20130144 Ver 2_US Dept of the Interior_20140401

United States Department of the Interior
fISH AND WILDLUT SERVICE",
Ueigh He[d Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carohiia 27636-3726
April 1, 2014
Henry Wicker
U S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, Nortb Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Wicker:
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Biological Opinion based
on our review of the proposed NC 12 Emergency Beach Nourishment Project in Dare County,
North Carolina and its effects on the federally endangered leatberback sea turtle (Derniochelys
coriacea), federally endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys ken7j)H), federally
threatened Northwest Atlantic population of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretto carettel), and
federally threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). This Biological Opinion is provided in
accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 el seq.). Your February 28, 2014 request for formal consultation was received on
February 28, 2014.
If YOU have any questions concerning this Biological Opinion, please contact me at (919) 856-
4520 (Ext. 11).
Pete
Field
Electronic copy:
Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Kathy Herring, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Neil Medlin, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Clay Willis, NCDOT, Edenton, NC
Mike Bryant, USFWS, Manteo, NC

Scott Lanier, USFWS, Manteo, NC
Dennis Stewart, t.JSFWS, Manteo, NC
AnnMarie Lauritsen, USFWS, Saint Petersburg, FL
,Jerry Ziewitz, USF'WS, "I"allahassee, lei,
Thayer Broili, NP S, Manteca, NC
Fritz Rhode, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Travis Wilson, N(.,WR(, Creedmoor, NC
Matthew Godfrey, NCWR(,., Beaufort, NC
Cathy Brittingharn, NCDC'M, RaleigfM, NC
David Wainwright, N("I"')WR, Raleigh, NC
N

,rhis Biological Opinion (BO) is based oil information provided in the Updated March 2014
Biological Assessment (BA), meetings, telephone conversations, emails, field investigations, and
other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at
this office.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
February 14 20]1 —1"he U,S, Arryly Corps o1 Engineers (tJSACE) and the North Carolina
Department of"I'ransportation (N(A , )OT) met with tile Set-vice and other agencies to discuss the
need Im the proposed project. "I "he Service provided inf'ormation on the need Cor formal Section
7 C()nSLJW1ti0TL
May 7-8, 201.0.3 —I'lic USACE and N'(_,'D0'1'agahi niet with the Service and other agencies to
discuss regulatory requirenients lor the project.
January 16, 2014 ­ NCDO''I" i-riects with Service to discuss Section 7 consultation for the pro.ject.
Y`ebruary 4, 2014 Service provides corrinients on a dral"t BA to NCDO'l".
February 6, 2014 'rhe Service provides C0111MCIUS 011 a revised draft BA to NCDOT.
February 28, 2014 —'I'lie Service received a letter from the USACE, dated February 28, 2014,
with the attached BA, requesting formal consultation fior the NC 12 Emergency Beach
Nourishment Project.
March 5, 2014 —The Service sent a letter toUSACE stating that all information reqLtired for
initiation offiormal consultation was either included with their February 28,, 2014 letter or was
otherwise available,
March 13, 2014 'fhe Service provided USACt" and W."DO"I'wit.11 a draft BO.
March 31, 2014 —The Servicc received a revised BA from the IJSACI.,.,',, dated March 2014,
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. jwsciuPTION OF PROPOSED ACA" ON
Oil October 28, 2012, Hurricane Sandy impacted the North Carolina coast in the Cuter Banks.
The storm caused severe beach erosion, dune loss, and damage to ANC' 12. Alter repairing NC 12,
the N(_",DO'F installed protective sandbags and reconstructed a dune adjacent to the highway.
Despite these protective trieasures, NC, 12 is still vulnerable to ocean overwash during storms
and high tides. Although phase 11b of the NC 12 Transportation Management P'lan will
ultimately place NC 12 on a bridge in this area (previously addressed in a .1-uly 10, 2008 BO), the

NCDOT proposes a one-time temporary beach nourishment project in order to protect NC 12 for
approximately three years until the permanent project is completed.
The area. of beach fill will be approximately 12,000 feet long along the eastern side of NC 11
Tile area of beach fill will consist of four zones, Beginning at the northern end, there will be a
2,000 feet long transition area, South of this transition area will be a ?,000 feet: long zone with a
100 feet wide berm and a reconstructed dune. South of this zone is a 6,000 feet long zone with a
120 feet wide berm. The southernmost zone will be another 2,000 feet long transition zone (see
Figure 1).
The estimated VOIL1111C, o('sand to be placed on the beach is L7 million cubic yards. 'Ftie sand
will be obtained by ocean dredging from off"shorebo'j"row sources within the Wimble Shoals area
(see Figure 2). The sand sources have been identified and sanipled liar coinpatibilitywith the
receiving beach. The material placed on the, beach will be in compliance with sand suitability
standards a:; specified in the terms and conditions of Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge (PINWR) Special Use Permit 2013-005.
A pipeline and/or hopper dredge will be utilized to place the sand within the 12,000 Im long
project area. I leavy equipment will then move the sand on the beach and create the designed
beach profile. F",quipment typically used in this operation will likely include an ocean dredge,
barges, pipelines, Pumps, bulldozers, front end loaders, and excavators. "file equipment will be
moored offshore of [lie prqject area and staged oil land at approved sites, 'The location of
equipti,ient will be coordinated with the staffofthe PINWR and the village of Rodantbe.
The sand will be placed on the beach so as to maximize sand placement on the beach face and
reduce runofff'rom the slurry, At the south end of` the project within the Mirlo Beach
community, sand will not be placed under any private homes or structures, Tile nourished beach
profile will remain seaward of any private residence. All work will be conducted 24 hours, per
day, seven days a week, The project is estimated to take 60-90 days to complete.
"I'he action area lies within the North (.'arolina Outer Banks and is C0111prised ofa dynarnic
barrier island system formed by wind and wave action. The barrier islands that make up the
Outer Banks are sand ridges with underlying layers of limestone, sand,, and clay. "I"he action area
begins within the PINWR. approximately .1.5 miles north of the SOLItIlCrIl PINWR boundary and
extends South from that point approximately 2,.27 miles, ending within the comMUrlity of Mirlo,
Beach in Rodanthe (see FIgi.ire, 1). For the Purposes Of this 110, the action area includes all ofthe
beach up to and including NC 12 within the 12,000 beach nourishment at-ea. Most of the action
area is within the IIINWR, Though mostly undeveloped, the portion of the action area within
PINWR consists of natural vegetation communities that have been influenced by past and
present human disturbances. The construction and maintenance of artificial sand ben-n along
the seaward side of NC 12 has significantly interrupted the natural barrier island ecosystem
processes (e.g. limiting overwash and disrupting island migration). The southernmost portion of
4

fire action area consists of the community of Mirlo Beach, which is an area lacking any dunes
and with private residences located between NC 12 and the Atlantic Ocean.
For the purposes of this 130, the sand borrow area within Wirnble Shoals and the ocean between
the borrow area and the nourishment area are not considered part of the action area. The ( JSACE
and/or NCI OT will consult separately with the National Marine Fisheries Service (N'MFS) for
federally listed species that utilize these areas.
C .1
onservation Measures
Conservation measures represent auctions, pledged in tile project description, that the action
will impletnent to millinlize the effects ofthe propos
agency wi . ed action and further the recovery of
the species under review. Such measures ShOLdd be closely related to the action and should be
achicvablewill"ifil the authority ot'lln., action agency, S)ince conservation measures are part ofthe
proposed action, their implementation is required under the terms Ofth(w Consultation. T'he
IJSACf,' and NC[)OT have 1-.)roposed the following conservation, measures.
• A dredge pipeline route will be selected that avoids nesting shorebird areas,
I maintain appropriate
• Compatible beach sand will be utilized and compaction limited so as to m
habitat for swash zone invertebrates, thereby maintaining a food source for shorebirds.
• The project area will be monitored daily from nlid-April through .lone for shorebird site
selection and nesting behavior.
NC1301" will coordinate with the Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWI�(,.) regarding any observations of protected shorebird species within the
project area and take necessary actions to avoid any potential negative impact to these
species.
• Beginning May 1, N'CDOT will establish a airtle monitoring program in the action area to
ensure that the area to receive sediment is clear of incubating sea turtle nests, Monitors will
survey the beach every morning at sunrise froill May through September to look for nesting
activity, It'nesting activity is detected (false crawl or nest), the monitor will contact either
the PINWR. biologist or the National Park Service (NPS') biologist, depending on the activity
location, After the PINWR, and the NIBS begin their monitoring programs in late May, tile
NCDOT' will only monitor the part (A'the action area located outside the DIN T. that is not
monitored by the NI'S or their volunteers.
• Only sand that is determined by the PINWR manager to be conlImrable to native beach sand
will be placed on the project area
• During and after construction, the beach will be rneastiredt'or compaction, If there is
extreme compaction that would limit the ability of sea turtles to successfully construct a nest
cavity, tilling of the disposal material would OCCUr if specified by the PIN WC Refuge
Manager (i r located on the refuge).
• Any work on the beach at night will be done with directional LED lights with a predominant
wavelength of about 650nm. Amber colored construction lights are preferred. Lighting oil
the beach shall be minimized to only what is necessary for sat'c operations. If bulldozers and
N

other equipment are used on the beach at night without the proper LED lights, they will
operate tinder the acceptable lights without the traditional lights.
• if nourishment activity occurs on the beach during the nesting season, nighttime monitors
will be utilized to detect any turtles that may attempt to nest on the project area beach.
• NC DOT will work with the PINWR biologist to implement any necessary modifications to
the current physical and biological sand monitoring project on Pea Island.
If. STAT US OF THE SPECIESIC111TICAL HABITAT
A. Species/critical habitat description
Northwest Atlantic Ocean population of loggerhead sea turtle
The loggerhead sea turtle, which occurs throughout the terriperate 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 (1,R) 32800), On Septernbcr 22, 2011, the loggerhead sea
furtle's listing under the ESA was revised from a single threatened species to nine distinct
population segments (I)PS) listed as either threatened or endangered. The nine DPS�s and their
statuses are:
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DAP S — threatened
Northeast Atlantic Ocean DP S -- endangered
Mediterranean Sea DP'' S - endangered
South Atlantic Ocean DPS — threatened
North Pacific Ocean DDS, — endangered
South Pacific Ocean IRS endangered
North Indian Ocean D S -- endangered
Southwest Indian Ocean DP S -- threatened
Southeast lido - Pacific Ocean DP S — threatened
The loggerhead sea turtle grows to an average weight of about 200 pounds mid is characterized
by a large head with blunt. jaws. Adults and SUbadults have a reddish-brown carapace. Scales oil
the top of the head and top of the flippers are also reddish-brown with yellow on the borders.
I latchlings are a dull brown color (NMFS 2009a). The loggerhead feeds on MOIlLisks,
crustaceans, fish, and other marine anirnals.
The loggerhead may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as
bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral rects,
rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas. Within the Northwest Atlantic,
the maJority of nesting activity occurs from April through September, with a peak in June and
July (Williarns-Walls et al. 1,983, Dodd 1988, Weishanipel et al. 2006 ), Nesting occurs within
the Northwest Atlantic along the coasts of North America, Central America, northern South
America, the Antilles, Bahamas, and Bermuda, but is concentrated in the southeastern united.
I

States and on the Yuca0n. Peninsula in Mexico on open beaches or along narrow bays having
suitable sand (Sternberg 1981, Ehrhart 1989, Ehrhart el al. 2003, NMFS and USFWS 2008).
On March , 2013, the Service proposed to designate critical habitat [car the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean Distinct Population Segment of the loggerhead sea turtle (78 FR 18000). In total, 1,189.9
kilorneters (739.3 miles) of loggerhead sea turtle nesting beaches have been proposed fior
designation as critical habitat in the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabarna, and Mississippi. The final rule is expected to be published in June 2014.
Green sea tuille
The green sea turtle was federally listed on JLJJy 28, 1.978 (43 FR 3, 800). Breeding populations
ofthe green sea turtle in Florida and along the Pacific Coast cif ,mexico are listed as endangered;
all other por.)Lilalions are listed as threatened. l"he green SCH turtle has a worldwide distribution in,
tropical and subtropical waters.
The green sea turtle grows to as maxinium size of al)(All 4 feet and as weight of 440 Pounds, It has
a heart-shaped shell, small head, and single-clawcd flippers. J'he carapace is smooth and colored
gray, green, brown, and black. Hatchlings, are black can top and white on the bottom (NMFS
2009b). Hatchling greeri turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults reed almost
exclusively on seagrasses and marij:ie algae.
Major green sea turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on Ascension Island, Aves, Island,
Costa Rica, and Surinam, Within the US., green sea turtles nest in small numbers in the US.
Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the cast coast of Florida,
particularly in Brevard, Indian River, St, 111,LlCiC, Martin, Palin Beach, and Broward Counties
(NMFS and U SFWS 1991), Nests have been documented, in sn-ialler numbers, not1h of these
Counties, from Volusia through Nassau Counties in Florida, as well as in Georgia, South
Carolina, North Carolina, and as far north as Delaware in 2011. Nests have been documented in
srimller munbers South ot'Broward (.01,111ty in Miami-Dade, Nesting also has been documented
along the Gulf coast of" Florida fi -Orn Escambia County throLigh Franklin County in noithwest
Florida and frorn Pinellas ("ounty through Monroe COUnty in Southwest Florida (FW(_','/FWR1
2010b).
Grecri, sea turtles are generally f1)Und in fairly shallow waters (except when rnigrating) inside
reels, bays, and inlets, The green turtle is attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of
marine grass and algae, Open beaches with a sloping pladorm and minimal disturbance are
requred For nesting.
Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Culebra
Island, Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys.
0

Leatherback sea turtle
The leatherback, sea turtle was federally listed as an endangered species on June 2, 1970 (35 IT
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 and the Cape of Good I lope (Pritchard 1992). Foraging leatherback excursions
have been documented into higher-latitude subpolar waters. They have physiological and
anatomical adaptations that allow them to exploit waters tar colder than any other sea turtle
species would be capable ol'surviving (Frair el td. 1972, Greer et of 1973)
The adult leatherback can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and weigh 500 to 2,000 pounds, 'the
carapace is distinguished by a rUbl',)er-like texture, about L6 inches thick, made primarily or
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
Iced, on sea urchins, squid, cruistaccans, [Urlicates, fish, Nuc-green algae, and floating seaweed.
This is the largest, deepest diving of sea turtle species.
Leatherback turtle nesting grounds are distributed worldwide in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian
Oceans on beaches in the tropics and subtropics. he Pacific Coast of Mexico historically
supported the world's largest known concentration of nesting leatherbacks.
'I"he 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 (NM FS and USFWS
1992). Leather back nesting has also been reported on the northwest coast ofI- for ida (LeBuff
1990, FWC 2009a); and in southwest Florida a false crawl (nonnesting emergence) has been
observed on Sanibel Island (LeBuff 1990). Nesting has also been reported in (3corgia, South
Carolina., and North Carolina (Ration el al. 2003) and in Texas (Shaver 2008).
Adult 66nales, require sand), nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so
the distance to dry sand is limited, Their prefierred beaches have proximity to deep water and
generally rough seas.
Marine and terrestrial critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated at Sandy
Point on the western end ofthe island ot'St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 C I ode of 1, ederal
Regulations (UR) 17.95).
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
The Kemi,-)'s ridley sea turtle was'llederally listed as endangered on December 2, 1970 (35 FR,
18320). The Kenip's ridley, along with the flatback sea turtle (Nattilor dej,)ressus), has the niost
geographically restricted distribution of any sea turtle species. "I'lie 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. Kenip's ridleys and olive ridleys are the sinallest sea turtles in the world. The weight ofan
adult temp's ridley is generally between 70 to 108 pounds with a carapace measuring
approximately 24 to 26 inches in length (Heppell ei al. 2005), 'rhe carapace is almost as wide as
it is long. The species' coloration changes significantly during development from the grey-black
dorsuill 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` swimming crabs, but may also include fish,
jellyfish, and ,,an at-ray ofmollUSkS.
Nesting is rnainly limited to the beaches of tile western (JUlf Of Mexico, primarily in'fanlat,dipaS,
Mexico (NMI, S el a/. 2011 ), Nesting also occurs in VeracrUZ and a few historical records exist
1"or Campeche, Mexico (Marquez-Millan 1994). Nestling also occurs regularly in'rexas and
infrequently in a tew other U.S. states, However, historic nesting recards in the U.S. are limited
to soutil rexas, (Werler 1951, Carr 19(x1, Hildebrand 1963).
Most Kenlp's ridley nests located in the U.S. have been found in south Texas, especially Padre
Island (Shaver and Caillouct 1998. 2002, 2005). Nests have been recorded elsewhere in
Texas (Shaver 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 20(17), and in Florida (,Johnson el al. 1999, Foote and
Mueller 2002, flegna el al. 2006, FWC/FWRI 201 Ob), Alabartla (J. Phillips, Service, personal
communication, 1(1117' cited in NMFS el al. 2011; J. Isaacs, Service, personal communication,
2008 cited in NNIFS, el al, 2(111), Georgia (Williams el al, 2006), South Carolina (Anonymous
1992), and North Carolina (Godfrey 2014), but these events are less frequent. Kemp's ridleys
inhabit the Gulf'of'Mexico and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, as far north as the Grand Banks
(Watson el al. 2004) and Nova Scotia (Bleakney 1955). they OCCUr near the Azores and eastern
north Atlantic (Deraniyagala 1938, Brongersma 1972, Fontaine et al, 1989,13olten and Martins
1990) and Mediterranean (Pritchard and Marquez 1973, f3rongerst-na and Can- 1983„ Tomas and
Raga 2007, Insacco and Spadola 2010).
f latchlirigs, atler leaving the nesting beach, are believed to become entrained in eddies within tile
(Iulf ol'Mexico. Most Kemp's ridley post-hatchlings likely remain within the Gulf of' Mexico.
Others are transported into the northern Gulf of Mexico and then eastward, with some contimling
southward in the Loop Currentthen eastward on the I'lorida Current into the (:lull` Stream
(Collard and Ogren 1990, Putman el al, 201 0). Juvenile Kemp's ridleys spend on average two
years in the oceanic zone (NMFS SEFSCunpUblished preliminary analysis, Ally 2004., as cited
in NMFS el aL 2(111) where they likely live and feed among floating algal conliliunities. 'I'lley
remain here until they reach about 7.9 inches in length (al:)I)rox i mate] y two 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 one to four years or perhaps more ("I'Li.rtle Expert Working Group
(TEWG) 2000, Baker and Uliggins, 2003, Dodge el al. 2003).
Nea critical habitat has been designated for the Kernp's ridley sea turtle.
M

B. Life History
Loggerhead sea turtle
J...,oggerheads are long-lived, slow-growing) animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean
basins throughout their life history, 'rhis complex life history encompasses terrestrial, nearshore,
and open ocean habitats, The three basic ecosystems in which loggerheads live are the:
1. Terrestrial zone (s u pra I itto ral) - the nesting beach where both ovi position (egg I aying)
and embryonic development and hatching,, occur.
2. Viler itic zone - the inshore marine environment (froni the Surface, to the sea floor) where
water depths do not exceed 6561bet. 'I'he netitic zone generally includes the, continental
sheff", but in areas where the continental shelf is very narrow ow nonexistent, the neritic
zone conventionally extends to areas where water depths are less than 656 feet,
3. Oceanic zoiie - the vast open ocean environment ([ream the surface to the sea floor) where
water depths are greater than 656 feet.
Maxil'YILI[1'1 intrinsic grOWth rates ol sea turtles Eire limited by the extremely long duration of the
juvenile stage and fecundity, Loggerheads 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 el al, 1993, Fleppetl 1998, Crouse
1999, Heppell el cal. 1999, 2003, Musick 1999).
Numbers ofnests and nesting females are often highly variable from year to year due, to a
number of Factors including environmental stochasticity, periodicity in ocean conditions,
withropogenic of e-cts, and density-dependent and density-independent factors affecting, survival,
somatic growth, and reproduction (Meylan 1982, flays 2000, Chaloupka 001, Solow el al,
200(2). Despite these sources of variation, and because female turtles exhibit strong nest site
,fidelity, a nesting beach survey can provide a, valuable assessment of changes in the adult fen-iale
population, provided that the study is SLItfkiefltly long and effort and methods are standardized
(Meylan 1982, Gerrodette and Brariolon 2000, Reina el al, 2002). The following table
sunirriarizes key life history characteristics for loggerheads nesting in the US.

Typical values of life history parameters for loggerheads nesting in the U.S. (NMFS and
tJSFWS 2008).
Life History Trait Data
Clutch size (mean)
1410 -126 eggs I
. ..... . ...... _
Incubation duration (varies depending on time of'year and
Range 42-75 days 2,3
latitude)
I-- . ...... . .......... . .... - - - --­ ____ . . . . . . . ... . . .............................. .
Pivotal temperature (incubation temperature that produces an
.....v.__ — -------
94 F'
equal number of males and females)
---- - ---- - ..... . . . ........................ . . ............. . . . . ........ . ... — - - ------------ -
- . .... ...... -- - - ------------ - ----
Nest prod ucti vity ('emerged hatchlings/tota] eggs) x. 100
45-70 percent 2,6
(varies depending on site specific faclors)
. ...................................................... .............. .......... .. .. .. .. ........ .. ................. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . ......... . .. __ . .......... 111111111111--­ ..... ..... . ........ . ........
("'lutch 1'requency (jiurnber cal nests/f,"erria le/season)
-------- ­­_­ ------------ - . . . . . . . . ............................... ........................ .. ..
- ------ - - - -- ------------ --
3-4 nests?
.. .... - -- ---------------- - - ----------
........... .. . ... ............... ... .. - -
Interriesting interval (number of days between successive
12-15 days8
nests, within a seasori)
........ . .................................................. . ..... ... . ....... ......... . . .......... — ------------ . .......
JUVWlile (<3�4 inches Curved Carapace Length) sex ratio,
. ...... . .. . .......................................... . ... . . . . ........ . ................ .............. .......... . . . . . . . .....
... .... . .. . .... . ....... . .................
65-70 percent femalc"r
Remigration interval (nu rnber ol'years between successive
2.5-33 years 9
nesting migrations)
Nesting season
. .. . .............
late April-early September
Flatching season
late June-early November
Age at sexual maturity
32-35 years r 0
. . ............... - ------ .e... - . . . . . . ......... . ...... -
Life span
. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ............................................. ...... .. ... ...... ..... .....
7 year °sr
— -----
Dodd (1 988),
2 Dodd and Macki rtnon (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2(03, 2004)„
`r' Witherington (2006,) (inforinatIon based on ricsts monitored throughout Florida beaches it]
2(i0 , ri = 865).
4 NMFS (2001); Foley (2005).
5 Mrosovsky (1988).
Witherington (2006) (information based on nests, monitored throughOLIt I'lorida beaches in
2005, n = 1,(80�),
Murphy and Hopkins (1984); Frazer and R ichardson (1985); 1 lawkes el al. 2005; Scott 2006.
Caldwell (1962), Dodd (1988).
9 Richardson el al. (1978); I�jorndal el oL (1980.
'0 Snover (2(i05).
11 Dahlen eil al. (2000).

Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally oil estuarine shorelines with suitable sand.
Nests are typically laid between the high tide line and the dune front (Routa 1968, Witherington
1986, Hailman and Elowson 1992). Wood and Rjorlidal (2000) evaluated four environmental
factors (slope, temperature, moisture, and salinity) and I'Mind that slope had the greatest
influence on loggerhead nest-site selection oil a beach in Florida. Loggerheads appear to prefer
relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse-grained beaches, although nearsbore contours may also
play a role in nesting beach site selection (Provanclia and Ehrhart 1987).
The warmer the sand surrounding the eg,g chamber, the laster the embryos develop (Mrosovsky
and Yntenia 1980). Sand terriperatures, prevailing during,
.! the middle third of the incubation
period also deterri►ine the sex ofhatchling sea 0.11"tICS (Mrosovsky and Ynterna 1980). Incubation
teniperatures near the upper end of the tolerable range produce anly fernale hatchlings while
incubation (cniperaturcs near the lower end of the tolerable range prOCILICC only rnale hatchlings.
11,oggerhead hatchlings pip and escape from their eggs over a 1- to 3-day interval and move
upward and out oftlic, nest over a 2- to 4-day interval (Christens 1990). The time fi-om pjpl)jnt.,)
to, crilergence ranges from 4 to 7 days with an average of4,I days (Godfrey and Mr os('ivsky
1997). f latchlings emerge from their nests ell masse almost exclusively at night, presumably
using decreasing sand temperature as a CLIC (I lendrickson 1958, Mrosovsky and Shettleworth
1968, Withcrington el al, 1990). Moran el al. (1999) , concluded that a lowering cal 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 ernergences on subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960, Witherington 1986, F"niest
arid Martin 1993, 1 JOUghton and flays 2001).
Ilatchlings use a progression cal" orientation cues to guide their movement from the nest to the
niarine environments where they spend their early years (I..,ohniann and Lohmann 2003).
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 ol'the dune and vegetation landward of the nest. This contrast guides the hatchlings to
[lie ocean (Daniel and with 1947, Limpus 1971, Sakrion el al. 1992, Witherington and Martin
1996, Witherington 1997, , Stewart and Wyneken 2004).
Loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic display complex population structure based oil fife
history stages. Based on tnitochondrial deoxyribomicteic acid (illtDNA), oceanic juveniles show
no structure, neritic.juveniles show jiloderate structure, and nesting colonies show strong
"tt-LICtUrC, (Bowen et al. 2005), In contrast, a SUINCY using inicrosatellite (nuclear) r1larkers
sll(,-)wed no significant population structure among nesting populations (Bowen eat al. 2005),
indicating that while females exhibit strong philopatry, males may provide an avenue of gene
flow between nesting colonies in this region.
12

Green sea turtle
Green sea turtles deposit frorn 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.
Average clutch size reported for Florida was 136 eggs in 130 clutches (Witherington and Ehrhart
1989). (hily occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. Usually two or more
years intervene between breeding seasons (NMFS and USFWS 1991), Age at sexual maturity is
Relieved to be 20 to 50 years (Mirth 1997).
Leatherbacli sea turtle
I..eatherbacks nest an average of five to seven times within a nesting season, with an observed
rriaxitrium of 11 nests (NMFS and USFWS 1992), The interval between nesting events within a
season is about 9 to 10 days, Cl UtCh Size averages 80 to 85 yolked eggs, with the addition of
usually a few dozen sn-laller, yolkless eggs, mostly laid toward the end of"the clutch (Pritchard
1992). Nesting migration intervals of`? to 3 years were observed in leatherbacks nesting on the
Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (McDonald and DUUOD
1996), Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 13 to 16 years (Dutton el al. 2005,
Jones et' gal. 20,10.
Kenip's ridley sea turtle
Keryip's ridley sea turtles nest primarily froni 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 el ol,
2005). Nesting occurs primarily during daylight hours. Clutch size averages 1,00 eggs, and eggs
typically take 45 to 58 days to hatch depending on incubation conditions, especially temperatures
(M arCj Uez.- M i Ilan 1994, postal 2007).
f,'emales 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, personal communication, 2007 as cited in NMFS et al. 2011). The mean rernigration,
interval for adult females is 2 years, although intervals of I and 3 years are not uncommon
(Marquez el al. 198x; 'FEWC, 1998, 2000). Males may not be reproductively active on an annual
basis (Wibbels el ed. 1991). Age at sexual niaturity is believed to be between 10 to 17 years
(Snover el cal'. 2007).
C'. Population Dynamics
Loggerhead sea turtle
'rhe 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
IR

of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. 'Fhe most recent reviews show that only two loggerhead
riesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year (Baldwin el al, 2003; Ehrhart
el aL 2003; Katnezaki el al. 2003; Limpus and Limpus 2003a, 2003b; Margaritoulis el al. 2003):
peninsular Florida (U.S.) and Masirah (on-ian). Those beaches with 1,000 to 9,999 I-emales
nesting each year are Georgia through North Carolina (U.S.), Quintana Roo and YucatAn
(Mexico), Cape "feu -de Islands (Cape Verde, eastern Atlantic 011 ". :rrica), and western Australia.
Smaller nesting aggregations with 100 to 999 nesting fen-iales annually occur in the northern
Gull'o Wexico (U.S.), DryTortLigas (U.S.), Cay Sal Bank (Bahanias), Sergipe and Northern
Bahia (Brazil), SOLIthern Bahia to Rio de.fanerio (Brazil), Ton galand (South Africa),
Mozan-ibique, Anabian Sea Coast ((= man), Halaniyat Islands (Ornan), CYPITIS, Peloponnesus
(Greece'), Island of Zakynthos (Greece), f''urkey, Queensland (Australia), and Japan.
The loggerhead is conirrionly found throcq.,jiout the North Atlantic including the Gulf ofMexico,
the northern Caribbean, the Baharnas arcl-ripelago, and e,,tstward to West Africa, the western,
,Mediterranean, and the WCSt Coast Off"Alrope,
The rria.jor nesting concentrations in the L-J.S. are found in South Florida. However, loggerheads
nest froin "I'exas to Virginia. Total estimated nesting in the '(J & has fluctuated between 49,000
and 90,000 nests per year frorn 1999-2010 (NNIFS and USFWS 2008, FWC/FWRI 201 Oa).
About 80 percent of loggerhead nesting in the southeast, U.S. occurs in six Florida counties
(Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties). Adult
loggerheads are known to make considerable migrations between foraging areas and nesting
beaches (Schroeder el a/, 2003, Foley et cd. 20(18). During non-nesting years, adult fiemales from
U.S. beaches are distributed in waters off"the eastern U, S, and throughout the Gulf of Mexico,
Baharnas, Greater Antilles, and YucatAn.
Froin a global perspective, the 1J. S. nesting aggregation is ol"pararnount importance to the
Survival of the species as is the population that nests on islands in the Arabian Sea oft'011-ian
(Ross 1982, t,hrhart 1989,13aldwin et (d. 2003). Based on standardized daily surveys of the
highest nesting beaches and weekly surveys on all ren,mining island nesting beaches,
approxii-riately 50,000, 67,600, and 62,400 nests, were estimated in 2008, 2009, and 20 10,
respective]), (Conarit el al. 2009). The status ofthe Ornan loggerhead nesting population,
reported to be tile largest in the world (loss 1979), is uncertain because of the Jack of long-term
standardized nesting or fioraging grOLInd surveys and its vulnerability tea increasing developrilent
pressures near rnajor nesting beaches and threats 4'rom fisheries interaction on foraging grounds
and migration routes (Possardt 200�5), The loggerhead nesting aggregations in Onlan and the
U.S. account for (fie majority of nesting worldwide.
('0'reen sea tui-fle
There are an estimated 150,000 females that nest each year in 46 sites throughout the world
(NMI S and USFWS 2007a), In the U.S. Atlantic, there are about I OO to 1,000 ferriales
estimated to nest on beaches in Florida annually (FWC 2009c). In the U.S. Pacific, over 90
percent oftiesting, throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the French Frigate Shoals,
1111

where about 200 to 700 fiernales nest each year (NMFS and USFWS 1998). F"Isewhere in the
U.S. Pacific, nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth ofthe Northern
Marianas, GUarn, and American Samoa. In the western Pacific, the largest green turtle nesting
aggregation in the world occurs on Maine Island, Australia, where thousands of flemales nest
nightly in an average nesting, season (Linipus cif al. 1993). In the Indian Ocean, truljor nesting
beaches occur in Oman where 30,000 fernales are reported to nest annually (Ross and Barwani
1995).
Leatherbaelc sea turtle
A dramatic drop in nesting nurnbers has been recorded on maJo.'a, nesting beaches in the Pacific.
Spotila cat' al, (2000) have highlighted the dramatic decline and near extirpation ofleatherbacks in
the Pacific.
'['lie East Pacific and Malaysia leatherback populations have collapsed. SpOtila el al, (1996)
estimated that only 34,500 females nested annually worldwide in 1995, which is as drarnatic
decline from the 115,000 estirnated in 1980 (Pritchard 1982), In the eastern Pacific, the mapor
nesting beaclies occur in Costa Rica and Mexico. All Playa ('31rande, Costa Rica., considered the
most important nesting beach in the eastern Pacific, numbers have dropped frorn 1,367
Icatherbacks in 1988-1989 to an average of 188 females nesting between 2000-2001 and 2003-
2001 4. In Pacific Mexico, 1982 aerial surveys of adult 6eniale 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 Paptia 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 5,00(i to 9,200 nests
annually with 75 percent ofthe nests being laid in Papua, Indonesia.
however, the roost recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic alone is a range of
34,000 to 94,000 adult leather hacks f TWG 2007). During recent years in Florida, the total
number ofleatherback nests counted as Part cal' the SNBS program ranged frorn 540 to 1,797
frorn 2006-2010 (FW(-,'1F'+ 2010a). Assuming a clutch rrequency (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 the Southern Caribbean Occurs in the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and 1^'rench
Guiana), Trinidad, Donimica, and Venezuela, The largest nesting Populations at present occur in
the western Atlantic in French Guiana with nesting varying during 1967 to 20 5 between as low
of 5,029, nests in 1980, to as high of 63,294 nests in 1.910 (TF`WG 2007). Trinidad supports an
estimated 6,000 leatherbacks nesting annually,, which represents niore than 80 percent ofthe
nesting in the insular Caribbean Sea. Leatherback nesting along the Caribbean Central American
coast takes place between Honduras and Colombia. In Atlantic Costa Rica, at 'Fortuguero, the
number of nests laid annually between 1.995 and 2006 was estimated to range from 199 to 1,623,
15

Modeling of the Atlantic Costa R.ica data indicated that the nesting population has decreased by
67,8 percent over this time period.
In Puerto Rico, the main nesting areas are at Fatjardo (Northeast Ecological Corridor) and
Maunabo on the main island of Puerto Rico and on the islands of Culebra and Vieques. Between
1993 and 2010, the number of nests in the Fajardo area ranged from 51 to 456. In the Maunabo
area, the number of nests recorded between 2001 and 2010 ranged from a low of 53 in 2002 to a
high of 260 in 2009 (Dicz 201 1), On the island ol'Culebra, the number of nests ranged from a
low 41 in, 1996 to a high ol'395 in 1997 (Diez 2011). On beaches managed by the
("lonirnonwealth of Puerto Rico on fl-ic island, of Vieques, the Puerto Rico I)epartment of Natural
and Environmental Resources recorded annually 14-61 leatherback nests between 1991 and
2000; 145 nests in 2002; 24 in 2003; and 37 in 2005 (Diet 2011). The number • ofleatherback sea
turtle nests recorded on VieqUCSIsland beaches managed by the Service ranged between 13 and
163 cluring 2001 -74110, Using- the numbers of nests recorded in Puerto Rico between 1984. and
2005, the Turtle l `xpert Working Grout) (20f 07) estimated a 1101)LIlation growth ofapproxitilately
10 percent per year. Recorded leatherback nesting on the Sandy Point National Wild I ife Refuge
on the island o1' t. Croix, U �S� Virgin Islands, between 1982 and 2010, ranged from a low of 82
i n 1986 to a high of 1,008 in 2001 (Garner and (larner 2010), Using the number of, observed
females at Sandy Point from 1986 to 2004, the '111111c Expert Working Group (2007) estimated a
population growth of approximately 10 percent per year. In the British Virgin Islands, annual
nest numbers have increased in Tortola from zero to six nests per year in the late 1980s to 35 to
65 nests per year in the 204 00s (TEWG 2007).
The most important nesting beach for leatherbacks, in the eastern Atlantic ties in Gabon, Africa.
It was estimated there were 30,000 nests along 60 miles of Mayurnba Beach in southern Gabon
during the 1999-2000 nesting season (Billes el al. 2000), Some nesting has been reported in
Mauritania. Senegal, the 13wjagos Archipela�
.!o of (luinea-Bissau, Turtle Islands and Sherbro
Island of Sierra 1,cone, Liberia, ogo, Berun, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sao Tonne and Principe,
continental F,quatorial Guinea, Islands of Corisco in the GUlf of Guinea, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, and Angola. In addition, a large nesting population is found on the island of Bioko
(Equatorial Guinea) (Fretey el al. 2007).
Kemp 's ridley sea turtle
Most temp's ridleys nest on the beaches of" the western (julf,'olMexico, primarily in
Tainaulipas,Mexico. Nesting also occurs in Veracruz and Campeche, Mexico, although a small
number ol"Kenip's ridleys nest consistently along the Texas coast (NMFS el al, 2011). In
addition, rare nesting events have preen reported in Alabama, I'lorida, Georgia, South Carolina,
and North Carolina, Historical information indicates that tens ofthousands of ridleysnested near
Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, during the late 1940s, (Hildebrand 1963). The Kerrip'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 11f.6
miles of coastline patrolled at Rancho Nuevo, and the total number of nests documented for all
145

the monitored beaches in Mexico was 21,144 ('(.JSFWS 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 Pefla 201 1). In addition, 153 and 199 nests were recorded during 2010
and 2011, respectively, in the United States, primarily in 'rexas.
D. Status and: Distribution
Loggerhead sea turtle
Five recovery i.inits have been identified in the Northwest Atlantic based on genetic difTerences
and a con-ibination, ofgeopraphic distribution of nesting densities, geographic separation, and
geopolitical boundaries (NMFS and IJSFWS 2008). Recovery units are subunits of a listed
species that are geographically or otherwise ideratifiable and essential to the recovery ofthe
species, Recovery U11itS are individually necessary to conserve genetic. robListness, dernographic
robLIStneSS, important Tali~ history stages, or some other k,-aturc necessary for long-terin
SUStainability of the species, The (ive recovery units identified in the Northwest Atlantic are:
1. Northern Recovery L.Jnit (NWJ) - defined as loggerheads originating ficorn nesting
beaches 1rorn the Florida-Georgia border through southern Virginia (the northern
extent orthe nesting range);
2. PeninSUlar Florida Recovery Unit (PI"RU) - defined as loggerhe�ads originating frorn
nesting beaches frorn the I'lorida-Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west
coast of Florida, CXCILIding the islands west of Key West, Florida;
3. Northern GUII'Ot'MexicoRccovery LJni,t('N(IM.RLJ) - defined as loggerheads
originating frorn nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest GUlf Coast
of Florida through Texas;
4. Dry Tortagas Recovery Unit (i)-r'RU) - defined as loggerheads originating from
nesting beaches throughout the islands located west of Key West, 1�'lorida; and
5, Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU) -- coniposed of loggerheads originating
from all other nesting assemblages within the Greater Caribbean ('Mexico through
French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles).
The mtDNA analyses show that there is limited exchange offeniales aniong these recovery units
(I.."firliart 1989, Foote et aL 2000, NMI-,'S 2001, Hawkes el al. 2005). Based on the number of
haplotypes, the highest level of loggerhead mtD,NA genetic diversity in the Northwest Atlantic
has been observed in feniales of the GC RU that nest at Quintana Roo, Mexico (Encalada et aL
199�9, Nielsen 2010).
z

Nuclear DNA analyses show that there are no substantial subdivisions across the loggerhead
nesting colonies in the southeastern U.S. 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 1,1.S. nesting beaches (NRU and
NGMRU) produce a relatively high percentage of males and the more southern nesting beaches
(PFRU, DTRU, and G(,.'RtJ) a relatively high percentage of feniales (e.g., Hanson el al. 1998,
NNIF'S 2001, Mrosovsky and Provaticha 1989). The NRU and NGMRU were believed to play
an important role in providing males to i-nate with icniales fironi the more (emale-doniinated
SUbpopulatioris to the south, However, in 2002 and 2003, researchers studied loggerhead sex
ratios for two ofthe US, nesting subpopulations, the northern and southern SUbpOpUlations
(NGU and 11F1 (J, respectively) (Blair 2005, Wyneken el al, 2005). F lie study produced
interesting results, In 2002, the northern beaches produced niore females and the southern
beaches produced nio•e males than previously believed. However, the opp()site was true in 2003
with the riorthern beaches producing more n-mles and the southern beaches producing n"iore
females in keeping with prior literature. Wyncken ei a/. (200,5) speculated that the 2002 result
may have been anomalous; however, the study did point out the potential Liar males to be
produced on the southern beaches. Although this study revealed that more males may be
produced on SOUtliern recovery unit beaches than previously believed, the Service maintains that
(he NRU and NG'MRl f play an important role in the production of males to mate with fernales
frorn the more southern recovery units,
The NR 1J is the second largest loggerhead recovery unit within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
IMPS. The overall NRU loggerhead nesting trend fi-oni daily beach surveys was declining
significantly at 1.3 percent annually from 1 98 3 to 2007 (NMI ",S and LJSFWS 2008). However,
current data indicates an increasing trend. Georgia has had continuous increases in nesting fi-om
2009 (998 nests) to 2013 (2,282 nests). South Carolina has had C011titItIOLIS increases in nesting
fi-om 2009 (2,182 nests) to 2013 (5,194 nests). The Georgia and South Carolina nesting data
con'iL from the seatUrtle.org Sea Turtle Nest Monitoring System, which is populated with data
input by the state agencies. North Carolina had '1258 nests in 2013, which is above the I0 -year
average of 791 (Godf•ey 2014),
J'he PFRU is the largest loggerhead recovery unit within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean ITS and
represents approximately 87 percent ot'all [testing e1TOrt in the PS (F'hrliart el al. 2003�). A
near-complete nest census of the undertaken from 1989 to 2007 revealed a, mean of
64,513 loggerhead nests per year representing, approximately 15,735 Ileniales nesting per year
(4.1 nests per ferrule, Murphy and poplins 1984) (],,WC 20(18, NMFS and USI7WS 2008). ')'leis
near - complete census provides the best statewide estimate of total abundance, but because of
variable survey effi)T•t, these numbers cannot be used to assess trends. Loggerhead nesting;. trends
are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS)
sites Surveyed with constant el'Tort over time. In 1979, the Statewide Nesting Beach Survey
(SNBS),program was initiated to document the total distribution, seasonality, and ab'undance of
sea turtle nesting in Florida. In 1989, the INBS program was initiated in Florida to measure
seasonal productivity, allowing comparisons between beaches and between years (FWC 2009b).
M

Of the 190 SNBS surveyed areas, 33 participate in the INBS program (representing 30 percent of
the SNBS' beach length).
Using IN 13S nest counts, a significant declining trend was documented Cor the Peninsular Florida
Recovery Unit, where nesting declined 26 percent over the 20-year period (goon 1989---2008, and
declined 41 percent over the period, 1999-2008 (NMI' S and USFWS 2008, Withering on el' al.
2009). 1 lowever, with the addition of nesting data through 241141, the nesting trend for the PFRU
did not show a nesting decline statistically different fi•orn zero (76 FR 58868, Septeniber 2.2,
2011).
The N4 N41U,J is the third largest loggerlic-ad recovery unit within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
DP S. Nesting Surveys conducted on approximately 1,86 miles of beach within the NGMRLJ
(Alabarna and Florida, only) were undertaken [)etween 1995 and 2007 (statewide surveys in
Alabarna began in 2002). "I'he mean nest Count dLffillg this 13-year period was 906 nests per
year, which equates to al,.)out 221 females nesting per year (4,1 nests per female, Murphy and
I lopkins 1984, (FW('� 2008, NMFS and US.FWS 2008). Evaluation oflong-term nesting trends
Cor (lie NGMR,U is diflIQUIt because of changed an(] expanded beach coverage. L,oggerhead
nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at fNBS Sites Surveyed with
constant effi)rt over time. LJsing 11orida INBS data for the NGMRU (FWC 2008), a log linear
regression showed a significant declining trend of4.7 percent annually from 1997-2008 (NMFS
and USFWS 2008).
In the DTRU, a near-complete nest census undertaken firearm 1995 to 2004 (excluding 2002)
revealed a mean of 246 nests per year, which equates to about 60 females nesting per year (4.1.
nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (FWC 2008, NM FS and USFWS 2008). The
nesting trend data t'or the DTRLJ are from beaches that are riot part ofthe INBS prograrri, but are
part ofthe SNB S program. A simple linear regression of 1995-2004 nesting data, accounting for
temporal autocorrelation, revealed no trend in nesting nurnbers. Because of the annual
variability in nest totals, it was determined that a longer thrie series is needed to detect a trend
(NMFS and USFWS 2008),
The GC R.0 is composed of" all other nesting assemblages of loggerheads within the Greater
C,aribbean, with the inajority gat nesting at Quintana Roo, Mexico, Statistically valid analyses of
long-terrn nesting trends For the entire GCRL.) are not available becaUSC there are few long-term
standardized nesting surveys, rel,,)resentative of the region. Additionally, changing survey effort
at monitored beaches and scattered and low-level nesting by loggerheads at many locations
currently precludes comprehensive analyses. The most complete data are from Quintana Roo
and YLIcaldn, Mexico, where an increasing trend was reported over a 1. -year period from 1987-
2001 (Zurita el al. 2003). However,TEW! (2009) reported a, greater than 5 percent annual
decline in loggerhead nesting ftorn 1995-2006 at Quintana Rot).
19

t7c �Denm rcwh�icl?e rry ery ()-ileria are presenivel belo"�)
1. Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Fernales
a. Northern Recovery Unit
i, There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time of 50 years is two percent or greater resulting in a total
annual nurn,ber of nests of 14,000 or greater for this recovery unit
(approxi mate distribution ofnests is North Carolina =14 percent [' ,000 nests],
South Carolina =66 percent [9,200 nests], and Georgia =:20 percent X2,800
nests]) and
ii. This increase in number of crests must be a result of corresponding incrmises
in IlUrnber of nesting fieniales (estiamled,froni nests, clutch frequency, and
reinigration interval).
b. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit
i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of" increase
over i generation time of 50 years is statistically detectable (one percent)
resulting in a total annual number of nests of 106,100 or greater for this
recovery unit; and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result oftorresponding increases
in number ofnesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
ren-figration interval).
c. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit
i, There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a generation time ol'50 years is three percent or greater resulting in a
total annual number of nests of 1,100 or greater flor this recovery unit; and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a reSUlt of corresponding increases
in number of" nesting (em ales (estimated from nests, Clutch frequency, and
remigralion interval).
d, Northern Gulf OfMCXiCO Recovery Unit.
i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase
over a, generation time of'50 years is three percent or greater resulting in a
total annual number of nests of 4,000 or greater for this recovery unit
(approximate distribution ofnests (2(f02-2007) is Florida=', 92 percent [3,700
nests] and Alabarna =8 percent 1300 nests]); and
iii. This increase in number of'nests, must be a result of'corresponding increases
in number ofnesting females (estimated fi-orn nests, clutch frequency, and
semi ration interval).
20

Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit
i, The total annual number of nests at a minimum of three nesting assemblages,
averaging greater than 100 nests annually (e.g., Yucatdn, Mexico; Cay Sal
Bank, Bahamas) has increased over a generation time of 50 years; and
ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increase's
in number of riesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and
retnigration interval).
2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds
A network of inn -water sites, both oceanic and neritic across the foragirig range is
established and trionitoring is imp[erriented to rneasurc abundance. There is statistical
confidence (95 percent) that a composite estimate of relative abundance from these
sites is increasing t4t- at least one generaliorn.
3. Trends in Neritic Stran(fings Relative to fri-water Abundance
Stranding trends are not increasing.,' at ai rate greater thar-1 the trends in in-water relative
abundance for sitnilar age classes or at least one generation.
Green sea turtle
Annual nest totals documented as part of the Florida SNBS program from 1989-2010 have
ranged tron-i 435 nests laid in 1993 to 13,225 in 2010. Nesting occurs in 26 counties with a peak
along the east coast, from VOIUSia through Broward Counties. Although the SN13S program
provides inl'ormation on distribution and total abundance statewide, it cannot be used to assess
trends becaLISC of variable Survey ell'ort, Therel"ore, green turtle nesting trends are best assessed
using standardized nest counts made at IN 13S sites surveyed with constant c6ort over time
(1989�-2010). Green sea turtle nesting in Florida is increasing based on 22 years (198,9-2010) of
INNS data from throughout tine state (FWC/FWRJ'20l0b). The increase in nesting in Florida is
likely a result of several factors, including: (1) as Florida statute enacted in the early I 970s that
prohibited the killing of green turtles in Florida; (2) the species listing Linder the I SA afft')rded
complete protection to eggs, juveniles, and adults in all U& waters; (3) the passage of Florida's
constitutional net Nan,arnendryient 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 mqjority of []orida
green turtles reside within Ilorida waters where they are fully protected; (5) the protections
afforded Florida green turtles while they inhabit the waters ofother nations that have enacted
strong sea turtle conservation measures (e.g., Bermuda); and (6) the listing of the species oil
Appendix I of Convention oil 'international Trade in Endangered Species ol"Wild I"auma and
['1ora (CITES), which stopped international trade and reduced incentives for illegal trade from
the US (NMI-'S and tJSf-,'WS 2007a).
The U.S, Atlantic population ofgreen sea turtles can be considered for delisting if, over a period
of 25 years, the following conditions are met.
21

I. 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 miles) ofall available nesting beaches (260 miles) is in public
ownership and encompasses at least 50 percent of the nesting activity;
A redLiCtiOn in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts ofindividuals on
foraging grounds; and
4, All priority one tasks identified it'i the recovery plan have been SLICCCSSftilly implemented.
Leatherback sea turtle
Pritchard ( 1982) estimated 115,000 nesting females worldwide., of which 60 1.,.)ercent nested along
the Pacific coast of'Mexico. Declines in leatherback nesting have OCCUrred over the last, two
decades along the Pacific coasts ol'Mexico and (,.',osta Rica, T'he Mexican leathei•back nesting
population, once considered to be the world's largest (historically estimated to be 65 percent of
the worldwide population), is now less than one percent ofits estimated size in 1980. Spotila el
al , (1 96) estimated the nUm cal" f leatherback sea turtles nesting o ea
n 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 26, 20,0, and an Lipper 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, 'Fhe 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 el al.
( 1996) determined that leatherback populations in the Indian Occan and western Pacific Ocean
cannot withstand even moderate levels ofadult mortality and that the Atlantic populations are
being exploited at a rate that cannot be sustained. 'l prey 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.
[n the western Atlantic, the, t J.S. nesting populations primarily occur in Florida, Puerto Rico, and
the US Virgin Islands. In Florida, the SNIPS program documented an increase in leatherback
nesting numbers frorn 98 nests in 1989 to between 453 and 1,747 nests per season in the early
2000s (FWC 2009a, Stewart and Johnson 2006). Although the SNIPS program provides
information on distribution and total abLindance statewide, it cannot be Used to assess trends
because of variable survey eflort. Therelore, leatherback nesting trends are best assessed using
standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant effort over time (1989-
2010). Under the INBS program, approximately 30 percent of Florida's SNBS beach length is
Surveyed. 'The INBS nest counts represent approximately 34 percent of known leatherback
nesting in Florida. An analysis of the INBS data has shown an exponential increase in
leatherback sea turtle nesting i ji Florida since 1989. From 1989 through 2010, the annual
22

number of leatherback sea turtle nests at the core set of index beaches ranged from 27 to 615
(FWC 2011 ebb). Using the numbers of nests recorded ['turn 1.971 through 2009, Stewart el al.
(2011) estimated a population growth of approximately 10.2 percent per year. In Puerto Rico,
the main nesting areas are at Fajardo (Northeast Ecological Corridor) and Maunabo oil the main
island and on the islands Of C I]ebra and Vieques. Nesting ranged from 51 to 456 nests between
2001 and 2010 (:Dietz 2011), In the U.S. Virgin Islands, leatherback nesting on Sandy Point
National Wildlife Refuge on the island of St. Croix ranged from 14:3 lea 1,008 nests between 1990
and 2005 ("I'T"WG 2007, NMFS and USFWS 20 07b).
e e o v (,
e t - i a
'I" ae U.S. Atlantic population ofleatherbacks can be considered for delisting if the following
conditions, are met:
The adtilt fiernale population 'increases Over (lie next 25 years, as evidenced by a
statistically significant trend in the number of nests at Culcbra, Puerto Rico, St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands, and along the cast coast of Florida;
2. Nesting liabitzit 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.
Kerrata's ridley sea turtle
Nesting aggregations of Kemps ridleys at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico were discovered in 1947„ and
the adult fierriale p0pUlation was estimated to be 40,000 or more individuals based on a tilin by
Andres Herrera (I lildebrand 1963, Carr 1963). Within approximately 3 decades, the population
had declined to 924 nests and reacbed the lowest recorded nest count of 702 nests in 1985. Since
the raid - I 980s, the nun-iber of nests observed. at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches has increased
15 pereent per year (I leppell et al, 2005), allowing caLitiOUS Optilllkln that the Population iS Otl its
way to recovery. This increase in nesting can be attributed to full protection ofnestingl"eniales
and their nests in Mexico NSUlting frorn as bi-nat ional elTort, between Mexico and the U.S. to
prevent the extinction of the Kemp's ridley, the requirement to use "furtle Excluder Devices
(1'EDs) in shrimp trawls both in the LJ.S. and Mexico, and decreased shritriping effort (NMFS et
aL 2011, Heppell el al. 2005).
ReLcover Ct-ile "t2timly the DeniqViya Nc-Recov er r e be
The recovery goal is to conserve and protect the Kemp's ridley sea turtle so that protections
under the ESA are no longer necessary and the species can be removed ftom the List of
Endangered and Threatened "Wildlife. Biological recovery criteria fibrin the basis From which to
gauge whether the species should be reclassified to threatened (i.e., downlisted) or delisted,
N

whereas the listing factor criteria ensure that the threats affecting the species are controlled or
eliminated.
Downlisting Criteria
1. A population of at least 10,000 nesting females in a season (as estimated by clutch
frequency per female per season) distributed at the primary nesting beaches (Rancho
Nuevo, Tepchu4jes, and Playa Dios) in Mexico is attained. Methodology and cal,,)acity to
implenient and ensure accurate nesting fernale counts have been developed.
2. Recruitment ofat least 300,000 hatchlings, to the marine environment per season at the
three primary nesting t)eaches (Rancho NUCV0,Tepehua ' jes, and Playa Dos) in Mexico is
attained to ensure a minimum level oJInown production through in situ incubatiori,
itICUbation in corrals, or as combination ofbolh.
Delisting ('riteria
1. An average population of at least 4.0,000 nesting females per season (as rneasured by
clutch frequency per female Per season and annual nest COLUAS) over a 6-ycar period
distributed among nesting beaches, in Mexico and the U.S. is attained. Methodology and
capacity to ensure accurate nesting fernale counts have been developed and implemented.
2, Ensure average annual recruitment of hatchlings over a. 6-year period from in silo nests
and beach corrals is sufficient to maintain a population of at least 40,000 nesting females
per nesting season distributed among nesting beaches in Mexico and the U.S into the
future. This criterion may rely on massive synchronous nesting events (i.e., arribadas)
that will swamp predators as well as rely on suppleniental protection in corrals and
fficilitics.
E. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected
The Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'.,, National Marine
F , isheries Service (NMF'S) share federal jurisdiction for sea turtles under the ESA. In accordance
with the ESA, the Service comp ictes consultations ons with all federal agencies for actions that may
adversely afflect sea turtles on the nesting beach, The Services 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. NMI S assesses and consults withfiederal agencies concerning
potential impacts to sea turtles in the marine environment, hicluding updrift and downdrift
nearshore areas affected by sand placement prqjects on the beach.
The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect nesting Cemales, nests, and hatchlings
within the action area. 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
24

maturity, reproductive longevity, and low survivorship in early life stages,, nesting Females are of ,
high value to a population. 17he 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 Ibmale has beer)
estimated to be approximately 253 tinies greater than an egg or a hatchling (NMFS and USFWS
2008), However, the beach nourishment action includes avoidance and minimization rileasures
that reduce the possibility or mortality ofa nesting fernale on the beach as a result of the project.
`I"herelbre,we do not anticipate the loss of any nesting females on the beach. The effects ofthe
proposed action on sea turtles will be considered Further in the remaining sections of this
biological opinion.
Critical habitat has not been designated for sea turtles in the continental United States; therefore,
the proposed action would not result in an adverse modification. ()n March 25, 201,3, the
Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the Notthwest Atlantic Ocean Distinct
Population Segment of the loggerhead sea WrflC (78 FR 1 800�0). The final rule is expected to be
published in June 2014, However, the action area does not occur in or near [lie proposed critical
habitat.
Other Species
In addition to the, four species that are the subject of this 1"ormal consultation, the US ACE has
determined that, based on lack of habitat, the prqject will have no effect on the federally listed
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), roseate tern (Slerna chnigallii), and red wolf
((,'(,inis rqfus). The Set-vice concurs with these conclusions. The USACE has determined that
there will be no effect on designated critical habitat for the piping plover (Charactrius mvlodus).
The Service concurs with this conclusion. Also, the USACE has determined that the project may
afrect, but is riot likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manalus), piping
plover ((,hare,7drius nwlothts), and seabeach amaranth (Amaranthtis pumilus). Based oil available
infornlation, the Service concurs with these conclusions. The rul'a red knot (Cellidris canulus
11141b) has been proposed to be listed as federally threatened. 4'he USACE has determined that the
proJect may afTect, but is not likely to adversely atTect the ruta red knot, Based on available
information, the Service concurs With this C011CILIsion, The hawksbill sea turtle (Erelmochel))s
imbrical(t) does not nest in North Carolina, but occurs in waters off the North Carolina coast.
The hawksbill sea tUrtIC, along with the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brei,,iroslrum) and
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxYrinchus oxyrinchus),fall, within the regulatory purview of the
NMFS. Tile species discussed in this paragraph will not be considered further in this 130.
M. ENVIRONMENTA1, 13ASELINE
Under section 7(a)(2) oldie L',SA, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally listed
species., the Service is required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR,
402.02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation,
IN

and the impacts of state or private actions which are collternporaneous with the consultation in
process.
A. Status of the Species Within the Action Area
Loggerhead sea turtle
In North Carolina, the loggerhead sea turtle nesting and hatching season is May I through
November 15, Incubation ranges fi-orn about 45 to 95 days. From 2004 to 2013, there were as
total of23 loggerhead sea turtle nests within the action area, averaging 2.3 nests per year
(Godfrey 2014).
Green sea turtle
In North Carolina, the green SUA turtle nestfi-ig and hatching season is May 15 thrOUgl") Noven-Abar
15, 111CUbation ranges from a[)out 45 to 75 days. From 2004 to 2013, there were a total ofthree
green sca turtle nests within the action area,averaging O.3 nests per year (Godfrey 2014.).
Leatherback sea turtle
In North Carolina, the leatherback sea turtle nesting zinc] hatching season is April 15 through
Septenlber 30. Incubation ranges frorn about 55, to 75 days. From 2004 to 2013, there were no
leatherback sea turtle nests within the action area. I lowever, it is possible that nesting could
occur during the implementation ofthe project (Godfrey 2014).
Kemp's •idley sea turtle
'The Kenip's ridley Sea turtle is as very rare nester in North Carolina. Froin 2004 to 2013, there
were no Kemp's ridley sea turtle nests within the action area, and during the same time franle
there were only six nests within the entire state. .1 lowever, it is possible that nesting could occur,
during the implementation of the project (Godfrey 2014.).
B. Factors Affecting the Species Environment Within the Action Area
A number ofongoink, anthropogcnic and natural factors may affect tile species addressed in this
BO. Many of these clTects, have not been evaluated with respect to biological impacts oil the
species. In addition, some are interrelated and the effects of one cannot be separated hrom
others, Known or Suspected factors affecting the species addressed in this BO are discussed
below.,
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Most of the action area is within the PINWR. The staff at 13INWR monitor for sea turtles in the
refuge fronl the end ol"May through the end of the nesting season. Any sea turtle nests that are
E

located in what is deemed an untenable location (e.g. subject to inundation at high tide or in a
location subject to extreme beach erosion) are relocated to a safer location. Sea turtle nests
receive a higher level of protection within the refuge, and at the time of hatching, PfNWR staff
and volunteers implement measures to assist hatchings in reaching the ocean.
Public ownership confers some conservation benefit to listed species. Public ownership removes
some threats that might otherwise be present ifthe properties were owned by private landowners
and subsequently developed. Public ownership also miniinizes the likelihood that light pollution
from homes and other developnient will becorrie as significant problem since no commercial and
residential develop rent will occur ran public lands. Therel'ore, along the shoreline of' pub], ic
lands, disorientation or n-fisorientatiou ofaclult or hatchlilig sea turtles due to artificial lighting of
horries or businesses will have been avoided or greatly reduced with public ownership.
NC' 12 and Sand Berm Maintenance
The W." DOT regularly reconstructs the sand beans along portions of`NC' 12 within the action
area after stortirs, especially after nor`easters. Ihis generally occurs several times per year.
These projects vary in scale and scope, but typically entail placing sand that has washed or
blownt'rom, the seaward dune onto the road back into the footprint of the seaward dune and is
intended to maintain access along NC 12,. Sand berm reconstruction May Occur adj1acent to areas
used by sea turtles for nesting. Anticipated impacts of sand berm construction on sea turtles
inCl Lide:
• harassment in the forin of disturbing or interfering with ferriale sea turtles attempting to nest
a4jacent to the construction area as a result of construction activities;
• disorietitation/inisorientition ofhatchling sea turtles on beaches adjacent to the COTIStrUCtion
area as they emerge froni nests and crawl to the water because of project lighting; and
• compaction of the sand on the nesting beach.
Coastal Development
The southernmost 0.7 irrile portion ofthe proJeo occurs within the Mirlo Beach community and
the village of Rodanthe. This portion of the action area contains private residences. ''his
beaclifront development has rendered this portion ofthe action area as marginal habitat for sea
turtles. 'blue presence of" residents and Ilieir pets provides a constant source of disturbance during
the sea turtle nesting season.
Artificial Lights
The artificial light emanating frorn the conimunity of Mirlo Beach and the village of Rodanthe
impacts the sea turtle nesting habitat in the southern portion of the action area. Artificial lights
along a beach can deter females from coming ashore to nest or Misdirect fernales 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
M

beach font lighting may also cause disorientation (loss ofbearings) and misorientation (incorrect
orientation) of sea turtle [latch] ings. Visual signs are the primary sea-finding inechanism for
hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Carr 1967, Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968, Dickerson and Nelson
1989, Witherington and Bjorn al 1991). Artificial beac[ifront lighting is a docurnented cause of
hatchling disorientation and misorientation on nesting beaches (Philibosian 1976, Mann 1977,
Witherington and Martin 1996). The emergence from (he nest and crawl to the sea is one of the
most critical periods of as 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. During the 2010 sea turtle nesting season in Florida, over 47,000 turtle hatchlings
were documented as being disoriented (FWC/I­WRI 201 1),
Recreational each Use
Fluima,n presence oil the beach at night during the nesting sceison 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 rrwkc a beach less Suitable for nesting aincl hatchling
emergence by increasing sand compaction and creating obstacles to hatchlings attempting to
reach the ocean (flosier el al. 198 1).
'nic use and storage Of lounge chairs, cabanas, U111brellas, 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 feniales and trapping or impeding
hatchlings during their nest to sea migration. The documentation of non-nesting eme•gences (i.e.
false crawls) at these obstacles is beconling, increasingly coninion as more recreational beach
equipment is left on the beach at night. Sobel (200 2) describes nesting turtles being deterred by
wooden lounge chairs that prevented access, to the upper beach. Beach walkers have been
documented harassing nesting sea turtles within Cape Hatteras National Seashore (e.g. crowding
around nesting turtle and taking flash photographs) and digging within turtle nests (NP S 2007).
Predation of sea turtle eggs and hatchfings by native and introduced species occurs on almost all
nesting beachcs. Predation by a variety ol'predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest
hatching success, The most common predators in the southeastern U.S. are ghost crabs
(Oc,yPocle qziadrata), raccoons (ProcYon lolor),fieral hogs (Uroc.Von
cinereotirgenleus and Ktdpes vull)es), coyotes (('a is lalru.ns), armadillo's (DasYMIS
nov,enieinctus), and fire ants (,�()Ienopsis hnicla) (Dodd 1988, Staneyk 19; 95). In the absence of
nest protection programs in a number of locations throughout the southeast (J.S., raccoons may
depredate up to 96 percent ofall nests deposited on a beach ()avis and Whiting 1977, Hopkins
and Murphy 1980, Stancyk ef a/. 1980, 'falbert el al. 1980, Schroeder 1981, Labisky el al. 1 986).
28

Hurricanes/Nor'easters
Hurricanes and nor'casters generally produce damaging winds, storm tides and surges, and rain,
which can result in severe erosion of the beach and dune systerns. 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-ernergent hatchlings within the nest, or indirectly by causing the
loss of nesting habitat. Depending on their Frequency, SLO11111S can affect sea turtles on either as
short -terra basis (nests lost for oric season and/or temporary loss of nesting habitat) or long term,
iff'requcnt (habitat Unable to recover).
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. Oti developed
beaches, typically little space retnainsfor sandy beaches to become reestablished alter periodic
storms. In August 2011, Hurricane Irene severely dainaged NC 12 within the action area and
reduced much ofthe beach to as narrow ribbon between (lie road and the ocean. In October 2012,
Hurricane Sandy 'again impacted the action area with similar results.
Climate Change/Sea Level Rise
The varying and dynarnic elen-ients of climate science are inherently long term, complex, and
interrelated. Regardless ofthe 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 certainly. At present, the science is not exact enough to precisely predict when
arid where climate impacts will occur. These impacts may take place gradually or episodically in
inqjor leaps.
Temperatures are predicted to rise from 1.61F to 9'F for North America by the end ofthis
century (111CC 2007a, b). Alterations of thermal sand characteristics COUld result in highly
Icni ale- biased sex ratios because sea turtles exhibit temperature dependent sex determination
(e.g- Glen and Mrosovsky 2004, Flawkes el al. 2009).
In areas where shoreline protection structures have been constructed to limit shoreline
movetrient, rising sea levels may cause severe eflects 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 (National Research Council 1990). Nesting fcmales 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 ot'global climate
change on the status of sea turtles, the Service acknowledges the potential for changes to OCCUr in
29

the action area, but presently has no basis to evaluate if or ]low these changes are all-ecting sea
turtles.
IV, EFFECTS OF `ME ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the 1. Spa, "effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects
ol'an action oil the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action. 'rhe federal agency is responsible f car analyzing,
these effects. The ell-'ects of the proposed action are added to the environmental baseline to
determine the future baseline, which serves as the basis for the determination in (his 1.30. Should
the effects of the federal action result in as situation chat would jeopardize the continued existence
of tile species, we may propose reasonallle and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can
take to avoid a, violation of'section 7(a)(2), the discussion that hallows is our evaluation ofthe
anticipated direct and indirect effects ofthe propose(] project, Indirect effects are, those caused
by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to Occur (50 (.',,FR
402.02).
A. Factors to be Considered
I'Mxirnity_Ljt actiorr. Sand placerrient activities will 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 will potentially impact loggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp's
ridley nesting ferlmles, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles.
Distributioil:. 'rhe expected disturbance from the proposed action will occur on all of the ocean
fficing beach throughout the action area.
'Ft i The timing of the sand placement activities could directly and indirectly impact nesting
females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May I and November I S.
The greatest eftects, may occur at night ftorn construction lighting
Nature OfthC CtIeC " t The effects ofthe sand placement activities may change the nesting
behavior of adult female sea turtles, diminish nesting, SUCCeSS, and cause reduced hatching all(]
emerging success. Sand P lacernent 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 United States.
Duration: The sand placerrient activity is estimated to take 60-90 days to complete, assuming 24
11OUr per day operation throughout a seven day work week. Thus, the direct effects would be
expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact
nesting and hatchling, sea turtles and sea turtle nests in subsequent nesting seasons due to
alteration of the beach habitat.
30

Disturbance frequency,: The beach nourishment project will be as one-time event which may
occur within some portion of the May I — November 15 sea turtle nesting season.
Disturbance _m) The amount or effect of this project on the sea turtle species
and their ability to recover, when compared to the overall populations of the species, is very
small. J, he action area only provides marginal nesting habitat and is located near the northern
edge ofeach species nesting range.
13. Analyses for effects of the action
Beneficial effects
The placement of sand on as beach with reduced dry 6oredune h-abitat may increase sea turtle
nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e,, grahi size, shape, color, etc,) with
naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and cornpaction and escarpment rernediation
measures are incorporated into the project, A riourished beach that is desig�ilcd and constructed
to mitnic as natural beach system may benefit sea turtles more than an eroding beach it replaces.
1, placement of sand on the beach
Projects conducted during the nesting and hatching season can result in the loss ofsea turtles
through disruption of adult nesting activity and by burial or crushing of nests or hate slings.
While a nest n-ionitoringand egg relocation program will 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. Inver under the best of conditions, about 7 percent ofthe nests
can be misidentified as false crawls by experienced sea turtle nest surveyors (Schroeder 1994).
In the past, all detected, SCIA turtle nests within the action area have been relocated either by
PfNWR staft"and their volunteers or by Cape I latteras National Seashore staff and their
volunteers. Relocations have Occurred due to the presence on -riarginal habitat and the low
probability of nest success, These relocations have been and are expected to continue
independent of the NC 12 Emergency Beach Nourishn'ient Project. Therefore, it is unlikely that
any project-related adverse effects will occur due to relocation ofsea turtle nests, The action
area will be monitored daily for sea turtle nesting activity by PIN WR staff and their volunteers,
('.'ape Hatteras National, Seashore staffand their volunteers, NCDOT, and consultants employed
by NCDOT. I lowever, any nests missed by these monitors Would likely result in lethal efi'ects to
the eggs and/or hatchlings by burial or crushing from deposited sand or heavy equipment.
2, Vehicles and equipment
The use of vehicles and heavy equipment 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 1emales emerging from the surfand crawling up the beach, causing a higher incidence
31

offalse crawls and unnecessary energy expenditure, The operation of vehicles or equipment on
the beach at night affects sea turtle nesting by: interrupting or colliding with a nesting 1'ernale on
the beach, headlights disorienting or rnisorienting 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 traversing ruts 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 thei - line of sight to the ocean horizon
(Mani,i 1977). The extended period oftravel required to negotiate tire ruts may increase the
susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the ocean (Ijosier
el al. 1981.). Driving directly over incubating egg ClUtChCS (Yr on the beach can cause sand,
cornpaction, which may reSUlt in adverse elTects in riest site selection, digging behavior, clutch
Viability, and en'iergence by hatchlings, as well as directly kill pre-emergent hatchlings (Mann
1977, Nelson and Dickerson 1987, Nelson 1988).
3 1 , artificial lighting
'Visual CUCS <rre the prinlary sea-finding rnectianisni for hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and
Carr 1961 7, Mrosovsky and Sbettleworth 1968, Dickerson and Nelson 1989, WitheringtOD and
f3➢orridal 1 991 ). When artificial lighting is present on or near the beach, it can misdirect
hatchlings once they emerge from their nests and prevent theirtfrorn reaching the ocean
(Philibosian 1976, Mann 1977, FWC 200,7), In addition, a significant reduction in sea turtle
nesting activity has been documented on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington
1992), Therefore, construction lights along a projJect beach and on the dredging vessel may deter
feniales from corning ashore to nest, rnisdirect fiernales trying to return to the surf after a nesting
event, and misdirect en-iergent hatchlings from adjacent non-project beaches. It is expected that
portions of the action area will be illuminated at night by portable construction lighting
throughout the entire, 60-90 (lay estimated construction tirne.
The newly created wider and flatter beach berm exposes sea turtles and their nests to lights that
were less visible, or not visible, from nesting areas belbre the sand placement activity, leading to
higher triortality of hatchlings. Review of over ten years ofern'Pirical information from beach
nourishment projects jects indicates that the number of' sea turtles impacted by lights increases oil the
post-construction bert-n. A review of selected nourished beaches int`lorida (South Brevard,
North Brevard, Captiva Island, Ocean Ridge, Boca Baton, Town of'PaIrn Beach, Longboat Key,
and Bonita Beach) indicated disorientation reporting increased by approximately 300 percent the
first nesting season after project construction and Lip to 542 Percent the second year compared to
pre-nourishment reports (Trindell 2005).
Interrelated and inter Llcj-)eti(teiit_uictiotis
None known,
KW

Indirect effects
1. Changes in the physical environment
Beach nourishment may result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear resistance
(hardness), beach trioisture content, beach slope, sand color, sand grain size, sand grain shape,
and sand grain mineral content it the placed sand is dissimilar from the original beach sand
(Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). These changes can result in adverse effects oil nest site
selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Nelson and Dickerson
1987, Nelson 1988). Beach nourishinent pro�jccts create an elevated, wider, and unfIlItUral flat
slope berm. With the exception of'green sea turtles (Wetterer et al. 2007), rilost sea turtles nest
closer to the water the first lew years after nourishment because ofthe altered profile (and
perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (FInest and Martin 1999,1'rindell 2005),.
Beach coillpaction and unnatural beach proffles resultfilg frorn beach nourishment lctivities can
adversely affect sea turtles regardless of the tinling, ofprc�jects. 'Very ]"me sand or the use of
heavy rnachinery cart cause sand compaction on nourished beaches (Nelson el al, 1987, Nelson
and -Dickerson 1988a). Significant reductions in nesting success (i.e., fiilsc crawls occurred snore
frequently) have been documented oil severely compacted nourished beaches (Fleterneyer 198(1,
Raymond 1984, Nelson and Dickerson 1987, Nelson el al. 1987), and increased false crawls may
result in increased physiological stress to nesting 1'enlales. Sand compaction may increase the
length of time required for fern ale sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased physiological
stress to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). Nelson and Dickerson (1988c) concluded
that, in general, beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are hat-der than natural beaches,
and while some may soften over tinle through erosion and accretion of sand, others may remain
hard for ten years or more. Also, a change in sediment color on a beach can change the natural
incubation temperatures of nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios (Hays et
al. 001 ), These effects can be minimized by using suitable sand and by j udicious tilling of
compacted sand after pro.jecl completion.
2. f,"scarpmerit formation
On nourished beaches, steep escaiT)merits rilay develop along their water line interface as they
adjLlSt 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
-chers have shown that female sea
access to nesting sites (Nelson and Blihovde 1998). Resew
turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation of an escarpment, leading to
situations where they choose marginal or unWitable nesting areas to deposit eggs (e.g., in front
ofthe escarpments, which of results in 'fail tire of nests due to prolonged tidal inundation).
This impact can be rninirnized by leveling any escarpments prior to the nesting season.
C. Species' response to the proposed action
The following SUmniary illustrates sea turtle responses to and recovery fcorn a nourishment
project comprehensively studied by Ernest and Martin (1999). A significantly larger proportion
of turtles emerging on nourished beaches abandoned their nesting attempts than turtles emerging
33

on natural or pre-nourished beaches. This reduction in nesting success is rriost pronounced
during the first year following project construction and is most likely the result of changes in
physical beach characteristics associated with the nourishment project (e.g., beach profile,
sediment grain size, beach compaction, frequency and extent ofescarpments). During the first
post - construction year, the time required for turtles to excavate an egg chamber on untilled, hard-
packed sands increases significantly relative to natural conditions. However, in some cases,
tilling can be effective in reducing sediment compaction to levels that did not significantly
prolong digging tinies. As natural processes reduced compaction levels oil nourished beaches
during Ilic second post-construction year, diggitig times returned to natural levels (Ernest and
Martin '1999).
luring the first post construction year, most nests on nourished beaches arc deposited
significantly seaward of the toe of the dune and significantly lar16yard of tire tide line than nests
on natural beaches, M(,,)rc nests are washed out on the wide, flat beaches ofthe nourished
treatments than oil the narrower steeply sloped natural beaches. This phenonletion may persist
through the second post-construction year nionitoring and result 1roill the placement or nests, ricar
the seaward edge ofthe beach berin where dramatic profile changes, WUsed by erosion and
scarping, occur as the beach equilibrates to a more natural C0111OUr.
'The principal eff'ect of beach nourishment on sea turtle reproduction is a redUCtiOn in nesting
success during the first year (bHowing project construction. Although most studies have
attributed this phenomenon to an increase in beach compaction and escarpment formation, Ernest
anal 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 actiusts from an
minatural construction profile to a natural beach profile, beach compaction and the frequency of
escarpment l'orniation decline, and nesting and nesting success return to levels Mound on natural
beaches,
V. CUMULA,rliVE EFFEC'I'S
CUlllUlatiVC effects include the effects offilture state, tribal, local, or private actions that are
reasonably certain to occur in tile action area considered in this biological opinion. F"uture
tederal actions, that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because
they 1-CClUirC separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 ofthe F' SA.
Any maintenance activities on NC 12 that are conducted entirely within the N'CDOT right-ol`-
way do not have any Weral nexus. 'I"llese activities are most likely to occur after storm events
in which sand is blown or washed over the road. Removal of the sand and reconstruction of the
existing artificial berni would riot likely be conducted within sea turtle habitat; however, the
activities would be irnmediately adjacent to potential nesting habitat. Nesting sea turtles could
be disturbed by the presence ofheavy equipment. Lights from construction equipment may
misorient or disorient sea turtle hatchlings, 'These effects would be expected to be short in
duration for each inaintenance, event, but have historically occurred several tinies a year.
34

VI, CONCLUSION
After reviewing the CUrrent status of the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea
turtle, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle; tile environmental baseline for the action area; the effects of'
the proposed project and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the NC
12 F^Imergcncy Beach Nourislu-nent Plrqject, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the these species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Critical habitat has been proposed for nesting loggerhead sea turtles, but the proposed
action does not occur within or near this proposed critical habitat. No critical habitat has beei'l
designated for the green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, or Kenip's ridley sea, turtle in the
continental (Jnited States, "I'lierefore, no designated or proposed critical habitat will be aflected.
'"I'lie conservation oftlic five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest Atlantic is essential to
the recover), of the log gedicad sea turtle. Each individual recovery Unit is necessary to conserve
genetic and demographic ro[nistriess, or 0010-featUres necessary for long-tern"i sustainability of
the entire POPUlation. Thus, maintenance ol"viabic nesting in cacti recovery unit contrit-nites to
the overall population. 'T'he action area for the NC 12 liner „envy Beach Nourishment Rro:, ject
OCCUT'S within the Northern Recovery Unit (NRU)� The NRIJ had over 8,734 nests in 2013
(excludes small contribution 1i-0111 Virginia).
Green, leatherback, and Ketrip's ridley sea turtle nesting generally overlaps with or occurs within
the beaches, where loggerhead sea turtles nest on both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico beaches.
The proposed project will alTect only 2.27 miles of the approximately 1,400 miles of available
sea turtle nesting habitat in the Southeastern LIS. Much of this 2.27 mile length of beach is of
only iriarginal quality for nesting.
Research has shown that the principal effect of sand placement on sea turtle reproduction is a
reelection 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 nourislin-tent
prqjec( on sea turtle nesting habitat are typically short-term becaLISIL' a nourished beach will be
reworked by natural processes in subsequent years, and beach compaction and the frequt'-ricy of'
escarpment formation will decline. Although a, variety rat` factors, including sonic that cannot be
controlled, can influence [iow as nourishment project, will perform from an engineering
perspective, measures will be implemented to minin-rize impacts to sea turtles.
Over the past ten years (2004 to 2013), the action area averaged only 2.3 loggerhead sea turtle
nests and 0.3 green sea turtle nests per year. No leatherback or Kemp's ridley sea turtles were
observed to nest within the action area. From 2004 to 2013, the extent of sea turtle nesting
within the action area annually represented only 0.0 to 0.9% oftotal sea turtle nests in North
Carolina (Godfrey ?t)1 4) and less than (),I% of the average number ofloggerhead nests within
the NRU. Overall, sea turtle nesting within the action area represents a miniscule contribution to
all the sea turtle nesting in the southeastern US.
35

INCIDENTALTAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and I"ederal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) ofthe ESA prohibit the take
of endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. T'ake is defined as
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct, Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is
defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to Such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, br(­eding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental ucike is defined as take
that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms ofsection 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part
ofthe agency action is not considered to [)e prohibited under the ESA provided that Such taking
is in cornpliance with (lie terns arid conditions cal this incidental take statement.
I'lie measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be implemented by the USA(.,J,'
so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the Nmar, as
appropriate, fear the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply, The USACE has a continuing duty to
regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the U'SACE (1) fails to assume
and implement the terms and conditions or (2) tails to require the IN DO to adhere to the terms
and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the
permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to
monitor the impact of incidental take, the USACE or NCDOT must report the progress of the
action and its impacts on the species to the Service 150 Cf,R §402.14(i)(3)].
AMOUN,r OR EXTENT OF TAKE
"I"he Service anticipates 2.27,rniles of sea turtle nesting beach habitat could be taken as a result of
t1iis, proposed action, J'he take is expected to be in the florni of". (1) destruction ofall nests that
may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited and missed by a nest Survey and egg
relocation program within the boundaries of the proposed prQjcct; (2) harassment in the rorill of
disturbing or interf1cring with female turtles attempting to nest within the construction area or on
adjacent beaches as a result of'construction activities; (3 ) misdirection of nesting and hatchling
turtles on beaches adjacent to the sand placement or construction area as as result of construction
lighting; (4) .misdirection of ties(ing Sea turtles or ha,tchfing turtles on beaches adjacent tea the
coristrUdkffl area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of lights from
beaclifront development that reach the elevated berm post - construction; (5) behavior
modification ofnesting females due to escarpment formation within the prqject area during a
nesting season, resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable
nesting areas to deposit eggs; and (6) destruction ofnests from escarpment leveling within a
nesting season when such leveling has been approved by the Service.
36

Incidental take is anticipated for only the 2.27 miles of beach that have been identified for sand
placement. 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 rnay 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 and egg relocation program; (2) the
total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is unknown; (3) an unknown number of fernales
may avoid the pr(rject beach and be forced to nest in a less than optimal area; (4) lights may
misdirect an unknown number of hatchlings and Cause death; and (5) escarpments may Farrar and
prevent an unknown nurriber of females frorn accessing a suitable nesting site. However, the
level of take of these species can be anticipated by the disturbance and nourishment ofsuitable
turtle nesting beach habitat becaUSC: (1) turtles nest within the project site; (2) beach
nourishment will likely occur during a portion of the nesting season; (3) the nourishment prqjext
Will modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand COITIpaction,-, and (4) artilicial lighting
will det(,n- and/or misdirect nesting and hatchling turtles.
EFFEC'r orriv'l"AKE
In the accorripanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take
is not I ikely to result in jeopardy to the species, Critical habitat has not been designated in the
project area; therefore, the prQject will not result in destruction or adverse modification oferitical
habitat.
REASONABLE ll PRUDENT MEASURES
J'he Service believes the following reasonable and PrUdent.rneasures are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take ofloggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp "s ridley sea turtles.
I. Beach quality sand suitable for sea turtle nesting, successful incubation, and hatchling
cinergence inust be used on the project site.
I All derelict material or other debris Must be removed from the beach prior to ally sand
placement.
3. Daily early morning surveys fior sea turtle nests will be required if any portion of the
beach nourishment PrOjeCt Occurs during the period from May I through November 15.
4. During the period from May I through Novernbcr 15, if sand is placed on the beach at
night, a nightfirne monitor will be utilized to detect any turtle nesting activity that may
occur within that night's work area.
5. During the sea turtle nesting season, construction equipment and materials must be stored
in a manner that will rninirnize impacts to sea turtles to the maximum extent practicable,
IN

6. During the sea turtle nesting season, lighting associated with the prqject must be
minimized to reduce the possibility of disrupting and misdirecting nesting and/or
hatchling sea turtles.
7. F.'Aucate construction contractors and pertinent NCDOJ'and US CE staff as to the
adverse effects of artificial lighting on sea turtles.
8. Sand compaction must be monitored and tilling must be conducted it'needed to reduce
the likelihood of impacting sea turtle nesting and hatching activities.
9. f'scarptrient formation must be monitored and leveling must be coriducted if needed to
reduce (lie likelihood of impacting nesting and hatchling sea turtles.
,10. The Service an(] the North ("arohna Wildlife, Resources Conimission, sea turtle
coordinator must be notified if sea turde adult, hatchling, or egg is hanned or destroyed
as a direct or indiiect result Of the prqject,
TERMS AND CONDrrIONS
In order to be exempt t'ron't the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the US ACE MUSt Comply
with the f"ollowing terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent nicasures
described above and outline required reporting /monitoring requirements. 'these terms and
conditions are non discretionary.
:L. Beach compatible fill must be placed on the beach and associated drine system, Beach
compatible fill must be sand that is similar to the native beach in the vicinity of the site
that has riot been affected by prior sand placement activity. The material placed on the
beach will t)c in compliance with sand suitability standards as specified in the terms and
conditions of PINWR Special Use Permit ii 2013-005
Al I derelict concrete, nietal, coastal armoring material or other debris must be removed
froril the beach prior to any sand placement to the maximuna extent possible. If debris
removal activities take place during the sea turtle nesting season, the work must be
conducted d0ring daylight hoUrs only and must not commence until completion of" the sea
turtle nesting survey each day.
3, Daily early morning surveys for sea turtle nests are required if any portion of the beach
nOUrishrilent prqject occurs during tile period from May I through November 15. (T'he
PILAW R and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore generally survey most of the action
area independent of the proposed action. This term and condition is to ensure that any
gaps in the area or time in which surveys are conducted are covered.)
Any detected sea turtle nesting activity must be reported to the PINWR (if activity occurs
on the Refuge) or to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore (if the activity occurs outside
PtNWR). It is assumed that detected nests will be reloarted (independent of this pro�lect)
W

by PINWR or the Cape Hatteras National Seashore as has been done in the past). All
detected nesting activity must also be reported to the Service's Raleigh Field Office. No
nest site containing eggs or hatchlings may be disturbed until after the eggs have been
relocated.
4. During the period frorn May I through November~ 15, if sand if placed on the beach at
night, a. nighttime monitor must observe the beach area that will likely be affected that
night prior to the niorning's normal nesting activity survey, 11'a female sea turtle is
observed attellipting to nest, all work on the beach will cease and all lights will be
extingui stied (except for those absolutely necessary f*or safety) until after the female
tinishes laying eggs. If a t-ernale turtle successfully lays eggs in a nest, no work may
occur Within 50t'cet of the nest site until after the eggs have been relocated. 11"hatchlings
are obscrved emerging, f•orn a prCVi0US1y undetected nest, all work on the beach will
cease and all ligins will be extingLiished (except for those a,bsoklto,wly necessary for safoWty)
until after the hatcl-ili rigs have entered the ocean.
Front May I through November 15, staging areas for construction equiptilent and
materials 111LIst be located off the beach. Nighttime storage of construction equipment not
in use must be offthe 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 ofthe dune systeril.
6. From May I through Novernber- 15, use the minimum number and the lowest wattage
lights that are necessary for construction. Portable construction lighting must be
directional LED lights with a Predominant wavelength or about 65011m. Arnber colored
construction lights are preferred. Portable construction lights must be mounted as low to
the ground as possible, and directional shields must be utilized, Direct lighting of tile
beach and nearshore waters must be limited to the imillediatc construction area only.
Turn off all lights not immediately needed. Bulldozers and other- heavy equipment will
either UtiliZe Ll D lights with a predominant wavelength of about 650nrn or will operate
underneath the acceptable portable construction lights with their standard lights turned
o 11,
Provide an opportunity I'or the Set-vice or a Service designee to educate construction
contractorillanagers, supervisors, (56rernen and other key personnel and resident NCDOT
personnel with oversight duties (division engineer, resident engineer, division
environryiental officer, etc.) as to adverse effects of artificial lighting on nesting sea
turtles and hatchlings, and to the importance of minimizing those effects.
During and after construction, the beach will be monitored for sand compaction. ]'his
monitoring data will be reported to the PINWR Refuge Manager (ifon the refuge), the
Service's Raleigh Field Office, and to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources sea turtle
coordinator (Matthew Godfrey at 252-728-1528). If there is compaction sufficient to
limit the ability of sea turtles to successfully construct a nest cavity, tilling of the disposal
3 9

material may be required. On Refuge land and when compaction exceeds refuge
standards, as determined by the Refuge Manager, tilling will be required.
9, Visual surveys for escail-)rnents along the project area must be made immediately after
completion of the sand placement and within 30 days prior to May I for three subsequent
years if sand in the project area still remains on the dry beach. Through coordination
with and approval by the PfNWR Refuge Manager (if on the refuge), escarpments that
interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height ,for a distance of 100
feet niust be leveled and the beach profile rnust be reconfi gured to ininimize scarp
fort'nation by May I . Any escarpment rernovalintist be reported by location to the
[)lNWR Re-fur Manager (if on the refuge) and to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
I O t.JPon locating a (lead 01• iniUred sea turtle adult, hatchling, or egg that may have been
harmed or destroyed as a direct or indirect reSUI( Of' the ProJCCL the LJSACE or the
NC'JI)OT n1USf notify the PIN WR (it' located within the Refuge) or the Cape I latteras
National Sea Shore (if located outside PINWR) and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Connnission sea turtle coordinator (Matthew Godfrey at 252-728-1528).
The Service believes that incidental take will be limited to the 2.27 miles of beach that have been
identi tied for sand placement. The reasonable and prudent nicasures, with their irnplen-lenting
terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might
otherwise result from the proposed action,. The amount or extent of incidental take for sea turtles
will be considered exceeded if the protect results in more than a one-time placement of sand on
the 2.27 miles of"beach that have been identified for sand placement. If. ' during the course of the
action, this level cif incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
requiring rcinitiation Of Consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent, measures
provided. The LJSACE. MUSt immediately provide an explanation of the causes ofthe taking arid
review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDA11ONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the F1.SA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the
purposes of 1 the SA by carrying out conservation progranis For the benclit ofendangered and
threatened species. Conservation recon'rTriendations are discretionary agency activities to
ininirnize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
1. Construction activities l'br this pro ' je�ct and similar future projects within. sea turtle nesting
areas should be planned to take place outside the main part of the sea turtle nesting
season (i.e. egg-laying portion of" season) From May 1 through September 15.
1E

2. NC DOT could install light shields along other coastal highways or state-Maintained
roadways that are currently visible at sea turtle nesting sites. This would reduce the
possible misorientation impacts of NCDOT lighting on sea turtles.
3. N C DOT and/or U SAC E could provide money to pay for the sins that are used by
volunteers to mark sea turtle nests during egg incubation on various beaches. These signs
are integral to the NC nest monitoring program, which provides key data used to assess
recovery goals.
4. ref CDOT,and/or L)SACI.," could contribute funding to the Network for E'ridange•ed Sea
'I"urtles (N.E.S.T.), as nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and protection
of sea turtle habitat in the Outer Banks.
In order for the Service to be kept infortned of actions Ininirnizing or avoiding adverse effects or
beriefitting listed species or their habitats, the Servicercquests notification Of'thC irnplenientation
of any conservation recommendations,
REINITIATIONICLOSIM.'I ST ATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your February 28, 2014 request for
formal consultation. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of'-forenal consultation is
required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been
retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (t) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
(2) new infon-nation reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that
may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is
exceeded, any operations causing SLICII take must cease pending reinitiation.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1992, First Kenip's ridley nesting ill SOLIVI Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter
59:23.
Baker, S. and 13. Higgins. 2003. Summary ol'CWI'prqicct and recoveries, tag detection, and
protocol for packaging and shipping Kemp's ridley flippers. LJnpublished presentation at
the ScaTurtle Stranding and Salvage Network annual meeting,. February x(10 3.
Baldwiri, R., G.R. f lughes, and RIT. Prince. 2003, Loggerhead turtles in the Indian Ocean,
Pages 218-232 in Bolten, A.B. and BE Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
41

Billes, A., J.-B. MOL[ndemba, and S. Courtier, 2000, Cainpagne Nyamu 1999-2000. Rapport de
fin de salson. PRo,roMAC-ECOFAC. 1 1 1 pages.
[Ajorndal, K. A., A.B. M'eylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach,
Florida, 1. Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biological Conservation 26:65-77.
Blair, IC 2005. , Deter Trinc9tion of sex ratios and their relationship to nest temperature of
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta earella, L) hatchlings produce(,] along the southeastern
Atlantic coast of the United States, (JnpUblished Master of Science thesis. lFlorlda
Atlantic University, Boca R,-itori, Florida.
Bleakney—I.S. 1955. Four records of tfic Atlantic ridley turtle, Lepidochel.)Ils lcetnpi, from Nova
Scotia. Copeia, 2:137.
Bolten, A.13. and IIR. Martins. 1990, Kcrnp's ridley captured in t1w Azores. Marina 'furt I c
Newsletter 48:23.
Bowen, B. W , A.L. Bass, 1— Soares, and R.J. 'I'oonen. 2005, Conservation implications of
complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle ((,I'arella caret hl).
Molecular Ecology 14:2389-2402.
Brongersn'ia, L.D. 1972. E'uropean Atlantic Tui ties, Zoologische Verhandelingen 121.318.
Brougersma, L and A. Carr. 1983. Lelfidochelys kemj,)ii (Garnian) from Malta. Proceedings of
the Koninkli�jke Nederiandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series Q 86(4).445-454,
Burchfield, P.M, and J.L Peria. 2011. [,'inal report on the Mexico/United Stated of America
POPLIkation for the Kerrip's Ridley sea turtle, Lelfidochelys kempii., on the coasts of
Taniaupilas, Mexico. 2011. Annual report to Fish and Wildlife Set-vice. 43 pages.
Caldwell, D.K. 1962. Comments on the nesting behavior ol"Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles,
based primarily on tagging returns. Quarterly Journal of the 11orida Academy of
Sciences 25(4).287-302.
(,'art-, A. 1961, T'he ridley mystery today. Animal Kingdom 64(l):7-12,
Carr, A. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lelfidochell Y kenyfii, Ergebnisse der.
Biologic 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. 200, 1, Historical trends, seasonality and spatial synchrony in green sea turtle egg
production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279.
M

Christeris, E. 1990. 'Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles, Jouriial ofHerpetology
24(4):400-402.
Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore protection manual, Volumes I and it. U,S,
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways F"xperiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Collard, S.B, and 1-11, Ogren. 1990, Dispersal scenarios lor pelagic post-hatchling sea turtles.
Bulletin of Marine Science 47(l):233-243,
Conant, T.A., P.K ffinton,T'. Eguchi, S.P, Epperly, ("..".C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, SJ., MacPherson,
E`,.E. Poss(ardt, B.A. Schroeder, J. A. Semir)off, M.L, Snever, C.M- Uptitc, au d 11.1-l"
ti, "itherington. 2009, Loggerhead sea tUrfle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the
U . S, . F, I jidangered Species.Act. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver
Spring,Maryland,USA. 219 pages.
Cotigdon, J,D,, A.E. Dffllhairi, and R,C, van Loben Sels, 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of'131anding's turtles (EmYtloidew blandingii): implications lor conservation
and triatiagetyient of long-lived organisms, Conservation Biology 7(4):826-833,
Crouse, 1). 1999. Population modeling and implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle
management. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):185-188.
Dahlen, M.K., R. Bell, .1.1. Richardson, and T.H. Richardson. 2000. Beyond D-0004:Thirty-
four years of loggerhead (Carella careiia) research on Little Curriberland Island, Georgia,
1964-1997. Pages 60-62 in Abreu-Grobois, EA., R. Briseno -Duenas, R. Marquez, and I.—
Santi (compilers), Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Sea'l'urtle SyrnposiL,im.
NOAA `Technical Memorandum NMFS-SI-FSC"-436.
Daniel, R, S, and K.U. Srnith. 1947, 'The sea-approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle
(4.'.'arella carella). Journal ofC,omparative and Physi o logical psychology 40(6):413-420,
Davis, G.F. and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in 1,3verglades National,
Park, 1,1orida, (JS,A. Herpetologica 33:18-28.
Deraniyagala, PEP, 1938. The Mexican loggerhead turtle in 1,,'urope, Nature 142:540.
Dickerson, D.D. and f).A, Nelson. 1989. Recent reSUItS OD hatchling orientation responses to
ligh,t wave I eng(hs and intensities. Pages 41-43 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.1 I
Richardson (compilers). Proceedings ofthe 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Conservation and Biology, NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-SI.,TC-232.
Dies., C. E 2011, Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Puerto Rico
Department ofNatural and Environmental Resources.
43

Dodd, (',K,, Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle (" aretto
coretta (I.,innaeus 1758), U.S. Fish and Wildlifie Service, Biological Report 88(14).
Dodd, M.G. and A-H. Mackinnon. 1999, Loggerhead turtle (("are flo carella) nesting in
Georgia, 1999: implications for nlanagenient. Georgia Department of Natural, Resources
report
Dodd, M.G. and A-11. Mackinnon. 2000. I,oggerhead turtle (Cttrelta care la) nesting in
Georgia, 2000: implications for management, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
unpublished report.
Dodd, M.G. and AIL Mackinnon. 20O 1 . Loggerhead turtle (Carelia nesting in
G'eorgia, 2001, Georgia Department of' Natural Resources. Report to the [J.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida..
Dodd, M,G, and A.1 1. MaekiDnon. 2002. Loggerhead turtle earella) nesting in
Georgia, 2002. Georgia 1.),epartnient of Natural Resources. :Reg oil submitted to the (J. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, 1, I
lorida.
Dodd, M.G. and AAL Mackinnon, 2003. Loggerhead turtle (Carella care ita) nesting in
Georgia, 2003. Georgia Department of N,aftlral Resources. Report subtrii1ted to the LS.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Dodd, M,G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2004, Loggerhead turtle (Carelt• carell,a) nesting in
Georgia, 2004. Georgia Department of Natural ResOUrces, Report SUbmitted to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, I'llorida,
Dodge, K.D., R. Prescott, D. Lewis, 1). Murley, and C. Merigo. 2003. A review of cold stun
strandings oti Cape Cod, Massachusetts from 1979 -2003. L)npublished Poster NO AA,
Mass Audubon, New Y"Ingland AqUaximn,
Dutton, D. L, P H, Dutton, M. Chaloupka, arid R.H. Boulon. 2005, Increase of a Caribbean
leather back turtle Dermocheky� cori . acea nesting Population linked to long-term nest
pi-otection. Biological Consemttion 126:186-194.
I'lirliart
, L-M. 1989, Status report of the loggerhead turtle. Pages, 122-139 in Ogren, L., E
Berry, K. Bjorndal, 11. Kurripf, R. Mast, G. Medina, 14. Reichart, and R, Witham
(editors). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic'"furtle SY]TIPOS41111. NOAAT'ecll-nical
Memorandum NMFS-SEIIIC-226.
44

Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. 13agley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in tile Atlantic Ocean.
geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 15,7-174 in Bolten, A.B.
and 13.E. Witberington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washington D.C.
Ericalada, S,.E.,.I.C. Zurita, and 13. x. Bowen. 1999, Genetic consequences o-rcoastal
development: the sea turtle rookeries at Veacel, Mexico. Marine TurtleNewsletter 83:8-
10.
F"rnest, R,G, arid R.E". Martin. 1993. Sea lurfle protection program performed in support of'
I
velocity cap repairs, Florida Power& 1-ight C'ompany St. Lucie Plant. Applied Biology,
Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida.
t,"t-nest, R.(.'J. and RE Martin. 1999. Martin Countyt)cach nOUrishment pr oJect: sea turtle
monitoring arid studies. 1997 annual report and linal assessment. Unpublished report
prepared for the I lorida Department Protection.
Fleterneyer,.J. 1980. Sea turtle monitoring proJect. Unpublished report prepared for the
froward. County Environmental Quality Control Board, Florida.
I'lorida Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Commission (FWC). 2007. Light sources contributing
to reported disorientation events in Florida, 2007.
littp,,Hwww.myf'wc.coiii/docs/Wildlifel,labitats/ScatLirtle-I)isorientatioii]-.�.vejits2OO7.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2008. Personal communication to
the I.,,oggerhead Recovery "],"earn, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Florida Fish and WjIdli1`e Conservation Commission (FWC). 2009a. Statewide Nesting Beach
Survey database http://researcii.myiweco,iii/l-eati,ires/view-article.asp'?id=10690
Florida l-,'Ish and Wildlife Conservation Cornmission ff"WC). 2009b. Index, Nesting Beach
Survey Totals., l ttp://i-tsearch.Myt'WC.COI�ll/f"C',ItLires/N,,icNv-ai-ticle.asp?id=1069O
Florida Fish and Wildlif`e Conservation C,orninission (FVQ. 20(0c. Florida's endangered
species., threatened species, and species of special concern,
http://rescai°eli.iiiy,f'wc.com/feati,ires/view,,-ai-ticle.asp'?i(1=5182
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Cornmission/Florida, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
(FWC/FWRI). 2010a. A good nesting season for loggerheads in 2010 does not reverse a
recent declining trend, http://research.iiiyfwc.coiii/1eatures/view articIe.asp?id-=27537
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
(FWC/FWRI'). 2010b. Index nesting beach survey totals (1989 - 2010),
http://my,fwc,com/researeti/wildlife/sea-tLirtles/nestiti�;ibeacti-survey-totals-1989-2010/
M

F'Iorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Conimission/11orida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
(FWC/FWRI). 2011. Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Foley, A. 2005. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery'ream. 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-filth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation. NOAATechnical Men'-wranduin NMFS-SI.`1l1`S(,­582.
l'onfiaine, C., l° °., S.A. Manzella, 'l",D. Williarns, R.M. 11arris, and W.J. Browning. 1989.
Distribution, growth and survival of head started, tagged and released Kemp's ridley sea
R1111C (Lepicloehell'S ketnpii) from year-classes 19I1 %....1983. Pages 124-144 in ClaillOUct,'
C.W.,.Ir., and A.M.. Landry Jr. (editors'). Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea `Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management.
'FAMU-SG:89-105,
Foote,J.J. and,r.l_ Mueller. 2002, Two Kenip's ridley (Lepictochelys kempii) nests can 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'I'Lirtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NM1^S-SEFSC-477.
Foote, J., J. Sprinkel, T. Mueller, and J. McCarthy. 2000. An overview of twelve years of
tagging data frorn ("car elki carelia and (,heloniti inYdas nesting habitat along the central
Gulf coast of Florida, USA. Pages 280-283 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (cornpilers),
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposival on Sea Turtle Biology and
C,onservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SF1FSC-443.
Frair, W , R_.G. Ackerman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Bo(ly temperature of Derinochely-y
coriacea: warrn water turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793.
1'rancisco-Pearce, AN. 2001. Contrasting population StrUCtUre of (,arella carelur using
mitochondrial and nuclear I:ANA primers. Unpublished Master of'Science thesis.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Frazer, N.B. and J.1. Richardson. 1985, Annual variation in clutch size and frequency For
loggerhead turtles, Carella-carella, nesting at Little CUrnberland Island, Georgia, USA.
I lerpetologica X11(3):246 -251..
Fretey, J. A. Billets, and M.'Fiwari. 2007, Leatherback Dermochelp eoriacea, nesting along
the Atlantic coast of Africa, Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(l): 126-129.
46

Garner, J,A, and S.A. Garner. 2010. Saturation tagging and nest management of leatherback sea
turtles on (Dermochelys coriaceo) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S, Virgin Island, 2010.
Annual report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 49 pages.
Terrodette,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 ofa Workshop on
Assessing Abundance and 'Trends for In-water ScaTurtle Populations. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEI 'SC-445.
(flen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of cliniate change on sand and
nest WITIPeratUrCS al a hawksbill turtle (Er elmochelj�s! inibricala) nesting beacla. Global
Change Biology 10:20 �6-2045.
Godfirey, M. 2014. th'ipublished data provided in a February 5, 2014 ernail frOrn NCWRC sea
tL,11'tlC COOrdinatOr Matthew Godfrey to Service biologist Gary.fordan.
Godfirey, M.11. and N. MrosOVSky, 1997. ["Sti[Tiating the time between hatching of sea turtles
and their emergence from the nest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(4):581--585.
(.3'reer, A.E,, J.D. Lazell, Jr., and R.M. Wright. 1973. Anatomical evidence for counter-current
heat exchanger in the leatherback turtle (Dermoehelyw coriacea). Nature 244:18 1.
Hanson, J - T. Wibbels, and Mai-tin. 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.
I lailman, 11". and A.M. Flowson. 1992. Etliograrn ofthe nesting fernale loggerhead
care la). Her-petologica 48:1-30.
1 lawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.] 1. Godfrey, and 131 Godley. 2005. Status of"cresting;
loggerhead turtles Carelut car elki at Bald J-Icad Island (North Carolina, LISA) after 24
years of intensive monitoring, and conservation. Oryx 39(l):65-72.
1 lawkes, 1,.A., A.C, Broderich, M.] L Godfrey, and B.J. Godley, 2009. Climate change and
marine turtles. I. , Indarigered Species Research 1:137' -1.54.
Hays, G.C. 2000. The implications of variable, rernignation intervals for the assessment of
population size in marine turtles. Journal ol"I"heoretical Biology 206:221-227.
Hays, G.C., J.S. Ashworth, M.J. Barnsley, A.C, Broderick, R. Emery, B,J, Godley, A.
I lenwood, and E.L. Jones. 2001, The importance of and albedo for the thermal
conditions on sea turtle beaches. Oikos 93:87-94.
47

Hegna, R.H., M.J. Warren, CJ, Carter, and I.C. Stiner. 2006. Lepiclochelys ketty)ii (Kemp's
Ridley sea turtle), Herpetological Review 37(4),:492.
Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle (_ 'helonia inydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak.
Proceedings orthe Zoological Society of London 130:455-535.
fleppell, S.S. 199�8, Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle
conservation. Copeia 1998(2):67-375.
I'lepl)ell, SS., L.B. Crowder, and T,R. Menzel. 1999, Life [able analysis of long-lived marine
species with implications for conservation and rrianagement, Pages 137-148 in Musick,
J.A. (editor). Lific in the Slow L,ane: Ecology and (',',onservahon off.,ong-lived Marine
Animals. American Fisheries Society Syrnposiurn 23, Bethesda, Maryland.
Heppell, S.S., 1_13. Crowder, D.'T. Crouse, ST. Epperly, and N.13, Frazer. 2003. Population
models for Atlantic loggerheads: past, present, and future, Pages 2.25-273 in Bolten, A.B.
and 13+',. Witherington (editors). L,oggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books.,
"asking hton D.C.
fleppell, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, ST. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez,
and N,13. Thompson. 20O5. A population rnodel to estimate recovery time, population
size, and management impacts on Kernp's ridley sea turtles, Chelonian Conservation and
Biology 4(4):767-773.
Hildebrand, ".H. 1963. H allay go del area de anidaci6n de la tortuga marina "lora"
LePidochelvS kem.pi (Garman), en la coasta occidental del Golfo de Mexico. Sobretiro de-
Ciencia, M6xico 22:105-112.
HirthjIJ,'. 1997. Synopsis ofthe biological data on the green turtle Chelonia nq&ts (Linnacus
17581. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, l3iological Report 97(l),
Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Carelta, carelta in South
C,arohn,a, South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department Con-ipletion Report.
I losier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1 981. Off-road vehicle and pedestrian track effects
on the sea —cipproach of hatchhug loggerhead ttirtles. Environmental Conservation
8:158-161.
Houg.1-1ton, J.[).R. and GC, I-lays. 2001. Asynchronous emergence by loggerhead turtle (Caretla
•aretta) hatchlings. NatUrwissenschaften 88:133-136.
NINC

Hughes, A,L and E.A. Caine. 1994, The effiects of beach Icatures 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 1',ourteenth Annual Symposium oil Sea `Turtle Biology
and Conservation. N(.)AA'I'eclinicalMemo,rtinduniNMFS-SI..,FSC-351.
Insacco, G, and F. Spadola. 2010,, First record of Keirip's ridley sea turtle, Lel,706cheyls kenilfii
(Garman 1880) (Cheloniidac), from the Italian waters (Mediterranean Sea). Acta
I lerlictologica 5(1):113-117.
Intergovernmental Panel on C',liniatc Change (IPC(.,',). 2007a. (.1itriale Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis -- Summary lor Policyrnaters. Contribution of' Working (it-oup I
("ontribution to the [�'ourth Assessment Iteport of (he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Changc.
tntergoverntriental Panel on Cfimate hange (IP( C). 2007b, Climate (,71virige 2007: Climate
C,ha.nge Impacts, Adaptition and Vulnerability, Working ("Troup 11 Contribution to the
In ter governincntal Panel oil Climate Change, UOLIrth Assessment Report.
Jimcncz, M.C'., A. I"ilonov, 1. Tereshcheriko, and R.M. Marquez. 2005, 'Firne-series analyses of'
'the relationship between nesting 1' equcncy of the Ken-ip's ridley sea turtle and
meteorological conditions. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):774-780.
,Johnson, S, A.., A. L. Bass, 13. 11,ibert, M. MarITIUSt, and D, I"Lilk. 1999, Kemp's ridley
(Lepicloehelj�s kemlfi) nesting in Florida, Florida Scientist 62(3/4): 194-204.
Jones,T.T., M.D. Hastings, B.L. B,ostrom, 1), Pauly, and D.R, Jones. 2011. Growth ofcaptive
leatherbackturtles, Dertnochel
,ys coriacea, with infierences on growth in the wild:
Implications ft)r population decline and recovery. JOLIMIE11 off",,,xperinlental Marine
Biology and 1-.cology 399:84-92.
Kaniczaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, 0. Abe, 11. Asakawa, "I". Fujii, K. Gotta, S. Flagino, M. Ilayarili, M.
Ishii, T. lwarnoto,T, Kaniala, If. Kato, J, Kodarna, Y. Kondo, 1. Miyawaki, K.
M izobuchi, Y. Nakam Ura, Y. Nakashinia, If. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Sarne ima, H.
J
SuganUnia, I-I. Takeshita,'I". Tariaka, T. Toji, M. [Jernatsu, A. Yamamoto, 1'. Yan'lato, and
1. Wakabayashi. 2003, Loggerhead turtles nesting in .fa-pan, Pages 210-217 in Bolten,
A.B, and 131. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea'I"urtles. Smithsonian Books,
Washington 11C.
Ira risky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Firiger, 1986. I'lactors affecting reproductive success
of sea turtles on Caj-,)e Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. f,"inal report to the
United States Air Force. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and
Wildlifie, Research Llnit, Agreement Number 14-16-0009-1544, Research Work Order
Nurnber 25.
49

LeBuff, C.R., Jn 1990. The loggerhead turtle in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta Research,
Inc.; Sanibel Island, Florida.
Limpus, (J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search 2(10):385-387,
I,Jmpus C.J. and D.J. t..,inipus. 2003a. Loggerhead turtles in the equatorial and southern Pacific
Ocean. pages 199-209 in Bolten, A.B. and 11.13, Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea
Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington, Iii: ",.
I
Linipus (.J. and D.J. Lim pus. 2003b., Biology of the loggerhead turtle in western South Pacific
Ocean tiara ging areas. Pages 93-1,13 in l3olten, A.B. and 13.1 Jitherington (editors).
Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Sn-6thsonian Books, Washington, DC.
LiIIII)LIS, C,,.J.D. Miller, and CJ. Parmenter. 1993. The northern Great Barrier Reef green turtle
(!he/onia my as breeding population. Pages 47-50 in Stnith, A.K. (compiler), K,11
Zeveting and C.E'. Zevering (editors). fain Island and Environs Great Bafrier Reef:
Quest to preserve a, Fragile Outpost ofNature. Maine Island Corporation kind ('heat
Barrier ReefMarine Park AUthOrit),jownsville, Queensland, Australia.
Lohn-iann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2003. Orientation mechanisms of hatchling loggerheads.
Pages 44-62 in Bolters, AR and 13.1". Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea 't
Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C.
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, 1. Baran, F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, J. A. (,,arnirlas, P. Casale, G.
De Metrio, A. Dernetropoulos, G. Gierosa, B,J. Godley, D. A. fladdoud,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.],,,.
Witheringtori (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, WashingtonD.C.
Marquez-Millan, R. 1994, Synopsis ol'biological clata on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle,
Lelfi(loche4ys k arty fi (Garman, 1880). NOAATechnical Memorandum N MT' S-SF'R.'-
341
NlArquez, M.R., A. Villanueva, 0., and M. SAnchez P, 1982. The population of the Kernps
ridley sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico -- Lelfielochelys kenyfii. Pages 159-164 in
13jorndal, K.A. (editor), Biology and Conservation ofSea Turtles, Washington, D.C,
Smithsonian Institute Press.
w

McDonald, D.L. and 111,11. Dutton. 1996. Use of' PIT tags and photoidentitication to revise
rernigration estimates of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in St, Croix,
US. Virgin Islands, 1979-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):148-152.
Meylan, A. 1982. Estimation of population size in sea turtles. Pages 135-138 in 13jorndat, K. A.
(editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Miller ,.J.D. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. Pages 5 1 -81 in P.L. L,utz and JA Musick (I "Ids.).
The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Moran, K,I.,,, K.A. JAjorridal, and A.B. Bolten. 1999. EIATects of the thermal environnient on the
ternpoi-81 pattern of emergence ofhatchling loggerhead turtles Carefla carello. Marine
Elcology 11-'Iro�,,,rcss Series 189:25 1-261,
M,rosovsky, N. 19,88. Pivotal (effil.,)eratures for loggerhead turtles frorn northern and southern
nesting beaches, (.'anadian Journal of Zoology 66.661-669,
Mrosovsky, N. and A. Carr. 1967. Pref`erenccs l"or light of short waveleng(hs in hatchling green
sea turtles (Chelonia n7y(,las), tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behavior 213;21.7 -
231,
Mrosovsky, N. and .1. Provancha. 1989, Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and
estimates from alive year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:530-538.
Mrosovsky, N. and SJ, Shettlewort.h. 'I 968, Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in
water finding behavior of sea turtles. Behavior 32:211-257,
Mrosovsky, N. and Yntema. 1980. Temperat tire dependence cal sexual differentiation in
sea turtles, itriplications, for conservation practices. Biological, Conservation 18-271-280.
MUrphy,'T,M. and S.R,, Hopkins. 1984, Aerial and ground surveys oftriarinc turtle nesting
beaches in the southeast region. Unpublished, report: l-Wepared for the National Marine
l'isheries Service.
Musick, J.A. 19,99, Ecology and conservation of long- lived marine mammals. Pages 1 -10 in
Musick, J. A. (editor). I,j.fc in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived
Marine Animals. Anierican Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Mary] and.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and
leatherbacl< sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on
the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles ofthe Western North Atlantic. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-SEF'SC-455.
E

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009a, Loggerhead ca "Turtles (Car efla carella).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs,
Maryland, http://www.nmfs.rioaa.gov/pi,-/species/turties/loggerhead.litni
National Marine l'isheries Service (NIVIFS). 2009b. Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia, my(las).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs,
Maryland. littp://www.ni-nf.s.no,aa.gov/pj-/species/ttirtles/greell.htill
National Marine Fisheries Set-vice (NMFS). 2009c. Lecitherback ea Turtles (Dermochely,'s
coriacea). National Marine 1"isheries Service, Office off'rotected ReSOL11-CCS. Silver
Springs, Maryland, http-//www.tinif,,,iioaa.gov/pr/species/tLirtles/le�tthet-I)ack.htyl-1.
National Marine 1,,isheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMI S and US17WS).
19911. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle (( "helorfia PnYclas),
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washn-q',,(oa,,
National Marine Fisheries Service and (),S. Fish and Wild.lifc Service (NMFS and t,.jSFWS).
199c 2. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles (Dermochel))s, coriacea) in the U.S.
Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine l"isheries Service,
Washington, D,C,
National Marine Fisheries Set-vice and the US, Fish and Wildlife Service (NmFS and USFWS).
1998. Recovery plan for U.S, I'lacil'11C populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mj)das).
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Serviccand the U, S. Fish arid Wildlife Service ('NMFS and tJSFWS).
2007a. Green sea turtle (Chelonki inj)(Ias) 5-year review: sumniary and evaluation. 102
pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and USFWS).
2007b. Leatherback sea I.tirtle (Dertnoche ys coriacete) 5-year review: summary and
evaluation, 79 pages.
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Cl. . Fish and Wildlife Service (NMI" S and USFWS).
2008, Recovery plan for fl-ic Northwest Atkintic population ol"the loggerhead sea turtle
((,'a•ema earelta), second revision, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlit'c Service, and SEMARNA'I".
2011. Bi-national recovery plan for the 1, ernp's ridley sea turtle (Lej.)idochelys keml,)ji),
second revision. National Marine Fisheries Set-vice, Silver Spring, Maryland.
National Park Service (NPS). 2007, Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 sea turtle annual
report. Manteo, NC.
52

National Research Council. 1990, Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National
Academy Press; Washington, DC.
Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. LIS.
Fish and Wildlif'e Service Biological Report 88(23). L). S. Army Corps of Engineers TR
E.- L.,- 8 6- (Rev.),
Nelson, D,A,andB.Blihovde. 1,998, Nesting sea turtle response to beach scarps, Pagell3in
Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez (compilers), Proceedings ofthe Sixteenth Annual
Syrnposiurn on Sea'J'Lirtle Biology and Conservcitiori, NO ,technical Menioraridurn
NMFS-SFFS(`.-412.
Nelsoji,,I),A,an(,11),I).f)ic.kei�-soii. 1987, , Coi-rela,li,oti(-,)r logger- he,,i(lt,tii-1,lellcst digging times
with beach sand consistency, Abstract of the nth Annual Workshop oil Sea Turtle
( I
.onservation and Biology.
Nelsoi,i,D,A,ai,iicIF).D.I)ickersoii,, 1988a. E"I'Fects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. In "Fait,
LS. (editor). Proceedings of the Beach ]"reservation Technology Conference'88.
Florida Shore Vic, Beach Preservation Association, Inc.,'Fallahassee, Florida.
Nelson, D. A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988b. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting
beaches on the east coast of Florida, I-Jnpubfished report of the LT. S, Army Corps of"
Engineers Waterways I'Aperiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988c, Response ofnesting 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 I Fleterneyer. 1987, Physical effects of beach nouristin'lent on Sear
turtle nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. 'Feclinical Report El..,-87-15,. U.S, Army Corps of
F.'rigincers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nielsen, J.-F' 010. Population structure and the mating system ofloggerhead turtles ((.'arella
(,aretfa). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 507.
http://schoJar]yrepository.miaii,,ii.edi,i/oal.ldissei-tai,tions/507
Ogren, LH. 1989, Distribution of j uvenile and SLibadult Kemp's ridley turtles: preliminary
results 1'roni the 1984-1987 surveys. Pages 116-123 in Caillouct, C.W., Jr., and A. M.
Landry, Jr. (eds.). Proceedings ofthe first International Symposium on Kemp"s Ridley
SeaTUrtle Biology, Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University Sea Grant
College Pro grarnTAMU-SG-89-105.
IN

Philibosian, R. 1976, Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings (Erelmochelys imbricalff) by
stadium lights. Copcia 1976:824.
Possardt, E. 2005. Personal communication to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
Pritchard, P.CM, 1982, Nesting of the leather back turtle, Dermochelys coriacea in Pacific
Mexico, with as new estimate of the world population status. Copcia 1982(4):741 -747,
Pritchard, P.C.1-1. 1992, L,eadwrimck turtle Dermochel
,ys corkwea, Pages 214•218 in Toler,
P.F'. (editor). Rare arid Endangered Biota of Florida, Volurne Ill. University Press of
Florida- Gainesville, Florida.
-i
Pritchard, P.CJL and R. WArquez M. 1973. Kemp's ridley or Atlantic
kemlfii, ILJCN Monograph No. 2. (Marine Turtle Series),
Provancha, J.A. and L.M, l"I"hi-hart. 1987, Sea turtle nesting trends at Kennedy Space Cerner arid
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factors influencing nest
site selection. Pages 3344 in Witzell, W.N. (editor). F",cology of I'last Florida Sea
Turtles: proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida SeaTurtle Workshop. NOAA
Technical Report NMJ-`° S-53.
Putman, N.F.,T.J. Shay, and K.J. Lohrilann, 2010. Is the geographic distribution of nesting in
the Kemp's ridley turtle shaped by the migratory needs of'offspring? Integrative arid
Comparative Biology, a symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for
and C, mralive Biology, Seattle, A. 10 pages.
Integrative c on'll
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 (Derniochelys coriaceo) nests
Irom North Carolina, with a summary of leather back nesting activities north of Florida.
MarineTUrtle Newslettter 10)1:4 -8.
Raymond, P. W. 1984, The effects of beach restoration oil marine turtles nesting in south
Brcvard County, 11orida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central
Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Rcina, R.D., P.A. Mayor, JR, Spotila, R. Piedra, and F,V. PaladiDO, 2002. Nesting ecology of
the leatherback turtle, Dertnochel.ys cori I acea, at Parque Nacional Maritio Las Baulas,
Costa Rica: 1988-1989 to 1999-2000. Copcia 2002(3).653-664.
54

Richardson, 'I ' J.1. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W, Dix. 1978, Rernigration patterns,
of loggerhead sea turtles (Ctlrella coretla') nesting on Little Cumberland Island and
Curriberland Island, Georgia. Pages 39-44 in Fleriderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings Of
the Florida and Interregional Contcrence oil Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research
Publications Number 33.
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. 1 fistorical decline of" loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles-. Pages
189-195 in 13,joi-ndal, K. A. (editor). Biology and Conservation ol' Sea TurtIcs.
Sini(Ilsonian Institutioti Press" Washington, D.C.
Ross, J.P.. and M, A, Barwani. 1995, Izeview ofsea turtles, in the Aral)iau area. llage�s 373-383
in 13 ' jorndd, K n C
,A, (editor). Biology ad onserv,'ttion of Sea 'Tr
utles, Revised Edition.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 11C. 615 pages.
Rostal, D.C. 2007. Reproductive physiology ofthe rid ley sea turtle Paages 151-165 in Plotkin
P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation o1° Ripley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltirriore, Maryland.
Routa, R. A. 1968. Sea turtle nest survey of Hutchinson Island, Florida. Quarterly Journal of tile
Florida Academy of Sciences 30(4):287-294.
Salmon, M., J. Wyneken, l'- Fritz, and M. Lucas. 1992. Seal'inding 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 (Carelta
carella and Chelonhi mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida, [1orida Scientist 44(l):35.
Schroeder, B. A. 1994. Florida index nesting beach surveys: are we on the right track? Pages
132-133 in 13jorridal, K,A,, A.B. Bolteri, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers).
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium on Sca'Furtle Biology and Conservation.
NO AA T'echnical Mernorandum NMFS-S],-',FSC-351 .
Schroeder, B. A., A.M. Foley, and D,A. Bagley. 2003. Nesting -patterns, ruroductive
migrations, and adult loraging areas ofloggerhead turtles. Pages 114-124 in Botten, A.B.
and B.F. Witheringlon (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian. Books,
Washington D.C.
Scott, J.A. 2006. Use ofsatellite telernetry to determine ecology and nianagenient of loggerhead
turtle (C"arelto earelva) during the nesting season in Georgia. Unpublished Master of
Science thesis. University of'Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
99

Shaver, D.J. 2002, Research in support of the restoration of sea turtles and their habitat in
national seashores and areas along the 1'exas coast, including the Laguna Madre. Final
NRPP Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2005. Analysis of the I(emp's ridley imprinting and head.start project at Padre
Island National Seashore, Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding records
I
on the Texas coast. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):846-859.
Shaver, I .J. 2006a.. Kerrip'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
Temas sea turtle nesting arid stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of
the Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2007, Texas sea turtle nestingind stranding 2006 report. National Park Service,
Department ofthe Interior.
Shaver, D.J. 2008. Texas sea turtle nesting an(] stranding 2007 report. National Park Service,
Department of the Interior,
Shaver, D.J. and (,,,W, Caillouet, Jr. 1998, More Kenip's ridley turtles return to south Texas to
nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82.1-5.
Snover, M. 2005. Personal communication to the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery 'Learn.
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Snover, M.L., A,A. I lohn, LB, Crowder, and S,S, Ileppell, 2007. Age and growth in Kemp's
ridley sea turtles: evidence from mark - recapture and skeletochronology. Pages 99-106 in
Plotkin P.1. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley ScaTurtles. John I lopkins
LJniversily Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sobel, 1), 2001 A photographic documentation of aborted nesting at tempts due to lounge
chairs. Page 311 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea "Furde Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-Sl-,',FSC'--477.
Solow, A.R., K.A, 11jorridal, and A,B. Bolten. 2002, Annual variation in nesting numbers of
marine tUrtles: the c-l'fect of sea Surface temperature on re-li'ligration intervals. ["�cology
Letters 5:742-746,
56

Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, AJ, Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and FN. Paladino, 1996.
Worldwide population decline of Dermochelj�s, co•iticea: are leatherback turtles going
extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):290-222.
Spotila, .1. . R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and FN. Palladino, 2000. Pacific
leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405:529-530.
Stancyk, SE, O.R. Talbert, and J.M. [)can. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle
Ccirella' careflo in South Carolina, It: protection of nests from raccoon predation by
transplantation. Biological C',onservalion 18:289-298.
Staneyk, .1 a, 1995, Non-human predators of sea ttirdes and their control. Pages 139-152 in
13 orndal, K,A, (editor) Biology :and Conservation f Seark,,s, Revised I'ditiot -1
-
Stnithsotiian hlStitUtiMl PIVSS. Washington D.C'.
Sternberg, .1. 1981 . The worldwide distribution of ma turtle nesting beaches, (",enter for
Environmental LIducatiori, Washing(on,
Stewart, K.R. 2007" Establishment and growth of as sea turtle rookery: the POI)Ulati(.)D biology Of
the leatherback in Florida, Unpublished PhD, dissertation. Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina. 129, pages.
Stewart, K. and (,,..Johnson. 2006, Dermochelys corioceo-Leatherback sea turtle. In Meylan,
P.A. (editor), Biology and Conservation of lorida Turtles. Chelonian Research
Monographs 3:144-157.
Stewart, K.R. and .1. Wyncken. 200411'. Predation risk to loggerhead hatchlings at a high-density
Florida, nesting leach in. Southeast F BLilletiji cal` Mit-ineScieiice74(2):325-.3.,35.
Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B, Witherington, 13. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011,
Leatherbacl,, nests increasing significantly in 11orida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years
Using multilevel modeling, F'cological Applications 21(1):263-271
I I albert, O.R., Jr, S.I,,,-. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J,M- Will, 198(1. Nesting activity of the
loggerhead turtle (Carello c arc lla) in Soulh Carolina 1: a rookery intransition, Cor..)eia
1980:(4):709-718.
"Yon-ms, J. an(] J.A. Raga, 2007, Occurrence of'Kemp's, ridley sea turtle (Lepi(loeheljFs keimpii) in
the Mediterranean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom
2, 13iodiversity Records 5640. 3 pages.
Trindell, R. 2005. Sea turtles, and beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Coninfission, Imperiled Species Management Section, Invited Instructor, CLE
Conference.
IN

Turtle Expert Working Group (FEWG). 1998, An assessment of the Kenip's ridley
(Lelfidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (C(iretta carefla) sea turtle POPUlations in the
western North Atlantic,, NO,AA Technical Memorandum NVITS-SE FSC-409.
'Futile Expert Working Group (" EWG). 2000, Assessment for the Kemp's ridley and
loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA'Fechnical
Memorandum. NM1`S-S'EFSC-444.
Turtle F"xpert Working Group (TEWG). 2007, An assessment cal` the lea,therback turtle
population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAATechnical Memorandum N'MFS-SEFSC,---555.
'I'Lrrtle Expert Working Group (11111WG), 2009. Art assessment ofthe loggerhead turtle
J)OpUla(iort in the Western North Atlantic Occan, NOAA Technical Memorandun'i
I
N M FS -S LIT'S C- 5'75.
(J,S. F'ish and Wildlift- Service (tJSFWS). 2010, Final report on the Mexico/ United States of
America population restoration proJect for the Kenip's ridley sea turtle, Lepklochelys
keny,,)ii, on the coasts of"I'arnaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico,
Watson, J.W., D. (). 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, JJ^,, D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2006. Intra-annual loggerhead and green
turtle spatial nesting patterns. Southeastern Naturalist 5(3):453-462.
Werler,.J.I.,'. 195 1, Miscellaneous notes on the eggs and young of Texan and Mexican reptiles.
Zoologica 36(3):37-38.
Wetterer, J. .b L.D. Wood, C. Johnson, 11. Krahe, and S. Fitchett. 2007. Predaceous ants, beach
replenishtnerit, and nest placement by sea turtles. F,nvi rortmen tat F,aIntomology
36(5):1084-1091 .
Wibbels, T., DW, 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.F-, M.G. Frick, ancLI.B. 1- taller. 2006. First report of green, (,'helonia inydas, and
Kernp's ridley, LelficlocheljN keirq)ii, turtle nesting on Wassaw Island, Georgia, USA.
MarmeTurtle Newsletter IF 3:8,.
Williams - Walls, N., J. 0'1 lara,R.M. Gallagher, DT. Worth, B.D. Peery, and I.R. Wilcox., 1983.
Spatial and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Flutchinson Island, Florida, 1971 -
1979. Bulletin of Marine Science 33(l):55-66.
W

Witherington, B.E. 1986 1 luman and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling
inortality and their relationship to hatching production on an important Florida nesting
beach, Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of ("entral Florida, Orlando,
Florida.
Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses or 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,.I.R, and R. Buchholz (editors). Behavioral
approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdorn.
Witherington, B.E. 2006, personal coma-nunication to L.,oggerhead Recovery Team on nest
monitoring in Florida during 2005, Florida Fish and Wildlire Research InstitUIC.
Witherington, B,E. and K. A. B ' jorridal. 1991. Influences of artificial lightEng on the seaward
orientation o,l'liatclilingloggei"headtt.ti•ille�s((,,(iret/(I(,atetiti), Biological ('.Ionservation
55:1 39­149,
I
Witherington, B.E. and L,M, F ' hrhart. 1989. Stattis and reproductive characteristics of'green
turtles (Chelonia inydas) nesting in Florida. Pages 351-352 in Ogren, L, F. Berry, K,
r1jorridal, 1-1. Kunipf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H, Reichart, and IZ. Witham (editors).
Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAATechnical
Menior and urn NMFS-S[.-. FC-226,
Witherington, B,E, and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light
POI[Lition problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute
Technical Report 1`1 -2.
Witheringlon, B,FL, K.A. B. jorndal, and C.M. McCabe, 1990. Temporal pattern ofriocturnal
emergence of loggerhead turtle fiatchlings froin natural nests. Copcia 1990(4):1165-
1168.
Witheringlon, B,, R Kubilis, H. Brost, and A. Meylan, 2009. Decreasing annual rest counts in a
globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. 1,;cological Applications 19:30,.,-54.
Wood, DN. and K. A. l3jorndal, 2000. Relation oftemperature, moisture, salinity, and slope to
nest site selection in loggerhead Sea turtles. Copcia 2000(l):l 19-128,
Wyncken, 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: 1 829094.
W

Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E.Torres, C- Calder6n, L. 66mez, 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 theTwenty-second Annual
Symposium on Sea "Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA "rechnical Memorandum
NMFS-SE FSC-503.
60

Figure 1.
Emergency Beach Repaurn Nourtshimnt Project
S- ' uir° I MhOlo Beach - Dare County
0-5 1 2 Wes
61

Umm
Emergency beach i Repwir/Nouidshmiettl Project
S-Curves � Midio Beach, - Dare County
4 Wes
rx