Attach__No__1B_-_I3BeacNourishmentDredging.pdf

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505

(727) 824-5312; FAX 824-5309

http ://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov

F/SER3 1 :AL

APR O 2am

Mr. Patrick Giniewski, DAFC U.S. Air Force

45 CES/CEA

1224 Jupiter Street, MS 9125 Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3 343

Mr. Geoffrey Wikel Minerals Management Service 381 Elden Street Mail Stop 4042 Herndon, VA 20170

Ms. Irene Sadowski Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers Cocoa Regulatory Office 400 High Point Drive, Suite 600 Cocoa, FL 32926

Re: Beach Renourishment Project at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

Dear Mr. Giniewski, Mr. Wikel, and Ms. Sadowski:

This constitutes the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) biological opinion based on our review of the U.S. Air Force’s proposed action to place between 310,000 and 350,000 cubic yards of sand along the shoreline at Patrick Air Force Base, located in Brevard County, Florida.

The purpose of this project is to renourish approximately 11,480 linear feet of shoreline. The material will be excavated from the Canaveral Shoals borrow areas using a hopper dredge.

Because hopper dredging is known to have the potential to kill ESA-listed species of sea turtles, formal consultation was required. The biological opinion analyzes the project’s effects on green (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, and is based on information provided in your request for section 7 consultation, biological assessment dated May 2009; and subsequent information provided in phone and e-mail correspondence. Formal consultation was initiated on October 16, 2009. On February 24, 2010, NMFS requested a 60-day extension to complete our biological opinion; the Air Force responded affirmatively to our request on March 8, 2010.

The Air Force has informed NMFS that the Minerals Management Service is a cooperating agency on the project. In addition, we understand that the Air Force has applied for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct the work.

It is NMFS’ biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is likely to adversely affect loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, but is not likely to jeopardize their continued existence. This concludes your consultation responsibilities under the ESA for species under NMFS’ purview. Consultation must be reinitiated if a take occurs or new information reveals effects of the action not previously considered, or the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, or if a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.

We look forward to further cooperation with you on other Air Force 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, fishery biologist, at (954) 356-7100, or by e-mail at Audra.Livergoodnoaa.gov.

Sincerely, y E. Crabtree, Ph.D.

Regional Administrator

Enclosures

File: 1514-22.S Ref: F/SERJ2009/03376

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion

Action Agencies: United States Air Force, Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), lead agency; Minerals Management Service (MMS), cooperating agency; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Jacksonville District

Activity: Dredging and beach renourishment located in Brevard County, Florida (Consultation Number F/SERI2009/03376)

Consulting Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida

Approved By:

Roy E. C btree,Ph.D., Regional Aãiitnistrator NMFS outheast Regional Office St. Petersburg, Florida

Date Issued:

Table of Contents

1.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY 3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3

3.0 STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 6

4.0 ENVIRONMIENTAL BASELINE 29

5.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 37

6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 44

7.0 JEOPARDY ANALYSIS 44

9.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT (ITS) 54

10.0 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 61

11.0 REINITIATION OF CONSULTATION 62

12.0 LITERATURE CITED 63

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; section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Secretary on any such action. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibilities for administering the ESA.

Consultation is required when a federal action agency determines that a proposed action “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. Consultation is concluded after NMFS determines that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat or issues a biological opinion (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 states the amount or extent of incidental take of the listed species that may occur, develops measures (i.e., reasonable and prudent measures - RPMs) to reduce the effect of take, and recommends conservation measures to further conserve the species. Notably, no incidental destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat can be authorized, and thus there are no reasonable and prudent measures, only reasonable and prudent alternatives that must avoid destruction or adverse modification.

This document represents NMFS’ biological opinion for species listed under the ESA, as well as our conference opinion for the Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of loggerhead sea turtles, which is proposed for listing under the ESA, based on our review of impacts associated with the U.S. Air Force’s proposed dredging and beach renourishment project. Conference is only required where the proposed action “is likely to jeopardize” the proposed species. However, we are already consulting formally on the action and its effects on loggerhead sea turtles; therefore, we will also specifically evaluate its effects on the proposed Northwest Atlantic DPS. This opinion analyzes project effects on loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, hawksbill, and green sea turtles, and smalitooth sawfish, in accordance with section 7 of the ESA, and is based on project information provided by the Air Force. Information was also obtained from other sources, including the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and published and unpublished literature cited herein.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

1.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

NMFS received an undated consultation request and biological assessment (BA) (dated May 2009) from the Air Force on June 8, 2009. The Air Force determined that the proposed activity is likely to adversely affect loggerhead and green sea turtles. However, their determination is that the proposed activity is not likely to adversely affect North Atlantic right and humpback whales, leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles, and smalltooth sawflsh. The proposed activity entails dredging, dune repair, and beach renourishment. Multiple requests for additional information (RAT) were sent by NMFS to the Air Force. The RATs and subsequent responses from the Air Force are dated as follows: RAT No. 1: August 18, 2009, responses received August 18 and 20, 2009; RAI No. 2: August 20, 2009, responses received on August 20, 24, and 27, 2009; RAI No.

3: October 1, 2009, response received on October 9, 2009; and RAI No. 4: October 13, 2009, response received on October 16, 2009. On August 18, 2009, we informed the Air Force that formal consultation would be required. Formal consultation was initiated on October 16, 2009.

Subsequent to initiation of formal consultation, NMFS requested additional information to clarify whether nearshore hardbottom would be impacted by the proposed action. Additional information was requested on February 19, February 24, and March 4, 2010. The Air Force responded on February 22, March 2, March 3, and March 5, 2010. By letter dated February 24, 2010, NMFS requested a 60-day extension to complete our biological opinion. The Air Force granted our extension request via letter dated March 8, 2010. On April 21, 2010, NMFS sent a request for additional information via e-mail and the Air Force responded on the same date.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Proposed Action

The Air Force proposes to renourish 11,480 linear feet of shoreline and repair the South Beach dune profile that has eroded due to stormlhigh tide activity since the 2005 beach renourishment.

The proposed work entails mechanical placement (truck hauling) of material to repair the dune, and offshore dredging of material for the beach renourishment component. The project is located at 28.25°N, 80.60°W (NAD 83) in Brevard County, Florida, between Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reference monuments R-53 and R-75.4.

The Air Force proposes to place approximately 80,000 cubic yards of sand for the dune repair component of the project. This sand would be obtained from an upland site (the upland Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Sand Borrow Area). Between DEP reference monuments R-70 and R-75.4, above the mean high water line, only dune repair will occur. In addition, the Air Force proposes to use a hopper dredge to excavate approximately 3 10,000-350,000 cubic yards of material from the Canaveral Shoals offshore borrow areas I and/or II, located approximately 12 miles north of Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) and about 2-5 miles offshore. Water depths at borrow areas I and II range from -8 to -17 feet and -10 to -46 feet, respectively. The proposed action includes dredging the material, hydraulically pumping it onto PAFB North Beach, and mechanically distributing the material per profiling specifications from R-53 to R-65. A stockpile area will be developed between DEP reference monuments R-61 and R-65 to allow truck hauling of sand south of R-65 for beach restoration along the PAFB Central and South Beaches (Air Force Biological Assessment, May 2009).

The Air Force’s BA stated that the proposed action would not adversely affect nearshore hardbottom, which is important developmental habitat for juvenile green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). The Air Force’s determination is based on the monitoring results from the previous two renounshments in 2005 and 2000, which were provided to NMFS. The Air Force’s consultant, Olsen Associates, Inc., has been conducting annual monitoring of the amount of exposed nearshore hardbottom in the project area to determine if this hardbottom has been affected by sedimentation (i.e., burial) from the previous two renourishments. Based on the results of the monitoring, the amount of exposed hardbottom in the most recent (July 2009) survey is the greatest observed since quantitative data have been available (beginning in 2001 and 2004). By transect line measure, there was 55 percent more exposed hardbottom in 2009 than in both 2001 and 2004. Likewise, there was 30 percent more exposed hardbottom in 2008 than in both 2001 and 2004. In each year since renourishment in 2005, the total amount of exposed hardbottom has been greater than in the baseline (2004) conditions — with the exception of 2006, during which large sand bars were migrating ashore, across the rock terrace, along most of Brevard County. Even in 2006, the amount of exposed hardbottom increased or remained the same nearest the fill from the 2005 project (i.e., at DEP reference monuments R-70 to R-73), where one would expect hardbottom exposure to decrease the most if there was significant alongshore diffusion of sand from the prior beach renourishment activity (March 4, 2010, memorandum from Dr. Kevin Bodge, Olsen Associates, Inc.). The results of the monitoring suggest there has not been a quantifiable effect on the amount of exposed hardbottom due to the two most recent renourishments (in 2005 and 2000).

This may be due to the small amount of fill that was placed and the project design, which aims to minimize the amount of fill placed below mean high water in areas where hardbottom is known to occur. Nearshore hardbottom is patchily distributed from DEP reference monuments R-65 to R-70 and becomes more frequent from DEP reference monuments R-70 to R-75.4 and south of the project area. Because nearshore hardbottom is present, the project template was designed as slope/profile repair above mean high water with limited fill placement (approximately 2,481 cubic yards) and grading between mean high water and mean low water, decreasing in extent from north to south between DEP reference monuments R-65 to R-70 (where hardbottom is patchily distributed). However, in the segment where nearshore hardbottom is more frequent (between DEP reference monuments R-70 to R-75.4), only dune restoration above the mean high water line is proposed in order to prevent/minimize impacts to nearshore hardbottom. As previously stated, the hardbottom monitoring reports submitted by the Air Force show that this nearshore hardbottom has not been affected by sedimentation from the past two beach renourishment events at PAFB (in 2005 and 2000), both of which used the same fill template that is proposed for this project and entailed dune restoration only (above the mean high water line) in the segment where nearshore hardbottom is more prevalent.

The Air Force has requested a biological opinion from NMFS to cover ten years and two renourishment cycles (one renourishment every five years although dependent on storm effect intensity). The proposed action would be the same as described above for each dredging/renourishment event, unless severe erosion occurs due to frequent or intense storm activity, which may necessitate changes to the proposed action. Thus, changes in the proposed action that would result in more than two dredging/renourishment events over the next 10 years may require reinitiation of consultation.

The Air Force has proposed the following Conservation Measures to be included as part of the proposed action:

1) Construction will take place outside of the primary sea turtle nesting season and will be limited to November 1 through April 30. If the beach renourishment project is conducted between March 1 and April 30, surveys for early nesting sea turtles are required. If the beach renourishment project is conducted between November 1 and 30, surveys for late nesting sea turtles are required. If nests are found in the beach renourishment area, they must be relocated (USFWS biological opinion, June 2, 2009).

2) The Air Force will comply with NMFS’ March 23, 2006, Sea Turtle and Smailtooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (enclosed).

3) The Air Force will comply with the Terms and Conditions in NMFS’ September 25, 1997, regional biological opinion (RBO) on hopper dredging along the South Atlantic Coast of the United States (NMFS 1997). The 1997 RBO incorporates (by reference) NIvIFS’ 1995 biological opinion on hopper dredging of channels and beach nourishment activities in the southeastern United States from North Carolina through Florida East Coast. The contractor(s) will be required to follow the Terms and Conditions in the 1997 and 1995 biological opinions mentioned above. As per Term and Condition #7 in NMFS’ 1995 biological opinion, the Air Force will participate in the Right Whale Early Warning System (EWS). The purpose of this network is to assure that North Atlantic right whales undergoing their seasonal migrations southward are afforded every level of protection while in the southeast United States’ calving area.1 Term and Condition #7 requires the following protocol for dredging projects that occur in the right whale calving area from December through March: During the calving season, aerial survey teams fly over the waters of Florida and Georgia to locate right whales. There are also land-based volunteers who look for right whales from the beach. Any information provided by observers is reported to the EWS network. The network disseminates right whale location information to mariners in the waters of Florida and Georgia within half an hour of a right whale sighting via the typical marine communication network and a right whale pager network (http://research.myfwc.comlfeatures/viewarticle.asp?id=7239). Dredge and barge operators will ensure that their radio equipment is on and set to receive any contacts from the EWS network, and ifnotified that a whale is in or near their area of operation they will take all practicable measures to avoid contact with the whale and ensure compliance with

In the southeastern United States, this calving area is located in coastal waters between 31 degrees 15 seconds N (approximately located at the mouth of the Altamaha River in Georgia) and 30 degrees 15 seconds N (approximately Jacksonville, Florida) from the shoreline east to 15 nmi offshore; and the waters between 30 degrees 15 seconds N and 28 degrees 00 seconds N (approximately Sebastian Inlet, Florida) from the shoreline Out to S nmi.

the right whale avoidance regulation requirements described in Conservation measure 5 below.

4) Dredge-related vessels working at the borrow site, and traveling to and from the borrow area and the beach fill area will travel at no greater than 10 knots during the North Atlantic right whale calving season (November 15 through April 15) and between 10 and 15 knots, depending on sea state, the rest of the year.

5) The Air Force will comply with NMFS’ Vessel Strike Avoidance and Reporting Guidelines (revised February 2008) (enclosed). By law, vessels shall maintain a 500-yard buffer between the vessel and any North Atlantic right whale, and underway vessels within 500 yards of a right whale must steer a course away from the whale and immediately leave the area at a slow, safe speed [as required by federal regulation 50 CFR 224.103 (c)].

2.2 Action Area

The action area for a biological opinion is defined as all the areas affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area for this activity includes 11,480 linear feet of shoreline (above and below mean high water) between DEP reference monuments R-53 and R-75 where the Air Force proposes to place sand for beach renourishment, the South Beach dune located between DEP reference monuments R-65 and R-75 above the mean high water line where the Air Force proposes to place sand for dune repair, the borrow areas (Canaveral Shoals I and II) located approximately 12 miles north of PAFB and about 2-5 miles offshore, and the ocean areas between the borrow areas and the placement areas.

3.0 STATUS OF LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT

The following endangered (E) and threatened (T) species under the jurisdiction of NMFS may occur in or near the action area:

Common Name Scientific Name Status Sea Turtles Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta2 E/T Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas3 E/T Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E

Fish Smailtooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E

2 NMFS and USFWS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 16,2010 to list nine Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of loggerhead turtles worldwide, seven of which are endangered (including the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS) and two of which are threatened (75

FR 12598).

3Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as endangered.

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

3.1 Species Not Likely to Be Adversely Affected

Smalltooth Sawfish NMFS believes the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, smailtooth sawfish.

The current known range for smailtooth sawfish has contracted to the nearshore and offshore waters of Florida; smailtooth sawfish have also been observed in riverine systems. However, this species is relatively common only in the Everglades region of southwest Florida and the frequency of sightings are generally reduced as you go north along the Atlantic coast. Along the entire coast of Brevard County, there have been only seven reported smalitooth sawfish sightings between 1998-2008 (Mote Marine Lab sawfish database). Due to short-term elevated noise levels, NMFS believes that the likelihood of a sawfish being adversely affected by the project is discountable because smalitooth sawfish are likely to avoid the area during construction operations. Also, the Air Force will comply with NMFS’ March 23, 2006, Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions, which will further reduce the potential for interactions with smailtooth sawflsh from the proposed project. For the dredging portion of the project, NMFS does not expect any adverse effects from the hopper dredge(s) used to excavate sand at the borrow areas or during dredging-related relocation trawling. The borrow areas are offshore and at the northern extreme of the county. Sawfish are very rare in the area, and no takes of sawfish by hopper dredges are known to have occurred. While sawflsh can be taken by trawls, none have ever been taken by relocation trawling conducted for/during the extensive past use of those borrow areas, likely due to their rarity compared to other areas of the state in which they have been captured by trawls. In addition, the action area does not contain the essential features (i.e., red mangroves and shallow water depths less than 1 meter) for which sawfish in South Florida have a strong affinity. Based on the preceding, we believe that the likelihood of smalitooth sawfish being adversely affected by the proposed action is discountable. As a result, this species will not be discussed further in this opinion.

Marine Mammals NMFS has analyzed the routes of potential effects on North Atlantic right whales and humpback whales from the proposed action and, based on our analysis, determined that potential effects are limited to the following: injury from potential interactions with construction (i.e., dredging) equipment (e.g., a dredge vessel striking a whale) and temporary avoidance of the area during construction (i.e., dredging/renourishment) operations.

The project is scheduled to be implemented during the annual right whale calving season, and dredge vessels will operate in and travel across the calving grounds. However, NMFS believes the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect North Atlantic right whales and humpback whales. NMFS concludes that the project’s construction effects are discountable. In addition, the contractors will be required to abide by the 10-knot speed restriction during North Atlantic right whale calving season and participate in the right whale Early Warning System

(discussed in Conservation Measures 4 and 3 above, respectively) and follow NMFS’ Vessel Strike Avoidance and Reporting guidelines (discussed in Conservation Measure 5 above). With implementation of these Conservation Measures, NMFS believes that the likelihood of right whales and humpback whales being adversely affected by the proposed action is discountable. As a result, these species will not be discussed further in this opinion.

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 and, based on our analysis, determined that potential direct and indirect effects are limited to the following: injury or death from potential interactions with construction equipment, temporary avoidance of the area during construction operations, and loss of nearshore foraging and resting habitat. Responsibility for ESA consultation on the effects related to failure to nest (i.e., “false crawls”) andlor loss of nests and nesting habitat are the purview of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and will not be discussed in this biological opinion. The USFWS completed their biological opinion on June 2, 2009.

NMFS believes the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles, and is likely to adversely affect loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, as described below.

Because the Air Force will comply with NMFS’ March 23, 2006, Sea Turtle and Smailtooth Sawfish Construction Conditions, we believe this will reduce the potential for interactions with sea turtles from the proposed project. However, the potential for injury and/or death exists because a hopper dredge has been proposed. The Air Force has agreed to follow the Terms and Conditions in NMFS’ 1997 RBO (which incorporates the 1995 biological opinion’s Terms and Conditions by reference) to reduce the potential for take, but even with implementation of the Terms and Conditions, the potential for take is not discountable. Based on the best available data from the COE (http://el.erdc.usace.army.millseaturtles/info.cfrn?Type=District&Code=SAJ),we believe only loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are likely to be adversely affected by hopper dredging in the action area. We believe leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles are not likely to be adversely affected.

Leatherback sea turtles tend to be pelagic (i.e., open ocean) foragers and are uncommon in shallow nearshore waters, except during nesting season. Based on the information provided in the Air Force’s biological assessment, leatherbacks nest on the shoreline of Patrick Air Force Base in small numbers (3 nests were reported in 2007 and 2 nests were reported in 2008). However, because the proposed work would not occur during the majority of sea turtle nesting season (work is prohibited from May 1 — October 31), leatherbacks are unlikely to be found in the action area outside of nesting season, the Air Force is required to follow NMFS’ March 23, 2006, Sea Turtle and Smailtooth Sawfish Construction Conditions, and NMFS’ determined in the 1997 RBO that leatherback sea turtles are unlikely to be adversely affected by hopper dredging (we have not received any new information that would change the basis of this determination), NMFS believes that the likelihood of leatherback sea turtles in the marine environment being adversely affected by the proposed project is discountable. As a result, this species will not be discussed further in this opinion.

Hawksbill sea turtles are also rare in the nearshore waters of Brevard County. Based on a review of various in-water studies conducted in southeast Florida, researchers have suggested that hawksbill sea turtles (as well as juvenile green sea turtles) utilize nearshore hardbottom habitat as nighttime resting areas. Wershoven and Wershoven (1988) captured 134 green turtles and 4 hawksbill turtles while diving on a 1.5-km stretch of reef in nearby Broward County. Lawrence Wood has surveyed reef habitats in Palm Beach County for the presence of hawksbill sea turtles.

Wood reports that habitats in which hawksbill turtles have been observed can be characterized as “steep ledges with undercuts that include artificial reef wrecks, thick octocoralla.k.a. gorgonian pastures, and sparse sandy patch reefs.” Based on Wood’s (2006, 2007) observations, most of the hawksbill turtles he has observed have been seen foraging on reef habitats (located waterward of nearshore hardbottom habitat) where prey items, such as sponges, are more abundant. These offshore reef habitat types are far less abundant off Brevard County and hawksbill turtles are not found as frequently as in waters to the south. NMFS analyzed FWC’s stranding data in Brevard County for the years 2000-2005. During this period, only 5 of the 1165 total sea turtle strandings for Brevard County consisted of hawksbill turtles. As a result, the potential for impacts to hawksbill sea turtles is considered discountable and this species will not be discussed further in this opinion.

The remainder of this document will focus on the effects of the action on loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green sea turtles.

3.2 Status of Species Likely to be Affected

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

3.2.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle

The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a threatened species throughout its global range on July 28, 1978. It was listed because of direct take, incidental capture in various fisheries, and the alteration and destruction of its habitat. Loggerhead sea turtles inhabit the continental shelves and estuarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The majority of loggerhead nesting occurs in the Western Atlantic Ocean (South Florida, United States), and the western Indian Ocean (Masirah, Oman); in both locations nesting assemblages have more than 10,000 females nesting each year (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Loggerhead sea turtles are the most abundant species of sea turtle in U.S. waters.

On March 16, 2010, NMFS and the USFWS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to list nine Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of loggerhead sea turtles as endangered or threatened under the ESA (75 FR 12598). This proposed rule represents NMFS’ and USFWS’ 12-month findings on petitions to list North Pacific populations and Northwest Atlantic populations as endangered and includes a proposed rule to designate nine DPSs worldwide. As per the proposed rule, the Loggerhead Biological Review Team concluded, and NMFS concurred, that nine DPSs exist worldwide and are comprised of the following: 1) Northwest Atlantic Ocean (endangered),

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). This opinion also represents NMFS’ conference opinion for the Northwest Atlantic DPS of loggerhead sea turtles, which is proposed for listing under the ESA.

Conference consultations are required if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed to be listed, and are discretionary in other circumstances. If there is no intervening new information or change in circumstances, or change in the proposed action, a conference opinion can be adopted as the governing opinion if a rule proposing to list a species is finalized.

3.2.1.1 Pacific Ocean

In the Pacific Ocean, major loggerhead nesting grounds are generally located in temperate and subtropical regions with scattered nesting in the tropics. Within the Pacific Ocean, loggerhead sea turtles are represented by a northwestern Pacific nesting aggregation (located in Japan) and a smaller southwestern nesting aggregation that occurs in Eastern Australia (Great Barrier Reef and Queensland) and New Caledonia (NMFS SEFSC 2001). There are no reported loggerhead nesting sites in the eastern or central Pacific Ocean basin. Data from 1995 estimated the Japanese nesting aggregation at 1,000 female loggerhead sea turtles (Bolten et al. 1996). More recent information suggests that nest numbers have increased somewhat over the period 1998-2004 (NMFS and USFWS 2007). However, this time period is too short to make a determination of the overall trend in nesting (NMFS and USFWS 2007). Recent genetic analyses on female loggerheads nesting in Japan suggest that this “subpopulation” is comprised of genetically distinct nesting colonies (Hatase et al. 2002) with precise natal homing of individual females. As a result, Hatase et al.

(2002) indicate that loss of one of these colonies would decrease the genetic diversity of Japanese loggerheads; recolonization of the site would not be expected on an ecological time scale. In Australia, long-term census data have been collected at some rookeries since the late 1 960s and early 1 970s, and nearly all the data show marked declines in nesting populations since the mid 1980s (Limpus and Limpus 2003). The nesting aggregation in Queensland, Australia, was as low as 300 females in 1997.

Pacific loggerhead turtles are captured, injured, or killed in numerous Pacific fisheries including Japanese longline fisheries in the Western Pacific Ocean and South China Seas; direct harvest and commercial fisheries off Baja California, Mexico; commercial and artisanal swordfish fisheries off Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru; purse seine fisheries for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean; and California/Oregon drift gillnet fisheries. In Australia, where turtles are taken in bottom trawl and longline fisheries, efforts have been made to reduce fishery bycatch (NMFS and USFWS 2007).

In addition, the abundance of loggerhead sea turtles in nesting colonies throughout the Pacific basin has declined dramatically over the past 10 to 20 years. Loggerhead turtle colonies in the Western Pacific Ocean have been reduced to a fraction of their former abundance by the combined effects of human activities that have reduced the number of nesting females and reduced the reproductive success of females that manage to nest (e.g., due to egg poaching).

3.2.1.2 Indian Ocean

Loggerhead sea turtles are distributed throughout the Indian Ocean, along most mainland coasts and island groups (Baldwin et al. 2003). Throughout the Indian Ocean, loggerhead sea turtles face many of the same threats as in other parts of the world including loss of nesting beach habitat, fishery interactions, and turtle meat and/or egg harvesting.

In the southwestern Indian Ocean, loggerhead nesting has shown signs of recovery in South Africa where protection measures have been in place for decades. However, in other southwestern areas (e.g., Madagascar and Mozambique) loggerhead nesting groups are still affected by subsistence hunting of adults and eggs (Baldwin et al. 2003). The largest known nesting group of loggerheads in the world occurs in Oman in the Northern Indian Ocean. An estimated 20,000-40,000 females nest each year at Masirah, the largest nesting site within Oman (Baldwin et al. 2003). In the Eastern Indian Ocean, all known nesting sites are found in Western Australia (Dodd 1988). As has been found in other areas, nesting numbers are disproportionate within the area, with the majority of nesting occurring at a single location. This may, however, be the result of fox predation on eggs at other Western Australia nesting sites (Baldwin et al. 2003).

3.2.1.3 Mediterranean Sea

Nesting in the Mediterranean is confined almost exclusively to the eastern basin. The highest level of nesting in the Mediterranean occurs in Greece, with an average of 3,050 nests per year. There is a long history of exploitation of loggerheads in the Mediterranean. Although much of this is now prohibited, some directed take still occurs. Loggerheads in the Mediterranean also face the threat of habitat degradation, incidental fishery interactions, vessel strikes, and marine pollution (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). Longline fisheries, in particular, are believed to catch thousands of juvenile loggerheads each year (NMFS and USFWS 2007), although genetic analyses indicate that only a portion of the loggerheads captured originate from nesting groups in the Mediterranean (Laurent et al. 1998).

3.2.1.4 Atlantic Ocean

In the Western Atlantic, 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 29°N; (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 Yucatan nesting subpopulation, occurring on the Eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Marquez 1990 and Turtle Expert Working Group or 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 recently published recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population 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 (FloridalGeorgia 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. The Loggerhead Biological Review Team determined that loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic meet the required characteristics to be separated into three DPSs, the Northwest Atlantic DPS, Northeast Atlantic DPS, and South Atlantic DPS (Conant et al. 2009).

Lfe History and Distribution Past literature gave an estimated age at maturity of 21-35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985, Frazer et

al. 1994) with the benthic immature stage lasting at least 10-25 years. However, based on new data from tag returns, strandings, and nesting surveys, NMFS SEFSC (2001) estimated ages of maturity ranging from 20-3 8 years and benthic immature stage lasting from 14-32 years.

Mating takes place in late March-early June, and eggs are laid throughout the summer, with a mean clutch size of 100-126 eggs in the southeastern United States. Individual females nest multiple times during a nesting season, with a mean of 4.1 nests per individual (Murphy and Hopkins 1984). Nesting migrations for an individual female loggerhead are usually on an interval of 2-3 years, but can vary from 1-7 years (Dodd 1988). Generally, loggerhead sea turtles originating from the Western Atlantic nesting aggregations are believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years or more. Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature loggerheads reach 40-60 cm straight-line carapace length, they begin to live in coastal inshore and nearshore waters of the continental shelf throughout the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, although some loggerheads may move back and forth between the pelagic and benthic environment (Witzell 2002). Benthic immature loggerheads (sea turtles that have come back to inshore and nearshore waters), the life stage following the pelagic immature stage, have been found from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to southern Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in northeastern Mexico.

Tagging studies have shown loggerheads that have entered the benthic environment undertake routine migrations along the coast that are limited by seasonal water temperatures. Loggerhead sea turtles occur year-round in offshore waters off North Carolina where water temperature is influenced by the Gulf Stream. As coastal water temperatures warm in the spring, loggerheads begin to immigrate to North Carolina inshore waters (e.g., Pamlico and Core Sounds) and also move up the coast (Epperly et al. 1995a-c), occurring in Virginia foraging areas as early as April and on the most northern foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine in June. The trend is reversed in the fall as water temperatures cool. The large majority of loggerheads leave the Gulf of Maine by mid-September but some may remain in mid-Atlantic and Northeast areas until late fall. By December, loggerheads have emigrated from inshore North Carolina waters and coastal waters to the north to waters offshore of North Carolina, particularly off Cape Hatteras, and waters further south where the influence of the Gulf Stream provides temperatures favorable to sea turtles ( 11°C) (Epperly et al. 1995 a-c). Loggerhead sea turtles are year-round residents of Central and South Florida.

Pelagic and benthic juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988). Sub-adult and adult loggerheads are primarily coastal dwelling and typically prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hardbottom habitats.

More recent studies are revealing that the loggerhead’s life history is more complex than previously believed. Rather than making discrete developmental shifts from oceanic to neritic environments, research is showing that both adults and (presumed) neritic stage juveniles continue to use the oceanic environment and will move back and forth between the two habitats (Witzell 2002, Blumenthal et al. 2006, Hawkes et al. 2006, McClellan and Read 2007). One of the studies tracked the movements of adult females post-nesting and found a difference in habitat use was related to body size, with larger turtles staying in coastal waters and smaller turtles traveling to oceanic waters (Hawkes et al. 2006). A tracking study of large juveniles found that the habitat preferences of this life stage were also diverse, with some remaining in neritic waters while others moved off into oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 2007). However, unlike the Hawkes et al.

study (2006), there was no significant difference in the body size of turtles that remained in neritic waters versus oceanic waters (McClellan and Read 2007). Tn either case, the research not only supports the need to revise the life history model for loggerheads but also demonstrates that threats to loggerheads in both the neritic and oceanic environments are likely impacting multiple life stages of this species.

Population Dynamics and Status A number of stock assessments and similar reviews (TEWG 1998, TEWG 2000, NMFS SEFSC 2001, Heppell et al. 2003, NMFS and USFWS 2008, Conant et al. 2009, TEWG 2009) 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, Meylan 1982). 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. Recent analysis of available data for the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit has led to the conclusion that the observed decline in nesting for that unit over the last several years can 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 what NMFS and USFWS have defined as the Northern Recovery Unit (NRU) averaged 5,215 nests from 1989-2008, a period of near-complete surveys of NRU nesting beaches (GDNR unpublished data, NCWRC unpublished data, SCDNR unpublished data), representing approximately 1,272 nesting females per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984). The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys showed a significant decline of 1.3 percent annually. Nest totals from aerial surveys conducted by SCDNR showed a

1.9 percent annual decline in nesting in South Carolina since 1980. Nesting on Georgia’s beaches has shown a 1.2 percent annual decline from 1989-2003 (GDNR unpublished data). Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline. Data in 2008 has shown improved nesting numbers, but future nesting years will need to be analyzed to determine if a change in trend is occurring. In 2008, 841 loggerhead nests were observed compared to the 10-year average of 715 nests in North Carolina. 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. 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.

According to analyses by Georgia DNR, the 40-year time-series trend data show an overall decline in nesting, but the shorter comprehensive survey data (20 years) indicate a stable population (SCDNR 2008, GDNR unpublished data, NCWRC unpublished data, SCDNR unpublished data).

Another consideration that may add to the importance and vulnerability of the NRU is the sex ratios of this subpopulation. NMFS scientists have estimated that the Northern subpopulation produces 65 percent males (NMFS SEFSC 2001). However, research conducted over a limited time frame has found opposing sex ratios (Wyneken et al. 2004), so further information is needed to clarify the issue. Since nesting female loggerhead sea turtles exhibit nest fidelity, the continued existence of the Northern subpopulation is related to the number of female hatchlings that are produced. Producing 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 undertaken from 1989 to 2007 showed a mean of 64,513 loggerhead nests per year, representing approximately 15,735 nesting females per year (from NMFS and USFWS 2008). An analysis of index nesting beach data shows a decline in nesting by the PFRU between 1989 and 2008 of 26 percent over the period, and a mean annual rate of decline of 1.6 percent despite a large increase in nesting for 2008 (Witherington et al. 2009, NMFS and USFWS 2008). In 2009, nesting levels dropped well below 2008 levels, to approximately 33,000 nests (FWRI web site- Graph of Core Florida Index Nests for Loggerheads).

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 has been relatively stable during the 9-year period from 1995-2004 (although the 2002 year was missed). Nest counts ranged from 168- 270, with a mean of 246, but with no detectable trend during this period (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, Statewide Nesting Beach Survey

Data, NMFS and USFWS 2008). Nest counts for the NGMRU are focused on index beaches rather than all beaches where nesting occurs. 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). Similarly, nesting survey effort has been inconsistent among the GCRU nesting beaches and no trend can be determined for this subpopulation. 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 nesting decline data is confounded by various in-water research that suggests the abundance of neritic juvenile loggerheads is steady or increasing (Ehrhart et al.

2007, M. Bresette pers. comm. regarding captures at the St. Lucie Power Plant, SCDNR unpublished SEAMAP-SA data, Epperly et al. 2007). 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 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 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.