estimates for large juvenile and 

adult green turtles (Chelonia mydas) exposed to an artisanal marine turtle fishery in the 

western Caribbean. Herpetologica 61(2). 

Carballo, A. Y., C. Olabarria, and T. Garza Osuna. 2002. Analysis of four macroalgal 

assemblages along the Pacific Mexican coast 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 stage of sea turtle development. Conservation 

Biology 1: 103-121. 

Chaloupka, M.Y. and J.A Musick. 1997. Age, growth, 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 turtle 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 green 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 megaherbivore. 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. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, 

E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. 
61

Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2009. 222 pages. 

Cooper, K. 1989. Effects of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated 

dibenzofurans on aquatic organisms. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences 1(2):227-242. 

Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehmna, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 

2008. Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal march ecosystem 

services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

Crouse, D.T., L.B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage-based population model for 

loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423. 

Crouse, D. T. 1999. Population modeling implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle 

management. Chelonian Conservation 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. Ecological 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. Environmental 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 Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation. NOAA Technical 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 forgotten 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 Caribbean 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 population. 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, editor Proceedings of 

the Florida and Interregional Conference on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research 

Publications. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status Report of the Loggerhead 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 Symposium. 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. Florida Scientist 70(4): 415-434. 

Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status Report of the Loggerhead 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 Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-226, pp. 122-139. 

 

Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 2002. Turtle excluder 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 distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape 

Hatteras and their interactions with the summer flounder trawl fishery. Bulletin of Marine 

Science 56(2):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. Henwood, W. Hoggard, J. Mitchell, J. Nance, J. 

Poffenberger, C. Sasso, E. Scott-Denton, and C. Yeung. 2002. Analysis of sea turtle 

bycatch in the commercial shrimp industry of southeast U.S. waters and the Gulf of 

Mexico. U.S. Department of Commerce, 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. Endangered 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 Technical 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-Pacific: a (genetic) view from microsatellites. Pages 111 in

N. Pilcher, editor Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2008. Long-term Monitoring 

Program Reveals a Continuing Loggerhead Decline, Increases in Green Turtle and 

Leatherback Nesting. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute web 

page:http://www.tloridamarine.orglfeatures/view article.asp?id=27537 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2008. Developing a Statewide 

Program of In-Water Monitoring of Sea Turtles in Florida. Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute web page:http://research.myfurc.comlfeatures/view article.asp?id=27486 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2004. Statewide nesting database. 

Nesting trends of Florida's sea turtles. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute web 

page:http://www.tloridamarine.orglfeatures/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. Biological 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 wild. 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 Commerce. 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 support 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 issues. Technical Supporting Document. 

Gavilan, F. M. 2001. Status and distribution of the loggerhead turtle, (Caretta caretta), 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 dialogue for effective 

regional management, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Grant, S. C. H., and P. S. Ross. 2002. Southern Resident killer whales at risk: toxic chemicals in 

the British Columbia and Washington environment. Canadian Technical Report of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Sidney, B.C. 

Green, D. 1993. Growth rates of wild immature green turtles in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. 

Journal of Herpetology 27(3 ):338-341. 

Guseman, J.L. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecological geography of Western Atlantic loggerheads 

and green turtles: evidence from 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 sediments 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. Sakamoto. 2002. Population structure 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 linked 
65

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 marine turtle population. Global Change Biology, 

13:923-932. 

Hays, G.C., A.C. Broderick, F. Glen, B.J. Godley, J.D.R. Houghton, and J.D. Metcalfe. 2002. 

Water temperature and internesting 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 turtle populations in the Western 

Gulf of Mexico. In Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 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 Wildlife 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 Climate Change). 2007. Summary for 

Policymakers. In:Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 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)] Cambridge 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 surface seawater and the role of ocean on their 

global transport and fate Environmental Science and Technology 27:1080- 1098. 
66

Jacobson, E. R. 1990. An update on green turtle fibropapilloma. Marine 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, editors. Research Plan for Marine Turtle 

Fibropapilloma. NOAA. 

Johnson, S.A. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1994. Nest-site fidelity of the Florida green turtle. In 

Schroeder, B.A. and B.E. Witherington (compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-341. 83 pp. 

Johnson, S. A., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1996. Reproductive Ecology of the Florida Green Turtle: 

Clutch Frequency. Journal of Herpetology 30:407-410. 

Keinath, J. A. 1993. Movements and behavior of wild head-stated sea turtles. College of William 

and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 

Laurent, L., P. Casale, M.N. Bradai, B.J. Godley, G. Gerosa, A.C. Broderick, W. Schroth, B. 

Schierwater, A.M. Levy, D. Freggi, E.M. Abd El-Mawla, D.A. Hadoud, H.E. Gomati, M. 

Domingo, M. Hadjichristophorou, L. Kornaraki, F. Demirayak, and C. Gautier. 1998. 

Molecular resolution of the marine turtle stock composition in fishery bycatch:A case study 

in the Mediterranean. Molecular Ecology 7:1529-1542. 

Law, R. J., and coauthors. 1991. Concentrations of trace metals in the livers of marine mammals 

(seals, porpoises and dolphins) from waters around the British 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 Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC436, 293 pp.; 2000, p. 32-33) 

Lewison, R. L., S. A. Freeman, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on 

threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea 

turtles. Ecology Letters 7:221-231. 

Limpus, C.J. and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead turtles 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, editors. The Biology of Sea Turtles. 

CRC Press. 
67

Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentivegna, 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 turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: present 

knowledge and conservation perspectives. Pages 175-198 in Bolten, A.B. and 

B.E.Witherington (editors). Loggerhead 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 known 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 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome. 

Matkin, C. O., and E. Saulitis. 1997. Restoration notebook: killer whale (Orcinus orca). Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Anchorage, Alaska. 

McClellan, C.M. and A.J. Read. 2007. Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life 

history. Biology Letters 3:592-594. 

McDonald-Dutton, D., and P. H. Dutton. 1998. Accelerated 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 Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center, Orlando, FL. 

McMichael, E., R. R. Carthy, and J. A. Seminoff. 2003. Evidence of Homing Behavior in 

Juvenile Green Turtles in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Pages 223-224 in J. A. 

Seminoff, editor Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

Biology and Conservation. 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. Available at (http://www.bionica.info/biblioteca/Meylan1999EretmochelysImbricata.pdf). 

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

Florida. Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 52 
68

Meylan, A. M., B. Schroeder, and 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 nesting 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 turtles 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 Resources Association 36: 

347-366. 

Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting 

beaches in the Southeast region, U.S. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service; NMFS Contract No. NA83-GA-C-00021. 73 pp. 

Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. Pp 1-10 In: J.A. 

Musick (ed.) Life in the slow land: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization in juvenile sea turtles. In Lutz, P.L. and 

J.A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. 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 climate variability and change. US Global Change 

Research Program, Washington D.C. 

NMFS (1992). ESA Section 7 consultation on Shrimp 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 Shrimp Trawling in the Southeastern United 

States under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations. Biological Opinion: 26. 

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

States under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations. Biological Opinion: 28. 
69

NMFS (1996b). ESA Section 7 consultation on Shrimp Trawling in the Southeastern United 

States under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations. Biological Opinion 38. 

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

of channels and borrow areas in the southeastern 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 loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western 

North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-455. 

 

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

southeastern United States under the sea turtle conservation regulations and as managed 

by the fishery management plans for shrimp in the South Atlantic and 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 bottom longline and drift gillnet fisheries and 

recreational shark fisheries) under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP) and the Proposed Rule for Draft Amendment 1 to the 

HMS FMP. Biological Opinion. July 2003. 

NMFS. 2004. Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring 

Programs. 

NMFS. 2004a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation on proposed regulatory 

amendments to the FMP for the pelagic fisheries of the western Pacific region. 

Biological opinion. February 23. 

 

NMFS. 2004b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 reinitiation of the 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 consultation on the continued 

implementation of the sea turtle conservation regulations, as proposed to be amended, 

and the continued authorization of the southeast U.S. shrimp fisheries in federal waters 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Biological Opinion. May 8. 

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

and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery 

on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida, SEFSC 

Contribution PRD-00/01-08; Parts I-III and Appendices I-V1. 
70

NMFS-SEFSC. 2009. Estimated impacts of mortality reductions on loggerhead sea turtle 

population dynamics, preliminary results. Presented 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). 

NMFS. 2012. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected 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 Service, Washington, D.C. 

NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, 

Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, 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 (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

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

and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

NMFS and USFWS. 2007c. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

NMFS and USFWS. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

NMFS-SEFSC. 2009. Estimated impacts of mortality reductions on loggerhead sea turtle 

population dynamics, preliminary results. Presented 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 Draft Report: Summary Report of a Meeting of 

the NMFS/USFWS Cross-Agency Working Group on Joint Listing of North Pacific and 

Northwest Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle Distinct Population Segments, 4-5 November 

2010, Washington, D.C. November 29, 2010, final version. 

NRC (National Research Council, Committee on Sea 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. Howe. 1991. The effects if sea level rise on US 

coastal wetlands. In: J.B. Smith and D.A. Tirpak (eds), The potential effects of global 

climate change on the United States. Appendix 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. Marine 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. Evolution, 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 the 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. Population 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 Conservation, NOAA Technical 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. Loggerhead 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. Distribution and Abundance of Marine Mammals in 

North-Central and western Gulf of Mexico. 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. Journal of Herpetology 28:491-497. 

Shoop, C. R., and R. D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and 

leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological 

Monographs 6:43-67. 

Stabenau, E.K. and K.R. Vietti. 1999. Physiological effects of short-term submergence of 

loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in TED-equipped commercial fishing nets. Final 

Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula 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 movements, and homing of loggerhead turtles 

(Caretta caretta) at Cape Canaveral, Florida. March and April 1993. Contr. Report to 

USACE. 

Stevenson, J.C. and M.S. Kearney. In press. Impacts 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 Mediterranean 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 populations in the 

western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 pp. 

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

the western North Atlantic: A report of the Turtle Expert Working Group. U. S. Dept. of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 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 conservation efforts contribute to positive green 

turtle, Chelonia mydas, nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa 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 nocturnal 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. Plastic Pollution: An Ocean Emergency. Marine Turtle 

Newsletter 129:1-4. http://www.seaturtle.org/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 loggerhead turtles worldwide inferred from reproductive value 

analyses. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1076–1085. 

Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2004. Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea 

turtles following sea surface warming. Global Change Biology, 10:1424-1427 

Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in their nearshore habitat of 

Broward County, Florida: a five year review. In Salmon M. and J. Wyneken (compilers), 

Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 

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

Wilcox, J.R., G. Bouska, J. Gorham, B. Peery, and 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. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of marine turtles 

in the Indian River Lagoon system, 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 population. Ecological Applications 19(1):30-54. 

Witherington, B. E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. 

Herpetologica 48(1):31-39. 

Witherington, B. E., and K. A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward 

orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta. 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. Herpetological Review 33(4):266-269. 
75

Wong, C.S., D.R. Green & W.J. Cretney. 1974. Quantitative tar and plastic waste distributions in 

the Pacific Ocean. Nature 247: 30-32. 

Wyneken, J., K. Blair, S. Epperly, J. Vaughan, and L. Crowder. 2004. Surprising sex ratios in 

west Atlantic loggerhead hatchlings – an unexpected pattern. Poster presentation at the 

2004 International Sea Turtle Symposium in San Jose, Costa Rica. 

Wyneken, J., S. Eperly, S. Heppell, M. Rogers, and L. Crowder. 2012. Variable Loggerhead 

Hatchlings Sex Rations: Are Males Disappering? (Presented 2 Feb 2012, Abstract 

Number: 4523). Southeast Regional Sea Turtle Meeting Jekyll 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 Indian River Lagoon system, Florida: a 

skeletochronological analysis Canadian 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 Technical Memorandum. NMFS SEFSC. 

 
76

Appendix 1: Endangered Species Response Form 

 Date and Time Turtle was found: 

__________________________________________________ 

 Turtle Species (i.e., Loggerhead, 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 possible / record photo numbers) and save in the 

PEEC server: 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

 If possible, document a general description of the turtle and any noticeable 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 Environmental Service (JES) and the PGD 

Environmental Wildlife Subject Matter Experts (Email photos, if possible) 

 Date and Time Marine Turtle Permit 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 Environmental 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 Manager 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