USFWS BO_ 20210930_Duck_SS_KH_KDH_2022

i
Batched Biological Opinion
Shoreline Protection Projects
Dare County, North Carolina
Town of Duck
Corps Action ID No. SAW-2021-0566
USFWS Log No. 04EN2000-2021-F-1150
Town of Southern Shores
Corps Action ID No. SAW-2021-0569
USFWS Log No. 04EN2000-2021-F-1151
Town of Kitty Hawk
Corps Action ID No. SAW-2021-0568
USFWS Log No. 04EN2000-2021-F-1152
Town of Kill Devil Hills
Corps Action ID No. SAW-2021-0267
USFWS Log No. 04EN2000-2021-F-1149
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor Date
September 30, 2021
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSULTATION HISTORY ................................................................................................................................... iii
BIOLOGICAL OPINION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. PROPOSED ACTION: SAND PLACEMENT .................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Other Activities Caused by the Action ......................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Action Area ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3. Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
3. SOURCES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 7
4. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, LEATHERBACK, AND KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLES .................................................. 8
4.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.2. Environmental Baseline for Sea Turtle Species ......................................................................................... 27
4.3. Effects of the Action on Sea Turtle Species ............................................................................................... 30
4.4. Cumulative Effects on Sea Turtle Species ................................................................................................. 37
4.5. Conclusion for Sea Turtle Species ............................................................................................................. 37
5. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 39
5.1. Amount or Extent of Take ......................................................................................................................... 40
5.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures .......................................................................................................... 42
5.3. Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 45
5.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................. 51
6. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 54
7. REINITIATION NOTICE .............................................................................................................................. 55
8. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................................... 55

iii
CONSULTATION HISTORY

This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Raleigh Ecological Service’s
Field Office.

05/17/2021– By email, the Corps requested formal consultation.

07/09/2021 – By email, the Service provided a draft Incidental Take Statement (ITS) to the
Corps for comments. The Corps responded on September 15, 2021 with no concerns.

1
BIOLOGICAL OPINION

1. INTRODUCTION

A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the findings of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ESA), as to whether a Federal action is likely to:
• jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
• result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
The Federal action addressed in this BO is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) proposed
Dare County shoreline protection projects (the Action). This BO considers the effects of the
Action on loggerhead, leatherback, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. The Action does not
affect designated critical habitat; therefore, this BO does not address critical habitat.

By letter dated June 8, 2021, the Service previously concurred with the Corps’ determination that
the Action will have no effect on West Indian manatee, hawksbill sea turtle, and roseate tern, and
that the Action is not likely to adversely affect the piping plover, red knot, and seabeach
amaranth. This concurrence fulfilled the Corps’ responsibilities for the Action under §7(a)(2) of
the ESA for these species. We do not address further these species in this BO.

BO Analytical Framework

A BO that concludes a proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species and is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat fulfills the Federal agency’s responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA.
“Jeopardize the continued existence means to engage in an action that reasonably would
be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,
numbers, or distribution of that species” (50 CFR §402.02).
“Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a
listed species” (50 CFR §402.02).

The Service determines in a BO whether we expect an action to satisfy these definitions using
the best available relevant data in the following analytical framework (see 50 CFR §402.02 for
the regulatory definitions of action, action area, environmental baseline, effects of the action,
and cumulative effects).
a. Proposed Action. Review the proposed Federal action and describe the environmental
changes its implementation would cause, which defines the action area.
b. Status. Review and describe the current range-wide status of the species or critical
habitat.
c. Environmental Baseline. Describe the condition of the species or critical habitat in the
action area, without the consequences to the listed species caused by the proposed action.
The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or
private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all
proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early
2
consultation, and the impacts of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with
the consultation.
d. Effects of the Action. Predict all consequences to species or critical habitat caused by the
proposed action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the proposed
action, which are reasonably certain to occur. Activities caused by the proposed action
would not occur but for the proposed action. Effects of the action may occur later in time
and may include consequences that occur outside the action area.
e. Cumulative Effects. Predict all consequences to listed species or critical habitat caused by
future non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area.
f. Conclusion. Add the effects of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental
baseline, and in light of the status of the species, formulate the Service's opinion as to
whether the action is likely to jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat.

2. PROPOSED ACTION: SAND PLACEMENT

The project is on the oceanfront shorelines of the towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk,
and Kill Devil Hills, and in the Atlantic Ocean, in Dare County, North Carolina. According to
the Environmental Assessment (EA), the purpose of the proposed project is to provide
infrastructure protection, storm damage mitigation and rapid recovery from storm events for the
four towns. The Town of Kitty Hawk is also particularly concerned with the effects of flooding
and seeks a program that will 1) reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure to storm-
induced erosion; 2) reduce flooding in many non-oceanfront areas throughout the town; and 3)
reduce the vulnerability of homes.

The applicants’ preferred alternative is Alternative 2. The proposed action is a one-time sand
placement event along 61,512 linear feet (lf) (11.65 miles) of oceanfront shoreline within the
Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills utilizing up to 6,589,633
cubic yards of material, including proposed taper sections. Beach quality sand will be obtained
from an offshore borrow area (Borrow Area A) via a self-contained ocean-certified hopper
dredge and/or a hydraulic cutterhead pipeline dredge. Placement onto the beach would be
accomplished via submerged pipeline with direct pump-out. The type and number of dredges
needed will be determined by the contractor. Should a cutterhead dredge be used, dredged
material would be transported to the recipient beach via submerged pipeline. In the event a
hopper dredge is used, pump-out stations will be implemented, and material will be transported
to the beach via submerged pipeline. The specific locations of pipeline corridors and pump-out
locations will be determined by the contractor. Once discharged, the sand will be shaped and
graded according to the design template using earthmoving equipment. The towns are proposing
a year-round construction schedule, so dredging and placement may occur whenever it is deemed
safest and most efficient by the contractor. The proposed borrow area for the project is located
in federal waters approximately 5.0 to 6.5 miles offshore from the Town of Kill Devil Hills.

The towns propose a year-round construction schedule with a high likelihood that construction
would occur during the sea turtle nesting season. To allow for the greatest scheduling flexibility,
no start and end date will be specified; rather, the contractor will determine the schedule based
on equipment availability and weather conditions. The project will likely require approximately
five months to complete, although timing depends on whether each town's portions would be
3
performed concurrently or independently. The maximum time anticipated for completion of all
four projects is nine months, while the minimum completion time is three and a half months.

Town of Duck: The proposed action includes sand placement along 8,414 lf of the Town’s
oceanfront shoreline. The proposed design consists of a 20-foot-wide dune at elevation +20 feet
NAVD88, with a seaward slope of 1V:5H, fronted by a variable width berm at elevation +6 feet
NAVD88. The main placement area begins near the northern property boundary of 140 Skimmer
Way and extends approximately 7,914 feet southward, terminating in the middle of the parcel
at137 Spindrift Lane. Additionally, there is one 500-foot taper on the north end of the main fill,
that extends from the northern boundary of the main placement to the property line between 126
and 128 Skimmer Way.

Town of Southern Shores: The proposed action includes sand placement along 21,625 lf of
shoreline. This includes two ~1,000-foot taper sections; one extending to the north and the other
extending to the south (if the project is constructed with the Town of Kitty Hawk receiving fill as
well, the southern taper section will not be needed). The proposed construction template consists
of an approximate 25 to100-foot-wide berm at an elevation of +6 feet NAVD88. Dunes that
require reshaping will be constructed at an elevation no higher than +15.0 feet NAVD88 with a
dune crest width of 24.0 feet NAVD88.

Town of Kitty Hawk: Sand placement is proposed along a total of 20,970 lf of oceanfront
shoreline. The main placement area of the proposed project begins at the north town limit, which
is approximately 120 feet north of the Kitty Hawk Pier located at the Hilton Garden Inn. The
main placement area extends 18,964 lf along the entire length of the Kitty Hawk ocean shoreline
ending at approximately the Kitty Hawk/Kill Devil Hills town limits. If the Kitty Hawk project is
constructed as a stand-alone project, two taper sections would be included: a 1,000-foot taper on
the north end and a 1,006-foot taper on the south end. The north taper would extend into the
Town of Southern Shores, terminating at 8 Sea Bass Circle. The south taper would end at E.
Helga Street in Kill Devil Hills. The proposed design template consists of a 60-foot-wide berm
at elevation +6 feet NAVD88. A dune with a crest elevation of +18 feet NAVD88 and width of
25 feet will be provided landward of the constructed berm along the entire length of the project
by pushing some of the material into a pile.

Town of Kill Devil Hills: Sand placement is proposed along 14,464 lf of oceanfront shoreline.
The main fill portion of the proposed project (excluding tapers) begins at the north town limit
and extends south to Windsong Way. The length of the main portion of nourished shoreline,
excluding the tapers, is 12,500 lf. If the Kill Devil Hills project is constructed as a stand-alone
project, two taper sections would be included, one on the south end and the other on the north
end of the main placement area. The north taper would extend 933.2 feet into the Town of Kitty
Hawk, terminating just south of Tateway Road. The south taper would extend 1,031 feet, ending
at the Prospect Avenue public access. The proposed design includes a 20-foot wide dune at
elevation +15.0 feet NAVD fronted by a 40 ft. berm.

Analysis of sediment characteristics from within Borrow Area A, suggests that the material
within meets or exceeds the standards for the each of the native beach at all four towns, per the
4
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Sediment Criteria at 15A NCAC
07H.0312.

According to the, EA, most staging areas for materials and equipment for the project will be
located off the beach. Movement of equipment that may affect listed species includes movement
of earth-moving equipment, pipeline, trucks, and other ORV along the shoreline.

Artificial lighting will be used if work is conducted at night, including lighting on the dredge and
work lights in the sand placement area. After work is completed, the unnatural sloped beach
adjacent to the homes and other structures exposes sea turtles and their nests to lights that were
less visible, or not visible, from nesting areas before the sand placement activity, leading to a
potentially higher mortality of hatchlings.

The applicants offer the following Conservation Measures for sand placement:

1. Construction observation and contract administration will be periodically performed
seven days/week, approximately twelve hours/day during periods of active construction.
Most observations will be during daylight hours; however, random nighttime
observations may be conducted. The Towns, the Engineer, or his duly authorized
representative will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or
experience in beach nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is
knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project manager will
coordinate with the field observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump-out location
will be made for quality assessment and quality control (QA/QC) of the material being
placed on the beach. The construction contractor will provide observations 24 hours per
day during construction.
2. The Sediment Criteria Rule provides beneficial guidelines for both grain size and percent
weight of calcium carbonate. However, other important characteristics such as organic
content, heavy mineral content and color are not addressed. These aspects of the beach
material will be considered. Maintaining adherence to this sediment criteria rule for
material placed on the beach will reduce adverse impacts to the beach invertebrate
community and would also reduce effects to sea turtle nest construction and incubation of
the eggs. Multiple daily observations of the active placement locations will be made for
QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. Following construction, compaction of
placed fill material will be inspected by the Towns, the Engineer or his duly authorized
representative in coordination with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) and USACE. Compaction monitoring will begin after the material has been
graded and dressed to the final slope and a period of time will be allowed for finer
particles to be washed away and final settling of the material to occur prior to compaction
monitoring. If the fill material appears to have a higher degree of compaction than that
which is acceptable additional testing such as cone penetration testing will be considered.
After subsequent testing, if it is determined that tilling is necessary to reduce compaction
based on consultation with the appropriate agencies, the contractor will till the beach to a
minimum depth of 36 inches throughout the constructed portion of the beach to loosen
the compaction of the placed material. Beach tilling will only be performed as a result of
an identified compaction problem based on agency consultation. Beach compaction
5
monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would ensure that project impacts on sea turtle
nesting are minimized.
3. Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after
completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18
inches for greater than 100 ft. shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach.
Removal of any escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May 1 through
November 15) shall be coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), USFWS and the USACE. The likelihood of escarpment
formation can be reduced by incorporating a beach design that closely resembles the
native beach in terms of berm elevation, sediment size, and sediment sorting
characteristics. The proposed project will be designed with a berm elevation of +6 ft.
NAVD88, and sediment characteristics that fall within the ranges required by the North
Carolina State Sediment Criteria.
4. During construction or dredging activities, the contractor will adhere to the “Guidelines
for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee” created by the USFWS. Full-time
NMFS certified endangered species observers will be present on the hopper dredge(s) to
alert dredge operators of any whales or manatees in the area. In the event a whale or
manatee is spotted, the ship’s captain will make proper maneuvers to avoid collisions or
injury to the marine mammals.
5. On the beach, artificial lighting used during nighttime construction activities will be
angled or shielded to reduce deterrence of sea turtle nesting and hatchling disorientation.
6. A sea turtle nest monitoring plan will be implemented through coordination with USFWS
and NCWRC. Dare County is included in surveys conducted by Network for Endangered
Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T), the volunteer organization which performs systematic surveys of
the northern Outer Banks from the Virginia border to the southern tip of Nags Head.
Surveys are performed throughout the nesting season (May through August), and include
daily morning patrols to mark and protect newly laid nests, as well as monitoring during
incubation period and emergence. Because the proposed project includes nourishment
during the summer months (nesting season), monitoring will be needed to identify, and
subsequently avoid burial or excavation of, existing nests during construction. This
monitoring will be performed by trained individuals knowledgeable of the beach
construction operations. In addition to monitoring surveys, nest relocation will be
implemented by highly trained individuals and in coordination with the appropriate
agencies.
7. Although a project-specific bird monitoring plan will not be developed, existing
programs established by the State, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and other entities are
anticipated to continue monitoring piping plovers, rufa red knots, and other bird species
along portions of the Outer Banks in Dare County. In addition, all personnel involved in
the construction process along the beach will be trained to recognize the presence of
piping plovers and red knots prior to the initiation of beach construction. Personnel will
be provided photos of each species, which will be required to be kept at the construction
site for quick reference. A contractor representative authorized to stop or redirect work
will conduct a shorebird survey prior to 9:00 am each day of sand placement activities.
The survey will cover the work area and any locations where equipment is expected to
travel. The contractor will note any observance of red knots or piping plovers and submit
observations to the USACE Wilmington District Office the next calendar day.
6
2.1. Other Activities Caused by the Action

A BO evaluates all consequences to species or critical habitat caused by the proposed Federal
action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the proposed action, that are
reasonably certain to occur (see definition of “effects of the action” at 50 CFR §402.02).
Additional regulations at 50 CFR §402.17(a) identify factors to consider when determining
whether activities caused by the proposed action (but not part of the proposed action) are
reasonably certain to occur. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(1) past experiences with activities that have resulted from actions that are similar in
scope, nature, and magnitude to the proposed action;
(2) existing plans for the activity; and
(3) any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements necessary for the
activity to go forward.

In its request for consultation, the Corps did not describe any other activities caused by the
proposed action, that are reasonably certain to occur. However, the EA discusses the probability
of sand fence installation along the shoreline after sand placement is completed.

2.2. Action Area

The action area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR §402.02). Delineating the
action area is necessary for the Federal action agency to obtain a list of species and critical
habitats that may occur in that area, which necessarily precedes any subsequent analyses of the
effects of the action to particular species or critical habitats.

It is practical to treat the action area for a proposed Federal action as the spatial extent of its
direct and indirect “modifications to the land, water, or air” (a key phrase from the definition of
“action” at 50 CFR §402.02). Indirect modifications include those caused by other activities that
would not occur but for the action under consultation. The action area determines any overlap
with critical habitat and the physical and biological features therein that we defined as essential
to the species’ conservation in the designation final rule. For species, the action area establishes
the bounds for an analysis of individuals’ exposure to action-caused changes, but the subsequent
consequences of such exposure to those individuals are not necessarily limited to the action area.

Figure 2-1 shows the locations of all activities that the proposed Action would cause and the
spatial extent of reasonably certain changes to land, water, or air caused by these activities, based
on the descriptions and analyses of these activities in sections 2.1–2.2. The Action Area for this
BO includes the portion of Atlantic Ocean shoreline from the northern boundary of the Town of
Duck to the southern boundary of the Town of Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina.

7
2.3. Figures

Figure 2-1. Action Area for the Towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil
Hills (from Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., 2021). The Action Area
extends from the northern boundary of Duck to the southern boundary of Kill Devil Hills.

3. SOURCES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

A BO must predict the consequences to species caused by future non-Federal activities within
the action area, i.e., cumulative effects. “Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or
private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the
action area of the Federal action subject to consultation” (50 CFR §402.02). Additional
regulations at 50 CFR §402.17(a) identify factors to consider when determining whether
activities are reasonably certain to occur. These factors include but are not limited to: existing
plans for the activity; and any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements
necessary for the activity to go forward.

In its request for consultation, the Corps did not describe, and the Service is not aware of, any
future non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Action Area.
Therefore, we anticipate no cumulative effects that we must consider in formulating our opinion
for the Action.
8
4. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, LEATHERBACK, AND KEMP’S RIDLEY
SEA TURTLES

This section provides the Service’s biological opinion of the Action for the leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), the North Atlantic
Ocean Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the
Northwest Atlantic (NWA) Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). This
section summarizes best available data about the biology and current condition of these four
species throughout the ranges that are relevant to formulating an opinion about the Action.

4.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species

The Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) share Federal jurisdiction for sea turtles under the ESA. The Service has
responsibility for sea turtles on the nesting beach. NMFS has jurisdiction for sea turtles in the
marine environment. In accordance with the ESA, the Service completes consultations with all
Federal agencies for actions that may adversely affect sea turtles on the nesting beach. The
Service’s analysis only addresses activities that may impact nesting sea turtles, their nests and
eggs, and hatchlings as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the sea. NMFS assesses and
consults with Federal agencies concerning potential impacts to sea turtles in the marine
environment, including updrift and downdrift nearshore areas affected by sand placement
projects on the beach. This BO addresses nesting sea turtles, their nests and eggs, and hatchlings
as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the sea.

4.1.1. Description of Sea Turtle Species

Description - Loggerhead Sea Turtle

The loggerhead sea turtle, which occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, was federally listed worldwide as a threatened species on
July 28, 1978 (43 Federal Register (FR) 32800). On September 22, 2011, the loggerhead sea
turtle’s listing under the ESA was revised from a single threatened species to nine DPSs listed as
either threatened or endangered (79 FR 39755).

Loggerheads were named for their relatively large heads, which support powerful jaws and
enable them to feed on hard-shelled prey, such as whelks and conch. The carapace (top shell) is
slightly heart-shaped and reddish-brown in adults and sub-adults, while the plastron (bottom
shell) is generally a pale yellowish color. The neck and flippers are usually dull brown to reddish
brown on top and medium to pale yellow on the sides and bottom. Hatchlings are a dull brown
color. Mean straight carapace length of adults in the southeastern U.S. is approximately 36
inches (in), and mean weight is about 250 pounds (lb).

No critical habitat for the NWA Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle exists with the Action
Area.

9
Description - Green Sea Turtle

The green sea turtle was federally listed on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). On April 6, 2016, the
NMFS and Service issued a final rule to list 11 DPSs of the green sea turtle. Three of the DPSs
are endangered species (Central South Pacific, Central West Pacific, and Mediterranean Sea),
and eight are threatened species (81 FR 20058). In North Carolina, the green sea turtle is part of
the North Atlantic Ocean DPS and is listed as threatened. The green sea turtle has a worldwide
distribution in tropical and subtropical waters.

The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about 4 feet (ft) and a weight of 440 lb. It has a
heart-shaped shell, small head, and single-clawed flippers. The carapace is smooth and colored
gray, green, brown, and black. Hatchlings are black on top and white on the bottom (NMFS
2009). Hatchling green turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults feed almost
exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae.

Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Culebra
Island, Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys. There is no designated critical habitat in North
Carolina.

Description - Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle was federally listed as endangered on December 2, 1970 (35 FR
18320).

The Kemp's ridley has one of the most geographically restricted distributions of any sea turtle
species. The range of the Kemp’s ridley includes the Gulf coasts of Mexico and the U.S., and
the Atlantic coast of North America as far north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

Adult Kemp's ridleys and olive ridleys are the smallest sea turtles in the world. The weight of an
adult Kemp’s ridley is generally between 70 to 108 lb with a carapace measuring approximately
24 to 26 in in length (Heppell et al. 2005). The carapace is almost as wide as it is long. The
species’ coloration changes significantly during development from the grey-black dorsum and
plastron of hatchlings, a grey-black dorsum with a yellowish-white plastron as post-pelagic
juveniles and then to the lighter grey-olive carapace and cream-white or yellowish plastron of
adults. Their diet consists mainly of crabs, but may also include fish, jellyfish, and an array of
mollusks.

No critical habitat has been designated for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle.

Description - Leatherback Sea Turtle

The Service published its decision to list the leatherback sea turtle as endangered on June 2, 1970
(35 FR 8491).

Leatherbacks have the widest distribution of the sea turtles with nonbreeding animals recorded as
far north as the British Isles and the Maritime Provinces of Canada and as far south as Argentina
10
and the Cape of Good Hope (Pritchard 1992). They have evolved physiological and anatomical
adaptations (Frair et al. 1972; Greer et al. 1973) that allow them to exploit waters far colder than
any other sea turtle species would be capable of surviving. The adult leatherback can reach 4 to
8 feet in length and weigh 500 to 2,000 pounds. The carapace is distinguished by a rubber-like
texture, about 1.6 inches thick, made primarily of tough, oil-saturated connective tissue.
Hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and are covered with tiny scales; the flippers are edged in
white, and rows of white scales appear as stripes along the length of the back (NMFS 2009c).
Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to feed on sea urchins, squid,
crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed.

Marine and terrestrial critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated at Sandy
Point on the western end of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (44 FR 17710). There is
no designated critical habitat in North Carolina.

4.1.2. Life History of Sea Turtle Species

Sea turtles are long-lived, slow-growing animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean
basins throughout their life history. This complex life history encompasses terrestrial, nearshore,
and open ocean habitats. The three basic ecosystems in which sea turtles live are the:

1. Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nesting beach where both oviposition (egg laying)
and embryonic development and hatching occur.

2. Neritic zone - the inshore marine environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where
water depths do not exceed 656 ft. The neritic zone generally includes the continental
shelf, but in areas where the continental shelf is very narrow or nonexistent, the neritic
zone conventionally extends to areas where water depths are less than 656 ft.

3. Oceanic zone - the vast open ocean environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where
water depths are greater than 656 ft.

Maximum intrinsic growth rates of sea turtles are limited by the extremely long duration of the
juvenile stage and fecundity. Sea turtles require high survival rates in the juvenile and adult
stages, common constraints critical to maintaining long-lived, slow-growing species, to achieve
positive or stable long-term population growth (Congdon et al. 1993; Heppell 1998; Crouse
1999; Heppell et al. 1999, 2003; Musick 1999).

Life history – Loggerhead Sea Turtle

Table 4-1 summarizes key life history characteristics for loggerheads nesting in the U.S.
Loggerheads are long-lived, slow-growing animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean
basins throughout their life history. This complex life history encompasses terrestrial (nesting
beaches), nearshore, and open ocean habitats. The loggerhead feeds on mollusks, crustaceans,
fish, and other marine animals. The species is found hundreds of miles offshore, and in near-
shore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large
rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and shipwrecks are often used as feeding areas.
11
Nesting

For the NWA Ocean DPS, most nesting activity occurs from April through September, with a
peak in June and July (Williams-Walls et al. 1983, Dodd 1988, Weishampel et al. 2006). Nesting
occurs along the coasts of North America, Central America, northern South America, the
Antilles, Bahamas, and Bermuda, but is concentrated in the southeastern United States and the
Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico (Sternberg 1981; Ehrhart 1989; Ehrhart et al. 2003; NMFS and
USFWS 2008).

Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand.
Females dig nests typically between the high-tide line and the dune front (Routa 1968, Hailman
and Elowson 1992). Wood and Bjorndal (2000) evaluated four environmental factors (slope,
temperature, moisture, and salinity) and found that slope had the greatest influence on
loggerhead nest-site selection on a beach in Florida. Loggerheads appear to prefer relatively
narrow, steeply sloped, coarse-grained beaches, although nearshore contours may also play a role
in nesting beach site selection (Provancha and Ehrhart 1987).

Numbers of nests and nesting females are often highly variable from year to year due to a
number of factors including environmental stochasticity, periodicity in ocean conditions,
anthropogenic effects, and density-dependent and density-independent factors affecting survival,
somatic growth, and reproduction (Meylan 1982; Hays 2000; Chaloupka 2001; Solow et al.
2002). Despite these sources of variation, and because female turtles exhibit strong nest-site
fidelity, a nesting beach survey of sufficient duration and standardized methods provides a
valuable indicator of changes in the adult female population (Meylan 1982; Gerrodette and
Brandon 2000; Reina et al. 2002).

Early Development

The warmer the sand surrounding the egg chamber, the faster the embryos develop (Mrosovsky
and Yntema 1980). Sand temperatures prevailing during the middle third of the incubation period
determine the sex of hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Incubation
temperatures near the upper end of the tolerable range produce only female hatchlings, while
incubation temperatures near the lower end of the tolerable range produce only male hatchlings.

Loggerhead hatchlings pip and escape from their eggs over a 1- to 3-day interval and move
upward and out of the nest over a 2- to 4-day interval (Christens 1990). The time from pipping to
emergence ranges from 4 to 7 days with an average of 4.1 days (Godfrey and Mrosovsky 1997).
Hatchlings emerge from their nests en masse almost exclusively at night, and presumably using
decreasing sand temperature as a cue (Hendrickson 1958; Mrosovsky 1968; Witherington et al.
1990). Moran et al. (1999) concluded that a lowering of sand temperatures below a critical
threshold, which most typically occurs after nightfall, is the most probable trigger for hatchling
emergence from a nest. After an initial emergence, there may be secondary emergences on
subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960, Ernest and Martin 1993, Houghton and Hays 2001).

Hatchlings use a progression of orientation cues to guide their movement from the nest to the
marine environments where they spend their early years (Lohmann and Lohmann 2003).
12
Hatchlings first use light cues to find the ocean. On naturally lighted beaches without artificial
lighting, ambient light from the open sky creates a relatively bright horizon compared to the dark
silhouette of the dune and vegetation landward of the nest. This contrast guides the hatchlings to
the ocean (Limpus 1971; Salmon et al. 1992; Witherington and Martin 1996; Witherington 1997;
Stewart and Wyneken 2004).

Life history - Green Sea Turtle

Green sea turtles deposit from one to nine clutches within a nesting season, but the overall
average is about 3.3 nests. The interval between nesting events within a season varies around a
mean of about 13 days (Hirth 1997). Mean clutch size varies widely among populations. Clutch
size varies from 75 to 200 eggs with incubation requiring 48 to 70 days, depending on incubation
temperatures. Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. Usually two
or more years intervene between breeding seasons (NMFS and Service 1991). Age at sexual
maturity is believed to be 20 to 50 years (Hirth 1997).

Life history – Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

Nesting occurs primarily from April into July. Nesting often occurs in synchronized
emergences, known as “arribadas” or “arribazones,” which may be triggered by high wind
speeds, especially north winds, and changes in barometric pressure (Jimenez et al. 2005).
Nesting occurs primarily during daylight hours. Clutch size averages 100 eggs and eggs
typically take 45 to 58 days to hatch depending on incubation conditions, especially temperatures
(Marquez-Millan 1994; Rostal 2007).

Females lay an average of 2.5 clutches within a season (TEWG 1998) and inter-nesting interval
generally ranges from 14 to 28 days (Miller 1997; Donna Shaver, Padre Island National
Seashore, pers. comm., 2007 as cited in NMFS et al. 2011). Juvenile Kemp’s ridleys spend on
average 2 years in the oceanic zone (NMFS SEFSC unpublished preliminary analysis, July 2004,
as cited in NMFS et al. 2011) where they likely live and feed among floating algal communities.
They remain here until they reach about 7.9 in in length (approximately 2 years of age), at which
size they enter coastal shallow water habitats (Ogren 1989); however, the time spent in the
oceanic zone may vary from 1 to 4 years or perhaps more (Turtle Expert Working Group
(TEWG) 2000; Baker and Higgins 2003; Dodge et al. 2003). The mean remigration interval for
adult females is 2 years, although intervals of 1 and 3 years are not uncommon (Marquez et al.
1982; TEWG 1998; 2000). Males may not be reproductively active on an annual basis (Wibbels
et al. 1991). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be between 10 to 17 years (Snover et al.
2007).

Life history – Leatherback Sea Turtle

Leatherbacks nest an average of five to seven times within a nesting season, with an observed
maximum of 11 nests (NMFS and USFWS 1992). The interval between nesting events within a
season is about 9 to 10 days. Clutch size averages 80 to 85 yolked eggs, with the addition of
usually a few dozen smaller, yolkless eggs, mostly laid toward the end of the clutch (Pritchard
1992). Nesting migration intervals of 2 to 3 years were observed in leatherbacks nesting on the
13
Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (McDonald and Dutton
1996). Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 13 to 16 years (Dutton et al. 2005;
Jones et al. 2011).

Leatherback turtle nesting grounds are distributed worldwide in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian
Oceans on beaches in the tropics and subtropics. The Pacific Coast of Mexico historically
supported the world’s largest known concentration of nesting leatherbacks. The leatherback
turtle regularly nests in the U.S. Caribbean in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Along the
U.S. Atlantic coast, most nesting occurs in Florida (NMFS and USFWS 1992). Nesting has also
been reported in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Rabon et al. 2003) and in Texas
(Shaver 2008). Adult females require sandy nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped
sufficiently so the distance to dry sand is limited. Their preferred beaches have proximity to
deep water and generally rough seas.

4.1.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution – Loggerhead Sea Turtle

The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian Oceans (Dodd 1988). However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at the western rims
of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The most recent reviews show that only two loggerhead
nesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year (Baldwin et al. 2003; Ehrhart
et al. 2003; Kamezaki et al. 2003; Limpus and Limpus 2003; Margaritoulis et al. 2003): South
Florida (U.S.) and Masirah (Oman). Those beaches with 1,000 to 9,999 females nesting each
year are Georgia through North Carolina (U.S.), Quintana Roo and Yucatán (Mexico), Cape
Verde Islands (Cape Verde, eastern Atlantic off Africa), and Western Australia.

The major nesting concentrations in the U.S. are found in South Florida. However, loggerheads
nest from Texas to Virginia. Since 2000, the annual number of loggerhead nests in NC has
fluctuated between 333 in 2004 to 1,622 in 2016 (Godfrey, unpublished data; www.seaturtle.org
(accessed August 30, 2018). Total estimated nesting in Florida, where 90 percent of nesting
occurs, has fluctuated between 52,374 and 122,707 nests per year from 2009-2016 (FWC 2018;
http://myfwc.com/media/4326434/loggerheadnestingdata12-16.pdf). Adult loggerheads are
known to make considerable migrations between foraging areas and nesting beaches (Schroeder
et al. 2003; Foley et al. 2008). During non-nesting years, adult females from U.S. beaches are
distributed in waters off the eastern U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Greater
Antilles, and Yucatán.

Range-wide Trend: Five recovery units have been identified in the Northwest Atlantic based on
genetic differences and a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic
separation, and geopolitical boundaries (NMFS and Service 2008). Recovery units are subunits
of a listed species that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery
of the species. Recovery units are individually necessary to conserve genetic robustness,
demographic robustness, important life history stages, or some other feature necessary for long-
term sustainability of the species. Within the U.S., four terrestrial recovery units have been
designated for the NWA Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle: the Northern Recovery Unit
14
(NRU), Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU), Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU), and
Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU). North Carolina is located within the NRU,
which is defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida-Georgia
border through southern Virginia (the northern extent of the nesting range). The mtDNA
analyses show that there is limited exchange of females among recovery units (Ehrhart 1989;
Foote et al. 2000; NMFS 2001; Hawkes et al. 2005). Male-mediated gene flow appears to be
keeping the subpopulations genetically similar on a nuclear DNA level (Francisco-Pearce 2001).

Historically, the literature has suggested that the northern U.S. nesting beaches produce a
relatively high percentage of males and the more southern nesting beaches produce a relatively
high percentage of females (e.g., Hanson et al. 1998; NMFS 2001; Mrosovsky and Provancha
1989). The NRU and the NGMRU were believed to play an important role in providing males to
mate with females from the more female-dominated subpopulations to the south. However, in
2002 and 2003, researchers studied loggerhead sex ratios for two of the U.S. nesting
subpopulations, the northern and southern subpopulations (Blair 2005; Wyneken et al. 2005).
The study produced interesting results. In 2002, the northern beaches produced more females
and the southern beaches produced more males than previously believed. However, the opposite
was true in 2003 with the northern beaches producing more males and the southern beaches
producing more females in keeping with prior literature. Wyneken et al. (2005) speculated that
the 2002 result may have been anomalous; however, the study did point out the potential for
males to be produced on the southern beaches. Although this study revealed that more males
may be produced on southern recovery unit beaches than previously believed, the Service
maintains that the NRU and the NGMRU play an important role in the production of males to
mate with females from the more southern recovery units.

The NRU is the second largest loggerhead recovery unit within the NWA Ocean DPS. Annual
nest totals from northern beaches averaged 5446 nests from 2006 to 2011, representing
approximately 1,328 nesting females per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984)
(NMFS and Service 2008). Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has
experienced a long-term decline (NMFS and Service 2008). Currently, however, nesting for the
NRU is showing possible signs of stabilizing (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011).

Recovery Criteria for the NRU (only the Demographic Recovery Criteria are presented below;
for the Listing Factor Recovery Criteria, see NMFS and Service 2008)

1. Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Females
a. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time of 50 years is 2 percent or greater resulting in a total
annual number of nests of 14,000 or greater for this recovery unit
(approximate distribution of nests is North Carolina =14 percent [2,000 nests],
South Carolina = 66 percent [9,200 nests], and Georgia = 20 percent [2,800
nests]); and
b. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases
in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
remigration interval).

15
2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds
A network of in-water sites, both oceanic and neritic across the foraging range is
established and monitoring is implemented to measure abundance. There is statistical
confidence (95 percent) that a composite estimate of relative abundance from these
sites is increasing for at least one generation.

3. Trends in Neritic Strandings Relative to In-water Abundance
Stranding trends are not increasing at a rate greater than the trends in in-water relative
abundance for similar age classes for at least one generation.

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution - Green Sea Turtle

There are an estimated 150,000 green sea turtle females that nest each year in 46 sites throughout
the world (NMFS and Service 2007). Within the U.S., green turtles nest in small numbers in the
U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida,
particularly in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties
(NMFS and Service 1991). Nests have been documented, in smaller numbers, north of these
counties in Florida, as well as in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and as far north as
Delaware in 2011. Years of coordinated conservation efforts, including protection of nesting
beaches, reduction of bycatch in fisheries, and prohibitions on the direct harvest of sea turtles,
have led to increasing numbers of turtles nesting in Florida and along the Pacific coast of
Mexico. On April 6, 2016, NMFS and the Service reclassified the status of the two segments
that include those breeding populations (North Atlantic Ocean DPS and East Pacific Ocean DPS)
from endangered to threatened (81 FR 20058). In North Carolina, between 4 and 44 green sea
turtle nests are laid annually (Godfrey, unpublished data). In the U.S. Pacific, over 90 percent of
nesting throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the French Frigate Shoals, where about
200 to 700 females nest each year (NMFS and Service 1998). Elsewhere in the U.S. Pacific,
nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam,
and American Samoa. In the western Pacific, the largest green turtle nesting aggregation in the
world occurs on Raine Island, Australia, where thousands of females nest nightly in an average
nesting season (Limpus et al. 1993). In the Indian Ocean, major nesting beaches occur in Oman
where 30,000 females are reported to nest annually (Ross and Barwani 1995).

Range-wide Trend: Eleven DPSs have been listed for the green sea turtle (81FR20058). Three
of the DPSs are listed as endangered, while eight are listed as threatened, including the North
Atlantic Ocean DPS, which is included in the Action Area. The range of the DPS extends from
the boundary of South and Central America, north along the coast to include Panama, Costa
Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize, Mexico, and the United States, then due east across the
Atlantic Ocean to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania on the African continent. It then extends
west to the Caribbean basin, then due south and west to the boundary of South and Central
America. It includes Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos Islands, Republic of
Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS includes the
Florida breeding population, which was originally listed as endangered under the ESA (43 FR
32800, July 28, 1978).

16
The North Atlantic Ocean DPS currently exhibits high nesting abundance, with an estimated
total nester abundance of 167,424 females at 73 nesting sites. More than 100,000 females nest at
Tortuguero, Costa Rica, and more than 10,000 females nest at Quintana Roo, Mexico. Nesting
data indicate long-term increases at all major nesting sites. There is little genetic substructure
within the DPS, and turtles from multiple nesting beaches share common foraging areas. Nesting
is geographically widespread and occurs at a diversity of mainland and insular sites (81 FR
20058). Annual nest totals documented as part of the Florida SNBS program from 1989-2010
have ranged from 435 nests laid in 1993 to 13,225 in 2010. Nesting occurs in 26 counties with a
peak along the east coast, from Volusia through Broward Counties. Green sea turtle nesting in
Florida is increasing based on 22 years (1989-2010) of INBS data from throughout the state
(FWC/FWRI 2010b). The increase in nesting in Florida is likely a result of several factors,
including: (1) a Florida statute enacted in the early 1970s that prohibited the killing of green
turtles in Florida; (2) the species listing under the ESA afforded complete protection to eggs,
juveniles, and adults in all U.S. waters; (3) the passage of Florida's constitutional net ban
amendment in 1994 and its subsequent enactment, making it illegal to use any gillnets or other
entangling nets in State waters; (4) the likelihood that the majority of Florida green turtles reside
within Florida waters where they are fully protected; (5) the protections afforded Florida green
turtles while they inhabit the waters of other nations that have enacted strong sea turtle
conservation measures (e.g., Bermuda); and (6) the listing of the species on Appendix I of
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),
which stopped international trade and reduced incentives for illegal trade from the U.S (NMFS
and Service 2007a).

Recovery Criteria

The U.S. Atlantic population of green sea turtles 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. Nesting data must be based on standardized surveys;
2. At least 25 percent (65 mi) of all available nesting beaches (260 mi) 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 identified in the recovery plan have been successfully
implemented.

The Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle was signed in 1991 (NMFS and
Service 1991), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green
Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and Service 1998).

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution – Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle

The Kemp’s ridley has a restricted distribution. Most Kemp’s ridleys nest on the beaches of the
western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Nesting also occurs in Veracruz and
Campeche, Mexico, although a small number of Kemp’s ridleys nest consistently along the
17
Texas coast (NMFS et al. 2011). In addition, rare nesting events have been reported in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Historical information indicates that tens
of thousands of ridleys nested near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, during the late 1940s (Hildebrand
1963). The Kemp's ridley population experienced a devastating decline between the late 1940s
and the mid-1980s. The total number of nests per nesting season at Rancho Nuevo remained
below 1,000 throughout the 1980s, but gradually began to increase in the 1990s. In 2009, 16,273
nests were documented along the 18.6 mi of coastline patrolled at Rancho Nuevo, and the total
number of nests documented for all the monitored beaches in Mexico was 21,144 (USFWS
2010). In 2011, a total of 20,570 nests were documented in Mexico, 81 percent of these nests
were documented in the Rancho Nuevo beach (Burchfield and Peña 2011). In addition, 153 and
199 nests were recorded during 2010 and 2011, respectively, in the U.S., primarily in Texas.
Between 2009 and 2017 in North Carolina, there were typically one or two Kemp’s ridley nests
each year, and there were four in 2016.

Today, under strict protection, the population appears to be in the early stages of recovery. The
recent nesting increase can be attributed to full protection of nesting females and their nests in
Mexico resulting from a bi-national effort between Mexico and the U.S. to prevent the extinction
of the Kemp’s ridley, and the requirement to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp
trawls both in the U.S. and Mexico.

The Mexico government also prohibits harvesting and is working to increase the population
through more intensive law enforcement, by fencing nest areas to diminish natural predation, and
by relocating most nests into corrals to prevent poaching and predation. While relocation of
nests into corrals is currently a necessary management measure, this relocation and concentration
of eggs into a “safe” area is of concern since it can reduce egg viability.

Recovery Criteria (only the Demographic Recovery Criteria are presented below; for the Listing
Factor Recovery Criteria, see NMFS et al. 2011)

The current recovery goal is for the species to be reduced from endangered to threatened status.
The Recovery Team members feel that the criteria for a complete removal of this species from
the endangered species list need not be considered now, but rather left for future revisions of the
plan. Complete removal from the federal list would certainly necessitate that some other
instrument of protection, similar to the MMPA, be in place and be international in scope.
Kemp’s ridley can be considered for reclassification to threatened status when the following four
criteria are met:

1. Continuation of complete and active protection of the known nesting habitat and the
waters adjacent to the nesting beach (concentrating on the Rancho Nuevo area) and
continuation of the bi-national protection project;
2. Elimination of mortality from incidental catch in commercial shrimping in the U.S.
and Mexico through the use of TEDs and achievement of full compliance with the
regulations requiring TED use;
3. Attainment of a population of at least 10,000 females nesting in a season; and
4. Successful implementation of all priority one recovery tasks in the recovery plan.

18
The Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle was signed in 1992 (USFWS and NMFS
1992). Significant new information on the biology and population status of Kemp’s ridley has
become available since 1992. Consequently, a full revision of the recovery plan has been
completed by the Service and NMFS. The Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley
Sea turtle (2011) provides updated species biology and population status information, objective
and measurable recovery criteria, and updated and prioritized recovery actions.

Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution – Leatherback Sea Turtle

A dramatic drop in nesting numbers has been recorded on major nesting beaches in the Pacific.
Spotila et al. (2000) have highlighted the dramatic decline and possible future extirpation of
leatherbacks in the Pacific.

The East Pacific and Malaysia leatherback populations have collapsed. Spotila et al. (1996)
estimated that only 34,500 females nested annually worldwide in 1995, which is a dramatic
decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980 (Pritchard 1982). In the eastern Pacific, the major
nesting beaches occur in Costa Rica and Mexico. At Playa Grande, Costa Rica, considered the
most important nesting beach in the eastern Pacific, numbers have dropped from 1,367
leatherbacks in 1988-1989 to an average of 188 females nesting between 2000-2001 and 2003-
2004. In Pacific Mexico, 1982 aerial surveys of adult female leatherbacks indicated this area had
become the most important leatherback nesting beach in the world. Tens of thousands of nests
were laid on the beaches in 1980s, but during the 2003-2004 seasons a total of 120 nests were
recorded. In the western Pacific, the major nesting beaches lie in Papua New Guinea, Papua,
Indonesia, and the Solomon Islands. These are some of the last remaining significant nesting
assemblages in the Pacific. Compiled nesting data estimated approximately 5,000 to 9,200 nests
annually with 75 percent of the nests being laid in Papua, Indonesia.

However, the most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic alone is a range of
34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). During recent years in Florida, the total
number of leatherback nests counted as part of the SNBS program ranged from 540 to 1,797
from 2006-2010 (FWC/FWRI 2010a). Assuming a clutch frequency (number of
nests/female/season) of 4.2 in Florida (Stewart 2007), these nests were produced by a range of
128 to 428 females in a given year. Nesting in North Carolina is sporadic. In 2010, two nests
were reported in North Carolina, five were reported in 2012, and none were reported in 2013-
2015. In North Carolina between the year 2000 and 2013, as many as 9 nests were laid per year
(Godfrey, unpublished data).

Range-wide Trend: Pritchard (1982) estimated 115,000 nesting females worldwide, of which 60
percent nested along the Pacific coast of Mexico. Declines in leatherback nesting have occurred
over the last two decades along the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica. The Mexican
leatherback nesting population, once considered to be the world’s largest leatherback nesting
population (historically estimated to be 65 percent of the worldwide population), is now less than
1 percent of its estimated size in 1980. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated the number of leatherback
sea turtles nesting on 28 beaches throughout the world from the literature and from
communications with investigators studying those beaches. The estimated worldwide population
of leatherbacks in 1995 was about 34,500 females on these beaches with a lower limit of about
19
26,200, and an upper limit of about 42,900. This is less than one-third the 1980 estimate of
115,000. Leatherbacks are rare in the Indian Ocean and in very low numbers in the western
Pacific Ocean. The most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic is a range of
34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). The largest population is in the western
Atlantic. Using an age-based demographic model, Spotila et al. (1996) determined that
leatherback populations in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific Ocean cannot withstand even
moderate levels of adult mortality and that the Atlantic populations are being exploited at a rate
that cannot be sustained. They concluded that leatherbacks are on the road to extinction and
further population declines can be expected unless action is taken to reduce adult mortality and
increase survival of eggs and hatchlings.

Recovery Criteria

The U.S. Atlantic population of leatherbacks can be considered for delisting if the following
conditions are met:

1. The adult female population increases over the next 25 years, as evidenced by a
statistically significant trend in the number of nests at Culebra, Puerto Rico, St.
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and along the east coast of Florida;
2. Nesting habitat encompassing at least 75 percent of nesting activity in U.S. Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida is in public ownership; and
3. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully
implemented.

4.1.4. Conservation Needs and Threats for Sea Turtle Species

Reason for Listing: All sea turtle species are listed for similar reasons. There are many threats to
sea turtles, including nest destruction from natural events, such as tidal surges and hurricanes, or
eggs lost to predation by raccoons, foxes, ghost-crabs, and other animals. However, human
activity has significantly contributed to the decline of sea turtle populations along the Atlantic
Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico (NRC 1990). These factors include the modification,
degradation, or loss of nesting habitat by coastal development, artificial lighting, beach driving,
and marine pollution and debris. Furthermore, the overharvest of eggs for food, intentional
killing of adults and immature turtles for their shells and skin, and accidental drowning in
commercial fishing gear are primarily responsible for the worldwide decline in sea turtle
populations.

Barrier islands and inlets are complex and dynamic coastal systems that are continually
responding to sediment supply, waves, and fluctuations in sea level. The location and shape of
the beaches of barrier islands perpetually adjusts to these physical forces. Waves that strike a
barrier island at an angle, for instance, generate a longshore current that carries sediment along
the shoreline. Cross-shore currents carry sediment perpendicular to the shoreline. Wind moves
sediment across the dry beach, dunes, and island interior. During storm events, overwash may
breach the island at dune gaps or other weak spots, depositing sediments on the interior and back
sides of islands, increasing island elevation and accreting the soundside shoreline.

20
Tidal inlets play a vital role in the dynamics and processes of barrier islands. Sediment is
transferred across inlets from island to island via the tidal shoals or deltas. The longshore
sediment transport often causes barrier spits to accrete, shifting inlets towards the neighboring
island. Flood tidal shoals that are left behind by the migrating inlet are typically incorporated
into the soundside shoreline and marshes of the island, widening it considerably. Many inlets
have a cycle of inlet migration, breaching of the barrier spit during a storm, and closure of the
old inlet with the new breach becoming the new inlet. Barrier spits tend to be low in elevation,
sparse in vegetation, and repeatedly submerged by high and storm tides.

Threats to Sea Turtle Species

Coastal Development

Loss of sea turtle nesting habitat related to coastal development has had the greatest impact on
nesting sea turtles. Beachfront development not only causes the loss of suitable nesting habitat,
but can result in the disruption of powerful coastal processes accelerating erosion and
interrupting the natural shoreline migration (NRC 1990b). This may in turn cause the need to
protect upland structures and infrastructure by armoring, groin placement, beach emergency
berm construction and repair, and beach nourishment, all of which cause changes in, additional
loss of, or impact to the remaining sea turtle habitat.

Hurricanes and Storms

Hurricanes and other large storms were probably responsible for maintaining coastal beach
habitat upon which sea turtles depend through repeated cycles of destruction, alteration, and
recovery of beach and dune habitat. Hurricanes and large storms generally produce damaging
winds, storm tides and surges, and rain, which can result in severe erosion of the beach and dune
systems. Overwash and blowouts are common on barrier islands.

Hurricanes and other storms can result in the direct loss of sea turtle nests, either by erosion or
washing away of the nests by wave action and inundation or “drowning” of the eggs or pre-
emergent hatchlings within the nest, or indirectly by causing the loss of nesting habitat.
Depending on their frequency, storms can affect sea turtles on either a short-term basis (nests lost
for one season and/or temporary loss of nesting habitat) or long term, if frequent (habitat unable
to recover). The manner in which hurricanes affect sea turtle nesting also depends on their
characteristics (winds, storm surge, rainfall), the time of year (within or outside of the nesting
season), and where the northeast edge of the hurricane crosses land.

Because of the limited remaining nesting habitat in a natural state with no immediate
development landward of the sandy beach, frequent or successive severe weather events could
threaten the ability of certain sea turtle populations to survive and recover. Sea turtles evolved
under natural coastal environmental events such as hurricanes. The extensive amount of
predevelopment coastal beach and dune habitat allowed sea turtles to survive even the most
severe hurricane events. It is only within the last 20 to 30 years that the combination of habitat
loss to beachfront development and destruction of remaining habitat by hurricanes has increased
the threat to sea turtle survival and recovery. On developed beaches, typically little space
21
remains for sandy beaches to become reestablished after periodic storms. While the beach itself
moves landward during such storms, reconstruction or persistence of structures at their pre-storm
locations can result in a loss of nesting habitat.

Erosion

A critically eroded area is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activity have
caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that
upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are
threatened or lost. It is important to note that for an erosion problem area to be critical there
must be an existing threat to or loss of one of four specific interests – upland development,
recreation, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources.

Beachfront Lighting

Artificial lights along a beach can deter females from coming ashore to nest or misdirect females
trying to return to the surf after a nesting event. A significant reduction in sea turtle nesting
activity has been documented on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992).
Artificial beachfront lighting may also cause disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation
(incorrect orientation) of sea turtle hatchlings (Philibosian 1976; Mann 1977; Witherington and
Martin 1996). Visual signs are the primary sea-finding mechanism for hatchlings (Mrosovsky
and Carr 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968; Dickerson and Nelson 1989; Witherington
and Bjorndal 1991). The emergence from the nest and crawl to the sea is one of the most critical
periods of a sea turtle’s life. Hatchlings that do not make it to the sea quickly become food for
ghost crabs, birds, and other predators, or become dehydrated and may never reach the sea. In
addition, research has documented significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity on beaches
illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). During the 2010 sea turtle nesting season
in Florida, over 47,000 turtle hatchlings were documented as being disoriented (FWC/FWRI
2011).

Predation

Predation of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by native and introduced species occurs on almost all
nesting beaches. Predation by a variety of predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest
hatching success. The most common predators in the southeastern U.S. are ghost crabs
(Ocypode quadrata), raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans), armadillos (Dasypus
novemcinctus), and fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) (Dodd 1988; Stancyk 1995). In the absence of
nest protection programs in a number of locations throughout the southeast U.S., raccoons may
depredate up to 96 percent of all nests deposited on a beach (Davis and Whiting 1977; Hopkins
and Murphy 1980; Stancyk et al. 1980; Talbert et al. 1980; Schroeder 1981; Labisky et al. 1986).

Beach Driving

The operation of motor vehicles on the beach affects sea turtle nesting by interrupting or striking
a female turtle on the beach, headlights disorienting or misorienting emergent hatchlings,
22
vehicles running over hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle tracks traversing the
beach that interfere with hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Hatchlings appear to become diverted
not because they cannot physically climb out of the rut (Hughes and Caine 1994), but because
the sides of the track cast a shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon
(Mann 1977). The extended period of travel required to negotiate tire tracks and ruts may
increase the susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the
ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Driving on the beach can cause sand compaction which may result in
adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by
hatchlings, decreasing nest success and directly killing pre-emergent hatchlings (Mann 1977;
Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988).

The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on dunes can lead to various
degrees of instability, and therefore encourage dune migration. As vehicles move either up or
down a slope, sand is displaced downward, lowering the trail. Since the vehicles also inhibit
plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, dunes may become unstable, and begin to
migrate. Unvegetated sand dunes may continue to migrate across stable areas as long as vehicle
traffic continues. Vehicular traffic through dune breaches or low dunes on an eroding beach may
cause an accelerated rate of overwash and beach erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). If driving is
required, the area where the least amount of impact occurs is the beach between the low and high
tide water lines. Vegetation on the dunes can quickly reestablish provided the mechanical
impact is removed.

Climate Change

The varying and dynamic elements of climate science are inherently long term, complex, and
interrelated. Regardless of the underlying causes of climate change, glacial melting and
expansion of warming oceans are causing sea level rise, although its extent or rate cannot as yet
be predicted with certainty. At present, the science is not exact enough to precisely predict when
and where climate impacts will occur. Although we may know the direction of change, it may
not be possible to predict its precise timing or magnitude. These impacts may take place
gradually or episodically in major leaps.
Climate change is evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC Report (2007a)
describes changes in natural ecosystems with potential widespread effects on many organisms,
including marine mammals and migratory birds. The potential for rapid climate change poses a
significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation. Species’ abundance and distribution are
dynamic, relative to a variety of factors, including climate. As climate changes, the abundance
and distribution of fish and wildlife will also change. Highly specialized or endemic species are
likely to be most susceptible to the stresses of changing climate. Based on these findings and
other similar studies, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) requires agencies under its
direction to consider potential climate change effects as part of their long-range planning
activities (USFWS 2007).

In the southeastern U.S., climatic change could amplify current land management challenges
involving habitat fragmentation, urbanization, invasive species, disease, parasites, and water
23
management. Global warming will be a particular challenge for endangered, threatened, and
other “at risk” species. It is difficult to estimate, with any degree of precision, which species will
be affected by climate change or exactly how they will be affected. The Service will use
Strategic Habitat Conservation planning, an adaptive science-driven process that begins with
explicit trust resource population objectives, as the framework for adjusting our management
strategies in response to climate change (USFWS 2006). As the level of information increases
relative to the effects of global climate change on sea turtles and their designated critical habitat,
the Service will have a better basis to address the nature and magnitude of this potential threat
and will more effectively evaluate these effects to the range-wide status of sea turtles.

Temperatures are predicted to rise from 1.6°F to 9°F for North America by the end of this
century (IPCC 2007a, b). Alterations of thermal sand characteristics could result in highly
female-biased sex ratios because sea turtles exhibit temperature dependent sex determination
(e.g., Glen and Mrosovsky 2004; Hawkes et al. 2008).

Along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where shoreline protection structures have
been constructed to limit shoreline movement, rising sea levels will cause severe effects on
nesting females and their eggs. Erosion control structures can result in the permanent loss of dry
nesting beach or deter nesting females from reaching suitable nesting sites (NRC 1990a).
Nesting females may deposit eggs seaward of the erosion control structures potentially
subjecting them to repeated tidal inundation or washout by waves and tidal action.

Based on the present level of available information concerning the effects of global climate
change on the status of sea turtles and their designated critical habitat, the Service acknowledges
the potential for changes to occur in the Action Area, but presently has no basis to evaluate if or
how these changes are affecting sea turtles or their designated critical habitat. Nor does our
present knowledge allow the Service to project what the future effects from global climate
change may be or the magnitude of these potential effects.
Recreational Beach Use

Human presence on or adjacent to the beach at night during the nesting season, particularly
recreational activities, can reduce the quality of nesting habitat by deterring or disturbing and
causing nesting turtles to avoid otherwise suitable habitat. In addition, human foot traffic can
make a beach less suitable for nesting and hatchling emergence by increasing sand compaction
and creating obstacles to hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). The use
and storage of lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, catamarans, and other types of recreational
equipment on the beach at night can also make otherwise suitable nesting habitat unsuitable by
hampering or deterring nesting by adult females and trapping or impeding hatchlings during their
nest to sea migration. The documentation of non-nesting emergences (also referred to as false
crawls) at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more recreational beach
equipment is left on the beach at night. Sobel (2002) describes nesting turtles being deterred by
wooden lounge chairs that prevented access to the upper beach. In 2018, a dead female Kemp’s
ridley sea turtle washed up Near Fort Morgan Alabama, entangled in a beach chair (USA Today
2018).

24
Sand Placement

Sand placement projects may result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear
resistance (hardness), beach moisture content, beach slope, sand color, sand grain size, sand
grain shape, and sand grain mineral content if the placed sand is dissimilar from the original
beach sand (Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). These changes could result in adverse impacts on sea
turtle nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Nelson and
Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988).

Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea turtles
nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered profile (and
perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999; Trindell 2005).
Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities
could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Sand compaction may
increase the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased
physiological stress to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). The placement of rocky
material may have similar effects. These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand.

A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of sea
turtle nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable
sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural
beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun
would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing
and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season.

During project construction, predators of eggs and nestlings may be attracted to the Action Area
due to food waste from the construction crew.

Sand fencing

Sand fencing captures windblown sand, bolstering dunes and altering the beach profile (Rice
2017). When fences are installed seaward of houses, the sand fencing displaces the dune crest
farther seaward than would naturally occur (Nordstrom and McCluskey 1985). The installation
of sand fencing in overwash areas hastens the conversion of these flat, bare areas to elevated,
vegetated dune habitat. Sand fencing may impede the movement of sea turtles. Between 2012
and early 2016, 62.69 mi (19%) of sandy beach habitat in North Carolina was modified by sand
fencing.

In-water and Shoreline Alterations

Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts are stabilized with jetties or groins. Jetties are built perpendicular to the shoreline and
extend through the entire nearshore zone and past the breaker zone to prevent or decrease sand
deposition in the channel (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). Groins are also shore-perpendicular
structures designed to trap sand that would otherwise be transported by longshore currents.
These in-water structures can cause downdrift erosion and cause profound effects on adjacent
25
beaches (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). Jetties and groins placed to stabilize a beach or inlet
prevent normal sand transport, resulting in accretion of sand on updrift beaches and acceleration
of beach erosion downdrift of the structures (Komar 1983; Pilkey et al. 1984). Witherington et
al. (2005) found a significant relationship between loggerhead nesting density and distance from
the nearest of 17 ocean inlets on the Atlantic coast of Florida. The effect of inlets in lowering
nesting density was observed both updrift and downdrift of the inlets, leading researchers to
propose that beach instability from both erosion and accretion may discourage sea turtle nesting.
Following construction, the presence of groins and jetties may interfere with nesting turtle access
to the beach, result in a change in beach profile and width (downdrift erosion, loss of sandy
berms, and escarpment formation), trap hatchlings, and concentrate predatory fishes, resulting in
higher probabilities of hatchling predation. In addition to decreasing nesting habitat suitability,
construction or repair of groins and jetties during the nesting season may result in the destruction
of nests, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation of emerging hatchlings
from project lighting.

26
4.1.5. Tables

Table 4-1. Typical values of life history parameters for loggerheads nesting in the U.S. (NMFS
and Service 2008).
Life History Trait Data
Clutch size (mean) 100-126 eggs1
Incubation duration (varies depending on time of year and
latitude) Range = 42-75 days2,3
Pivotal temperature (incubation temperature that produces an
equal number of males and females) 84˚F5
Nest productivity (emerged hatchlings/total eggs) x 100
(varies depending on site specific factors) 45-70 percent2,6
Clutch frequency (number of nests/female/season) 3-4 nests7
Internesting interval (number of days between successive
nests within a season) 12-15 days8
Juvenile (<34 in Curved Carapace Length) sex ratio 65-70 percent female4
Remigration interval (number of years between successive
nesting migrations) 2.5-3.7 years9
Nesting season late April-early September
Hatching season late June-early November
Age at sexual maturity 32-35 years10
Life span >57 years11
1 Dodd (1988).
2 Dodd and Mackinnon (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004).
3 Witherington (2006) (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in
2005, n = 865).
4 NMFS (2001); Foley (2005).
5 Mrosovsky (1988).
6 Witherington (2006) (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in
2005, n = 1,680).
7 Murphy and Hopkins (1984); Frazer and Richardson (1985); Hawkes et al. 2005; Scott 2006.
8 Caldwell (1962), Dodd (1988).
9 Richardson et al. (1978); Bjorndal et al. (1983).
10 Snover (2005).
11 Dahlen et al. (2000).

27
4.2. Environmental Baseline for Sea Turtle Species

This section describes the best available data about the condition of all sea turtle species in the
Action Area without the consequences caused by the proposed Action.

4.2.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution

See Table 4-2 for data on observed sea turtle nests in the Action Area. Data was provided from
the EA. Leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green and loggerhead sea turtles have been documented
nesting along the Northern Outer Banks. Between 2015 and 2020, only Kemp's ridley and
loggerhead sea turtle nests were documented nesting within the project area. One green sea
turtle nested in the Northern Outer Banks (southern boundary of Nags Head north to the Virginia
line) in each year from 2013-2016 and again in 2020 (www.seaturtle.org, accessed July 6, 2021).
One leatherback sea turtle was documented as nesting in the Northern Outer banks in 2009
(www.seaturtle.org, accessed July 6, 2021).

The loggerhead sea turtle nesting and hatching season for North Carolina beaches extends from
May 1 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days. The green sea turtle
nesting and hatching season on North Carolina beaches extends from May 15 through November
15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days. The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nesting and
hatchling season on North Carolina beaches appears to be similar to other species. Incubation
ranges from 45 to 58 days. The leatherback sea turtle nesting and hatching season on North
Carolina Beaches extends from April 15 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about
55 to 75 days.

4.2.2. Action Area Conservation Needs and Threats

The geographic area associated with the towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill
Devil Hills was occupied by native Americans (likely Algonquin-speaking tribes) prior to the
arrival of Europeans in the 1500s. The area remained at a relatively low level of development
until the early 1900s, when the Wright Brothers’ famous flight made household names of Kitty
Hawk and Kill Devil Hills (https://www.kitty-hawk.com/history.html, accessed July 8, 2021).
The construction of the Wright Memorial Bridge in the 1930s allowed easy travel to this area of
the North Carolina Outer Banks, and development steadily increased from the mid-1900’s
onward (https://www.kitty-hawk.com/history.html; https://www.killdevilhills.com/history.html;
https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/gallery/history/, accessed July 8, 2021). Located farthest
from the mainland, Duck was the last town of the four to be developed and incorporated
(https://www.townofduck.com/history-duck-nc/, accessed July 8, 2021). Today, most of the
beach shoreline in all four towns is highly developed with businesses, hotels, and/or residences.
Recreational use in the Action Area is quite high from residents and tourists, including vehicular
driving in the winter months.

A number of recent and on-going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed Action
Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along
the coastline for the near future. See section 4.1.4 for discussion of the impacts of these
activities. Table 4-3 lists BOs issued for projects in Dare County since 2011 for adverse impacts
28
to sea turtle species. The total take of sea turtle habitat issued in these BOs is 168,319 lf (31.88
mi). All of the projects listed in Table 4-3 were conducted during the sea turtle nesting season.

Nourishment activities: According to the BA, the Action Area has been nourished once in the
past 10 years.

Some individuals in a population are more “valuable” than others in terms of the number of
offspring they are expected to produce. An individual’s potential for contributing offspring to
future generations is its reproductive value. Because of delayed sexual maturity, reproductive
longevity, and low survivorship in early life stages, nesting females are of high value to a
population. The loss of a nesting female in a small recovery unit would represent a significant
loss to the recovery unit. The reproductive value for a nesting female has been estimated to be
approximately 253 times greater than an egg or a hatchling (NMFS and USFWS 2008).
With regard to indirect loss of eggs and hatchlings, on most beaches, nesting success typically
declines for the first year or two following sand placement, even though more nesting habitat is
available for turtles (Trindell et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Herren 1999). Reduced
nesting success on constructed beaches has been attributed to increased sand compaction,
escarpment formation, and changes in beach profile (Nelson et al. 1987; Crain et al. 1995;
Lutcavage et al. 1997; Steinitz et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Rumbold et al. 2001). In
addition, even though constructed beaches are wider, nests deposited there may experience
higher rates of wash out than those on relatively narrow, steeply sloped beaches (Ernest and
Martin 1999). This occurs because nests on constructed beaches are more broadly distributed
than those on natural beaches, where they tend to be clustered near the base of the dune. Nests
laid closest to the waterline on constructed beaches may be lost during the first year or two
following construction as the beach undergoes an equilibration process during which seaward
portions of the beach are lost to erosion. As a result, the project may be anticipated to result in
decreased nesting and loss of nests that are laid within the Action Area for two subsequent
nesting seasons following the completion of the proposed sand placement. However, it is
unknown whether nests that would have been laid in an Action Area during the two subsequent
nesting seasons had the project not occurred are actually lost from the population, or if nesting is
simply displaced to adjacent beaches. Regardless, eggs and hatchlings have a low reproductive
value; each egg or hatchling has been estimated to have only 0.004 percent of the value of a
nesting female (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Thus, even if the majority of the eggs and hatchlings
that would have been produced on the project beach are not realized for up to 2 years following
project completion, the Service would not expect this loss to have a significant effect on the
recovery and survival of the species, for the following reasons: 1) some nesting is likely just
displaced to adjacent non-project beaches, 2) not all eggs will produce hatchlings, and 3)
destruction and/or failure of nests will not always result from a sand placement project. A
variety of natural and unknown factors negatively affect incubating egg clutches, including tidal
inundation, storm events, and predation, accretion of sand, and erosional processes. The loss of
all life stages of sea turtles including eggs are considered “take” and minimization measures are
required to avoid and minimize all life stages.

Dredging activities: According to the BA, offshore dredging has been conducted on a regular
basis for sand placement in Dare County. Dredging of Oregon Inlet and navigation channels
occurs year round and there are often multiple dredging efforts in a given year.
29
Beach scraping or bulldozing: Beach scraping or bulldozing has been frequent on North
Carolina beaches in recent years, in response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline
with rising sea level, but data is not available for the Action Area.

Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets,
including those individuals originating from beachfront and nearby residences.

Beach Driving: Beach driving is allowed year-round on Hatteras Island and from October 1-
April 30 in Duck, Kill Devil Hills, and Nags Head. Permits are required. Beach driving is
prohibited in Southern Shores and Kitty Hawk.

Sand fencing: There are significant lengths of existing sand fencing along the project area, in all
four towns.

4.2.3. Tables

Table 4-2. Total Sea turtle nests documented between 2015-2019 within the project area.
Species represented include loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley (from Coastal Protection Engineering
of North Carolina, Inc., 2021).

Year Duck Southern Shores Kitty Hawk Kill Devil Hills
2015 3 2 2 2
2016 4 3 5 3
2017 1 2 0 3
2018 1 1 3 3
2019 3 4 6 1

30
Table 4-3. Biological opinions issued within Dare County since 2011 for adverse impacts to sea
turtle species from sand placement.

Project/Opinion Year Species Issued Take
Nags Head - Sand
placement and sand
fence installation
2011 Loggerhead, leatherback, green, and
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles
52,800 lf
(10.0 mi)
Duck, Southern
Shores, Kitty Hawk,
Kill Devil Hills –
Sand placement and
sand fence installation
2015 Loggerhead, leatherback, green, and
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles
46,879 lf
(8.88 mi)
Buxton/ Cape
Hatteras Sand
placement
2016 Loggerhead, leatherback, green,
hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles
15,840 lf
(3.0 mi)
Nags Head – Sand
placement and sand
fence installation
2017 Loggerhead, leatherback, green,
hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles
52,800 lf
(10.0 mi)

4.3. Effects of the Action on Sea Turtle Species

In a BO for a listed species, the effects of the proposed action are all reasonably certain
consequences to the species caused by the action, including the consequences of other activities
caused by the action. Activities caused by the action would not occur but for the action.
Consequences to species may occur later in time and may occur outside the action area.

We identified and described the activities included in the proposed Action in section 2.1. We
identified and described other activities caused by the proposed Action in section 2.2. Our
analyses of the consequences caused by each of these activities follows.

As discussed in section 4.1, the Service and the NMFS share Federal jurisdiction for sea turtles
under the ESA. The Service has responsibility for sea turtles on the nesting beach. NMFS has
jurisdiction for sea turtles in the marine environment. Therefore, this BO will not consider
effects of dredging on sea turtles within the marine environment.

4.3.1. Effects of Sand Placement on Sea Turtle Species

Applicable Science and Pathways of Response

Direct Effects: Potential adverse effects during the project construction phase include
disturbance of existing nests, which may have been missed by surveyors and thus not marked for
avoidance, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation of emerging hatchlings.
31
In addition, heavy equipment will be required to re-distribute the sand to the original natural
beach template. This equipment will have to traverse the beach portion of the Action Area,
which could result in harm to nesting sea turtles, their nests, and emerging hatchlings.

Placement of sand on a beach in and of itself may not provide suitable nesting habitat for sea
turtles. Although sand placement activities may increase the potential nesting area, significant
negative impacts to sea turtles may result if protective measures are not incorporated during
project construction. Sand placement activities during the nesting season can cause increased
loss of eggs and hatchlings and, along with other mortality sources, may significantly impact the
long-term survival of the species. For instance, projects conducted during the nesting and
hatching season could result in the loss of sea turtles through disruption of adult nesting activity
and by burial or crushing of nests or hatchlings. While a nest monitoring and egg relocation
program would reduce these impacts, nests may be inadvertently missed (when crawls are
obscured by rainfall, wind, or tides) or misidentified as false crawls during daily patrols. In
addition, nests may be destroyed by operations at night prior to beach patrols being performed.
Even under the best of conditions, about 7 percent of the nests can be misidentified as false
crawls by experienced sea turtle nest surveyors (Schroeder 1994).

a. Equipment during construction

The use of heavy machinery on beaches during a construction project may have adverse
effects on sea turtles. Equipment left on the nesting beach overnight can create barriers
to nesting females emerging from the surf and crawling up the beach, causing a higher
incidence of false crawls and unnecessary energy expenditure.

The operation of motor vehicles or equipment on the beach to complete the project work
at night affects sea turtle nesting by: interrupting or colliding with a nesting turtle on the
beach, headlights disorienting or misorienting emergent hatchlings, vehicles running over
hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle ruts on the beach interfering with
hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Apparently, hatchlings become diverted not because
they cannot physically climb out of a rut (Hughes and Caine 1994), but because the sides
of the track cast a shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon
(Mann 1977). The extended period of travel required to negotiate tire ruts may increase
the susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the
ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Driving directly above or over incubating egg clutches or on
the beach can cause sand compaction, which may result in adverse impacts on nest site
selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings, as well as
directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings (Mann 1977; Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson
1988).

The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on vegetated areas or
dunes can lead to various degrees of instability and cause dune migration. As vehicles
move over the sand, sand is displaced downward, lowering the substrate. Since the
vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, the beach and dunes
may become unstable. Vehicular traffic on the beach or through dune breaches or low
dunes may cause acceleration of overwash and erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). Driving
32
along the beachfront should be between the low and high tide water lines. To minimize
the impacts to the beach, dunes, and dune vegetation, transport and access to the
construction sites should be from the road to the maximum extent possible. However, if
vehicular access to the beach is necessary, the areas for vehicle and equipment usage
should be designated and marked.

b. Artificial lighting as a result of an unnatural beach slope on the adjacent beach

Visual cues are the primary sea-finding mechanism for hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky
and Carr 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968; Dickerson and Nelson 1989;
Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). When artificial lighting is present on or near the
beach, it can misdirect hatchlings once they emerge from their nests and prevent them
from reaching the ocean (Philibosian 1976; Mann 1977; FWC 2007). For example, in
July 2018 in Atlantic Beach, NC, more than 80 hatchlings from an unmarked loggerhead
sea turtle nest were rescued from the road, parking lots, and dunes after they were
disoriented by artificial lights (Godfrey 2018, pers. comm.). At least one hatchling was
crushed by a car on the road.

A significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity has also been documented on beaches
illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). Construction lights along a
project beach and on the dredging vessel may deter females from coming ashore to nest,
misdirect females trying to return to the surf after a nesting event, and misdirect emergent
hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches.

The unnatural sloped beach adjacent to the structure exposes sea turtles and their nests to
lights that were less visible, or not visible, from nesting areas before the sand placement
activity, leading to a higher mortality of hatchlings. Review of over 10 years of empirical
information from beach nourishment projects indicates that the number of sea turtles
impacted by lights increases on the post-construction berm. A review of selected
nourished beaches in Florida (South Brevard, North Brevard, Captiva Island, Ocean
Ridge, Boca Raton, Town of Palm Beach, Longboat Key, and Bonita Beach) indicated
disorientation reporting increased by approximately 300 percent the first nesting season
after project construction and up to 542 percent the second year compared to pre-
nourishment reports (Trindell et al. 2005).

Specific examples of increased lighting disorientations after a sand placement project
include a sand placement project in Brevard County, Florida, completed in 2002. After
the project, there was an increase of 130 percent in disorientations in the nourished area.
Disorientations on beaches in the County that were not nourished remained constant
(Trindell 2007). This same result was also documented in 2003 when another beach in
Brevard County was nourished and the disorientations increased by 480 percent (Trindell
2007). Installing appropriate beachfront lighting is the most effective method to decrease
the number of disorientations on any developed beach including nourished beaches.

33
c. Nest relocation

Besides the potential for missing nests during surveys and a nest relocation program,
there is a potential for eggs to be damaged by nest movement or relocation, particularly if
eggs are not relocated within 12 hours of deposition (Limpus et al. 1979). Nest
relocation can have adverse impacts on incubation temperature (and hence sex ratios),
gas exchange parameters, hydric environment of nests, hatching success, and hatchling
emergence (Limpus et al. 1979; Ackerman 1980; Parmenter 1980; Spotila et al. 1983;
McGehee 1990). Relocating nests into sands deficient in oxygen or moisture can result
in mortality, morbidity, and reduced behavioral competence of hatchlings. Water
availability is known to influence the incubation environment of the embryos and
hatchlings of turtles with flexible-shelled eggs, which has been shown to affect nitrogen
excretion (Packard et al. 1984), mobilization of calcium (Packard and Packard 1986),
mobilization of yolk nutrients (Packard et al. 1985), hatchling size (Packard et al. 1981;
McGehee 1990), energy reserves in the yolk at hatching (Packard et al. 1988), and
locomotory ability of hatchlings (Miller et al. 1987).

In a 1994 Florida study comparing loggerhead hatching and emerging success of
relocated nests with nests left in their original location, Moody (1998) found that
hatching success was lower in relocated nests at nine of 12 beaches evaluated. In
addition, emerging success was lower in relocated nests at 10 of 12 beaches surveyed in
1993 and 1994.

Indirect Effects: Many of the direct effects of beach nourishment may persist over time and
become indirect impacts. These indirect effects include increased susceptibility of relocated
nests to catastrophic events, the consequences of potential increased beachfront development,
changes in the physical characteristics of the beach, the formation of escarpments, and future
sand migration.

a. Changes in the physical environment

Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea
turtles nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered
profile (and perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999;
Trindell 2005).

Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment
activities could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of project. Very
fine sand or the use of heavy machinery can cause sand compaction on nourished beaches
(Nelson et al. 1987; Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). Significant reductions in nesting
success (i.e., false crawls occurred more frequently) have been documented on severely
compacted nourished beaches (Fletemeyer 1980; Raymond 1984; Nelson and Dickerson
1987; Nelson et al. 1987), and increased false crawls may result in increased
physiological stress to nesting females. Sand compaction may increase the length of time
required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased physiological stress
34
to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). These impacts can be minimized by using
suitable sand.

A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures
of nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most
suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should
resemble the natural beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and
bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments;
however, the timeframe for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be critical to a
successful sea turtle nesting season.

b. Escarpment formation

On nourished beaches, steep escarpments may develop along their water line interface as
they adjust from an unnatural construction profile to a more natural beach profile
(Coastal Engineering Research Center 1984; Nelson et al. 1987). Escarpments can
hamper or prevent access to nesting sites (Nelson and Blihovde 1998). Researchers have
shown that female sea turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation
of an escarpment, leading to situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting
areas to deposit eggs (e.g., in front of the escarpments, which often results in failure of
nests due to prolonged tidal inundation). This impact can be minimized by leveling any
escarpments prior to the nesting season.

c. Increased susceptibility to catastrophic events

Nest relocation within a nesting season may concentrate eggs in an area making them
more susceptible to catastrophic events. Hatchlings released from concentrated areas also
may be subject to greater predation rates from both land and marine predators, because
the predators learn where to concentrate their efforts (Glenn 1998; Wyneken et al. 1998).

d. Increased beachfront development

Pilkey and Dixon (1996) stated that beach replenishment frequently leads to more
development in greater density within shorefront communities that are then left with a
future of further replenishment or more drastic stabilization measures. Dean (1999) also
noted that the very existence of a beach nourishment project can encourage more
development in coastal areas. Following completion of a beach nourishment project in
Miami during 1982, investment in new and updated facilities substantially increased
tourism there (NRC 1995). Increased building density immediately adjacent to the beach
often resulted as much larger buildings that accommodated more beach users replaced
older buildings. Overall, shoreline management creates an upward spiral of initial
protective measures resulting in more expensive development that leads to the need for
more and larger protective measures. Increased shoreline development may adversely
affect sea turtle nesting success. Greater development may support larger populations of
mammalian predators, such as foxes and raccoons, than undeveloped areas (NRC 1990a),
and can also result in greater adverse effects due to artificial lighting, as discussed above.
35
Beneficial Effects: The placement of sand on a beach with reduced dry foredune habitat may
increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape,
color, etc.) with naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment
remediation measures are incorporated into the project. In addition, a nourished beach that is
designed and constructed to mimic a natural beach system may benefit sea turtles more than an
eroding beach it replaces.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

Sand placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 61,512 lf of shoreline in Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill
Devil Hills. Sand placement activities would occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea
turtles and dune habitats that ensure the stability and integrity of the nesting beach. Specifically,
the project would potentially impact leatherback, loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley nesting
females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles. The Service expects the proposed construction
activities could directly and indirectly affect the availability of habitat for nesting and hatchling
sea turtles. The timing of the sand placement activities could directly and indirectly impact
nesting females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and
November 15.

The effects of sand placement activities may change the nesting behavior of adult female sea
turtles, diminish nesting success, and cause reduced hatching and emerging success. Sand
placement can also change the incubation conditions within the nest. Any decrease in
productivity and/or survival rates would contribute to the vulnerability of the sea turtles nesting
in the southeastern U.S.

During the first post-construction year, nests on nourished beaches are deposited significantly
seaward of the toe of the dune and significantly landward of the tide line than nests on natural
beaches. More nests are washed out on the wide, flat beaches of the nourished treatments than
on the narrower steeply sloped natural beaches. This phenomenon may persist through the
second post-construction year monitoring and result from the placement of nests near the
seaward edge of the beach berm where dramatic profile changes, caused by erosion and scarping,
occur as the beach equilibrates to a more natural contour.

The principal effect of beach nourishment on sea turtle reproduction is a reduction in nesting
success during the first year following project construction. Although most studies have
attributed this phenomenon to an increase in beach compaction and escarpment formation, Ernest
and Martin (1999) indicated that changes in beach profile may be more important. Regardless,
as a nourished beach is reworked by natural processes in subsequent years and adjusts from an
unnatural construction profile to a natural beach profile, beach compaction and the frequency of
escarpment formation decline, and nesting and nesting success return to levels found on natural
beaches.

The sand placement activity is a one-time activity and may take up to nine months to complete.
Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the
36
activity may continue to impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests in
subsequent nesting seasons.

For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of
occupied habitat that the Action affects, and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that
is not anticipated in this BO. The Service anticipates incidental take of sea turtles will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) the turtles nest primarily at night and all nests are
not found because [a] natural factors, such as rainfall, wind, and tides may obscure crawls and
[b] human-caused factors, such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, may obscure crawls, and
result in nests being destroyed because they were missed during a nesting survey, nest mark and
avoidance, or egg relocation program (2) the total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is
unknown; (3) the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success per relocated nest over the
natural nest site is unknown; (4) an unknown number of females may avoid the project beach and
be forced to nest in a less than optimal area; (5) lights may misdirect an unknown number of
hatchlings and cause death; and (6) escarpments may form and prevent an unknown number of
females from accessing a suitable nesting site.

However, the level of take of these species can be anticipated by the sand placement activities on
suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because: (1) turtles nest within the Action Area; (2) the
nourishment project will modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand compaction; and
(3) artificial lighting will deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles.

4.3.2. Effects of Other Activities Caused by the Action to Sea Turtle Species – Sand
Fence Installation

Applicable Science and Pathways of Response

Direct Effects: Potential adverse effects from installation of sand fencing during the sea turtle
nesting season include disturbance of existing nests, which may have been missed by surveyors
and thus not marked for avoidance, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation
of emerging hatchlings. Vehicles may be used to transport the supplies and equipment,
traversing the beach portion of the Action Area, which could result in harm to nesting sea turtles,
their nests, and emerging hatchlings. Equipment to install sand fencing may include large power
augurs, which may pierce, damage, or destroy unmarked nest cavities.

After installation, sand fencing may become a barrier or entanglement risk for nesting female
and hatchling sea turtles. Blocking a clear path to nesting habitat or to the ocean for sea turtles
may cause disorientation and misorientation of sea turtle hatchlings (Philibosian 1976; Mann
1977; Witherington and Martin 1996). Visual signs are the primary sea-finding mechanism for
hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Carr 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968; Dickerson and Nelson
1989; Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). The emergence from the nest and crawl to the sea is
one of the most critical periods of a sea turtle’s life. Hatchlings that do not make it to the sea
quickly become food for ghost crabs, birds, and other predators, or become dehydrated and may
never reach the sea.

37
Indirect Effects: Indirect effects include loss of suitable unvegetated habitat over time, as sand
accretion and stability may promote expansion of vegetated habitats. Other indirect effects
include the consequences of potential increased beachfront development, and general changes in
the physical characteristics of the beach.

Responses and Interpretation of Effects

Sand fence installation activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 61,512 lf of shoreline in Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill
Devil Hills. Sand fence installation would occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea
turtles and dune habitats that ensure the stability and integrity of the nesting beach. Specifically,
the project would potentially impact loggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley nesting
females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles. The Service expects the proposed sand fence
installation activities could directly and indirectly affect the availability of habitat for nesting and
hatchling sea turtles. The timing of the sand placement activities could directly and indirectly
impact nesting females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and
November 15.

The effects of installed sand fence may change the nesting behavior of adult female sea turtles,
diminish nesting success, and cause reduced hatching and emerging success. Any decrease in
productivity and/or survival rates would contribute to the vulnerability of the sea turtles nesting
in the southeastern U.S.

4.4. Cumulative Effects on Sea Turtle Species

In section 3, we did not identify any activities that satisfy the regulatory criteria for sources of
cumulative effects. Therefore, cumulative effects to sea turtle species are not relevant to
formulating our opinion for the Action.

4.5. Conclusion for Sea Turtle Species

In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections (status, baseline,
effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of the BO for the loggerhead, green,
leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, which is to determine whether the Action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of each species.

Status

Leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, green and loggerhead sea turtles have been documented nesting
along the Northern Outer Banks. Between 2015 and 2020, only Kemp's ridley and loggerhead
sea turtle nests were documented nesting within the project area. One green sea turtle nested in
the Northern Outer Banks (southern boundary of Nags Head north to the Virginia line) in each
year from 2013-2016 and again in 2020 (www.seaturtle.org, accessed July 6, 2021). One
leatherback sea turtle was documented as nesting in the Northern Outer banks in 2009
(www.seaturtle.org, accessed July 6, 2021).

38
There are many threats to sea turtles, including nest destruction from natural events, such as tidal
surges and hurricanes, or eggs lost to predation by raccoons, foxes, ghost-crabs, and other animals.
However, human activity has significantly contributed to the decline of sea turtle populations along
the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico (NRC 1990). These factors include the modification,
degradation, or loss of nesting habitat by coastal development, artificial lighting, beach driving,
and marine pollution and debris. Furthermore, the overharvest of eggs for food, intentional killing
of adults and immature turtles for their shells and skin, and accidental drowning in commercial
fishing gear are primarily responsible for the worldwide decline in sea turtle populations.

Baseline

The Action Area is quite developed. Residential/commercial development has steadily increased
since the early to mid- 1900s. The entire Action Area is presently lined with structures,
including homes, motels, restaurants, and gift shops. Recreational use in the Action Area is
quite high from residents and tourists, including vehicular driving in the winter months.

A wide range of recent and on-going activities have altered the proposed Action Area and, to a
greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along the coastline for
the near future.

Effects

Sand placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring along up to 61,512 lf of shoreline in Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill
Devil Hills. Sand placement activities would occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea
turtles and dune habitats that ensure the stability and integrity of the nesting beach. The project
would potentially impact loggerhead, leatherback, green, and Kemp’s ridley nesting females,
their nests, and hatchling sea turtles. The Service expects the proposed construction activities
could directly and indirectly affect the availability of habitat for nesting and hatchling sea turtles.
The timing of the sand placement activities could directly and indirectly impact nesting females,
their nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and November 15.
The Service determined there is a potential for long-term adverse effects on sea turtles as a result
of sand placement. However, the Service acknowledges the potential benefits of the sand
placement project, since it provides additional sea turtle nesting habitat. Nonetheless, an
increase in sandy beach may not necessarily equate to an increase in suitable sea turtle nesting
habitat.

Sand fence installation activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests
occurring up to 61,512 lf of shoreline in Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil
Hills. Sand fence installation would occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea turtles
and dune habitats that ensure the stability and integrity of the nesting beach. The project would
potentially impact loggerhead, leatherback, green, and Kemp’s ridley nesting females, their
nests, and hatchling sea turtles. The Service expects the proposed construction activities could
directly and indirectly affect the availability of habitat for nesting and hatchling sea turtles. The
timing of the sand placement activities could directly and indirectly impact nesting females, their
39
nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and November 15. The effect to
each species is expected to be slight.

Opinion

After reviewing the current status of the nesting sea turtle species, the environmental baseline for
the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, the proposed Conservation Measures, and
the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the placement of sand is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the loggerhead sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle,
green sea turtle, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle.

5. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

ESA §9(a)(1) and regulations issued under §4(d) prohibit the take of endangered and threatened
fish and wildlife species without special exemption. The term “take” in the ESA means “to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct” (ESA §3(19)). In regulations, the Service further defines:
• “harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering;” (50 CFR §17.3) and
• “incidental take” as “takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant” (50 CFR
§402.02).
Under the terms of ESA §7(b)(4) and §7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to a Federal agency
action that would not violate ESA §7(a)(2) is not considered prohibited, provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement (ITS).

The Action considered in this BO includes a conservation measure to relocate sea turtle nests
throughout the project area. Through this statement, the Service authorizes this conservation
measure as an exception to the prohibitions against trapping, capturing, or collecting listed
species. We identify this conservation measure as a Reasonable and Prudent Measure below, and
we provide Terms and Conditions for its implementation.

For the exemption in ESA §7(o)(2) to apply to the Action considered in this BO, the Corps and
the Applicant must undertake the non-discretionary measures described in this ITS, and these
measures must become binding conditions of any permit, contract, or grant issued for
implementing the Action. Consistent with ESA section 7(b)(4)(C)(iv), the Corps has a continuing
duty to regulate the Action activities covered by this ITS that are under its jurisdiction. The
Applicant is responsible for the Action activities covered by this ITS that are under its control
and are not under the Corps’ jurisdiction. The protective coverage of §7(o)(2) may lapse if the
Corps or Applicant fails to:
• assume and implement the terms and conditions; or
• require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS
through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
40
In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps and the Applicant must report the
progress of the Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this ITS.

5.1. Amount or Extent of Take

This section specifies the amount or extent of take of listed wildlife species that the Action is
reasonably certain to cause, which we estimated in the “Effects of the Action” section of this BO.

5.1.1. Sea Turtles

Instructions for monitoring and reporting take are provided in section 5.4. The Service
anticipates as much as 61,512 lf of nesting beach habitat could be taken as a result of this
proposed action. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of
occupied habitat that the Action affects and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that is
not anticipated in this BO.

The conservation of the five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest Atlantic is essential to
the recovery of the loggerhead sea turtle. Each individual recovery unit is necessary to conserve
genetic and demographic robustness, or other features necessary for long-term sustainability of
the entire population. Thus, maintenance of viable nesting in each recovery unit contributes to
the overall population. The NRU, one of the five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest
Atlantic occurs within the Action Area. The NRU averages 5,215 nests per year (based on 1989-
2008 nesting data). Of the available nesting habitat within the NRU, construction will occur
and/or will likely have an effect on as much as 10 miles of nesting shoreline.

Generally, green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nesting overlaps with or occurs
within the beaches where loggerhead sea turtles nest on both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
beaches. Thus, for green, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, sand placement activities
will affect up to 61,512 lf of shoreline.

Research has shown that the principal effect of sand placement on sea turtle reproduction is a
reduction in nesting success, and this reduction is most often limited to the first year or two
following project construction. Research has also shown that the impacts of a nourishment
project on sea turtle nesting habitat are typically short-term because a nourished beach will be
reworked by natural processes in subsequent years, and beach compaction and the frequency of
escarpment formation will decline. Although a variety of factors, including some that cannot be
controlled, can influence how a nourishment project will perform from an engineering
perspective, measures can be implemented to minimize impacts to sea turtles.

The Service anticipates that the Action is reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual
sea turtles consistent with the definition of harassment. The Service anticipates that the Action is
reasonably certain to cause incidental take of individual eggs and hatchling sea turtles consistent
with the definition of harm. Take is expected to be in the form of:
(1) destruction of all nests that may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited and
missed by a nest survey, nest mark and avoidance program, or egg relocation program
within the boundaries of the proposed project;
41
(2) destruction of all nests deposited during the period when a nest survey, nest mark and
avoidance, or egg relocation program is not required to be in place within the boundaries
of the proposed project;
(3) reduced hatching success due to egg mortality during relocation and adverse
conditions at the relocation site;
(4) harassment in the form of disturbing or interfering with female turtles attempting to
nest within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a result of construction
activities;
(5) misdirection of nesting and hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the sand
placement or construction area as a result of project lighting;
(6) behavior modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the
Action Area during the nesting season, resulting in false crawls or situations where they
choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs; and
(7) Destruction of nests from escarpment leveling within a nesting season when such
leveling has been approved by the Service.

Surrogate Measures for Monitoring

For this and other sand placement BOs, the Service typically uses a surrogate to estimate the
extent of take. The amount of take is directly proportional to the spatial/temporal extent of
occupied habitat that the Action affects, and exceeding this extent would represent a taking that
is not anticipated in this BO. The Service anticipates incidental take of sea turtles will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) the turtles nest primarily at night and all nests are
not found because [a] natural factors, such as rainfall, wind, and tides may obscure crawls and
[b] human-caused factors, such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, may obscure crawls, and
result in nests being destroyed because they were missed during a nesting survey, nest mark and
avoidance, or egg relocation program (2) the total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is
unknown; (3) the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success per relocated nest over the
natural nest site is unknown; (4) an unknown number of females may avoid the project beach and
be forced to nest in a less than optimal area; (5) lights may misdirect an unknown number of
hatchlings and cause death; and (6) escarpments may form and prevent an unknown number of
females from accessing a suitable nesting site.

However, the level of take of these species can be anticipated by the sand placement activities on
suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because: (1) turtles nest within the Action Area; (2)
construction is proposed to occur during the nesting season; (3) the nourishment project(s) will
modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand compaction; and (4) artificial lighting will
deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles.

When it is not practical to monitor take in terms of individuals of the listed species, the
regulations at 50 CFR §402.14(i)(1)(i) indicate that an ITS may express the amount or extent of
take using a surrogate (e.g., a similarly affected species, habitat, or ecological conditions),
provided that the Service also:
• describes the causal link between the surrogate and take of the listed species; and
• sets a clear standard for determining when the level of anticipated take has been
exceeded.
42
We have identified surrogate measures in our analyses of effects that satisfy these criteria for
monitoring take of the species named above during Action implementation. Table 5-1 lists the
species, life stage, surrogate measure, and the section of the BO that explains the causal link
between the surrogate and the anticipated taking. We describe procedures for this monitoring in
section 5.4.

Table 5-1. Surrogate measures for monitoring take of listed sea turtle species caused by the
Action, based on the cited BO effects analyses.

Common Name Life Stage Surrogate (units) Quantity
BO Effects
Analysis Section
Loggerhead Sea
Turtle
Egg,
Hatchling,
and Adult
Linear feet of
shoreline 61,512 4.3.1
Green Sea Turtle
Egg,
Hatchling,
and Adult
Linear feet of
shoreline 61,512 4.3.1
Leatherback Sea
Turtle
Egg,
Hatchling,
and Adult
Linear feet of
shoreline 61,512 4.3.1
Kemp’s ridley Sea
Turtle
Egg,
Hatchling,
and Adult
Linear feet of
shoreline 61,512 4.3.1

5.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures

The Service believes the reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) we describe in this section for
the sea turtle species named in Table 5-1 are necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact,
i.e., the amount or extent, of incidental take caused by the Action.

The Action would cause activities that are not under the jurisdiction of the Corps but are under
the control of the Applicant. We identified these “other activities” in section 2.2 of the BO. We
predicted consequences caused by these other activities that correspond to a form of take, as
noted in Table 5-1. Therefore, we indicate whether the Corps or the Applicant is responsible for
each RPM described in the remainder of this section, for the terms and conditions that implement
the RPMs described in section 5.3, and for the monitoring and reporting requirements described
in section 5.4.

RPMs under the Jurisdiction of the Corps

RPM #1. Derelict Materials. All derelict material or other debris must be removed from the
beach to the maximum extent possible, prior to sand placement.

RPM #2. Conservation Measures. Conservation Measures included in the permit
applications/project plans must be implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and
43
T&C address the same requirement, the requirements of the RPM and T&C take
precedent over the Conservation Measure.

RPM #3. Predator-Proof Trash Receptacles. Predator-proof trash receptacles must be
installed and maintained at all beach access points used for the project construction, to
minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea
turtles.

RPM #4. Pre-construction Meeting. A meeting between representatives of the Applicant’s
contractor(s), Service, NCWRC, the permitted sea turtle surveyor, and other species
surveyors, as appropriate, must be held prior to the commencement of work on this
project.

RPM #5. Coordinate Pipeline Placement. Pipeline placement must be coordinated with
NCDCM, the Corps, the Service’s Raleigh Field Office and the NCWRC.

RPM #6. Compatible Sand. Only beach compatible fill must be placed on the beach or in any
associated dune system. Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native
beach in the vicinity of the site that has not been affected by prior sand placement
activity.

RPM #7. Daily Inspections. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be
inspected daily to ensure compatibility. If during the sampling process non-beach
compatible material, including large amounts of shell or rock, is or has been placed on
the beach all work shall stop immediately and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified
by the permittee and/or its contractors to determine the appropriate plan of action.

RPM #8. Level Profile. From May 1 through November 15, to the maximum extent practicable,
excavations and temporary alteration of beach topography (outside of the active
construction zone) will be filled or leveled to the natural beach profile prior to 9 pm each
day.

RPM #9. Sea Turtle Sightings. If any nesting turtles are sighted on the beach during
construction, construction activities must cease immediately until the turtle has returned
to the water, and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest monitoring has marked
for avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that may have been laid. If a nesting sea turtle is
observed at night, all work on the beach will cease and all lights will be extinguished
(except for those absolutely necessary for safety) until after the female has finished
laying eggs and returned to the water.

RPM #10. Nighttime Work Area. During the sea turtle nesting season, the contractor must not
extend the beach fill more than 750 feet and must confine work activities within this area
between dusk and the time of completion the following day’s nesting survey to reduce the
impact to emerging sea turtles and burial of new nests.

44
RPM #11. Lighting Plan. Prior to the beginning of the project, the Corps shall submit a
lighting plan for the dredge that will be used in the project. The plan shall include a
description of each light source that will be visible from the beach and the measures
implemented to minimize this lighting.

RPM #12. Lighting. During the nesting season, lighting associated with the project must be
minimized to reduce the possibility of disrupting and misdirecting nesting and/or
hatchling sea turtles.

RPM #13. Nesting Surveys. Daily nesting surveys (before 9 am) for sea turtle nests are
required if any portion of the sand placement occurs during the period from May 1
through November 15. If sand is placed on the beach at night, a nighttime monitor must
survey the beach area that is affected that night, prior to the morning's normal nesting
activity survey. No daytime movement of equipment up or down the beach (outside of
the active nighttime construction area described in number 10, above) may commence
until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey each morning. If nests are constructed in
the project area, the nests must be marked and either avoided until completion of the
project or relocated prior to commencement of construction for the day.

RPM #14. Vehicle Access: Access points for construction vehicles must be as close to the
project site as possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach must be limited to
the maximum extent possible.

RPM #15. Staging. From May 1 through November 15, staging areas for construction
equipment must be located off the beach. Nighttime storage of construction equipment
not in use must be off the beach to minimize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and
hatching activities. In addition, all construction pipes placed on the beach must be
located as far landward as possible without compromising the integrity of the dune
system.

RPM #16. Demobilization. Demobilization of equipment from the beach must be conducted
only during daylight hours, after the daily survey for sea turtle nests has been completed.
Any nests that are identified must be marked for avoidance and avoided during all
demobilization activities.

RPM #17. Dune design. If a dune system is already part of the project design, the placement
and design of the dune must emulate the natural dune system to the maximum extent
possible, including the dune configuration and shape.

RPM #18. Escarpments. Escarpment formation must be monitored and leveling must be
conducted if needed to reduce the likelihood of impacting nesting and hatchling sea
turtles.

RPM #19. Sand compaction. Sand compaction must be monitored and tilling must be
conducted if needed to reduce the likelihood of impacting sea turtle nesting and hatching
activities.
45
RPMs Under the Jurisdiction of the Applicant(s) (Sand Fencing)

RPM #1. No Nest Relocations for Sand Fence Installation: Sea turtle nests must not be
relocated solely for sand fence installation. If work is conducted between May 1 and November
15, the sea turtle surveyor must mark nests for avoidance.

RPM #2. Sand Fencing and Sea Turtles. Sand fencing shall not be installed in a manner that
impedes, traps, or otherwise endangers sea turtles, sea turtle nests or sea turtle hatchlings.

RPM #3. Sand Fencing Location. Sand fencing shall be placed as far landward as possible to
avoid interference with sea turtle nesting.

5.3. Terms and Conditions

In order for the exemption from the take prohibitions of §9(a)(1) and of regulations issued under
§4(d) of the ESA to apply to the Action, the Corps and the Applicant must comply with the terms
and conditions (T&Cs) of this statement, provided below, which carry out the RPMs described in
the previous section. These T&Cs are mandatory. We identify whether the Corps, the Applicant,
or both are responsible. As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must
require any permittee, contractor, or grantee to implement the T&Cs that apply to Action
activities under its jurisdiction through enforceable terms that the Corps includes in the permit,
contract, or grant document. The Applicant must implement, or ensure that any agent or
contractor implement, the T&Cs that apply to Action activities that are not under the Corps’
jurisdiction.

T&Cs Under the Jurisdiction of the Corps

T&C #1. Derelict Materials. All derelict concrete, metal, and coastal armoring geotextile
material and other debris must be removed from the beach prior to any sand placement to
the maximum extent possible. If debris removal activities take place during the sea turtle
nesting season, the work must be conducted during daylight hours only and must not
commence until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey each day.

T&C #2. Conservation Measures. Conservation Measures included in the permit
applications/project plans must be implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and
T&C address the same requirement, the requirements of the RPM and T&C take
precedent over the Conservation Measure.

T&C #3. Predator-Proof Trash Receptacles. Predator-proof trash receptacles must be
installed and maintained during construction at all beach access points used for the
project construction and any maintenance events, to minimize the potential for attracting
predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles. All contractors conducting the
work must provide predator-proof trash receptacles for the construction workers. All
contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance of not littering and
keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris.

46
T&C #4. Pre-construction Meeting. A meeting between representatives of the contractor(s),
the Corps, the Service, the NCWRC, the permitted sea turtle surveyor(s), and other
species surveyors, as appropriate, must be held prior to the commencement of work. At
least 10 business days advance notice must be provided prior to conducting this meeting.
The meeting will provide an opportunity for explanation and/or clarification of the sea
turtle protection measures, as well as additional guidelines when construction occurs
during the sea turtle nesting season, such as storing equipment, minimizing driving, and
reporting within the work area, as well as follow-up meetings during construction.

T&C #5. Coordinate Pipeline Placement. Pipeline placement must be coordinated with
NCDCM, the Corps, the Service’s Raleigh Field Office and the NCWRC.

T&C #6. Compatible Sand. Only beach compatible fill must be placed on the beach or in any
associated dune system. Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native
beach in the vicinity of the site that has not been affected by prior sand placement
activity. Beach compatible fill must be sand solely of natural sediment and shell
material, containing no construction debris, toxic material, or other foreign matter, or
large amounts of granular material, gravel, or rock. The beach compatible fill must be
similar in both color and grain size distribution (sand grain frequency, mean and median
grain size and sorting coefficient) to the native material in the Action Area. Beach
compatible fill is material that maintains the general character and functionality of the
material occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal system.
a) Beach compatible fill consisting predominantly of quartz, carbonate (i.e., shell,
coral) or similar material with a particle size distribution ranging between 0.0625
millimeters (mm) and 2.76 mm, classified as sand by either the Unified Soils or
Wentworth classification systems;
b) Beach compatible fill containing less than or equal to 2 % fine-grained sediment
(< 0.0625 mm, considered silt, clay and colloids) by weight, unless sufficient
sampling of the project area indicates that the native sediment grain size
distribution contains > 2 % fine-grained material, in which case compatible
material should be considered the percentage of fine-grained native material plus
no more than an additional 2 % by weight;
c) Beach compatible fill containing coarse gravel, cobbles or material retained on a
¾ inch sieve in a percentage or size not greater than found on the native beach;
and
d) Beach compatible fill that does not contain carbonate (i.e., shell) material that
exceeds the average percentage of carbonate material on the native beach by more
than 15 % by weight.

T&C #7. Daily Inspections. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be
inspected daily to ensure compatibility. If during the sampling process non-beach
compatible material, including large amounts of shell or rock, is or has been placed on
the beach all work shall stop immediately and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified
by the permittee and/or its contractors to determine the appropriate plan of action.

47
T&C #8. Level Profile. From May 1 through November 15, to the maximum extent
practicable, excavations and temporary alteration of beach topography (outside of the
active construction zone) will be filled or leveled to the natural beach profile prior to 9:00
p.m. each day.

T&C #9. Sea Turtle Sightings. If any nesting turtles are sighted on the beach during
construction, construction activities must cease immediately until the turtle has returned
to the water, and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest monitoring has marked
for avoidance or relocated any nest(s) that may have been laid. If a nesting sea turtle is
observed at night, all work on the beach will cease and all lights will be extinguished
(except for those absolutely necessary for safety) until after the female has finished
laying eggs and returned to the water.

T&C #10. Nighttime Work Area. During the sea turtle nesting season, the contractor must not
extend the beach fill more than 1,000 feet along the shoreline and must confine work
activities within this area between dusk and dawn of the following day until the daily
nesting survey has been completed and the beach cleared for fill advancement. A
permitted sea turtle surveyor must be present on-site to ensure no nesting and hatchling
sea turtles are present within the work area. Once the beach has been cleared and the
necessary nest relocations have been completed, the contractor will be allowed to proceed
with the placement of fill and work activities during daylight hours until dusk at which
time the 1,000-foot length limitation must apply. If a nesting sea turtle is sighted on the
beach within the immediate construction area, activities must cease immediately until the
turtle has returned to the water and the sea turtle permit holder responsible for nest
monitoring has relocated the nest.

If movement of equipment up or down the beach (outside of the active nighttime
construction area) is required between dusk and dawn, an additional nighttime monitor
must accompany vehicles operating on the beach, watching for signs of turtle activity
ahead of the vehicle. If activity is discovered, the vehicle must stop or reverse direction
until the activity ceases and the monitor clears the forward progress of the vehicle.
Movement of equipment up or down the beach during nighttime operations would be
conducted from the off-beach access point to the construction area and vice-versa
(traveling from the off-beach access point to the construction area).

T&C #11. Lighting Plan. If any work on the beach is conducted during the sea turtle nesting
season (May 1 through November 15), the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the
equipment and dredge that will be used in the project. The plan shall include a
description of each light source that will be visible on or from the beach and the measures
implemented to minimize this lighting. The plan shall be reviewed for approval by the
Service.

T&C #12. Lighting. Direct lighting of the beach and nearshore waters must be limited to the
immediate construction area during the nesting season and must comply with safety
requirements. Lighting on all equipment must be minimized through reduction,
shielding, lowering, and appropriate placement to avoid excessive illumination of the
48
water’s surface and nesting beach while meeting all Coast Guard, Corps EM 385-1-1, and
OSHA requirements. Light intensity of lighting equipment must be reduced to the
minimum standard required by OSHA for General Construction areas, in order to not
misdirect sea turtles. Shields must be affixed to the light housing and be large enough to
block light from all on-beach lamps from being transmitted outside the construction area
or to the adjacent sea turtle nesting beach (Figure 5-1).

Figure 5-1. Beach lighting schematic.

.
T&C #13. Nesting Surveys. Daily (before 9 am) nesting surveys and egg relocation must be
conducted if any portion of the sand placement occurs during the period from May 1
through November 15. If sand is placed on the beach at night, a nighttime monitor must
survey the beach area that is affected that night, prior to the morning's normal nesting
activity survey. No daytime movement of equipment up or down the beach (outside of
the active nighttime construction area described in number 10, above) may commence
until completion of the sea turtle nesting survey each morning. If nests are constructed in
the project area, the nests must be marked and either avoided until completion of the
project or relocated.
a. Nesting surveys must be initiated by May 1 and must continue through the end of
the project. If nests are constructed in areas where they may be affected by
construction activities, the eggs must be relocated to minimize sea turtle nest
burial, crushing of eggs, or nest excavation.
b. Nesting surveys and nest marking will only be conducted by personnel with prior
experience and training in these activities, and who are duly authorized to conduct
such activities through a valid permit issued by the Service or the NCWRC.
49
Nesting surveys must be conducted daily between sunrise and 9 am.
c. Only those nests that may be affected by construction or sand placement activities
will be relocated. Nest relocation must not occur upon completion of the project.
For demobilization, nests will be marked and avoided. Nests requiring relocation
must be moved no later than 9 am the morning following deposition to a nearby
self-release beach site in a secure setting where artificial lighting will not interfere
with hatchling orientation. Relocated nests must not be placed in organized
groupings. Relocated nests must be randomly staggered along the length and
width of the beach in settings that are not expected to experience daily inundation
by high tides or known to routinely experience severe erosion and egg loss,
predation, or subject to artificial lighting. Nest relocations in association with
construction activities must cease when construction activities no longer threaten
nests.
d. Nests deposited within areas where construction activities have ceased or will not
occur for 65 days must be marked for avoidance and left in situ unless other
factors threaten the success of the nest. Nests must be marked with four stakes at
a 10-foot distance around the perimeter of the nest for the buffer zone. The turtle
permit holder must install an on-beach marker at the nest site and a secondary
marker at a point as far landward as possible to assure that future location of the
nest will be possible should the on-beach marker be lost. No activities that could
result in impacts to the nest will occur within the marked area. Nest sites must be
inspected daily to assure nest markers remain in place and the nest has not been
disturbed by the project activity.

T&C #14. Vehicle Access: Access points for construction vehicles must be as close to the
project site as possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach must be limited to
the maximum extent possible.

T&C #15. Staging. From May 1 through November 15, staging areas for construction
equipment must be located off the beach. Nighttime storage of construction equipment
not in use must be off the beach to minimize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and
hatching activities. In addition, all construction pipes placed on the beach must be
located as far landward as possible without compromising the integrity of the dune
system. Pipes placed parallel to the dune must be 5 to 10 feet away from the toe of the
dune if the width of the beach allows. If pipes are stored on the beach, they must be
placed in a manner that will minimize the impact to nesting habitat and must not
compromise the integrity of the dune systems.

T&C #16. Demobilization. Demobilization of equipment from the beach must be conducted
only during daylight hours, after the daily survey for sea turtle nests has been completed.
Any nests that are identified must be marked for avoidance as described in number 13.d.
above, and avoided during all demobilization activities

T&C #17. Dune design. The design of a restored or constructed dune should include as steep a
waterward slope as possible. The restored/constructed dune should tie into the pre-
50
existing dune without loss of elevation, to avoid development of a “trough” between the
existing dune and the constructed dune.

T&C #18. Escarpments. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made
immediately after completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1 for
two subsequent years after any construction or sand placement event. Escarpments that
interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100
feet must be leveled and the beach profile must be reconfigured to minimize scarp
formation by the dates listed above. Any escarpment removal must be reported by
location. If the sand placement activities are completed during the early part of the sea
turtle nesting and hatching season (May 1 through May 30), escarpments must be leveled
immediately, while protecting nests that have been relocated or left in place. The Service
must be contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that interfere
with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet occurs
during the nesting and hatching season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. If
it is determined that escarpment leveling is required during the nesting or hatching
season, the Service or NCWRC will provide a brief written authorization within 30 days
that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of impacting existing nests.
An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken must be submitted to the
Service’s Raleigh Field Office.

T&C #19. Sand compaction. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least once
after each sand placement event. If the Service or NCWRC determine that additional
inspections are needed, a second inspection may be required prior to May 1 of the
following year. Compaction monitoring and remediation are not required if the placed
material no longer remains on the beach. Within 14 days of completion of sand
placement and prior to any tilling (if needed), a field meeting shall be held with the
Service and/or NCWRC to inspect the project area for compaction and determine whether
tilling is needed.

a. If tilling is needed, the area must be tilled to a depth of 36 inches. All tilling
activities shall be completed prior to May 1 of any year.
b. Tilling must occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated areas that
are 3 square feet of greater, with a 3 square feet buffer around all vegetation.
c. If tilling occurs during the shorebird nesting season (after April 1, shorebird
surveys are required prior to tilling per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
d. A summary of the compaction assessments and the actions taken shall be included
in the annual report to NCDCM, the Corps and the Service’s Raleigh Field Office.
e. These conditions will be evaluated and may be modified if necessary to address
and identify sand compaction problems.

T&Cs Under the Jurisdiction of the Applicant(s)

T&C #1. No Nest Relocations for Sand Fence Installation. Sea turtle nests must not be
relocated solely for sand fence installation. During the sea turtle nesting season, vehicles and
equipment must not enter the beach until after sea turtle patrol has confirmed nesting/false crawls
51
within the designated work area. Daily coordination should be conducted between sea turtle
volunteers, the sand fencing contractor, and NCWRC to ensure that the beach has been
adequately surveyed and nests marked, prior to beginning of work. Coordinate with Maria Dunn
([e-mail]) or Matthew Godfrey ([e-mail]) at NCWRC to
establish the procedures for each project. Work must not be conducted at night.

A buffer distance of 50 feet must be marked at all nests and false crawls identified within the
work area, in which no power equipment or vehicles should be used. A buffer distance of 20 feet
must be marked at all sea turtle nests and false crawls identified within the work area, in which
no hand tools should be used for digging. If a sea turtle nest(s) cannot be safely avoided during
construction, all sand fence installation activities within that portion of affected project area must
be delayed until complete hatching and emergence of the nest, and inventory of nest contents by
authorized volunteers.

T&C #2. Sand Fencing and Sea Turtles. Sand fencing shall not be installed in a manner that
impedes, traps, or otherwise endangers sea turtles, sea turtle nests or sea turtle hatchlings.

T&C #3. Sand Fencing Location. Sand fencing shall be placed as far landward as possible to
avoid interference with sea turtle nesting.

a. Sand fencing shall not be placed on the wet sand beach area.
b. Sand fencing installed parallel to the shoreline shall be located no farther waterward than
the crest of the frontal or primary dune; or
c. Sand fencing installed waterward of the crest of the frontal or primary dune shall be
installed at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the shoreline. Individual sections of sand
fence shall not exceed more than 10 feet in length (except for public accessways) and
shall be spaced no less than seven feet apart, and shall not extend more than 10 feet
waterward of the following locations, whichever is most waterward, as defined in 15A
NCAC 7H .0305: the first line of stable natural vegetation, the toe of the frontal or
primary dune, or erosion escarpment of frontal or primary dune; and
d. Sand fencing along public accessways may equal the length of the accessway, and may
include a 45 degree funnel on the waterward end.

5.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the
Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the ITS (50 CFR
§402.14(i)(3)). This section provides the specific instructions for such monitoring and reporting
(M&R), including procedures for handling and disposing of any individuals of a species actually
killed or injured. These M&R requirements are mandatory. We identify whether the Corps, the
Applicant, or both are responsible.

As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the Corps must require any permittee,
contractor, or grantee to accomplish the M&R through enforceable terms that the Corps includes
in the permit, contract, or grant document. Such enforceable terms must include a requirement to
52
immediately notify the Corps and the Service if the amount or extent of incidental take specified
in this ITS is exceeded during Action implementation.

M&R #1. Sea Turtle Nest Monitoring.

Sea turtle nesting surveys must be conducted within the project area between May 1 and
November 15 of each year, for at least two consecutive nesting seasons after completion of each
sand placement activity (2 years post-construction monitoring after initial construction and each
maintenance event). Acquisition of readily available sea turtle nesting data from qualified
sources (volunteer organizations, other agencies, etc.) is acceptable. However, in the event that
data from other sources cannot be acquired, the permittee will be responsible to collect the data.
Data collected by the permittee for each nest should include, at a minimum, the information in
the table, below. This information will be provided to the Service’s Raleigh Field Office in the
annual report, and will be used to periodically assess the cumulative effects of these types of
projects on sea turtle nesting and hatchling production and monitor suitability of post
construction beaches for nesting.

Parameter Measurement Variable
Number of False Crawls Visual Assessment of all
false crawls
Number/location of false
crawls in nourished areas;
any interaction of turtles with
obstructions, such as
sandbags or scarps, should be
noted.
Nests Number The number of sea turtle nests
in nourished areas should be
noted. If possible, the
location of all sea turtle nests
should be marked on a
project map, and approximate
distance to scarps or
sandbags measured in meters.
Any abnormal cavity
morphologies should be
reported as well as whether
turtle touched sandbags or
scarps during nest
excavation.
Nests Lost Nests The number of nests lost to
inundation or erosion or the
number with lost markers.
53

M&R #2. Annual Report. A report describing any actions taken must be submitted to the
Service’s Raleigh Field Office following completion of the proposed work for each year when a
sand placement activity has occurred. The report must include the following information:

a) Project location (latitude and longitude);
b) Project description (linear feet of beach, actual fill template, access points, and borrow
areas);
c) Dates of actual construction activities;
d) Names and qualifications of personnel involved in sea turtle nesting surveys and relocation
activities(separate the nesting surveys for nourished and non-nourished areas);
e) Descriptions and locations of self-release beach sites; and
f) Sand compaction, escarpment formation, and other monitoring results.

At the time of the preconstruction meeting, the Corps shall provide the Service with specific
shoreline lengths and timing of the actual project that is going to proceed, using the form on the
following web link:
<http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Docs/Corp%20of%20Engineers%20Sea%20Turtle
%20Permit%20Information.pdf>. This form shall be emailed to the Service at
<[e-mail]>.

Information required in these Reporting Requirements should be submitted to the following
address:

Pete Benjamin, Supervisor
Raleigh Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
[phone]

M&R #3. Disposition of Dead or Injured Sea Turtles, Hatchlings, or Eggs

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial
notification must be made to the Service’s Law Enforcement Office below. Additional
notification must be made to the Service’s Ecological Services Field Office identified above and
Nests Relocated nests The number of nests
relocated and a map of the
relocation area(s). The
number of successfully
hatched eggs per relocated
nest.
Lighting Impacts Disoriented sea turtles The number of disoriented
hatchlings and adults
54
to the NCWRC at [phone]. NCWRC staff will determine the appropriate course of
action. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of
specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury.

Jason Keith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
551-F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-856-4786, extension 34

6. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

§7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the
ESA by conducting conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary activities that an action agency may undertake
to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed action, implement recovery plans, or
develop information that is useful for the conservation of listed species. The Service offers the
following recommendations that are relevant to the listed species addressed in this BO and that
we believe are consistent with the authorities of the Corps.

For the benefit of sea turtles, the Service recommends the following conservation
recommendations:

1. Construction activities for this project and similar future projects should be planned to take
place outside the main part of the sea turtle nesting and hatching season, as much as possible.

2. Use of sand fences should be limited. Appropriate native salt-resistant dune vegetation
should be established on the restored dunes.

3. Installation of sand fencing should meet the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management’s exemption criteria at 15A NCAC 07K. 0212 (Installation and Maintenance of
Sand Fencing).

4. Educational signs should be placed where appropriate at beach access points explaining the
importance of the area to sea turtles and/or the life history of sea turtle species that nest in the
area.

5. Educational programs for beachfront businesses, homeowners, and renters should be
developed or continued (as appropriate) to explain the importance of minimizing lights visible
from the beach. The Service has educational materials that may be helpful in this effort.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation
of any conservation recommendations.

55
7. REINITIATION NOTICE

Formal consultation for the Action considered in this BO is concluded. Reinitiating consultation
is required if the Corps retains discretionary involvement or control over the Action (or is
authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;
c. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.

In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the Corps is required to
immediately request a reinitiation of formal consultation.

8. LITERATURE CITED

Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs.
American Zoologist 20:575-583.
Amorocho, D. 2003. Monitoring nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the central
Caribbean coast of Colombia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:8-13.
Anders, F.J., and S.P. Leatherman. 1987. Disturbance of beach sediment by off-road vehicles.
Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 9:183-189.
Anonymous. 1992. First Kemp’s ridley nesting in South Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter
59:23.
Baker, S. and B. Higgins. 2003. Summary of CWT project and recoveries, tag detection, and
protocol for packaging and shipping Kemp’s ridley flippers. Unpublished presentation at
the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network annual meeting. February 2003.
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.
Beggs, J.A., J.A. Horrocks, and B.H. Krueger. 2007. Increase in hawksbill sea turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata nesting in Barbados, West Indies. Endangered Species Research
3:159-168.
Bernardo, J. and P.T. Plotkin. 2007. An evolutionary perspective on the arribada phenomenon
and reproductive behavior polymorphism of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys
olivacea). Pages 59-87 in Plotkin, P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea
Turtles. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach,
Florida, I. Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biological Conservation 26:65-77.
Blair, K. 2005. Determination of sex ratios and their relationship to nest temperature of
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta, L.) hatchlings produced along the southeastern
Atlantic coast of the United States. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.
56
Bleakney, J.S. 1955. Four records of the Atlantic ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi, from Nova
Scotia. Copeia 2:137.
Bolten, A.B. 2003. Active swimmers - passive drifters: the oceanic juvenile stage of
loggerheads in the Atlantic system. Pages 63-78 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington
(editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Bolten, A.B. and H.R. Martins. 1990. Kemp’s ridley captured in the Azores. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 48:23.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1983. Somes notes on the population biology of green (Chelonia mydas) and
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles in the northern U.S Virgin Islands; 1981-83.
Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Grant No. NA82-GA-A-ooo44. 18
pages.
Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1984. Growth rates of wild juvenile hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys
imbricata, in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Copeia 1994(3):811-814.
Bowen, B. W., A.L. Bass, L. Soares, and R.J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of
complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).
Molecular Ecology 14:2389-2402.
Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zoologische Verhandelingen 121:318.
Brongersma, L. and A. Carr. 1983. Lepidochelys kempii (Garman) from Malta. Proceedings of
the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series C) 86(4):445-454.
Burchfield, P.M. and J.L Peña. 2011. Final report on the Mexico/United Stated of America
population for the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of
Tamaupilas, Mexico. 2011. Annual report to Fish and Wildlife Service. 43 pages.
Caldwell, D.K. 1962. Comments on the nesting behavior of Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles,
based primarily on tagging returns. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of
Sciences 25(4):287-302.
Carr, A. 1961. The ridley mystery today. Animal Kingdom 64(1):7-12.
Carr, A. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempii. Ergebnisse der
Biologie 26:298-303.
Carr, A. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The green turtle in
the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 121(1):1-48.
Chaloupka, M. 2001. Historical trends, seasonality and spatial synchrony in green sea turtle egg
production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279.
Christens, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology
24(4):400-402.
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore protection manual, volumes I and II. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Coastal Protection Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. 2021. Environmental Assessment for
Dare County Multi-Town Shore Protection Project. 39 pp.
Collard, S.B. and L.H. Ogren. 1990. Dispersal scenarios for pelagic post-hatchling sea turtles.
Bulletin of Marine Science 47(1):233-243.
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. Uptite, and B.E.
Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under
the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 219 pages.
57
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): implications for conservation
and management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7(4):826-833.
Corliss, L.A., J.I. Richardson, C. Ryder, and R. Bell. 1989. The hawksbills of Jumby Bay,
Antigua, West Indies. Pages 33-35 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson
(compilers). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and
Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232.
Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjorndal. 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles:
review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3(2):95-104.
Crouse, D. 1999. Population modeling and implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle
management. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):185-188.
Dahlen, M.K., R. Bell, J.I. Richardson, and T.H. Richardson. 2000. Beyond D-0004: Thirty-
four years of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) research on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia,
1964-1997. Pages 60-62 in Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno-Duenas, R. Marquez, and L.
Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Sea Turtle Symposium.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-436.
Daniel, R.S. and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea-approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 40(6):413-420.
Davis, G.E. and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades National
Park, Florida, U.S.A. Herpetologica 33:18-28.
Dean, C. 1999. Against the tide: the battle for America’s beaches. Columbia University Press;
New York, New York.
Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D.S. Schoeman, T.A. Schlacher, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, and
F. Scapini. 2009. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 81:1–12.
Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1938. The Mexican loggerhead turtle in Europe. Nature 142:540.
Dickerson, D.D. and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation responses to
light wavelengths and intensities. Pages 41-43 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H.
Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 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).
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 1999. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in
Georgia, 1999: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources
report
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2000. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in
Georgia, 2000: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources
unpublished report.
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2001. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in
Georgia, 2001. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida..
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2002. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in
Georgia, 2002. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
58
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2003. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in
Georgia, 2003. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2004. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in
Georgia, 2004. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Dodge, K.D., R. Prescott, D. Lewis, D. Murley, and C. Merigo. 2003. A review of cold stun
strandings on Cape Cod, Massachusetts from 1979-2003. Unpublished Poster NOAA,
Mass Audubon, New England Aquarium.
http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/research/protectedspecies/
Dutton, D.L., P.H. Dutton, M. Chaloupka, and R.H. Boulon. 2005. Increase of a Caribbean
leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting population linked to long-term nest
protection. Biological Conservation 126:186-194.
Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. Pages 122-139 in Ogren, L., F.
Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham
(editors). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.
Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean:
geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 157-174 in Bolten, A.B.
and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washington D.C.
Encalada, S.E., J.C. Zurita, and B.W. Bowen. 1999. Genetic consequences of coastal
development: the sea turtle rookeries at X’cacel, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83:8-
10.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Coastal Zones and sea level rise. Accessed on 29
January 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index/html.
Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1993. Sea turtle protection program performed in support of
velocity cap repairs, Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant. Applied Biology,
Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida.
Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1999. Martin County beach nourishment project: sea turtle
monitoring and studies. 1997 annual report and final assessment. Unpublished report
prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Fletemeyer, J. 1980. Sea turtle monitoring project. Unpublished report prepared for the
Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board, Florida.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Critically eroded beaches in Florida.
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Tallahassee, Florida
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/BEACHES/publications/pdf/CritEroRpt09.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2007. Light sources contributing to
reported disorientation events in Florida, 2007.
http://www.myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Seaturtle_DisorientationEvents2007.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008a. Reported nesting activity of the
Kemps Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), in Florida, 1979-2007. Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute.
http://research.myfwc.com/images/articles/2377/sea_turtle_nesting_on_florida_bchs_93-
07.pdf
59
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008b. Personal communication to the
Loggerhead Recovery Team. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009a. Statewide Nesting Beach Survey
database http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=10690
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009b. Index Nesting Beach Survey
Totals. http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=10690
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009c. Florida’s endangered species,
threatened species, and species of special concern.
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=5182
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. 2010a. A good nesting season for loggerheads in 2010 does not reverse a
recent declining trend. http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=27537
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. 2010b. Index nesting beach survey totals (1989 - 2010).
http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals-1989-2010/
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. 2011. Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2010. Climate change and sea-level rise in Florida: An
update of “The effects of climate change on Florida’s ocean and coastal resources".
FOCC, Tallahassee, FL, Available at
http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_Change_and_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf
Foley, A. 2005. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team. Florida Fish and
Wildlife Research Institute.
Foley, A., B. Schroeder, and S. MacPherson. 2008. Post-nesting migrations and resident areas
of Florida loggerheads. Pages 75-76 in Kalb, H., A. Rohde, K. Gayheart, and K. Shanker
(compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-582.
Fontaine, C.T., S.A. Manzella, T.D. Williams, R.M. Harris, and W.J. Browning. 1989.
Distribution, growth and survival of head started, tagged and released Kemp's ridley sea
turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) from year-classes 1978-1983. Pages 124-144 in Caillouet,
C.W., Jr., and A.M. Landry Jr. (editors). Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management.
TAMU-SG:89-105.
Foote, J.J. and T.L. Mueller. 2002. Two Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests on the Gulf
coast of Sarasota County, Florida, USA. Page 217 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost
(compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477.
Foote, J., J. Sprinkel, T. Mueller, and J. McCarthy. 2000. An overview of twelve years of
tagging data from Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas nesting habitat along the central
Gulf coast of Florida, USA. Pages 280-283 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (compilers).
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443.
Frair, W., R.G. Ackerman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys
coriacea: warm water turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793.
60
Francisco-Pearce, A.M. 2001. Contrasting population structure of Caretta caretta using
mitochondrial and nuclear DNA primers. Unpublished Master of Science thesis.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Frazer, N.B. and J.I. Richardson. 1985. Annual variation in clutch size and frequency for
loggerhead turtles, Caretta-caretta, nesting at Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA.
Herpetologica 41(3):246-251.
Fretey, J., A. Billes, and M. Tiwari. 2007. Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea, nesting along
the Atlantic coast of Africa. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1): 126-129.
Garduño-Andrade, M. 1999. Nesting of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in Río
Lagartos, Yucatán, Mexico, 1990-1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):281-
285.
Garner, J.A. and S.A. Garner. 2010. Saturation tagging and nest management of leatherback sea
turtles on (Dermochelys coriacea) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Island, 2010.
Annual report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 49 pages.
Gerrodette, T. and J. Brandon. 2000. Designing a monitoring program to detect trends. Pages
36-39 in Bjorndal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten (editors). Proceedings of a Workshop on
Assessing Abundance and Trends for In-water Sea Turtle Populations. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445.
Glenn, L. 1998. The consequences of human manipulation of the coastal environment on
hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta, L.). Pages 58-59 in Byles, R., and Y.
Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of climate change on sand and
nest temperatures at a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting beach. Global
Change Biology 10:2036-2045.
Godfrey, M.H. and N. Mrosovsky. 1997. Estimating the time between hatching of sea turtles
and their emergence from the nest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(4):581-585.
Godfrey, P.J., S.P. Leatherman, and P.A. Buckley. 1978. Impact of off-road vehicles on coastal
ecosystems. Pages 581-599 in Coastal Zone ’78 Symposium on Technical,
Environmental Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management.
Vol. II, San Francisco, California.
Greer, A.E., J.D. Lazell, Jr., and R.M. Wright. 1973. Anatomical evidence for counter-current
heat exchanger in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Nature 244:181.
Gyuris E. 1994. The rate of predation by fishes on hatchlings of the green turtle. Coral Reefs
12:137.
Hanson, J., T. Wibbels, and R.E. Martin. 1998. Predicted female bias in sex ratios of hatchling
loggerhead sea turtles from a Florida nesting beach. Canadian Journal of Zoology
76(10):1850-1861.
Hailman, J.P. and A.M. Elowson. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta
caretta). Herpetologica 48:1-30.
Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2005. Status of nesting
loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta at Bald Head Island (North Carolina, USA) after 24
years of intensive monitoring and conservation. Oryx 39(1):65-72.
Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2008. Climate change and
marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154.
61
Hays, G.C. 2000. The implications of variable remigration intervals for the assessment of
population size in marine turtles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206:221-227.
Hegna, R.H., M.J. Warren, C.J. Carter, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp’s
Ridley sea turtle). Herpetological Review 37(4):492.
Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130:455-535.
Heppell, S.S. 1998. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle
conservation. Copeia 1998(2):367-375.
Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, and T.R. Menzel. 1999. Life table analysis of long-lived marine
species with implications for conservation and management. Pages 137-148 in Musick,
J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine
Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
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. Pages 225-273 in Bolten, A.B.
and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washinghton D.C.
Heppell, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, S.P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez,
and N.B. Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population
size, and management impacts on Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and
Biology 4(4):767-773.
Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting
and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science
thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 138 pages.
Hildebrand, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del área de anidación de la tortuga marina “lora”
Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la coasta occidental del Golfo de México. Sobretiro de
Ciencia, México 22:105-112.
Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus
1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 97(1).
Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South
Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department Completion Report.
Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track effects
on the sea –approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation
8:158-161.
Houghton, J.D.R. and G.C. Hays. 2001. Asynchronous emergence by loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta) hatchlings. Naturwissenschaften 88:133-136.
Howard, B. and P. Davis. 1999. Sea turtle nesting activity at Ocean Ridge in Palm Beach
County, Florida 1999. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources
Management, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Hughes, A.L. and E.A. Caine. 1994. The effects of beach features on hatchling loggerhead sea
turtles. Pages 237 in Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar
(compilers). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Insacco, G. and F. Spadola. 2010. First record of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidocheyls kempii
(Garman 1880) (Cheloniidae), from the Italian waters (Mediterranean Sea). Acta
Herpetologica 5(1):113-117.
62
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New
York, USA.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon,
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(editors). Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA.
Jimenez, M.C., A. Filonov, I. Tereshchenko, and R.M. Marquez. 2005. Time-series analyses of
the relationship between nesting frequency of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and
meteorological conditions. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):774-780.
Johnson, S.A., A.L. Bass, B. Libert, M. Marmust, and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp’s ridley
(Lepidochelys kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62(3/4):194-204.
Jones, T.T., M.D. Hastings, B.L. Bostrom, D. Pauly, and D.R. Jones. 2011. Growth of captive
leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, with inferences on growth in the wild:
Implications for population decline and recovery. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 399:84-92.
Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M.
Ishii, T. Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. Kodama, Y. Kondo, I. Miyawaki, K.
Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura, Y. Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H.
Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T. Toji, M. Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, and
I. Wakabayashi. 2003. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Japan. Pages 210-217 in Bolten,
A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washington D.C.
Kaufman, W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The Beaches are Moving: The Drowning of America’s
Shoreline. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
Komar, P.D. 1983. Coastal erosion in response to the construction of jetties and breakwaters.
Pages 191-204 in Komar, P.D. (editor). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and
Erosion. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.

Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive success
of sea turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. Final report to the
United States Air Force. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, Agreement Number 14-16-0009-1544, Research Work Order
Number 25.
LeBuff, C.R., Jr. 1990. The loggerhead turtle in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta Research,
Inc.; Sanibel Island, Florida.
Leon, Y.M. and C.E. Diez. 1999. Population structure of hawksbill turtles on a foraging ground
in the Dominican Republic. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):230-236.
Limpus. C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search 2(10):385-387.
63
Limpus, C.J. 1997. Marine turtle populations of Southeast Asia and the western Pacific Region:
distribution and status. Pages 37-72 in Noor, Y.R.., I.R. Lubis, R. Ounsted, S. Troeng,
and A. Abdullah (editors). Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and
Management in Indonesia. Wetlands International, PHPA/Environment Australia, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Limpus, C.J. 2002. Western Australia marine turtle review. Unpublished report to Western
Austalian Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Limpus, C.J. 2004. A biological review of Australian marine turtles. iii. hawksbill turtle,
Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus). Department of Environment and Heritage and
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.
Limpus, C.J., V. Baker, and J.D. Miller. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead
eggs. Herpetologica 35(4):335-338.
Limpus, C., J.D. Miller, and C.J. Parmenter. 1993. The northern Great Barrier Reef green turtle
Chelonia mydas breeding population. Pages 47-50 in Smith, A.K. (compiler), K.H.
Zevering and C.E. Zevering (editors). Raine Island and Environs Great Barrier Reef:
Quest to Preserve a Fragile Outpost of Nature. Raine Island Corporation and Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Limpus, C.J., and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead Turtles in the Equatorial and Southern
Pacific Ocean. Pages 199-209 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors).
Loggherhead Sea Turtles. The Smithsonian Institution.
Lohmann, K. J., Witherington, B. E., Lohmann, C. M. F. and Salmon, M. 1997. Orientation,
navigation, and natal beach homing in sea turtles. In The Biology of Sea Turtles (ed. P.
Lutz and J. Musick), pp. 107-136. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Lohmann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2003. Orientation mechanisms of hatchling loggerheads.
Pages 44-62 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle
survival. Pages 387-409 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea
Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in
southeastern Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, Florida.
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.
Marquez-Millan, R. 1994. Synopsis of biological data on the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle,
Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-
343.
Márquez, M.R., A. Villanueva O., and M. Sánchez P. 1982. The population of the Kemp’s
ridley sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico – Lepidochelys kempii. Pages 159-164 in
Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.
Smithsonian Institute Press.

64
Marquez-Millan, R., A. Villanueva O., and P.M. Burchfield. 1989. Nesting population and
production of hatchlings of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas,
Mexico. Pages 16-19 in Caillouet, Jr., C.W. and A.M. Landry, Jr. (editors). Proceedings
of the First international Symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology,
Conservation, and Management. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program. TAMU-
SG-89-105. College Station, Texas.
Marquez, M.R., M.A. Carrasco, C. Jimenez, R.A. Byles, P. Burchfield, M. Sanchez, J. Diaz, and
A.S. Leo. 1996. Good news! Rising numbers of Kemp’s ridleys nest at Rancho Nuevo,
Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73:2-5.
Martin, R.E. 1992. Turtle nest relocation on Jupiter Island, Florida: an evaluation. Presentation
to the Fifth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, February
12-14, 1992, St. Petersburg, Florida.
McDonald, D.L. and P.H. Dutton. 1996. Use of PIT tags and photoidentification to revise
remigration estimates of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands, 1979-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):148-152.
McGehee, M.A. 1990. Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles
(Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 46(3):251-258.
Melvin, S.M., C.R. Griffin, and L.H. MacIvor. 1991. Recovery strategies for piping plovers in
Managed coastal landscapes. Coastal Management 19: 21-34.
Meylan, A. 1982. Estimation of population size in sea turtles. Pages 135-138 in Bjorndal, K.A.
(editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Meylan, A. 1992. Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata. Pages 95-99 in Moler, P.E.
(editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Meylan, A. 1995. Fascimile dated April 5, 1995, to Sandy MacPherson, National Sea Turtle
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. St. Petersburg, Florida.
Meylan, A.B. 1999. Status of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean
region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):177-184.
Meylan, A.B. and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):200-224.
Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of
Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52, St. Petersburg,
Florida.
Miller, K., G.C. Packard, and M.J. Packard. 1987. Hydric conditions during incubation
influence locomotor performance of hatchling snapping turtles. Journal of Experimental
Biology 127:401-412.
Moody, K. 1998. The effects of nest relocation on hatching success and emergence success of
the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Florida. Pages 107-108 in Byles, R. and Y.
Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Moran, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 1999. Effects of the thermal environment on the
temporal pattern of emergence of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 189:251-261.
65
Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temperatures for loggerhead turtles from northern and southern
nesting beaches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:661-669.
Mrosovsky, N. and A. Carr. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green
sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behavior 28:217-
231.
Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha. 1989. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and
estimates from a five year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:530-538.
Mrosovsky, N. and S.J. Shettleworth. 1968. Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in
water finding behavior of sea turtles. Behavior 32:211-257.
Mrosovsky, N. and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in
sea turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biological Conservation 18:271-280.
Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting
beaches in the southeast region. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine mammals. Pages 1-10 in
Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived
Marine Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 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, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-455.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009a. Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta). National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009b. Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas). National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009c. Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs,
Maryland. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009d. Hawksbill Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs,
Maryland. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for
U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries
Service, Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for
leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of
Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery plan for
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of
Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery
plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
66
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Recovery
plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Green sea
turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 102 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Leatherback
sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 79 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Hawksbill sea
turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 90 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan
for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta),
second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-
national recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), second
revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. 2012. Linear mean sea level (MSL)
trends and standard errors in mm/yr, Available at
<http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm>.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional climate trends and scenarios
for the U.S. national climate assessment. Part 1. Climate of the northeast U.S. NOAA
technical report NESDIS 142-1. NOAA, Washington, DC, Available at
<http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/report/regional-climate-trends-and-scenarios-us-
national-climate-assessment-part-1-climate-northeast>.
National Research Council. 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: Engineering
Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1990a. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National
Academy Press; Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1990b. Managing coastal erosion. National Academy Press;
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press;
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the science of climate change. The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, Available at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782>.
Neal, W.J., O.H. Pilkey, and J.T. Kelley. 2007. Atlantic coast beaches: a guide to ripples,
dunes, and other natural features of the seashore. Mountain Press Publishing Company,
Missoula, Montana. 250 pages.
Nelson, D.A. 1987. The use of tilling to soften nourished beach sand consistency for nesting sea
turtles. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(23). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR
EL-86-2 (Rev.).

67
Nelson, D.A. and B. Blihovde. 1998. Nesting sea turtle response to beach scarps. Page 113 in
Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFSC-412.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nest digging times
with beach sand consistency. Abstract of the 7th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988a. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. In Tait,
L.S. (editor). Proceedings of the Beach Preservation Technology Conference '88.
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988b. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting
beaches on the east coast of Florida. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988c. Response of nesting sea turtles to tilling of
compacted beaches, Jupiter Island, Florida. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck, and J. Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on sea
turtle nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. Technical Report EL-87-15. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nielsen, J.T. 2010. Population structure and the mating system of loggerhead turtles (Caretta
caretta). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 507.
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/507
Nordstrom, J.F. and J.M. McCluskey. 1985. The Effects of Houses and Sand Fences on the
Eolian Sediment Budget at Fire Island, New York. Journal of Coastal Research 1(1): 39-
46.
Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp’s ridley turtles: preliminary
results from the 1984-1987 surveys. Pages 116-123 in Caillouet, C.W., Jr., and A.M.
Landry, Jr. (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp’s Ridley
Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University Sea Grant
College Program TAMU-SG-89-105.
Packard, M.J. and G.C. Packard. 1986. Effect of water balance on growth and calcium
mobilization of embryonic painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Physiological Zoology
59(4):398-405.
Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and T.J. Boardman. 1984. Influence of hydration of the
environment on the pattern of nitrogen excretion by embryonic snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Experimental Biology 108:195-204.
Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and W.H.N. Gutzke. 1985. Influence of hydration of the
environment on eggs and embryos of the terrestrial turtle Terrapene ornata.
Physiological Zoology 58(5):564-575.
Packard,G.C., M.J. Packard, T.J. Boardman, and M.D. Ashen. 1981. Possible adaptive value of
water exchange in flexible-shelled eggs of turtles. Science 213:471-473.
Packard G.C., M.J. Packard, K. Miller, and T.J. Boardman. 1988. Effects of temperature and
moisture during incubation on carcass composition of hatchling snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 158:117-125.
68
Parmenter, C.J. 1980. Incubation of the eggs of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Torres
Strait, Australia: the effect of movement on hatchability. Australian Wildlife Research
7:487-491.
Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings (Eretmochelys imbricata) by
stadium lights. Copeia 1976:824.
Pilcher, N. J., Enderby, J. S., Stringell, T. and Bateman, L. 2000. Nearshore turtle hatchling
distribution and predation. In Sea Turtles of the Indo-Pacific: Research, Management and
Conservation (ed. N. J. Pilcher and M. G. Ismai), pp.151 -166. New York: Academic
Press.
Pilkey, O.H. and K.L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press; Washington, D.C.
Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright III. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research,
Special Issue 4:41-64.
Pilkey, Jr., O.H., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal, and B.L.
Gruver. 1984. Living with the East Florida Shore. Duke University Press, Durham,
North Carolina.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea in Pacific
Mexico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982(4):741-747.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1992. Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Pages 214-218 in Moler,
P.E. (editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. University Press of
Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Pritchard, P.C.H. and R. Márquez M. 1973. Kemp’s ridley or Atlantic ridley, Lepidochelys
kempii. IUCN Monograph No. 2. (Marine Turtle Series).
Provancha, J.A. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. Sea turtle nesting trends at Kennedy Space Center and
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factors influencing nest
site selection. Pages 33-44 in Witzell, W.N. (editor). Ecology of East Florida Sea
Turtles: Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA
Technical Report NMFS-53.
Putman, N.F., T.J. Shay, and K.J. Lohmann. 2010. Is the geographic distribution of nesting in
the Kemp’s ridley turtle shaped by the migratory needs of offspring? Integrative and
Comparative Biology, a symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
Integrative and Comparative Biology, Seattle, WA. 10 pages.
Rabon, D.R., Jr., S.A. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S. Murphy, S. Ramsey, S.
Roff, and K. Stewart. 2003. Confirmed leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nests
from North Carolina, with a summary of leatherback nesting activities north of Florida.
Marine Turtle Newslettter 101:4-8.
Raymond, P.W. 1984. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south
Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central
Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Rehfisch, M.M., and H.Q.P. Crick. 2003. Predicting the impact of climatic change on Arctic-
breeding waders. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:86-95.
Reina, R.D., P.A. Mayor, J.R. Spotila, R. Piedra, and F.V. Paladino. 2002. Nesting ecology of
the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas,
Costa Rica: 1988-1989 to 1999-2000. Copeia 2002(3):653-664.

69
Rice, T.M. 2017. Inventory of Habitat Modifications to Sandy Oceanfront Beaches in the U.S.
Atlantic Coast Breeding Range of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) as of 2015:
Maine to North Carolina. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Hadley, Massachusetts. 295 p.
Rice, T.M. 2009. Best management practices for shoreline stabilization to avoid and minimize
adverse environmental impacts. Unpublished report prepared for the USFWS, Panama
City Ecological Services Field Office, Available at
http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPL/BMPs%20For%20Shoreline%20Stabilization%
20To%20Avoid%20And%20Minimize%20Adverse%20Environmental%20Impacts.pdf.
Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration patterns
of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting on Little Cumberland Island and
Cumberland Island, Georgia. Pages 39-44 in Henderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings of
the Florida and Interregional Conference on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research
Publications Number 33.
Richardson, J.I., R. Bell, and T.H. Richardson. 1999. Population ecology and demographic
implications drawn from an 11-year study of nesting hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys
imbricata, at Jumby Bay, Long Island, Antigua, West Indies. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 3(2):244-250.
Ross, J.P. 1979. Sea turtles in the Sultanate of Oman. World Wildlife Fund Project 1320. May
1979 report. 53 pages.
Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. Pages
189-195 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, D.C.
Ross, J.P. and M.A. Barwani. 1995. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area. Pages 373-383
in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 615 pages.
Rostal, D.C. 2007. Reproductive physiology of the ridley sea turtle. Pages 151-165 in Plotkin
P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Routa, R.A. 1968. Sea turtle nest survey of Hutchinson Island, Florida. Quarterly Journal of the
Florida Academy of Sciences 30(4):287-294.
Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment
on Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. Restoration Ecology 9(3):304-310.
Salmon, M. and J. Wyneken. 1987. Orientation and swimming behavior of hatchling loggerhead
turtles Caretta caretta L. during their offshore migration. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 109:
137–153.
Salmon, M., J. Wyneken, E. Fritz, and M. Lucas. 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role
of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour 122 (1-2):56-77.
Schroeder, B.A. 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles (Caretta
caretta and Chelonia mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist 44(1):35.
Schroeder, B.A. 1994. Florida index nesting beach surveys: are we on the right track? Pages
132-133 in Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers).
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.

70
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 Bolten, A.B.
and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washington D.C.
Schroeder, B.A. and A.E. Mosier. 1996. Between a rock and a hard place: coastal armoring and
marine turtle nesting habitat in Florida. Proceedings of the 18th International Sea Turtle
Symposium (Supplement, 16th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium Addemdum). NOAA
Technical Memorandum.
Scott, J.A. 2006. Use of satellite telemetry to determine ecology and management of loggerhead
turtle (Caretta caretta) during the nesting season in Georgia. Unpublished Master of
Science thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Shaver, D.J. 2002. Research in support of the restoration of sea turtles and their habitat in
national seashores and areas along the Texas coast, including the Laguna Madre. Final
NRPP Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2005. Analysis of the Kemp's ridley imprinting and headstart project at Padre
Island National Seashore, Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding records
on the Texas coast. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):846-859.
Shaver, D.J. 2006a. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and
Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2004 report. National Park Service, Department of
the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2006b. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and
Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of
the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2007. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2006 report. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2008. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2007 report. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. and C.W. Caillouet, Jr. 1998. More Kemp’s ridley turtles return to south Texas to
nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82:1-5.
Shaver, D. 2008. Personal communication via e-mail to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida, on Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nesting in Texas in
2008. National Park Service.
Snover, M.L., A.A. Hohn, L.B. Crowder, and S.S. Heppell. 2007. Age and growth in Kemp’s
ridley sea turtles: evidence from mark-recapture and skeletochronology. Pages 89-106 in
Plotkin P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Snover, M. 2005. Personal communication to the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery Team.
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Sobel, D. 2002. A photographic documentation of aborted nesting attempts due to lounge
chairs. Page 311 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477.
Solow, A.R., K.A. Bjorndal, and A.B. Bolten. 2002. Annual variation in nesting numbers of
marine turtles: the effect of sea surface temperature on re-migration intervals. Ecology
Letters 5:742-746.
71
Spotila, J.R., E.A. Standora, S.J. Morreale, G.J. Ruiz, and C. Puccia. 1983. Methodology for the
study of temperature related phenomena affecting sea turtle eggs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Endangered Species Report 11.
Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 1996.
Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going
extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):290-222.
Spotila, J.R. R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific
leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405:529-530.
Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle
Caretta caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon predation by
transplantation. Biological Conservation 18:289-298.
Stancyk, S.E. 1995. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. Pages 139-152 in
Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.
Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead turtle
reproduction: a seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research
14(3):1000-1013.
Sternberg, J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Center for
Environmental Education, Washington, D.C.
Stewart, K.R. 2007. Establishment and growth of a sea turtle rookery: the population biology of
the leatherback in Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina. 129 pages.
Stewart, K. and C. Johnson. 2006. Dermochelys coriacea-Leatherback sea turtle. In Meylan,
P.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian Research
Monographs 3:144-157.
Stewart, K.R. and J. Wyneken. 2004. Predation risk to loggerhead hatchlings at a high-density
nesting beach in Southeast Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 74(2):325-335.
Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011.
Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years
using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications 21(1):263-273.
Talbert, O.R., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia
1980(4):709-718.
Tomas, J. and J.A. Raga. 2007. Occurrence of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in
the Mediterranean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom
2. Biodiversity Records 5640. 3 pages.
Trindell, R. 2005. Sea turtles and beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Imperiled Species Management Section. Invited Instructor, CLE
Conference.
Trindell, R. 2007. Personal communication. Summary of lighting impacts on Brevard County
beaches after beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Imperiled Species Management Section, Tallahassee, Florida to Lorna Patrick, U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida.

72
Trindell, R., D. Arnold, K. Moody, and B. Morford. 1998. Post-construction marine turtle
nesting monitoring results on nourished beaches. Pages 77-92 in Tait, L.S. (compiler).
Proceedings of the 1998 Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology.
Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida.
Turtle Expert Working Group . 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys
kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North
Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment for the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea
turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum.
NMFS-SEFSC-444.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the
Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555.
Turtle Expert Working Group. 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the
Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Report on the Mexico/United States of America
population restoration project for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on
the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico 2005. Fish and Wildlife Service
Technical Report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final Report of the
National Ecological Assessment Team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Geologic Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft communications plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Role in Climate Change.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Final report on the Mexico/United States of America
population restoration project for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on
the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1978. Listing and
Protecting Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Threatened Species and Populations of Green and
Olive Ridley Sea Turtles as Threatened Species or Endangered Species. Federal Register
43(146):32800-32811.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, Available at
<http://library.globalchange.gov/2009-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-
states>.
Watson, J.W., D. G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2004. Experiments in the western Atlantic
Northeast Distant Waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic
longline fishery. Report on experiments conducted in 2001-2003. February 4, 2004.
Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2006. Intra-annual loggerhead and green
turtle spatial nesting patterns. Southeastern Naturalist 5(3):453-462.
Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, and D.R. Rostal. 1991. Soft plastra of adult male sea turtles: an
apparent secondary sexual characteristic. Herpetological Review 22:47-49.
Williams, K.L., M.G. Frick, and J.B. Pfaller. 2006. First report of green, Chelonia mydas, and
Kemp’s ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, turtle nesting on Wassaw Island, Georgia, USA.
Marine Turtle Newsletter 113:8.
73
Williams-Walls, N., J. O’Hara, R.M. Gallagher, D.F. Worth, B.D. Peery, and J.R. Wilcox. 1983.
Spatial and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, 1971-
1979. Bulletin of Marine Science 33(1):55-66.
Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling
mortality and their relationship to hatching production on an important Florida nesting
beach. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando,
Florida.
Witherington, B. E. 1991. Orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles at sea off artificially
lighted and dark beaches. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149, 1-11.
Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.
Herpetologica 48:31-39.
Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal
animals. Pages 303-328 in Clemmons, J.R. and R. Buchholz (editors). Behavioral
approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.
Witherington, B.E. 2006. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team on nest
monitoring in Florida during 2005. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Witherington, B.E. and K.A. Bjorndal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward
orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Biological Conservation
55:139-149.
Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjorndal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of nocturnal
emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests. Copeia 1990(4):1165-
1168.
Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green
turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Pages 351-352 in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K.
Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (editors).
Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226.
Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light
pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute
Technical Report TR-2.
Witherington, B.E, L. Lucas, and C. Koeppel. 2005. Nesting sea turtles respond to the effects of
ocean inlets. Pages 355-356 in Coyne, M.S. and R.D. Clark (compilers). Proceedings of
the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528.
Witherington, B.E. and M. Salmon. 1992. Predation on loggerhead turtle hatchlings after
entering the sea. Journal of Herpetology. 26(2):226-228.
Wood, D.W. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity, and slope to
nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 2000(1):119-128.
Wyneken, J., Salmon, M. and K. J. Lohmann. 1990. Orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea
turtles Caretta caretta in a wave tank. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 139, 43–50.
Wyneken, J., L. DeCarlo, L. Glenn, M. Salmon, D. Davidson, S. Weege., and L. Fisher. 1998.
On the consequences of timing, location and fish for hatchlings leaving open beach
hatcheries. Pages 155-156 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412.
74
Wyneken, J. 2000. The migratory behavior of hatchling sea turtles beyond the beach. Pages 121–
142 in N.J. Pilcher and G. Ismail, eds. Sea turtles of the Indo-Pacific. ASEAN Academic
Press, London.
Wyneken, J., L.B. Crowder, and S. Epperly. 2005. Final report: evaluating multiple stressors in
loggerhead sea turtles: developing a two-sex spatially explicit model. Final Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Research,
Washington, DC. EPA Grant Number: R829094.
Zug, G.R. and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea
(Testidines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 2(2):244-249.
Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Torres, C. Calderón, L. Gómez, J.C. Alvarado, and R.
Villavicencio. 2003. Nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico.
Pages 125-127 in Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFSC-503.