Proposed Rule2023-14109
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule To Designate Marine Critical Habitat for Six Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 19, 2023
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to designate specific areas in the marine environment as critical habitat for six distinct population segments (DPSs) of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The DPSs that occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction include the threatened North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Pacific, and Central North Pacific DPSs and the endangered Central South Pacific and Central West Pacific DPSs. Proposed critical habitat includes nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 20 m depth located along the coasts of Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, California (which also includes nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 10 km offshore), Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. It also includes Sargassum habitat, from 10 m depth to the outer boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Based on consideration of economic impacts, we propose to exclude multiple areas from designation. We are soliciting comments on all aspects of the proposed critical habitat designations and will consider information received prior to making final designations. We are also announcing public informational meetings and public hearings.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46572-46671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14109]
[[Page 46571]]
Vol. 88
Wednesday,
No. 137
July 19, 2023
Part III
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule To
Designate Marine Critical Habitat for Six Distinct Population Segments
of Green Sea Turtles; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46572]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226
[Docket No. 230627-0157]
RIN 0648-BL82
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule To
Designate Marine Critical Habitat for Six Distinct Population Segments
of Green Sea Turtles
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to
designate specific areas in the marine environment as critical habitat
for six distinct population segments (DPSs) of the green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. The DPSs that occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction include
the threatened North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Pacific, and
Central North Pacific DPSs and the endangered Central South Pacific and
Central West Pacific DPSs. Proposed critical habitat includes nearshore
areas from the mean high water line to 20 m depth located along the
coasts of Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, California (which also includes nearshore areas from the mean
high water line to 10 km offshore), Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, and
the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. It also includes
Sargassum habitat, from 10 m depth to the outer boundary of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone, in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean.
Based on consideration of economic impacts, we propose to exclude
multiple areas from designation. We are soliciting comments on all
aspects of the proposed critical habitat designations and will consider
information received prior to making final designations. We are also
announcing public informational meetings and public hearings.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 17, 2023.
Public informational meetings and public hearings: We will hold six
public informational meetings followed by public hearings on:
(1) Central North Pacific DPS--Hawai`i: August 10, 2023, from 6
p.m. to 8 p.m., Hawai`i-Aleutian time,
(2) Central South Pacific DPS--Tutuila: August 16, 2023, from 6
p.m. to 8 p.m., Samoan time,
(3) Central West Pacific DPS--Guam: August 21, 2023, from 6 p.m. to
8 p.m., Chamorro time,
(4) Central West Pacific DPS--Saipan: August 23, 2023, from 6 p.m.
to 8 p.m., Chamorro time,
(5) North and South Atlantic DPSs--Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands: August 29, 2023, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Eastern time,
and
(6) East Pacific DPS--California: August 30, 2023, from 6 p.m. to 8
p.m., Pacific time.
ADDRESSES: You may submit data, information, or comments on this
document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087, and on the supplemental
documents by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087 in the Search box.
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
<bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to Endangered Species
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway (SSMC3), Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,
Attn: Green Turtle Critical Habitat Proposed Rule.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
might not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Documents supporting this proposed rule, which include a Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a), a Draft Economic Analysis (NMFS 2023b),
and a Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2023c), are
available on the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail">https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail</a>;D=NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Schultz, NMFS, Office of
Protected Resources, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662c0308080f0003144835050e130a121c260809070748010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="29634c4747404f4c5b077a4a415c455d536947464848074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>; 301-427-8443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA) requires the designation of critical habitat for threatened
and endangered species to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
based on the best scientific data available and after taking into
consideration national security, economic, and other relevant impacts
(16 U.S.C. 1533). Section 7 of the ESA, requires Federal agencies to
insure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely
to destroy or adversely modify such habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)).
This rule proposes critical habitat designations for the six DPSs
of green sea turtle (hereafter referred to as ``green turtle'')
occurring in U.S. waters: North Atlantic (threatened), South Atlantic
(threatened), East Pacific (threatened), Central North Pacific
(threatened), Central South Pacific (endangered), and Central West
Pacific (endangered). It summarizes the best available scientific
information regarding marine habitat requirements of green turtles and
the methods used to develop the proposed critical habitat designations.
The following supporting documents provide the detailed information
used to make our determinations and are referenced throughout this
rule: Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a), Draft Economic Impact
Analysis (NMFS 2023b), and Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report
(NMFS 2023c).
Background
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, we) and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) jointly administer the ESA regarding sea
turtles. NMFS has jurisdiction in the marine environment, and USFWS has
jurisdiction in the terrestrial environment (i.e., on beaches;
Memorandum of Understanding Defining the Roles of USFWS and NMFS in
Joint Administration of the ESA as to Sea Turtles 2015). In 1978, NMFS
and USFWS listed the green turtle as a threatened species, except for
the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast breeding populations that were
listed as endangered, under the ESA (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978). In
1998, NMFS designated critical habitat for the species in waters
surrounding Culebra Island, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and its
outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). On February 16, 2012,
NMFS and USFWS received a petition from the Association of Hawaiian
Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a
[[Page 46573]]
DPS and to delist it. In response, NMFS and USFWS performed a status
review of the entire species (Seminoff et al. 2015). On April 6, 2016,
NMFS and USFWS published a final rule to list 11 green turtle DPSs as
threatened or endangered (81 FR 20057). That action replaced the
original listing for the species and concluded that previously
designated critical habitat remained in effect for the North Atlantic
DPS.
The listing of green turtle DPSs under the ESA in 2016 triggered
the requirement to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)). Critical habitat
cannot be designated within foreign countries or in areas outside the
jurisdiction of the United States (50 CFR 424.12(g)). Therefore, we are
required to designate critical habitat for those DPSs occurring in
areas under U.S. jurisdiction, specifically the North Atlantic, South
Atlantic, East Pacific, Central North Pacific, Central South Pacific,
and Central West Pacific DPSs.
In the proposed listing rule, NMFS and USFWS requested information
related to the identification of critical habitat, essential physical
or biological features for green turtle DPSs within U.S. jurisdiction,
and other relevant impacts of a critical habitat designation (80 FR
15271, March 23, 2015); however, we did not receive information related
to the designation of critical habitat at that time. Therefore, we
found that critical habitat was not determinable at the time of listing
and announced our intention to designate critical habitat in a future
rulemaking.
On January 8, 2020, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sea Turtle
Oversight Protection, and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed a
complaint, alleging failure to designate critical habitat by the
statutory deadline (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Bernhardt
et al., No. 1:20-cv-00036-EGS (D.D.C.)). On August 21, 2020, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement that stipulates that NMFS
and USFWS shall submit proposed determinations concerning the
designation of critical habitat to the Federal Register on or before
June 30, 2023 (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Bernhardt et
al., 1:20-cv-00036-EGS (D.D.C.)).
To meet the court-ordered deadline and fulfill our obligation to
designate critical habitat for green turtle DPSs in U.S. waters, we
followed a four-step process described in the following sections: (1)
identification of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat;
(2) review of Department of Defense Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans (INRMPs) under ESA section 4(a)(3); (3) weighing
economic, national security, and other impacts against the benefits of
designation under ESA section 4(b)(2); and (4) proposing areas for
critical habitat designation based on the previous three steps. We
applied this process to each DPS, as summarized in the DPS-specific
sections.
Identification of Areas That Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat
To identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, we
convened a critical habitat review team (the Team) to gather and
evaluate the best available scientific information on green turtle
habitat use within U.S. waters. The Team consisted of NMFS' Regional
Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinators and sea turtle researchers from NMFS'
Science Centers. For each DPS, the Team evaluated the best available
scientific information on green turtles, which is described in detail
in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here. In
addition to reviewing published information, the Team solicited data
and input from Federal, State, and Territory agency sea turtle programs
and non-governmental researchers studying green turtles and their
habitats. The Team followed the process described below to identify
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and to qualitatively
rate the conservation value (which reflects the benefit to the DPS) of
each area.
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). As defined in the ESA, a species includes any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Conservation is defined as the use of all methods and procedures which
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no
longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
The Team was asked to identify the areas within the geographical
areas occupied by each DPS that contain features essential to its
conservation that may require special management considerations or
protection. The Team was also asked to provide a qualitative rating of
conservation value (e.g., high, moderate, or low) for each area meeting
the definition of critical habitat. This process is summarized in the
sections below and described in detail in the Draft Biological Report
(NMFS 2023a).
Geographical Area Occupied
For each DPS, the Team summarized information regarding the
geographical area occupied, which is defined by regulation as an area
that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as
determined by the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those
areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if
not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal
habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant
individuals) (50 CFR 424.02). As defined in the ESA, critical habitat
shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by
the threatened or endangered species, except in those circumstances
determined by the Secretary (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(C)). Furthermore, for
green turtles, the range of each DPS includes areas outside of U.S.
jurisdiction, which cannot be designated as critical habitat (50 CFR
424.12(g)). Therefore, for each DPS, we identified the geographic area
occupied within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends
200 nautical miles from the coast of the United States and its
Territories.
The ESA allows designation of unoccupied areas that are essential
for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). However, we
have concluded that there are no unoccupied areas that are essential
for the conservation of the species and do not propose to designate
unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
Physical and Biological Features Essential to Conservation
Physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species (hereafter referred to as essential features) are defined
as the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the species, including but not
limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features,
sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
[[Page 46574]]
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms
relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size,
distribution distances, and connectivity (50 CFR 424.02).
As detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and
summarized here, the life cycle of a green turtle requires survival,
growth, development, and reproduction. Reproduction requires courtship,
mating, ovulation, and nesting, and results in the production of the
next generation of green turtles. Generally, green turtle life history
also requires migration from reproductive areas to foraging and resting
areas (hereafter referred to as foraging/resting areas or refugia).
Food resources include seagrass, macroalgae, and invertebrates and are
required to provide energy for survival, growth, development, and
reproduction. Resting areas or refugia are underwater areas of reduced
disturbance, which allow turtles to rest, digest, thermoregulate, and
avoid predation. While foraging and resting are inextricably linked
(turtles cannot forage without resting and vice versa), food resources
and refugia are often located in different areas. Therefore, turtles
must move between these areas. These life history needs dictate the
habitat requirements (i.e., essential features) for each DPS. Based on
the life history needs of each DPS and the best available scientific
information, the Team identified essential features. Those detailed
essential features (and the information used to identify them) are
described in the DPS-specific sections below. The following generalized
features are essential to the conservation of at least one DPS:
<bullet> Reproductive essential feature: From the mean high water
line to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters
adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS (see
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164), to allow
for the transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive individuals
and the transit of post-hatchlings. (We were unable to identify this
feature for the East Pacific DPS because no nesting occurs within U.S.
jurisdiction.)
<bullet> Migratory essential feature: From the mean high water line
to a particular depth or distance from shore (as dictated by the best
available data for that DPS), sufficiently unobstructed corridors that
allow for unrestricted transit of reproductive individuals between
benthic foraging/resting areas and reproductive areas. (We identified
this feature for the North Atlantic and East Pacific DPSs only because
other DPSs do not use a narrow, constricted migratory corridor.)
<bullet> Benthic foraging/resting essential features: From the mean
high water line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia and food resources
(i.e., seagrasses, macroalgae, and/or invertebrates) of sufficient
condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to
support survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. (We
identified these features for all DPSs.)
<bullet> Surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features:
Convergence zones, frontal zones, surface-water downwelling areas, the
margins of major boundary currents, and other areas that result in
concentrated components of the Sargassum-dominated drift community, as
well as the currents which carry turtles to Sargassum-dominated drift
communities, which provide sufficient food resources and refugia to
support the survival, growth, and development of post-hatchlings and
surface-pelagic juveniles, and which are located in sufficient water
depth (at least 10 m) to ensure offshore transport via ocean currents
to areas which meet forage and refugia requirements. (We identified
these features for the North Atlantic DPS only because there is
insufficient data to identify these features for other DPSs)
As described in the Draft Biological Report and summarized in the
following paragraphs, these generalized features are essential to the
conservation of at least one DPS. The Team also considered other
physical and biological features, but none were essential to the
conservation of a DPS. In the DPS-specific sections below, more
detailed information is provided, including the data used to identify
and define the essential features for each DPS.
The reproductive essential feature is essential to the conservation
of green turtle DPSs because it is required for mating, females' access
to and from nesting beaches (i.e., where egg clutches are deposited)
and internesting areas (i.e., for rest and egg production), and post-
hatchlings' swim frenzy and early dispersal. Without successful mating,
nesting, and recruitment, the DPSs cannot recover. Because the East
Pacific DPS does not nest within U.S. jurisdiction, this essential
feature does not apply to that DPS. Reproductive individuals return to
their natal beaches to nest and to waters off those beaches to mate
(Bowen et al. 1992; Karl et al. 1992), even if such habitats are
adversely modified over time. Therefore, it is essential to the
conservation of green turtle DPSs to minimize such adverse
modifications and maintain in-water access to known nesting beaches.
During mating, turtles may remain mounted for hours at the surface
(Witherington et al. 2006), rendering them vulnerable to in-water
obstructions and disturbances. Therefore, it is essential to the
conservation of green turtle DPSs that such areas remain free from
obstructions and disturbances that would harm or interrupt mating
turtles.
Females lay up to nine clutches separated by approximately 2-week
internesting intervals (Witherington et al. 2006; Hart et al. 2013;
Balazs et al. 2015). During internesting intervals, females use
underwater refugia off nesting beaches to reovulate (i.e., produce eggs
for subsequent nestings; Pearse and Avise 2001), rest (Carr et al.
1974), and avoid harassment from courting males (Booth and Peters
1972). Adult females are the most valuable individuals in the
population (i.e., those most directly contributing to the next
generation). Therefore, it is essential to the conservation of green
turtle DPSs that such underwater areas remain free from obstructions
and disturbances that would prevent them from resting, reovulating, and
returning to nesting beaches to lay additional clutches. Dark
unobstructed waters off nesting beaches are also essential to post-
hatchlings' swim frenzy and early dispersal. Post-hatchlings use this
essential feature in a manner similar to post-nesting females: they
move away from nesting beaches to foraging/resting areas. Hatchlings
emerge from their nests en masse almost exclusively at night (Bustard
1967) and crawl to the surf, where they begin a swim frenzy, moving
quickly away from land and toward oceanic surface currents. Even after
entering the ocean, post-hatchlings are attracted to artificial
lighting, which can cause them to linger in nearshore habitats and
increase their risk of predation (Thums et al. 2016). Although this
life stage is generally the most abundant and requires many years and
stages of development before contributing to the next generation, it is
essential to the recovery of the species because systemic reductions in
post-hatchling survival are likely to lead to future reductions in
abundance and productivity. A modeling study indicates that
fluctuations in the survival of early life stages drive variation in
abundance and suggests protecting early life stages from hostile
environments (Halley et al. 2018). Therefore, conservation of green
turtle DPSs requires that such areas remain free from obstructions and
lighting that would concentrate predators, reduce the
[[Page 46575]]
survival of post-hatchlings, or prevent post-hatchlings from reaching
developmental habitats.
The migratory essential feature is essential to the conservation of
the North Atlantic and East Pacific DPSs because it is required for
connectivity between areas used by adults for foraging/resting and
areas used for reproduction. Without successful migration, individuals
could not survive and reproduce, which are both essential for recovery.
The migration of reproductive individuals may occur over hundreds to
thousands of kilometers (Witherington et al. 2006) or a few kilometers
(Hart et al. 2013; Hart et al. 2017). The North Atlantic and East
Pacific DPSs use relatively narrow paths (i.e., constricted migratory
corridors) in coastal waters to move between foraging/resting and
reproductive areas. In such instances, reproductive individuals that
are otherwise spread out over many, often distant, foraging/resting
sites become concentrated into a relatively small area (e.g., Foley et
al. 2013), increasing the DPS's vulnerability to anthropogenic threats.
Thwarted or delayed (i.e., arriving late for the mating/nesting season)
migration is likely to interfere with successful reproduction.
Therefore, conservation of green turtle DPSs that use narrow migratory
corridors requires that such areas remain free from obstructions or
other activities that would restrict transit of reproductive
individuals between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas.
At all life stages, benthic and surface pelagic foraging/resting
essential features are essential for the conservation of green turtle
DPSs. Surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features provide the
energy required for post-hatchlings and juveniles to develop, grow, and
transition into the next life stage. Benthic foraging/resting essential
features provide the energy required for juveniles to mature and for
adults to migrate and reproduce. Foraging includes locating and
consuming food resources (e.g., seagrasses, macroalgae, and/or
invertebrates). Resting includes the use of underwater refugia for
digestion, protection from predators, thermoregulation, and
recuperation. Food resources and refugia are often located in adjacent
areas, and turtles must move between these areas. Without successful
foraging/resting, the DPSs cannot recover.
Green turtles use different habitats at different life stages.
Generally, the earliest marine life stages (post-hatchling and surface-
pelagic juvenile, often called the ``lost years'') have been the most
difficult to study, and sufficient data are available only for the
North Atlantic DPS. After their swim frenzy and early dispersal, post-
hatchlings swim and are carried by currents to pelagic habitats where
surface waters converge to form local downwellings that result in
linear accumulations of floating material, especially macroalgae (e.g.,
Sargassum spp.) (Carr 1987a; Witherington et al. 2006; Witherington et
al. 2012b; Mansfield et al. 2021). They remain at or near the sea
surface, where thermal benefits promote the growth and survival of
young turtles (Mansfield et al. 2021). These surface-pelagic habitats
provide a place to rest and hide from predators as well as abundant
food resources, including hydroids, bryozoans, polychaetes, gastropods,
cnidarians, fish eggs, and organic debris associated with the Sargassum
community (Witherington et al. 2006; Boyle and Limpus 2008; Jones and
Seminoff 2013). Therefore, the conservation of green turtle DPSs
requires surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features because
they provide the food, shelter, and thermal benefits required for
survival, growth, and development of this early life stage.
Recruitment refers to the process through which juveniles are added
to the adult population; it is essential to the continued existence of
a DPS. As they grow and develop, green turtles recruit to benthic
habitats (Bolten 2003), which also provide foraging/resting essential
features. Benthic foraging green turtles consume seagrasses,
macroalgae, and invertebrates (Estaban et al. 2020), exhibiting
different foraging preferences among sites and varying degrees of
omnivory (Jones and Seminoff 2013; Long et al. 2021). Primarily or
partially herbivorous diets result in slow growth rates, with green
turtles maturing at 12 to 50 years and 60 to 100 cm straight carapace
length (SCL; Seminoff et al. 2002; Bell et al. 2005; Zurita et al.
2012; Avens and Snover 2013; Van Houtan et al. 2014a). These diets must
support survival, development, and growth for juveniles, and energy-
expensive migration and reproduction for adults. Thus, multiple and/or
large foraging areas are needed. In addition, nearby refugia areas are
used for underwater rest, digestion, thermoregulation, and protection
from predators. Therefore, conservation of green turtle DPSs requires
that benthic foraging/resting resources remain available in sufficient
condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to
support survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
A specific area within the geographic area occupied by a species
meets the definition of critical habitat if the area contains one or
more physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that ``may require special management
considerations or protection'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)(II)). The
phrase, ``special management considerations or protection,'' is defined
as the methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of listed species (50
CFR 424.02). Courts have made clear that the ``may require'' standard
requires that we determine that special management considerations or
protection of the features might be required either now or in the
future, but such considerations or protection need not be immediately
required. See Cape Hatteras Access Pres. Alliance v. U.S. Dept. of
Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108, 123-24 (D.D.C. 2004); Home Builders
Ass'n of N. California v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 268 F. Supp. 2d
1197, 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2003). The relevant management need may be ``in
the future based on possibility.'' See Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v.
Salazar, No. SACV 11-01263-JVS, 2012 WL 5353353, at 25 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
17, 2012). See also Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F.
Supp. 2d 1090, 1098-99 (D. Ariz. 2003) (noting that the ``may require''
phrase can be rephrased and understood as ``can require'' or ``possibly
requires'').
The reproductive essential feature may require special management
considerations or protection because anthropogenic threats may
interrupt, delay, or prevent mating, internesting, and post-hatching
swim frenzy and early dispersal. Examples of threats to the
reproductive essential feature include inwater structures and
construction, dredging, beach nourishment, oil and gas activities,
alternative energy development and generation, vessel activities
(including the establishment of shipping lanes), fishing and
aquaculture activities, recreational activities, and pollution (e.g.,
run-off and contaminants).
The migratory essential feature may require special management
considerations or protection for DPSs that use narrow or constricted
coastal corridors. In narrow corridors, migration could be blocked or
impeded by in-water structures and construction, dredging, oil and gas
activities (including oil spills and their cleanup),
[[Page 46576]]
energy development and generation, vessel activities (including the
establishment of shipping lanes), and fishing and aquaculture
activities.
The benthic and surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features
may require special management considerations or protection for
activities that reduce access to or availability of food resources and
refugia. For benthic features, these activities include construction,
dredging, oil and gas activities (including oil spills and their
cleanup), vessel activities (e.g., grounding, anchoring, and propeller
scarring), fishing and aquaculture activities (i.e., those that disturb
or destroy submerged aquatic vegetation or substrates used for
refugia), recreational activities, and pollution (e.g., run-off and
contaminants). For surface-pelagic features, these activities include
any that damage or degrade this habitat, including oil and gas
activities (including oil spills and their cleanup), pollution (e.g.,
marine debris/plastics and their removal, ocean dumping, and vessel
discharges), and commercial harvest of Sargassum spp.
Specific Areas Containing the Essential Feature(s)
We are required to determine the ``specific areas'' within the
geographical area occupied by the species that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (16
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Specific areas are identified ``at a scale
determined by the Secretary [of Commerce] to be appropriate'' (50 CFR
424.12(b)(1)). Furthermore, when several habitats, each satisfying the
requirements for designation as critical habitat, are located in
proximity to one another, the Secretary may designate an inclusive area
as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)).
The Team relied on the best available data on green turtle
occurrence and use of essential features to determine the appropriate
scale and boundaries of specific areas considered for designation. Many
areas contain multiple essential features. Some elements of essential
features (e.g., macroalgae, invertebrates, and refugia in the benthic
and surface-pelagic essential features) are not adequately mapped, and
some areas containing the essential features are not used by green
turtles. Therefore, we used the presence of green turtles to identify
which specific areas contain essential features. For example, we
considered an area where green turtles forage and rest (as indicated by
data or expert observation) to contain a benthic or surface-pelagic
foraging/resting essential features. Areas that did not contain an
essential feature or the presence of green turtles were not considered
further; this includes data deficient areas without documented use of
essential features by green turtles (as indicated by data or expert
observation). Data considered, analyses conducted, and conclusions
reached by the Team are discussed in detail in the Draft Biological
Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized herein. The Team considered the best
available information to be published and unpublished data from
scientific studies and surveys. The Team also gave great weight to
observations made by sea turtle biologists working with a particular
DPS. Although not as robust as data from scientific studies and
surveys, stranding data were also used to confirm the presence and
relative abundance of green turtles in an area. When evaluating
stranding data, which include data on dead, sick, injured, and cold-
stunned turtles, the Team considered the following caveats. Live
stranded turtles may have reduced mobility, and their movements (and by
extension, the places they strand) can be influenced by surface winds,
water temperatures, and water currents. Dead stranded turtles may have
died in an area other than where they were found due to transport by
wind or water currents. Strandings are more likely to be observed and
reported in areas with higher human populations (Cook et al. 2021).
The Team identified specific areas containing the reproductive
essential feature as waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as
terrestrial critical habitat by USFWS (see <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>,
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164). To determine the offshore extent of
these specific areas, the Team reviewed and evaluated published and
unpublished data on mating, internesting, and post-hatchling swim
frenzy and early dispersal.
To identify specific areas containing the migratory essential
feature, the Team reviewed and evaluated satellite telemetry (i.e.,
tracking) data collected from adults using migratory corridors between
waters adjacent to nesting beaches and benthic foraging/resting areas.
To identify specific areas containing the benthic and surface-
pelagic foraging/resting essential features, the Team reviewed and
evaluated the best available data on food resources and refugia in
surface-pelagic and benthic habitats. Because food resources and
refugia occur in many locations at varying degrees of abundance, we
relied on the occurrence of foraging/resting green turtles to determine
which areas provide such resources in sufficient condition,
distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support
the survival, development, and growth of post-hatchlings and juveniles,
or the survival, reproduction, and migration of adults.
Conservation Value
Under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, specific areas may be excluded
from designation if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, unless the failure to designate
that area will result in extinction of the species (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(2)). NMFS and USFWS have adopted a joint policy providing non-
binding guidance on how to implement section 4(b)(2). See Policy
Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act (``4(b)(2) Policy;'' 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016). The benefits
of designating specific areas include the protection afforded under
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, which requires all Federal agencies to
insure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat also provides
benefits to the species, such as improved education and awareness by
informing the public about the species' habitat needs. The 4(b)(2)
Policy identifies the benefits of inclusion as primarily the
conservation value of designating the area. Thus, the conservation
value represents the benefits of designation for a specific area. For
this designation, the conservation value of a specific area is the
biological importance of that area to the DPS.
The Team was asked to evaluate the conservation value of each
specific area containing essential features that may require special
management considerations or protection. The Team could not identify
quantitative measures and therefore provided a qualitative assessment
(e.g., high, moderate, or low conservation value), based on the best
available scientific information. High conservation value areas are
highly important to the conservation of the DPS. Moderate conservation
value areas are moderately important to the conservation of the DPS.
Low conservation value areas, while important, are less important to
the conservation of the DPS than high or moderate conservation value
areas.
For specific areas under consideration for exclusion, the Team was
also asked to review whether such an exclusion would result in
extinction to the DPS. They did not find that any excluded
[[Page 46577]]
area, or all excluded areas together, would result in extinction to a
DPS.
The Team determined that all areas containing reproductive and/or
migratory essential features are of high conservation value because
they allow adults (and often a large proportion of the adults within a
DPS) to reproduce, and reproduction is directly linked to population
growth (Wallace et al. 2008). Conservation efforts focused on these
areas are the most likely to lead to population recovery (Heppell
1998). Furthermore, without the essential reproductive and migratory
features, green turtles could not transit to and access the nesting
beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS. The Team concluded, and
we agree, that any area containing essential reproductive or migratory
features is of high conservation value to the DPS.
The Team determined that the conservation value of an area
containing benthic and/or surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential
features depends on the relative abundance or density of turtles within
a DPS using that area. An area that supports a relatively high number
or density of foraging/resting individuals would provide high
conservation value, whereas an area that supports a relatively low
number or density of foraging/resting individuals would provide low
conservation value. Low conservation value does not mean that the area
does not contain foraging/resting essential features or is not suitable
habitat for green turtles. An area of low conservation value simply
supports fewer foraging/resting green turtles than areas of moderate or
high conservation value.
Often areas contain multiple essential features. As stated above,
any area containing reproductive and/or migratory essential features
would provide high conservation value to the DPS, and the presence of
foraging/resting features would increase the conservation value of that
area.
The relative conservation value provided by foraging/resting areas
is evaluated for each DPS and is not comparable across DPSs. As stated
in the ESA, the term ``species'' includes any DPS of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). Therefore, each DPS is a ``species'' or separate listed
entity under the ESA. The identification of DPSs under the ESA
reflected the discreteness or marked separation among green turtle
populations as a consequence of ecological, behavioral, and
oceanographic factors, and was based on genetic and morphological
evidence (Seminoff et al. 2015; 81 FR 20057, April 6, 2016). Because
there is little gene flow and co-occurrence among green turtle DPSs,
high abundance or density within one DPS would not benefit another DPS.
Furthermore, green turtle DPSs differ in their abundance, trend (i.e.,
increasing or decreasing population size), demographics, and threats,
resulting in different conservation needs. Therefore, we did not
compare turtle abundance or densities in foraging/resting areas among
DPSs. Instead, we independently evaluated the conservation value
provided by foraging/resting areas within each DPSs.
Within a DPS, the Team relied on standardized data, where
available, to compare the relative abundance or density of green
turtles in areas containing only foraging/resting essential features.
Where standardized data were not available, the Team used the best
available green turtle occurrence and habitat use data (e.g.,
observations, tracking, or bycatch data) to determine whether an area
is of high, moderate, or low conservation value. When comparing these
data, the Team considered data type. For example, because satellite
tracking is still relatively expensive compared to flipper tagging,
fewer individuals are satellite tracked. However, if a large proportion
of tracked individuals used the same area for foraging and/or resting,
the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area is of high conservation
value.
The Team found wide variance in the amount and specificity of
scientific data available for the six green turtle DPSs occurring in
U.S. waters. For the North Atlantic DPS, the Team relied on an
abundance of published and unpublished data, as well as input from
green turtle experts from academia and State agencies to differentiate
between high, moderate, and low conservation values of specific areas.
There is less published or unpublished data for the South Atlantic DPS,
so the Team relied heavily on input from green turtle experts from the
Territory, academia, and non-profit organizations to evaluate specific
areas for high, moderate, and low conservation values. For the Central
North, South, and West Pacific DPSs, the Team was unable to identify
specific areas of moderate conservation value because, although Team
members were involved in research in some areas, they were not familiar
with all specific areas and, based on the best available data (which
includes input from the State and Territory agencies), could only
distinguish between high and low conservation value. For the East
Pacific DPS, the Team provided additional resolution for the
conservation value of each specific area (moderate-high and moderate-
low) because of their high level of familiarity with these areas: a
Team member was involved in all published and unpublished research on
this DPS. For the purposes of this designation, we combined high and
moderate-high conservation values because both were based on relatively
high abundances of foraging/resting turtles. We combined low and
moderate-low conservation values because both were based on relatively
low abundances of foraging/resting turtles.
Review of INRMPs Under Section 4(a)(3)
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA precludes designating as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense (DoD) or designated for its use, that are
subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such a plan
provides a conservation benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)). Our
implementing regulations direct us to consider the following to
determine whether such a benefit is provided (50 CFR 424.12(h)): (1)
the extent of the area and features present; (2) the type and frequency
of use of the area by the species; (3) the relevant elements of the
INRMP in terms of management objectives, activities covered, and best
management practices, and the certainty that the relevant elements will
be implemented; and (4) the degree to which the relevant elements of
the INRMP will protect the habitat from the types of effects that would
be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. If
we determine that a conservation benefit is provided by the INRMP, the
relevant area is ineligible for consideration as potential critical
habitat.
After identifying specific areas that potentially meet the
definition of critical habitat for green turtles, we contacted DoD
representatives and requested information regarding relevant INRMPs.
Their responses are available in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2)
Report (NMFS 2023c). We evaluated INRMPs and responses in terms of the
criteria outlined in our implementing regulations to determine whether
an INRMP provides a conservation benefit to the DPS. At this time, no
areas are ineligible for consideration as potential critical habitat.
We continue to work with DoD to review additional information (e.g.,
spatial data on areas owned, controlled,
[[Page 46578]]
or designated for use by DoD and new, relevant elements). We will
consider any additional information prior to publication of the final
rule to designate critical habitat.
Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to designate
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude a
particular area if she determines that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation, unless that exclusion will result
in the extinction of the species, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The
4(b)(2) Policy provides non-binding guidance on how to implement
section 4(b)(2). Below, we summarize the process for considering
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of designating
specific areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for green
turtle DPSs. Additional detail is provided in the Draft Economic
Analysis (NMFS 2023b) and the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report
(NMFS 2023c).
Economic Impacts
The Secretary has discretion to exclude any particular area from
the critical habitat designation upon a determination that the benefits
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the particular
area as part of the critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2); 50 CFR
424.19(c)). Exercising the delegated authority of the Secretary, we
weighed the economic impacts against the benefits of designating
critical habitat for each of the specific areas meeting the definition
of critical habitat. Specifically, we compared the incremental economic
costs of designating critical habitat in a specific area against the
benefits of designating critical habitat, as represented by the
conservation value of that specific area to the DPS.
The 4(b)(2) Policy states that when considering the probable
incremental economic impacts of designating a particular area, it is
the nature of those impacts, not necessarily a particular threshold
level, that is relevant to our determination (81 FR 7226, February 11,
2016). Incremental impacts refer to those that are solely attributable
to the critical habitat designation (i.e., relative to a baseline that
reflects existing regulatory impacts in the absence of critical
habitat).
The detailed methods used to estimate incremental economic impacts
are described in the Draft Economic Analysis (NMFS 2023b). We followed
these general steps to quantify the economic impacts associated with
designating critical habitat:
(1) Identified the baseline of economic activity and the relevant
statutes and regulations that constrain that activity in the absence of
the critical habitat designation;
(2) Identified the types of activities that are likely to be
affected by critical habitat designation;
(3) Estimated the costs of administrative effort and, where
applicable, conservation efforts recommended for the activity to comply
with the ESA's critical habitat provisions;
(4) Projected over space and time the occurrence of the activities
and the likelihood they will need to be modified; and
(5) Aggregated the costs to the particular area and provide
economic impacts as present value impacts and annualized impacts.
As discussed in the Draft Economic Report (NMFS 2023b), the costs
quantified in the economic analysis mainly include the additional
administrative effort associated with consideration of potential
impacts to critical habitat as part of future section 7 consultations.
Few additional conservation measures were identified as likely to
result from the projected consultations, largely due to baseline
protections in place. Depending on the specific area and Federal
action, relevant baseline protections include protections and
designated critical habitat for other co-occurring species under the
ESA.
The Draft Economic Report indicates that, if designated as
proposed, all critical habitat (for all six DPSs) may increase
administrative costs of consultations involving green turtles by an
estimated $6.4 million over the next 10 years, assuming a 7 percent
discount rate (NMFS 2023b). This equates to an estimated annualized
cost of approximately $900,000 (rounded total) over the next 10 years
(NMFS 2023b).
These economic impacts are largely associated with the
administrative costs borne by NMFS and other Federal agencies and not
by private entities or small governmental jurisdictions. However, some
consultations may include third parties (e.g., permittees, applicants,
grantees) that may be small entities. These third parties may bear some
portion of the administrative consultation costs. Ultimately, the
analysis found that consultations on in-water and coastal construction,
including dredging and beach nourishment activities, may generate costs
borne by small entities. All other activities are either not expected
to involve small entities or are associated with two or fewer
consultations annually spread across all critical habitats.
National Security Impacts
After identifying specific areas that potentially meet the
definition of critical habitat for green turtles, we contacted
representatives from DoD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
to request specific information regarding potential impacts on national
security. As outlined in our 4(b)(2) Policy, we cannot automatically
exclude areas as requested, and the requesting agency must provide a
reasonably specific justification for asserting that an incremental
impact on national security would result from the designation of that
specific area as critical habitat (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016). If
an agency provides a reasonably specific justification for their
request, we defer to their expert judgment as to: (1) whether
activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other lands or
waters, have national security or homeland-security implications; (2)
the importance of those implications; and (3) the degree to which the
cited implications would be adversely affected by the critical habitat
designation.
Initial requests for exclusion due to national security impacts
were received from DoD and are available in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3)
and 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2023c). To date, the requests have not been
reasonably specific to weigh national and homeland security impacts
against the benefits of designating particular areas as critical
habitat. We continue to work with DoD and DHS regarding requests for
exclusions based on national security impacts and will give great
weight to the national security and homeland security concerns in our
final designation (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
Other Relevant Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA also allows for the consideration of
other relevant impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat. One other potentially relevant impact we identified for
designation of green turtle critical habitat was Tribal impacts. In
developing this proposed rule, we reviewed maps and engaged NMFS'
Tribal coordinators; however, we did
[[Page 46579]]
not find any overlap between Indian lands and the specific areas
meeting the definition of critical habitat. Indian lands are those
defined in Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act''
(June 5, 1997), and include: (1) lands held in trust by the United
States for the benefit of any Indian Tribe; (2) land held in trust by
the United States for any Indian Tribe or individual subject to
restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3) fee lands,
either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the
Tribal government; and (4) fee lands within the reservation boundaries
owned by individual Indians. Therefore, we preliminarily find that
there were no Indian lands subject to consideration for possible
exclusion. However, we will coordinate and consult with potentially
affected Tribes and Native corporations if such impacts are identified
during the rulemaking and public comment process. We did not identify
any other relevant impacts.
Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation
For each of the six green turtle DPSs, we propose to designate
specific marine areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and
exclude specific marine areas where the impacts outweigh the benefits
of designation. The following sections provide detailed information
about each of the six proposed critical habitat designations and
exclusions. After the public comment period, we will review all
comments and the best available information before designating critical
habitat in a final rule.
North Atlantic DPS
The North Atlantic DPS is defined as green turtles originating from
the North Atlantic Ocean, bounded by the following lines and
coordinates: 48[deg] N Lat. in the north, along the western coasts of
Europe and Africa (west of 5.5[deg] W Long.); north of 19[deg] N Lat.
in the east; 19[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W to 14[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W then
14[deg] N, 77[deg] W in the south and west; and along the eastern
coasts of the Americas (north of 7.5[deg] N, 77[deg] W). The
geographical area occupied by this DPS includes waters outside of U.S.
jurisdiction. Within the U.S. EEZ, the range of the DPS includes waters
up to 200 nautical miles offshore of the U.S. East and Gulf of Mexico
Coasts and Puerto Rico. See the Draft Biological Report for a map of
this area.
The Recovery Plan for the U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that recovery requires
protection of nesting and marine habitat, specifically: the
identification and restoration of important foraging habitats,
improvement of water quality, and prevention from degradation and
destruction from contamination, fishing gears, vessel anchoring, oil
and gas activities, and dredging. To identify relevant scientific
information, the Team worked with biologists from the National Park
Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Puerto Rico
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDRNA), and several
academic institutions and research organizations, including but not
limited to University of Central Florida, Florida State University,
Mote Marine Laboratory, and Inwater Research Group.
Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their
Conservation Value to the North Atlantic DPS
The recovery of the North Atlantic DPS is dependent on successful
reproduction. While nesting occurs on beaches, the marine areas
adjacent to nesting beaches are essential for mating, movement of
reproductive females on and off nesting beaches, internesting, and the
swim frenzy and early dispersal (i.e., transit) of post-hatchlings.
Therefore, the following reproductive feature is essential to the
conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: From the mean high water line
to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters
adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS, to
allow for the transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive
individuals and the transit of post-hatchlings.
The Team used the following information to identify this
reproductive essential feature. Upon reaching sexual maturity, male and
female green turtles return to the waters adjacent to their natal
nesting beaches to mate (FitzSimmons et al. 1997a; FitzSimmons et al.
1997b). Mating and internesting occur in waters adjacent to nesting
beaches. Mating occurs prior to and during the nesting season,
generally from May to September (Witherington et al. 2006). During this
time, males and females occupy a similar nearshore area adjacent to
nesting beaches (D. Bagley, University of Central Florida unpublished
data 2016; K. Hart, USGS unpublished data 2016). USFWS reviewed nesting
data to identify beaches considered for terrestrial critical habitat,
which begins at the mean high water line. Therefore, in-water areas
considered for marine critical habitat also begin at the mean high
water line (i.e., waters adjacent to nesting beaches). To determine the
offshore boundary of the reproductive essential feature, the Team
reviewed published and unpublished satellite tracking data on
internesting females and males in waters adjacent to nesting beaches.
These data are described in detail in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS
2023a). The Team found that males (n = 10) and females (n = 56) spent
the majority of their time in waters of depths of 20 m or less during
mating and internesting periods (Hart et al. 2013; Sloan et al. 2022;
B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished data 2016; D. Bagley, University of
Central Florida unpublished data 2022; M. Lamont, USGS unpublished data
2022). The Team also reviewed data on post-hatchlings' swim frenzy,
directional movement, and early dispersal transport. Within 20 m depth,
post-hatchlings are likely to encounter the currents needed to carry
them to distant offshore pelagic habitats, where they will forage and
rest in Sargassum habitats (Mansfield et al. 2021). The Team concluded,
and we agree, that the reproductive essential feature occurs from the
mean high water line to 20 m depth in waters adjacent to nesting
beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS.
The reproductive essential feature may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain unobstructed access to and
from nesting beaches and disturbance-free nearshore areas for mating,
internesting, and post-hatchling transit. The reproductive season is a
time of increased vulnerability for sea turtles because a large
proportion of adults congregate within relatively small areas adjacent
to nesting beaches (Meylan 1982). Copulating turtles may remain mounted
for hours at the surface (Witherington et al. 2006), limiting their
mobility, vigilance, and ability to avoid in-water obstructions or
operations. Internesting females require underwater areas near nesting
beaches to reovulate, rest, and escape courting males (Booth and Peters
1972). Females and post-hatchlings need unobstructed waters to move to
(females only) and from (females and post-hatchlings) nesting beaches.
Darkness is another important feature because artificial lighting can
cause post-hatchlings to linger in nearshore habitats, which increases
their risk of predation (Thums et al. 2016). Their early transit is
considered to be a critical
[[Page 46580]]
period because it plays an overriding role in population dynamics
(Putman et al. 2020). Threats at this important stage include
predation, obstructions, and artificial lighting. These threats are
most likely to occur in shallow water (Gyuris 1994), where post-
hatchlings and predators are concentrated, most submerged or emergent
structures occur, and land-based lighting effects are strongest. The
Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed
to prevent the destruction of habitats from oil and gas, dredging,
fishing, and vessel activities. The reproductive essential feature may
also require special management considerations for other activities.
Nearshore structures or operations have the potential of blocking the
passage of nesting females and post-hatchlings. They may constrain
post-hatchlings' movement through several mechanisms, including:
disorientation due to lighting, concentration of predators, disruption
of wave patterns necessary for orientation, and creation of excessive
longshore currents. Alternative energy facilities (such as wind farms
and underwater turbines), dredging (for beach nourishment, as mentioned
above, and in support of navigation), and fishing and aquaculture
activities, when located adjacent to nesting beaches, may also block
passage of females and post-hatchlings. Oil spills pose a considerable
threat by obstructing or contaminating access to and from nesting
beaches (Meylan 1982; Shigenaka et al. 2021). Construction (on land and
in water), vessel traffic, military activities, and seismic surveys may
also act as deterrents (visual or auditory) to reproductive
individuals, preventing their use of preferred areas. Finally, climate
change may result in the shift or loss of nesting beach habitat, which
would alter the location or value of adjacent marine reproductive
areas.
To identify specific areas containing the reproductive feature
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS'
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed Florida and Puerto
Rico nesting beaches as terrestrial critical habitat elsewhere in
today's Federal Register (see <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164). Tyndall Air Force Base and Eglin Air Force Base
host nesting beaches that were considered by USFWS but found to be
ineligible for terrestrial critical habitat pursuant to section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA; however, waters off these beaches contain the
reproductive essential feature and are thus considered for marine
critical habitat.
For each of these areas, we identified the adjacent marine area,
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, as containing the
reproductive feature essential to the conservation of the North
Atlantic DPS and which may require special management consideration or
protection. These areas provide high conservation value to the DPS
because they are required for successful reproduction, which is
directly linked to population growth and recovery. Females must use
these reproductive areas to reach the nesting beaches proposed as
critical habitat by USFWS and for internesting. These areas are also
essential to mating and post-hatchling swim frenzy and early dispersal.
Specific Areas Containing the Migratory Essential Feature and Their
Conservation Value to the North Atlantic DPS
The recovery of the DPS requires that adult turtles forage and
reproduce; when foraging and reproductive areas are geographically
separated, recovery requires that adults successfully migrate between
these areas. Therefore, the following migratory feature is essential to
the conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: From the mean high water
line to 20 m depth, sufficiently unobstructed corridors that allow for
unrestricted transit between foraging and nesting areas for
reproductive individuals.
To identify this migratory essential feature, the Team reviewed
published and unpublished satellite tracking data of post-nesting
females (n = 58) and post-mating males (n = 10), described in detail in
the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a). The Team found that adults
generally migrate to foraging areas in southern Florida using nearshore
waters of 20 m depth or less (Schroeder et al. 2008; Sloan et al. 2022;
B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished data 2022; D. Bagley, University of
Central Florida unpublished data 2022; K. Mazzarella, Mote Marine
Laboratory unpublished data 2022).
This narrow, constricted migratory corridor may require special
management considerations or protection to ensure that the passage of
reproductive individuals is not obstructed, deterred, or disturbed.
During migration, sea turtles that are otherwise spread out over many,
and often distant, foraging sites become concentrated into relatively
narrow corridors, making them particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic
threats (Foley et al. 2013). The Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991)
indicates that protection is needed to prevent the degradation of
habitats due to offshore structures, dredging, oil and gas activities
(including oil spills and their cleanup), fishing, aquaculture, and
vessel activities (including the establishment of shipping lanes). In
addition, energy generation activities may block passage or generate
anomalous magnetic fields, altering cues used by green turtles for
navigation (Lohmann et al. 2004) and causing turtles to deviate from
their course. Large structures or excessive noise from seismic surveys
(Nelms et al. 2016), military activities, or vessel activities may
force turtles off the most direct route, requiring longer migrations
and more energy.
To identify specific areas containing the migratory essential
feature, the Team reviewed available published and unpublished
satellite tracking data. The Team reviewed migratory data included in
scientific publications (Hart et al. 2013; Chabot et al. 2018; Sloan et
al. 2022). The Team also analyzed unpublished telemetry data (i.e.,
tracking data from 58 post-nesting females and 10 males, mapped in the
Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a)). The data show that green turtles
use constricted migratory corridors (i.e., generally waters of 20 m or
less) along the eastern and western coasts of Florida. These
constricted migratory corridors begin at the nesting beaches where the
turtles are tagged and end at foraging/resting areas in southeastern
Florida, Florida Bay, Cape Sable, Everglades, Florida Keys, Marquesas
Keys, and Dry Tortugas. The Team determined, and we agree, that the
entire Florida coast, in depths up to 20 m, contains the migratory
essential feature, connecting reproductive areas along the east and
west coast of Florida to foraging areas in Monroe County, Florida. This
area is of high conservation value because adult males and females use
it to migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas.
This migration is directly linked to population growth, and if the
narrow corridor was obstructed, the DPS would not recover.
Unlike adult green turtles in Florida, adults originating in Puerto
Rico do not appear to use constricted or narrow migratory corridors to
move between nesting and benthic foraging/resting areas. Instead, they
move offshore into oceanic waters, deeper than 20 m. Long-distance
captures of adults tagged at Culebra reveal the use of multiple
pathways. Therefore, the Team was unable to identify any specific areas
outside of Florida (e.g., Puerto Rico) containing the migratory
essential feature.
[[Page 46581]]
Specific Areas Containing the Surface-Pelagic Foraging/Resting
Essential Features and Their Conservation Value to the North Atlantic
DPS
The recovery of the DPS requires foraging and resting to provide
energy for post-hatchling and juvenile survival, growth, and
development. After their swim frenzy and early dispersal, post-
hatchlings of the North Atlantic DPS are transported via ocean currents
to habitats that provide adequate food resources and cover, such as
Sargassum-dominated drift communities. Green turtles likely remain in
such habitats throughout their surface-pelagic juvenile stage.
Therefore, the following surface-pelagic foraging/resting features are
essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: Convergence
zones, frontal zones, surface-water downwelling areas, the margins of
major boundary currents, and other areas that result in concentrated
components of the Sargassum-dominated drift community, as well as the
currents which carry turtles to Sargassum-dominated drift communities,
which provide sufficient food resources and refugia to support the
survival, growth, and development of post-hatchlings and surface-
pelagic juveniles, and which are located in sufficient water depth (at
least 10 m) to ensure offshore transport via ocean currents to areas
which meet forage and refugia requirements.
To identify the surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential
features, the Team gathered information on green turtles' use of
Sargassum habitats. Surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features
are associated with Sargassum habitats, which provide structured
habitat, rich food supply, refugia for rest and predator protection,
and thermal benefits promoting growth for green turtles (Mansfield et
al. 2021). Sargassum occurring in the surf zone or close to shore may
not provide the essential features; whereas Sargassum-dominated drift
communities occurring in depths of 10 m and greater provide sufficient
food resources and refugia and aid in offshore transport. Such depths
overlap with benthic foraging areas to facilitate the developmental
transition from surface-pelagic to benthic foraging. A growing number
of studies provide information on the location, diet, and behavior of
post-hatchlings and surface-pelagic juveniles of the North Atlantic DPS
(Putman and Mansfield 2015; Hardy et al. 2018; Mansfield et al. 2021).
Post-hatchling and surface-pelagic green turtles forage primarily on
animals within the Sargassum-dominated drift communities, including
invertebrates, fish eggs, and insects (Witherington et al. 2012a).
Turtles appeared to use Sargassum principally as habitat (i.e.,
although they consume Sargassum, this may be incidental to their
foraging on animals located within the plant material; Witherington et
al. 2012a). In addition to providing a food supply and structured
habitat, Sargassum provides predator protection and thermal benefits
that promote growth, i.e., exposure to direct sunlight and/or localized
warming that facilitates temperature-dependent processes including
digestion and growth (Mansfield et al. 2021). Post-hatchling green
turtles selectively use and burrow into Sargassum for these purposes
(Smith and Salmon 2009).
The surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features may require
special management considerations or protection to maintain the food
resources and refugia provided by Sargassum habitat. The surface
convergence zones that aggregate Sargassum-dominated drift communities
also aggregate pollutants (Wallace et al. 2020; Shigenaka et al. 2021);
this includes plastics, which can cause blockage in the gut, diminish
nutrition, and/or increase the risk of entanglement (Witherington et
al. 2012a; Rice et al. 2021). The frequent co-occurrence of Sargassum
and marine debris within the pelagic environment may require special
consideration when planning marine debris removal activities. Oil
exploration, production, and associated spills are major concerns
because post-hatchling and surface-pelagic juvenile sea turtles within
Sargassum-dominated drift communities become fouled in oil or exposed
to oil through inhalation or ingestion (McDonald et al. 2017; Wallace
et al. 2020; Shigenaka et al. 2021). The cleanup of oil spills may also
introduce toxic chemicals (Ylitalo et al. 2017). Powers et al. (2013)
described direct and indirect effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill on the Sargassum-dominated drift communities as follows: (1)
Sargassum accumulated oil on the surface exposing animals to high
concentrations of contaminants; (2) application of a dispersant sank
the Sargassum, thus removing the habitat and potentially transporting
oil and dispersant vertically; and (3) low oxygen surrounded the
habitat potentially stressing animals that reside in the algae. This
oil spill was estimated to impact 148,000 surface-pelagic turtles
(McDonald et al. 2017). Other sources of pollution include ocean
dumping, vessel discharges, and dredging (e.g., from disruption of
contaminated sediment and release of contaminants).
To identify specific areas containing the surface-pelagic foraging/
resting essential features, the Team reviewed data on post-hatchling
and surface-pelagic juveniles and their habitats. Sargassum-dominated
drift communities occur where surface waters converge to form local
downwelling (Wallace et al. 2020; Shigenaka et al. 2021) in the Gulf of
Mexico and the northwest Atlantic Ocean. As post-hatchlings and
surface-pelagic juveniles, green turtles occupy the same Sargassum
habitat as other sea turtle species, including the loggerhead sea
turtle, Caretta caretta (Witherington et al. 2012). Therefore, areas
containing surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features for
green turtles overlap with those designated as critical habitat for the
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39855, July 10, 2014): the Atlantic Ocean
from the Gulf of Mexico along the northern/western boundary of the Gulf
Stream and east to the outer edge of the U.S. EEZ; and the western Gulf
of Mexico to the eastern edge of the Loop Current. At the time that
loggerhead critical habitat was designated, limited data were available
on essential features in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Data available
since then indicate that surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential
features occur throughout the Gulf, including waters of the eastern
Gulf of Mexico (McDonald et al. 2017; Hardy et al. 2018), and in
particular along the West Florida Shelf (Putman and Mansfield 2015).
Data also indicate that juvenile green turtles forage and rest in
Sargassum habitat of the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Witherington et al.
2012a; Putman and Mansfield 2015; McDonald et al. 2017; Hardy et al.
2018). In 2010, McDonald et al. (2017) captured 220 surface-pelagic
green turtles in the eastern Gulf of Mexico during rescue operations
within the Deepwater Horizon spill area. Witherington et al. (2012a;
unpublished data 2019) observed 195 surface-pelagic juvenile green
turtles associated with Sargassum-dominated drift communities in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, 18 of which were tracked via satellite
transmitters. A majority of those tracked individuals remained within
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, while five individuals departed the
Gulf of Mexico and followed the Gulf Stream System into North Atlantic
waters (FWC, unpublished data 2019). Putman and Mansfield (2015)
captured 24 surface-pelagic juvenile green turtles in offshore areas of
the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico: Cortez, Sarasota, Panama City,
and Pensacola, Florida;
[[Page 46582]]
Orange Beach, Alabama; and Venice, Louisiana. Other studies have
identified increasing numbers of surface-pelagic juvenile green turtles
throughout the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean
(Hardy et al. 2018; Mansfield and Phillips in review); some of these
juveniles are carried via the Loop Current, Straits of Florida, and
Gulf Stream into the North Atlantic (Mansfield and Phillips in review).
Green turtles are also found in Sargassum-dominated drift
communities of the northwest Atlantic Ocean, where Witherington et al.
(2012a; Witherington and FWC unpublished data 2019) observed 17 post-
hatchlings. Mansfield et al. (2021) satellite tracked 21 surface-
pelagic green turtles (3 to 9 months old) from Boca Raton, Florida to
waters associated with the Sargasso Sea, via the Gulf Stream. Prior to
exiting the U.S. EEZ, most green turtles remained in oceanic waters,
off the Continental Shelf (greater than 200 m depth; Mansfield et al.
2021), within the Sargassum critical habitat designated for
loggerheads. Therefore, the Sargassum habitat in the Atlantic,
designated for loggerhead turtles (79 FR 39855, July 10, 2014), also
contains the surface-pelagic foraging/resting features essential to the
conservation of green turtles.
Based on the best available scientific information, the Team
concluded, and we agree, that the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Sargassum-dominated drift communities in waters greater than 10 m depth
to the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ contain surface-pelagic foraging/
resting features essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic
DPS that may require special management considerations or protection.
These areas include the Sargassum habitat designated for loggerhead
turtles (79 FR 39855, July 10, 2014) and Sargassum habitat in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico. These areas are of high conservation value
because they contain high densities of foraging/resting post-hatchlings
and surface-pelagic juveniles (Witherington et al. 2012; Hardy et al.
2018; Mansfield et al. 2021). These are the only areas that provide the
essential features required for the survival, growth, and development
of this important early life stage for the North Atlantic DPS. A
modeling study indicates that fluctuations in the survival of early
life stages drive variation in abundance and suggests protecting early
life stages from hostile environments (Halley et al. 2018). Therefore,
these areas are essential to the recovery of the DPS.
Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential
Features and Their Conservation Value to the North Atlantic DPS
The recovery of the DPS requires benthic foraging/resting resources
to support juveniles, subadults, and adults. After their surface-
pelagic juvenile stage, green turtles recruit to benthic foraging/
resting habitats that provide adequate food resources and cover from
predators to allow successful survival, growth and development to
maturity. Adults require adequate long-term residence areas, which
include food resources and adjacent refugia, to provide the energy
needed to survive, migrate to nesting beaches, and reproduce.
Therefore, the following benthic foraging/resting features are
essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: From the mean
high water line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia (e.g., sandy troughs,
hard-bottom substrates, and Sabellariid worm reefs) and food resources
(i.e., seagrass, marine algae, and/or invertebrates) of sufficient
condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to
support survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. The Team
considered other potentially essential features because green turtles
of the North Atlantic DPS may pass through multiple developmental
habitats in coastal waters during their maturation from benthic
foraging juveniles to adults (Bolten 2003; Witherington et al. 2006;
Bresette et al. 2010; Meylan and Meylan 2011). Juveniles appear to use
deeper waters as they mature (M. Lamont, USGS, and M. Bresette, In-
water Research Group pers. comm. 2022). However, the Team accounted for
these movements during the identification of benthic foraging/resting
essential features as waters up to 20 m depth, which includes the
waters used to move from shallow to deeper depths. Furthermore, when
gathering data on green turtles, the Team focused on the occurrence of
green turtles within this DPS because it is difficult to distinguish
between foraging/resting turtles and those moving to other foraging/
resting areas. For these reasons, the Team concluded, and we agree,
that developmental migratory behavior is addressed under the benthic
foraging/resting essential feature and does not warrant the
identification of a separate essential feature.
To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the
Team gathered data on the DPS's use of benthic foraging/resting
habitats, including coral and nearshore reefs, seagrass beds, inshore
bays, estuaries (Ehrhart 1983; Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Wershoven and
Wershoven 1992; Bresette et al. 1998; Ehrhart et al. 2007; Meylan and
Meylan 2011), man-made embayments (Redfoot and Ehrhart 2000), and
passes (Shaver 1994). Benthic foraging juveniles may use shallower
foraging/resting areas than adults (Witherington et al. 2006; Meylan
and Meylan 2011) and move to deeper habitats as they mature (Bagley et
al. 2008; Reich et al. 2008; Vander Zanden et al. 2013). During this
stage of development, juveniles feed primarily on seagrass (e.g.,
Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, Halodule wrightii, and
Zostera marina; Mendon[ccedil]a 1983), benthic macroalgae (e.g.,
Gracilaria mammillaris, Bryothamnion seaforthii, Laurencia poiteau,
Ulva spp., and Hypnea spp.; Bjorndal 1980; Mortimer 1981; Bellmund et
al. 1987; Coyne 1994; Shaver 1994; Redfoot 1997; Makowski et al. 2006;
Kubis et al. 2009; Vander Zanden et al. 2013), and/or invertebrates
(Mendon[ccedil]a 1983; Bjorndal 1990; Makowski et al. 2006; Stringell
et al. 2016; Holloway-Adkins et al. 2017). Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak
(2017) found that juveniles commonly foraged on benthic invertebrates,
including polychaetes, hydrozoa, and gastropods. In a study of 90 green
turtles, 28 percent ingested 8 different species of sponges that are
found in relatively small proportions (i.e., biomass) in the foraging
habitat, and 3 percent ingested cnidarians and ``other invertebrates''
(Stringell et al. 2016). Turtles generally occur where there are
sufficient food resources (Witherington et al. 2006); however, there is
a complex relationship between food availability and juvenile abundance
and growth rates (Long et al. 2021). Juvenile green turtles occupy
small, stable home ranges, where they forage and rest in one or two
exclusive sites (Mendon[ccedil]a 1983; Makowski et al. 2006). The
depths at which juveniles forage and rest differ throughout their range
and are dependent on the depths of available food resources.
Seagrasses, for example, need light and are generally limited to depths
where at least 20 percent of surface irradiance reaches the seafloor;
this depth varies among sites as a function of water clarity (Dixon
1999; P. Carlson, FWC pers. comm. 2016). As juveniles mature, they
forage in deeper waters (3 to 27.3 m; In-water Research Group 2008;
Bresette et al. 2010; FWC and NMFS unpublished data 2016) and may
occupy a more narrow range in southern Florida, including the Florida
Keys, Marquesas Keys, and Dry Tortugas (Witherington et al. 2006;
Bresette et al. 2010). Adult and subadult turtles may
[[Page 46583]]
forage in herds to provide increased vigilance of large predators, such
as sharks that also forage at these depths, or to increase grazing
maintenance of seagrasses, which provide food resources that are higher
in nutrition and easier to digest (Bjorndal 1980; Moran and Bjorndal
2007; Bresette et al. 2010). Juvenile and adult green turtles forage on
algae or seagrass growing on manmade structures, such as docks,
seawalls, piers, pipelines, boat ramps, platforms, ramparts, pilings,
and jetties. This includes algae in the Florida Trident Submarine Basin
(Kubis et al. 2009; Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak 2017) and on jetties in
southeast Texas (Shaver 1994; Metz and Landry 2013; Shaver et al.
2013). In addition to these data, the Team mapped unpublished data on
foraging/resting green turtles. They found that the majority of turtles
were found in waters up to 20 m (see Draft Biological Report NMFS
2023a).
In addition to productive benthic foraging areas, green turtles
need access to protective resting areas. Because they are vulnerable to
predation and tidal exposure, they seek refugia in Sabellariid worm
reefs (Stadler et al. 2015), nearshore reef ledges (Wershoven and
Wershoven 1988; Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Ehrhart 1992), or other
shallow-water areas that are less accessible to sharks (Bresette et al.
2010). When resting, turtles often wedge their head and body under
ledges along the reef (Makowski et al. 2006; Mott and Salmon 2011;
Stadler et al. 2015). Hart et al. (2016) found that 6 of 11 juvenile
turtles equipped with tri-axial acceleration data loggers near the Dry
Tortugas made excursions to deep waters (4 to 27 m) for rest, often at
night. Makowski et al. (2006) found that turtles rested only during
nocturnal hours, avoiding marine predators and sleeping underneath the
same patch reefs upon which they actively foraged. Renaud et al. (1995)
also reported daytime foraging and nocturnal resting. However,
Mendon[ccedil]a (1983) observed juvenile green turtles within Mosquito
Lagoon, Florida, actively feeding on shallow (0.5 to 1.0 m) seagrass
flats in mid-morning and mid-afternoon, with resting occurring in
deeper waters (2.0 to 2.5 m) during the mid-day hours. Mott and Salmon
(2011) suggest that turtles use solar cues to move offshore toward deep
water reefs to escape threats; they return to shallow foraging areas
after several hours. The Team concluded, and we agree, that depths up
to 20 m contain the majority of refugia used by green turtles.
The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special
management considerations or protection to maintain the quality and
quantity of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The
Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed
to prevent the degradation of habitats due to dredging, pollution, oil
and gas, fishing, and vessel activities. The Recovery Plan specifically
highlights the need to restore and limit further development in
important foraging habitats (e.g., seagrass beds, which are relatively
fragile habitats requiring low energy and low turbidity waters; NMFS
and USFWS 1991). Seagrass habitats are among the most threatened
ecosystems on Earth (Waycott et al. 2009). Since 1980, seagrass beds
have disappeared at a rate of 110 km\2\/year (Waycott et al. 2009). The
reductions are mainly due to declines in water quality and other human
impacts (Orth et al. 2006). Dredging activities (including
channelization, sand mining, and dredge/trawl fisheries) may remove,
bury, or inhibit the growth of important food resources and destroy or
disrupt resting areas (Hopkins and Murphy 1980). In Texas, turtles
using jetties and channel entrances are likely to be affected by
dredging activities that remove foraging resources and alter refugia
(Renaud et al. 1995). Landry et al. (1992) indicate that maintenance
dredging around South Padre Island, Texas poses a direct threat to
green turtles through destruction of their benthic foraging/resting
areas. Beach nourishment may reduce the availability of food resources
(especially seagrass) and destroy underwater refugia (especially
Sabellariid worm rock reefs) by covering these nearshore areas in sand
(NMFS 2008). For example, sand placement projects along parts of the
Florida coastline bury the reef habitat and food resources required by
green turtles (Lindeman and Snyder 1999). These alterations may have
lasting effects because turtle abundance is linked to reef stability:
benthic foraging/resting turtles are most abundant on nearshore worm
rock reefs with little change in reef area (and rarely covered by sand)
over a decade (Stadler et al. 2015). Vessel activities may also reduce
or interfere with the availability of food resources. For example,
propellers scar seagrass beds throughout the coastal waters of Florida.
The most severe scarring occurs in areas where green turtles are known
to forage, such as the Florida Keys and northern Indian River Lagoon
(Sargent et al. 1995). Oil and gas activities may reduce the quality
and quantity of food resources, especially if an oil spill occurs.
Pollution (including runoff and contaminants) diminishes water clarity
and light availability, which may reduce the growth and availability of
seagrass and algae and reduce turtles' visibility, which impacts their
ability to forage and avoid predators (Long et al. 2021). In coastal
lagoons in Florida, such as the Indian River Lagoon, agricultural and
residential runoff may expose green turtles to high levels of
pollutants (Hirama and Ehrhart 2007). Increased nutrient load in
coastal waters causes eutrophication, which is linked to harmful algal
blooms that result in the loss of seagrass beds and macroalgae cover
(Milton and Lutz 2003; Long 2021), resulting in changes to green turtle
foraging ecology that last beyond the harmful algal bloom event (Long
2021). Such environmental degradation is also linked to increased
incidence of fibropapillomatosis (Borrowman 2008), which was one of the
factors identified in the listing of the North Atlantic DPS (81 FR
20057, April 6, 2016).
To identify specific areas containing the benthic foraging/resting
essential features, the Team considered the best available data,
including maps of seagrass coverage. Because many areas within the
range of the North Atlantic DPS contain seagrass, the Team relied on
the occurrence of benthic foraging/resting green turtles to determine
which of these areas contain resources sufficient to support juvenile
green turtles' survival, development, and growth, and adults' survival,
migration, and reproduction. The Team considered published and
unpublished studies on green turtles to be the best available data;
these included satellite tracking, tagging, and in-water observation
data. The Team also considered data derived from fisheries bycatch,
incidental capture in power plants, and dredging relocation projects.
The Team also evaluated available stranding data from 2010 to 2020.
Stranding data include cold-stunned turtles; however, cold-stunned
turtles are likely healthy turtles that were foraging in an area when
temperatures dropped, resulting in cold stunning; whereas, other
strandings are more likely to involve injured or sick turtles. There
are many caveats to using stranding data (including data on cold-
stunned turtles): (1) Data collection and effort is not standardized
throughout the region; (2) Reporting is dependent on observation,
creating a bias toward areas of greater human density or greater
accessibility (e.g., beach areas vs. marshy shorelines); and (3)
Stranded turtles may be carried by currents such that reported
locations may not accurately represent the area originally occupied by
the turtle (Santos et al.
[[Page 46584]]
2018a; Santos et al. 2018b). Given these caveats, the Team only used
stranding data to support areas identified as containing the benthic
foraging/resting essential features based on other data sources (such
as research studies). Nevertheless, stranding data corroborate research
data that indicate high abundances of green turtles foraging/resting in
Florida, Texas, and North Carolina, where the number of strandings (and
thus resident population) is at least an order of magnitude higher than
in other States (NMFS 2023a).
Texas
In Texas, juvenile and subadult turtles forage in depths of up to
20 m on macroalgae, seagrass, and invertebrates (Howell et al. 2016;
Howell and Shaver 2021; P. Plotkin and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M
University unpublished data 2022). Texas waters provide one of the most
important developmental and foraging habitats for juvenile green
turtles in the western Gulf of Mexico (Shaver et al. 2017). The
majority of these turtles originate from Mexico nesting beaches
(Shamblin et al. 2017). Turtles forage on seagrass and macroalgae in
natural habitats and on jetty rocks and other artificial structures
(fishing piers, docks, oil and gas platforms, and bridge support
structures) that occur in the bays and passes of nearshore Gulf of
Mexico waters (Shaver et al. 2017). They also consume animal matter and
are best described as omnivores (Howell and Shaver 2021). These jettied
passes also provide refugia for resting turtles and quick access to
deeper, warmer waters to avoid cold-stunning (Shaver 1994; Shaver et
al. 2013; Shaver et al. 2017). In recent years, cold stunning has
become a frequent occurrence in Texas. The February 2021 cold stunning
event in Texas was the largest on record, with approximately 13,300
turtles documented. Approximately 6,600 green turtles were found in the
inshore waters of the Upper Laguna Madre, 5,700 in the Lower Laguna
Madre, and 1,200 along the Upper Texas Coast.
Green turtles forage and rest throughout the bays, passes, and
nearshore waters of Texas from Galveston Bay to the Mexico border, as
demonstrated by numerous published studies and incidental capture of
turtles from 2010 to 2020 (D. Shaver, NPS unpublished data 2022). The
abundance of juveniles in these areas appears to be increasing over
time (Shaver 1994; Metz and Landry 2013). Juveniles establish residency
in the bays but also southward into Mexican waters (Metz et al. 2020;
Shaver et al. 2013). Most use jettied passes to travel between the bays
and the Gulf of Mexico (Shaver et al. 2013), with the exception of
Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay supports a resident green turtle
population that feeds on seagrass beds and algae (Shaver et al. 2019;
L. Howell, NMFS pers. comm. 2015). The other bays are connected via an
intercoastal waterway, which turtles use to move up and down the coast
from Lavaca-Matagorda Bay through Laguna Madre and into Mexico.
Lavaca-Matagorda and Aransas Bays are hotspots for benthic
foraging/resting juvenile green turtles, especially in May and June
(Metz et al. 2020). Recent satellite tracking of 18 green turtles
demonstrated use of most coastal areas within Lavaca-Matagorda Bay;
some turtles moved south to Corpus Christi Bay, Laguna Madre, and into
Mexico (P. Plotkin and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M University unpublished
data 2022). Green turtles use waters less than 20 m depth for benthic
foraging/resting but may use waters of greater depths for southern
migration (P. Plotkin and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M University
unpublished data 2022). Tracking of 15 juveniles demonstrated that
turtles' use of Lavaca-Matagorda and Aransas Bays depends on the season
(Metz et al. 2020). Two radio-tracked turtles increased their movements
during November and December, moving south to warmer waters (Renaud and
Williams 1994). Their home range encompassed 19.5 km\2\ of Lavaca-
Matagorda Bay (Renaud and Williams 1994). In 2006 and 2007, 11
juveniles were captured in Lavaca-Matagorda Bay in areas with patchy
shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), and 11 juveniles were captured in
Aransas Bay, which hosts turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum (Metz and
Landry 2013). These bays appear to be important juvenile developmental
areas (Metz et al. 2020).
The most important juvenile developmental area in Texas is Laguna
Madre, which hosts the greatest amount of seagrass coverage (81
percent) and the greatest abundance of green turtles in Texas (Shaver
et al. 2013; Howell and Shaver 2021; D. Shaver, NPS unpublished data
2022). Juveniles are concentrated near the Mansfield Channel and appear
to use it for foraging, resting, and for passage between Laguna Madre
and the Gulf of Mexico (Shaver 1994; Shaver 2000; Shaver et al. 2013;
Shaver et al. 2019). Shaver (2000) netted 258 green turtles in the
Mansfield Channel from 1989 to 1997 (3.63 turtles/km-h). Juveniles also
forage on macroalgae at the Brazos Santiago Pass near South Padre
Island (Renaud et al. 1995). Core and home range analyses show
foraging/resting hotpots year round in this area (Metz and Landry 2013;
Metz et al. 2020). Metz et al. (2013) tagged 247 juveniles between 1991
and 2010; they found significant increases in abundance during that
time and a significantly higher catch per unit effort in Laguna Madre
compared to Matagorda and Aransas Bays. Larger green turtles forage on
the seagrass beds at South Bay, Mexiquita Flats, and Laguna Madre
(Landry et al. 1992; Coyne 1994). Females nesting at Padre Island
travel south to Mexico to forage and rest (D. Shaver, NPS unpublished
data 2022). Green turtles also overwinter in Laguna Madre (Arms 1996),
which has the highest prevalence of cold stunning in Texas (Shaver et
al. 2017).
Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of Texas, from the mean high
water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential
features that may require special management considerations or
protections. The Team concluded, and we agree, that the area between
the Mexico border and Lavaca-Matagorda Bay (including Laguna Madre and
Lavaca-Matagorda Bay) provides high conservation value because it
supports high density benthic foraging/resting (Shaver et al. 2013;
Metz et al. 2013; Metz et al. 2020; Howell and Shaver 2021; P. Plotkin
and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M University unpublished data 2022; D. Shaver
and S. Walker, NPS unpublished data 2022). The area between Lavaca-
Matagorda Bay and Galveston Bay (including Galveston Bay) provides
moderate conservation value because it supports moderate density
benthic foraging/resting (Shaver et al. 2019; D. Shaver and S. Walker,
NPS unpublished data 2022). All other areas in Texas provide low
conservation value to the DPS because of relatively lower density
benthic foraging/resting in these areas.
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
Seagrass cover and other submerged vegetation occur in nearshore
areas of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana (Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 2021), including throughout the
Chandeleur Islands. Benthic macroalgae grows in abundance on and around
jetties at Belle Pass (USGS and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries (LDWF), unpublished data 2016).
In Louisiana, K. Hart (USGS unpublished data 2022) has documented
the occurrence of green turtles at Belle Pass, Ship Shoal, and the
[[Page 46585]]
Chandeleur Islands. Since 2014, 131 juvenile green turtles (25.6 to
44.2 cm SCL) have been tagged while foraging on algae on and around
jetties at Belle Pass (K. Hart, USGS and LDWF unpublished data 2022).
These turtles appear to be year-round residents, as demonstrated by 31
recaptures (K. Hart, USGS and LDWF unpublished data 2022). Individuals
tracked from Belle Pass (n = 6) generally remained within 40 km of
Belle Pass, but one visited Ship Shoal (K. Hart, USGS and LDWF
unpublished data 2022). Juvenile green turtles were also observed
foraging at seagrass beds of the Chandeleur Islands during a scientific
rapid assessment conducted by the USGS and LDWF in April 2015 (K. Hart,
USGS pers. comm. 2015). In both areas, juveniles were observed
foraging/resting close to the jetties and islands, although these
observations may reflect sampling bias (i.e., small boat surveys
conducted close to shore and jetties). Inwater Research Group (IRG
2014) conducted vessel-based sea turtle surveys in nearshore coastal
waters (out to 3 nautical miles offshore) of Terrebonne, Lafourche,
Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and Orleans Parishes in eastern
Louisiana; IRG observed one juvenile green turtle at the surface near
the Chandeleur Islands, in Plaquemines Parish (IRG 2014). Although
aerial survey sightings are sparse (possibly because turbid water in
these areas is not optimal for visual sightings), stranding data
indicate use of nearshore waters along Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama. Bycatch data are also available for the region. For example,
the Gulf of Mexico shrimp otter trawl fishery captured 6 green turtles
in try nets and 14 green turtles in standard nets between 2007 and
2017, with total bycatch mortality estimated at 22 to 81 green turtles
(Babcock et al. 2018).
Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic
foraging/resting essential features that may require special management
considerations or protections. However, the Team concluded, and we
agree, that nearshore waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
provide low conservation value because they support relatively low
density benthic foraging/resting, compared to other areas within the
range of the DPS. We support this conclusion despite a concentration of
foraging turtles at Belle Pass and to a lesser degree at Chandeleur
Islands and Ship Shoals (K. Hart, USGS unpublished data 2022), because
these areas still support far fewer foraging turtles than other areas
within the range of the North Atlantic DPS (e.g., Texas, Florida, and
North Carolina).
Florida
Seagrass habitat is ubiquitous throughout much of the Florida
coastline (CEC 2021). Both continuous and patchy seagrass beds provide
food resources and shelter (Dawes et al. 2004). Seagrass beds are
especially abundant in the shallow marine waters surrounding the
southern tip of the peninsula from Biscayne Bay, through Florida Bay
and the Florida Keys, and north to Cape Romano (Fourqurean et al.
2001). Sabellariid (polychaete) worm reefs stretch from Indian River
County to Key Biscayne and appear to be important developmental
habitats for juvenile green turtles (Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Ehrhart
1992; FWC 2022).
The benthic foraging/resting essential features are found
throughout nearshore waters of Florida, where studies on green turtles
demonstrate their widespread occurrence. The Team provided a non-
exhaustive list, map, and summary of data on foraging/resting green
turtles throughout Florida waters. In addition to these scientific
studies, stranding data (including thousands of records of cold-stunned
turtles) demonstrate green turtle use of foraging and refugia areas
throughout Florida estuarine and marine habitats (FWC unpublished data
2022). See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for figures.
In the Florida panhandle, a ``reasonable high density'' of juvenile
green turtles forage in nearshore habitats (artificial reefs, piers,
and jetties) from Escambia to South Walton Counties, as demonstrated by
video footage of 23 turtles (Siegfried et al. 2021). Rock jetties serve
as important foraging and refugia areas for small juveniles as they
recruit to nearshore areas. Juvenile green turtles were observed year-
round at these areas, indicating site fidelity, residency, and
overwintering (Lamont et al. 2018; Siegfield et al. 2021). Numerous
juveniles forage in St. Joseph Bay, St. Andrew Bay (including Crooked
Island Sound), and in nearshore waters off Eglin Air Force Base and
Santa Rosa Island, where they exhibit strong site fidelity and small
home ranges (Lamont et al. 2015; Lamont and Iverson 2018; Lamont and
Johnson 2021b; Lamont and Johnson 2021a). St. Joseph Bay is an
especially important benthic foraging/resting area for juvenile turtles
because of the quality and density of seagrass habitat and its
proximity to deep, sandy-bottom channels for turtles to rest (Lamont et
al. 2015; Rodriguez and Heck Jr 2020; Lamont and Johnson 2021b).
Between 2011 and 2019, 175 juvenile green turtles were captured in
shallow waters (less than 4 m depth) of St. Joseph Bay (Lamont and
Johnson 2021). Satellite tracking of seven juvenile green turtles in
St. Andrew and St. Joseph Bays indicates shallow (mean 4.3 m depth),
near-shore (mean 0.9 km) core use areas and home ranges of 4.2 <plus-
minus>5.2 and 15.8 <plus-minus>19.4 km\2\ respectively (Lamont and
Iverson 2018). In response to seasonally cooler temperatures, juveniles
remained inside St. Andrew and St. Joseph Bays to forage on gelatinous
prey (e.g., tunicates); however, some moved to deeper waters within the
Bays for winter residency (Lamont et al. 2015; Lamont and Iverson
2018). Between 2014 and 2019, 91 juvenile green turtles were net-
captured in shallow waters (less than 4 m depth) off Santa Rosa Island
(Lamont and Johnson 2021); during that time, another 12 juvenile green
turtles were incidentally caught in hook and line gear off a fishing
pier on Santa Rosa Island (Lamont et al. 2021). Long-term recaptures
(i.e., the maximum number of days between capture was 388 days) off
Santa Rosa Island may demonstrate multi-year fidelity in this sand-
bottom habitat (where turtles appear to forage on algae), or juveniles
may move between this area and seagrass habitat in Choctawhatchee Bay
(Lamont and Johnson 2021). Thus, Florida's Panhandle supports moderate
density foraging/resting (Lamont et al. 2015; Lamont and Iverson 2018;
Lamont et al. 2018; Siegfried et al. 2022; Lamont and Johnson 2021a/b;
A. Foley, FWC unpublished data 2022). However, the Team concluded, and
we agree, that the area provides high conservation value because it
also contains the reproductive essential feature and comprises a
portion of the west coast migratory corridor.
Coastal waters of Florida's Big Bend once supported one of the
largest sea turtle fisheries in the United States and continue to be a
hotspot for foraging green turtles (Chabot et al. 2021). Chabot et al.
(2021) recorded 624 green turtles near the St. Martins Marsh Aquatic
Preserve between 2012 and 2018; juvenile densities ranged from 57 to
221 turtles/km\2\; larger turtles (>60 cm SCL) were primarily limited
to the southern section of their study area. This area provides benthic
foraging/resting features to numerous turtles of diverse origins: mtDNA
analyses indicated that turtles foraging in this
[[Page 46586]]
area originated from the western Gulf of Mexico, Mexican Caribbean, and
Costa Rica (Chabot et al. 2021). Another important area for benthic
foraging/resting turtles is the Crystal River Region, including St.
Martins Marsh and Chassahowitzka Bay (Wildermann et al. 2019;
Wildermann et al. 2020). Based on turtle fishery landings data from the
late 1800s, Homosassa appears to have hosted one of two of ``the most
abundant in-water populations of green turtles in the entire Gulf of
Mexico'' (Valverde and Holzwart 2017). Florida's Big Bend provides
shallow seagrass habitats and other resources critical to the growth
and survival of juvenile and subadult green turtles (IRG 2013). During
vessel surveys conducted between 2012 and 2014, one subadult and 27
juvenile green turtles (up to 0.93 turtles/km) were observed in the Big
Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve, and 14 juvenile green turtles (up to
1.33 turtles/km) were observed in the St. Martins Marsh Aquatic
Preserve (IRG 2013). Green turtles have also been observed and captured
around Pepperfish Keys (C. Campbell, University of Florida pers. comm.
2016). They also occur from Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Carr 1967).
Unpublished data from scientific studies provide evidence for
additional juvenile benthic foraging/resting areas. In 2021, IRG
(unpublished data 2022) observed 164 juvenile green turtles during
exploratory vessel surveys (90.3 km) of Pasco County. Although current,
systematic survey data are not available for the Homosassa region,
incidental sightings near Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
indicate high levels of green turtle abundance. For example, sightings
from a vessel traveling at 5 knots documented 65 green turtles over 20
minutes of observation (C. Sasso, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science
Center (SEFSC) pers. comm. 2022). Juvenile green turtles of multiple
size classes were present, with small juveniles (approximately 20-30 cm
carapace length) sighted in shallow water (to approximately 3 m depth)
and large juveniles and sub-adults found in deeper water (C. Sasso,
SEFSC pers. comm. 2022). Numerous sub-adult (Chabot et al. 2021) and
possibly adult-sized green turtles have also been sighted in the
Homosassa Shipping Channel, where the water depth is approximately 4 m
(M. Bresette, In-water Research Group pers. comm. 2022). The Gulf
Specimen Marine Laboratory has tagged and released several green
turtles; one turtle caught and tagged off Piney Island near Panacea,
Florida was caught in the same seagrass bed several years later (J.
Rudloe, Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory pers. comm. 2016). Between 1995
and 1997, 11 green turtles were captured in nets set in narrow channels
or over shallow seagrass beds in Apalachee Bay (FWC 2022). Thus,
Florida's Big Bend supports high density juvenile foraging/resting
(Wildermann et al. 2019; Wildermann et al. 2020; Chabot et al. 2021; A.
Foley, FWC unpublished data 2022; M. Fuentes, Florida State University
unpublished data 2022). It also comprises a portion of the west coast
migratory corridor. Therefore, the Team concluded, and we agree, that
the area provides high conservation value.
In Southwest Florida, 1 to 12 green turtles have been sighted in
waters of Charlotte Harbor, or captured in waters off Collier County,
Siesta Key, Longboat Key, and Tampa Bay during dredging relocation
projects (FWC 2022). In a pier study, over 1,000 fishers were
interviewed over 3 years; 7.7 percent reported catching sea turtles
within the past 12 months, and 4.4 percent reported catching sea
turtles within Tampa Bay (M. Flint, University of Florida and Florida
Aquarium, unpublished data 2016). As demonstrated by directed research
capture and bycatch data (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a),
this area appears to host a moderate density of benthic foraging/
resting green turtles (A. Foley, FWC unpublished data 2022). However,
the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area provides high
conservation value because it also contains the reproductive essential
feature and comprises a portion of the west coast migratory corridor.
Many green turtles forage on seagrass beds found in waters of
Monroe County, which includes Florida Bay, Florida Keys, Marquesas
Keys, Dry Tortugas, Everglades, and Cape Sable. These areas appear to
be especially important benthic foraging/resting areas for subadults
and adults, who migrate to these areas after mating and nesting (Bagley
and Welsh 2022). Analyzing transect survey data (i.e., 187 green
turtles observed over 364 km), Bagley and Welsh (2022) found increasing
green turtle density as they surveyed further south and west through
the Florida and Marquesas Keys, with an estimated 15,957 adults and
subadults and 4,655 juvenile green turtles in the 1,500 km\2\ area
surveyed. Eastern Quicksands, located west of Marquesas Keys, hosts one
of the densest aggregations of foraging adults (47.3 turtles/km\2\) and
subadults (72.5 turtles/km\2\) in Florida and worldwide (Welsh and
Mansfield 2022). At eastern Quicksands and other locations around
Marquesas Keys, 1,087 green turtles were sighted foraging on seagrass
beds (Thalissia testudinum, S. filiforme, and H. wrighti): adults and
subadults were found in depths of 3 to 5 m, and smaller turtles foraged
in shallower waters of less than 3 m (Herren et al. 2018). Bresette et
al. (2010) describe juvenile green turtles foraging in shallow seagrass
habitat (i.e., less than 2 m) in Mooney Harbor of the Marquesas Keys.
Large juvenile and adult green turtles exhibited extended site fidelity
to foraging sites in Dry Tortugas National Park, primarily in areas
with submerged rooted vascular plants (Fujisaki et al. 2016), where
turtles primarily consume seagrass and macroalgae, with some incidence
of omnivory (Roche 2016). Hart (USGS unpublished data 2015) identified
205 juveniles foraging in the Dry Tortugas from 2008 to 2015. In the
Lower Florida Keys (from Big Pine Key to Boca Chica Key just east of
Key West), IRG (unpublished data 2022) observed 108 green turtles (up
to 1.86 turtles/km) over 268 km of vessel-based visual transects; IRG
also captured 64 of these turtles, ranging in size from 29.7-91.9 cm
SCL. Approximately 30 km off Cape Sable is another important adult
resident benthic foraging/resting area, as demonstrated by tracking
data of 10 post-nesting females in southwestern Florida (Sloan et al.
2022). Their 50 percent core use resident areas ranged from 8 to 904
km\2\, with a mean of 296 <plus-minus>309.3 km\2\ (Sloan et al. 2022).
The Everglades National Park also provides important developmental
habitat and benthic foraging/resting resources in shallow waters to 10
m depth (Hart and Fujisaki 2010). Schroeder (NMFS unpublished data
2022) documented 595 sightings of juvenile green turtles over a 19-year
period (2000 to 2018) in a relatively small area of the western portion
of Florida Bay (within the boundaries of Everglades National Park), in
waters generally less than 3 m depth. Additionally, green turtles
forage near Ten Thousand Islands, western Everglades (Witzell and
Schmid 2004). Hart et al. (2013) and Hart et al. (2021) tracked 22
females from their nesting beaches in the Dry Tortugas to benthic
foraging/resting areas in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
the Dry Tortugas, the Marquesas Keys, Biscayne National Park
(southeastern Florida), and Everglades National Park. FWC and NMFS
(unpublished data 2016) tracked 12 post-reproductive individuals to
these same locations, where they foraged in depths of 4.1 to 27.3 m
(with an average of 12.8 m and a standard deviation of 6.9 m) near
[[Page 46587]]
patchy or continuous seagrass habitat. Post-nesting females (n = 19)
tracked from Archie Carr NWR and two males tracked from St. Lucie
County, Florida (Schroeder et al. 2008; B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished
data 2022) foraged in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. Similarly, of
15 turtles satellite tracked from the Archie Carr NWR between 2013 and
2015, 14 migrated to foraging areas in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay
region (Chabot 2018; D. Bagley, University of Central Florida
unpublished data 2016). The other turtle was tracked to a foraging area
in southeastern Florida. Thus, Monroe County Florida supports high
density juvenile and adult foraging/resting (Bresette et al. 2010;
Fujisaki et al. 2016; Hart et al. 2020; Hart et al. 2021; Welsh and
Mansfield 2022). In addition, the area contains the reproductive
essential feature and serves as the destination for east and west coast
migratory corridors (Hart et al. 2013; K. Hart, USGS unpublished data
2014 and 2015; M. Lopez, ProNatura unpublished data 2022). Therefore,
the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area provides high
conservation value.
Southeast Florida is another important benthic foraging/resting
area for green turtles (Redfoot and Ehrhart 2000; Hirama and Ehrhart
2007; Kubis et al. 2009; Long et al. 2021; Kelley et al. 2022). As
summarized by Witherington et al. (2006), green turtles forage/rest
throughout the year in Mosquito Lagoon and the Indian River Lagoon
Complex (Ehrhart 1983; Bresette et al. 2002; Ehrhart et al. 2007; Long
et al. 2021; Kelley et al. 2022); within Port Canaveral (Redfoot and
Ehrhart 2000); on nearshore Atlantic reefs from Brevard to Broward
counties (Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Wershoven and Wershoven 1992;
Bresette et al. 1998); and in nearshore, hard-bottom habitats in St.
Lucie County (Bresette et al. 1998; Foley 2005). During the 19th
century, a large green turtle fishery flourished in the Indian River
(Ehrhart 1983), which continues to be an important benthic foraging/
resting area for green turtles. From 2000 to 2018, juvenile green
turtle abundance in the Indian River Lagoon Complex has declined,
concurrent with declines in seagrass and, since 2011, declines in
macroalgae (Long 2021), stressing the importance of protecting the
essential features in this area. Green turtles also forage in Banana
River and adjacent Mosquito Lagoon, off Brevard and Volusia Counties on
the east central coast of Florida, where shallow depths (i.e., 1.5 m
average depth) support extensive seagrass beds, including S. filiforme
(manatee grass) and H. wrightii (shoal grass) (Ehrhart 1983;
Mendon[ccedil]a 1983). Juveniles forage on algae along the rock riprap-
lined embayment of the Trident Submarine Basin (i.e., Turning Basin) at
Port Canaveral (Redfoot and Ehrhart 2013) and the Cape Canaveral
Shipping Channel (Henwood 1987; Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak 2017),
indicating that man-made environments also contain benthic foraging/
resting essential features. Juveniles forage in water depths of 2 to 6
m at a hard-bottom, nearshore reef segment in Broward and Palm Beach
Counties. This is an especially important benthic foraging/resting area
because of the worm rock reef that provides refugia habitat (Guseman
and Ehrhart 1990) and supports macroalgae species, including G.
mammillaris (Makowski et al. 2006). In 2021, IRG conducted 23 5-km
surveys between West Palm Inlet and approximately 20 km north of
Sebastian Inlet, in Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and
Brevard Counties; they captured 95 green turtles: 24 adult females, 21
adult males, 42 sex unidentified adults, and 8 juveniles (IRG
unpublished data 2022). From 1994 to 2018, 4,215 green turtles were
drawn into the intake canal of the St. Lucie Power Plant (Bentley et
al. 2021). Between September 1998 and January 2000, 73 green turtles
were captured at Jennings Cove, also in St. Lucie County (Bresette et
al. 2002; Perrault et al. 2021). From 2017 to 2022, IRG captured 50
juvenile green turtles foraging on sandy seagrass beds in Jupiter Inlet
and the Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County Florida (IRG
unpublished data 2022). Between 2010 and 2012, Stadler et al. (2015)
observed 351 juvenile green turtles (including resightings) swimming,
breathing at the surface, or resting on the bottom of nearshore reef
habitat in Palm Beach County (Breakers = 29 turtles/km and Boca Raton
reefs = 44 turtles/km) and Broward County (Broward North, Middle, and
South reefs = 77 turtles/km); the greatest abundance occurred at the
Boca Raton reef (n = 85). From 2005 to 2013, Gorham et al. (2016)
observed 719 juvenile green turtles (0.80 turtles/km) foraging on
seagrass in the urbanized Lake Worth Lagoon, Palm Beach. K. Hart (USGS
pers. comm. 2022) captured 16 adult green turtles in Biscayne Bay
National Park. Biscayne Bay historically hosted green turtles in
sufficient abundance to support a fishery (Smith 1896). Although the
salinity of the Bay increased over the 20th century due to decreased
freshwater input, Biscayne Bay currently contains extensive seagrass
beds, and sightings and captures indicate the presence of numerous
green turtles (C. Sasso, SEFSC pers. comm. 2022). Thus, Southeast
Florida (from Cape Canaveral to Monroe County) supports high density
foraging/resting especially at worm rock reefs (Ehrhart 1983; Guseman
and Ehrhart 1990; Wershoven and Wershoven 1992; Bresette et al. 1998;
Redfoot and Ehrhart 2000; Bresette et al. 2002; Makowski et al. 2006;
Stadler et al. 2015; Gorham et al. 2016; Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak
2017; Long et al. 2021). It also contains the reproductive essential
feature and comprises a portion of the east coast migratory corridor
(Schroeder et al. 2008; D. Bagley, University of Central Florida
unpublished data 2016; B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished data 2022).
Therefore, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area provides
high conservation value to the North Atlantic DPS.
In Northeast Florida, from Cape Canaveral to Georgia, NMFS (SEFSC
unpublished data 2022) captured 41 juvenile green turtles in trawls
between 1986 and 1991. As demonstrated by directed research capture and
bycatch data (See Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a), this area
appears to host a moderate density of benthic foraging/resting green
turtles (A. Foley, FWC pers. comm. 2022). However, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that the area provides high conservation value because it
also contains the reproductive essential feature and comprises a
portion of the east coast migratory corridor.
South Carolina and Georgia
Seagrass cover is low in Georgia and South Carolina and relatively
few studies have focused on green turtle presence and habitat use in
this region. In Georgia, juveniles are anecdotally reported to forage
on macroalgae (e.g., Ulva spp.) on docks and rock pilings, and
necropsies of stranded turtles indicate that they also consume invasive
red algae (Graciliaria vermiculophylla) and Spartina alterniflora (M.
Dodd, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pers. comm. 2022).
A study of live-bottom reefs within Grays' Reef National Marine
Sanctuary found that three green turtles wedged themselves into
sandstone ledges for rest (Auster et al. 2020).
In South Carolina, green turtles were historically reported as
being present at low population levels. During the late 1800s, small
juvenile green turtles were infrequently captured incidental to other
fisheries and sold commercially, with maximum annual take estimated at
approximately 150 individuals (True 1884). Since 2019, South Carolina
(SC)
[[Page 46588]]
DNR satellite tracked eight turtles (for a total of 625 standardized
observation days), all of which remained in waters off southern Georgia
and northeastern Florida (M. Arendt, SCDNR; C. Eastman, University of
Florida Whitney Sea Turtle Hospital; D. Evans, Sea Turtle Conservancy;
T. Norton, Jekyll Island Georgia Sea Turtle Center; unpublished data
2022). Fisheries bycatch data provide additional information about sea
turtle occurrence in South Carolina waters. Between 1992 and 2014, a
total of 330 turtles were incidentally captured by inshore fisheries in
Port Royal Sound, St. Helena Sound, Charleston Harbor, Cape Romain, and
Winyah Bay (M. Pate, SCDNR unpublished data 2016). The majority of
these captures comprise bycatch in trammel net fisheries (n >300 from
1992 to 2012; M. Arendt, SCDNR pers. comm. 2015). SCDNR captured 21
green turtles in trawl surveys between 2000 and 2021 (SCDNR unpublished
data 2022).
Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of South Carolina and Georgia,
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/
resting essential features that may require special management
considerations or protections. However, the Team concluded, and we
agree, that the area between and including Georgia and South Carolina
provides low conservation value because it supports relatively low
density benthic foraging/resting compared to other areas within the
range of the DPS.
North Carolina
Seagrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation are found
throughout nearshore waters of North Carolina. Juvenile green turtles
forage on seagrass beds in the waters of Core, Pamlico, Bogue, and
Albemarle Sounds (Epperly et al. 1995; Bass et al. 2006; Epperly et al.
2007; McClellan et al. 2009). Juveniles also forage in Back Sound and
the Cape Fear, New, and White Oak River estuaries from April through
November (Avens et al. 2003; Avens and Lohmann 2004; Snoddy et al.
2009; Snoddy and Southwood Williard 2010) or December (Williard et al.
2017). Within the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System, a comprehensive
survey conducted during 2006 and 2007 documented 100,843 acres (408
km\2\) of seagrass beds. A subsequent survey during 2013 demonstrated
an overall decrease of 5.6 percent in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
System, with a decrease in continuous seagrass extent of 34.2 percent,
but an increase in patchy seagrass extent of 18.4 percent (Field et al.
2021).
Green turtles were documented to commonly occur in North Carolina's
inshore waters as early as 1884, prior to which the population had been
sufficient to support a small-scale fishery both for individual fisher
consumption and commercial sale (True 1884). These green turtles were
reported to be small, suggesting that the majority of green turtles
inhabiting these waters were juveniles. At the peak of the fishery, up
to 100 green turtles were caught at one time, and turtles were
``shipped by the barrel'' for sale (Coker 1906). By the early 1920s,
green turtles were rarely encountered; their scarcity was attributed to
overfishing and egg collection from southern nesting beaches (Coker
1906).
Since then, direct capture for research studies, bycatch data, and
satellite telemetry show that there is a large population of benthic
foraging/resting green turtles in waters off North Carolina. From 1988
to 1992, commercial fishers in Core and Pamlico Sounds reported that
juvenile green turtles comprised 4 to 16 percent of annual sea turtle
bycatch (total n = 21; Epperly et al. 1995). Subsequent standardized
fishery-dependent sampling conducted in Core and Pamlico Sounds from
1997 to 2009 demonstrated a significant increase in green turtle catch
per unit effort (CPUE) of 4,250 percent and an increased proportion of
green turtles in the species distribution from 19 to 42 percent
(Epperly et al. 2007; Braun McNeill et al. 2018). This increase in the
number of green turtles captured corresponded with a significant
decrease in size distribution, with the predominant SCL size class
shifting from 30-35 cm to 25-30 cm (Braun McNeill et al. 2018).
Analysis of green turtle bycatch in the North Carolina inshore gillnet
fishery also indicated an increase in CPUE of more than 650 percent
between 2001 and 2016 (Putman et al. 2020). The presence of foraging/
resting green turtles in North Carolina is also supported by data on
incidental captures collected by the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries and the NMFS Beaufort Laboratory (n = 1,485), stranding
records (n = 2,969), and necropsy data indicating that at least 43.5
percent of necropsied turtles (n = 485) had seagrass or other
vegetation in their gut (NCWRC unpublished data 2015). Analyzing a
subset of incidental captures (n = 757) indicates that most individuals
are juveniles, with an average SCL of 32.4 cm, a minimum SCL of 20.6
cm, and a maximum SCL of 94.5 cm (SEFSC unpublished data 2022).
Incidental captures confirm that the benthic foraging/resting essential
features extend westward into the Pamlico and Albemarle Sound estuaries
and northward into the Cape Fear, New, and White Oak Rivers (Epperly et
al. 2007; SEFSC unpublished data 2015). Seven juveniles that survived
capture in gillnets in the lower Cape Fear River remained there (within
a 3 km radius of the capture site) after release for up to 42 days
(Snoddy and Williard 2010). Similarly, 10 juveniles (27.9 to 42.5 cm
SCL) captured in Core, Back, and Pamlico Sounds inhabited areas from
Bogue Sound to Pamlico Sound. These turtles were strongly associated
with seagrass habitat (most frequently at the edge of seagrass beds)
and retreated into the beds when disturbed by natural and anthropogenic
activities, including vessel and fishing activities (McClellan and Read
2009). In general, each turtle used a restricted area and showed little
movement during the summer, followed by an increase in movement during
the fall, consistent with an onset of migratory behavior (McClellan and
Read 2009). Generally, turtles occupied mean temperatures between 26
and 28 [deg]C in water depths of generally less than one meter (but up
to depths of four meters) and in areas close to the shoreline, near
seagrass meadows (McClellan and Read 2009). During winter months, when
water temperatures fall below habitable levels, juveniles typically
move out of shallow estuarine waters to deeper waters on the North
Carolina shelf south of Cape Hatteras, migrate south along the
continental shelf to waters off the coast of Florida, or migrate east
to oceanic waters in the North Atlantic (Epperly et al. 1995; Read et
al. 2004; Southwood Williard et al. 2017). Barden Inlet and the Cape
Lookout Bight appear to be important transit routes, although other
nearby inlets are also used by green turtles to move in and out of
estuarine waters (McClellan and Read 2009; Southwood Williard et al.
2017). During rapid drops in water temperatures in fall and winter
months, juvenile green turtles may be susceptible to cold-stunning
(Niemuth et al. 2020). In early 2016, more than 1,800 hypothermic green
turtles were found in eastern Pamlico and southern Core Sounds in a 4-
week period, documenting the importance of these benthic foraging/
resting areas (NCWRC unpublished data 2016).
Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that all nearshore waters
[[Page 46589]]
of North Carolina, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain
benthic foraging/resting essential features that may require special
management considerations or protections. The Team also concluded, and
we agree, that the area including Pamlico, Core, and Back Sound (i.e.,
up to but not including Currituck and Albemarle Sounds) provides high
conservation value to the DPS. This area supports a high density of
green turtles (predominantly small juveniles) inhabiting extensive
seagrass habitat during the majority of the year, as documented by
numerous records of satellite tracking, directed captures for research,
fishery bycatch, cold stuns, and strandings (McClellan and Read 2009;
Braun McNeill et al. 2018; Putman et al. 2020; NCWRC unpublished data
2022). The area from Cape Fear River to Bogue Sound (including Cape
Fear, New, and White Oak Rivers and Bogue Sound) provides moderate
conservation value because the area supports a moderate density of
green turtles (predominantly small juveniles) inhabiting areas of
extensive submerged aquatic vegetation, as documented by fishery
bycatch and stranding data (NCWRC unpublished data 2022). The area from
Albemarle Sound to the Virginia border provides low conservation value
because it supports a relatively low density of green turtles
(predominantly small juveniles) compared to other areas and as
documented by few records of satellite tracking, relocation trawling,
fishery bycatch, and stranding observations (Southwood Williard et al.
2017, NCWRC unpublished data 2022).
Virginia Through Massachusetts
Seagrass beds are found throughout inshore and nearshore waters
from Virginia through Massachusetts. Green turtles occur in this area,
but there are relatively few published studies. Aerial survey data
indicate the presence of green turtles in nearshore waters from
Virginia to New York (S. Barco, Virginia Aquarium unpublished data
2022; Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species
unpublished data 2022). Stranding, cold stun, and incidental capture
data also demonstrate the presence of green turtles from Virginia to
Massachusetts. Schwartz (1960) published the first record of a green
turtle in Maryland's Chincoteague Bay, along the Atlantic coast. Green
turtles occur in the Chesapeake Bay (Hardy 1972; Barnard et al. 1989)
and in parts of the Potomac River, where they graze on underwater
grasses (Carter and Rybicki 1985). Analyses of stomach contents of
turtles stranded in Virginia and Maryland suggest that these turtles
are foraging on eelgrass and macroalgae, including Ulva spp. (Bellmund
et al. 1987; Barco et al. 2015). From 2004 through 2006, four green
turtles were captured alive in pound nets set in Chesapeake Bay (around
Fishing Bay, Maryland), one of which was a recapture (Kimmel 2006;
Kimmel 2007). These occurrence data are corroborated by S. Barco
(Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center unpublished data 2022), who
acoustically tagged and monitored seven green turtles using a Navy
acoustic receiver array in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, James River
tributary, and coastal waters. Stranding, cold stun, and incidental
capture data also demonstrate the presence of green turtles from
Virginia to Massachusetts. Twelve cold stunned green turtles were
rehabilitated and released off Massachusetts with satellite tags by the
New England Aquarium; most exhibited normal migratory behaviors, moving
south or offshore as water temperatures dropped; however, one remained
in Long Island Sound (Robinson et al. 2020). In New York, juvenile
green turtles forage on seagrass and algae throughout the eastern
Peconic Bay Estuary system, Long Island Sound, and in Shinnecock Bay on
Long Island's southern shore (Montello et al. 2022). In these areas, 35
green turtles were incidentally captured in pound nets between 2002 and
2004 (Morreale et al. 2005). Further, between 1988 and 1992, 30 green
turtles were captured and tagged in New York waters. Seven individuals
were recaptured, indicating residency, with one 38 cm SCL green turtle
recaptured approximately 1 year after initial encounter, 13 km from its
original tagging site in Gardiners Bay (Morreale and Standora 1998).
Based on the annual timing of encounters, green turtles appear to
reside in these New York waters seasonally, arriving in early July and
departing in October. Evaluation of gut contents from 11 green turtles
demonstrated that green turtles in this area were foraging on algae and
eelgrass (Zostera marina) (Burke et al. 1992). Growth rates calculated
for the seven recaptures (ranging from 20 to 40 cm SCL) demonstrated
significant growth, and rates of growth were comparable to those
observed in other regions (Morreale and Standora 1998). Two green
turtles were recovered in North Carolina within 180 days after
originally being tagged during the foraging season in New York,
indicating capacity for seasonal migration to avoid lethally cold water
temperatures. Since 2019, five green turtles have been rehabilitated,
satellite tagged, and released by the New York Marine Rescue Center (M.
Montello, New York Marine Rescue Center unpublished data 2021). Several
turtles remained in New York waters before transmissions ceased, two
migrated south along the coast, and one moved south in more offshore
waters.
Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that all nearshore waters from Virginia to Massachusetts,
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain the benthic
foraging/resting essential features that may require special management
considerations or protections. However, the Team concluded, and we
agree, that this area provides low conservation value because it
supports relatively low density benthic foraging/resting, compared to
other areas within the range of the DPS.
Puerto Rico
In Puerto Rico, green turtles forage on seagrasses, macroalgae, and
invertebrates and rest on coral reefs. Seagrass is especially abundant
around Culebra and Vieques Islands. Juveniles forage throughout
shallow, nearshore areas of Culebra Island, in inshore bays around Mona
Island, and on the northern coast of the main island of Puerto Rico.
From 1985 to 2021, 840 green turtles, mainly juveniles, have stranded
in Puerto Rico (C. Diez, PRDRNA, unpublished data 2022). The existing
critical habitat designation (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998)
identifies the marine areas around Culebra Island, from the mean high
water line extending seaward 5.6 km (3 nautical miles), as essential to
the conservation of the species. These waters include Culebra's
outlying Keys including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniqu[iacute],
Isla Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pe[ntilde]a, Las
Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza,
Los Gemelos, and Piedra Steven.
Seagrass beds surrounding Culebra provide important foraging
resources for juvenile, subadult and adult green turtles. Additionally,
coral reefs surrounding the island provide refugia for rest, shelter,
and protection from predators. The 1998 critical habitat designation
was based largely on 165 green turtles captured at Culebra between 1987
and 1989 in depths of 9.1 m or less (Collazo et al. 1992). Collazo et
al. (1992) found that juveniles foraged on seagrass beds at Culebrita
Island, Mosquito Bay, Puerto Manglar, and Tamarindo Grande. Diez et al.
(2010),
[[Page 46590]]
Patr[iacute]cio et al. (2014), and Patr[iacute]cio et al. (2017)
confirmed that Culebra areas continue to contain the benthic foraging/
resting essential features and serve as an important developmental
habitat for juvenile green turtles. Griffin et al. (2017) recommended
continued protection of this critical habitat unit to ensure
recruitment into the adult life stage. An mtDNA mixed stock analysis of
103 juvenile green turtles foraging around Culebra Island indicates
origin from four locations: Costa Rica, Mexico, Florida, and Suriname
(Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2017). Capture data (n = 665) over 13 years of
surveys at Culebra Island indicate that juvenile turtles reside in
Tortuga Bay (n = 122 turtles; Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2014) and Manglar
Bay (n = 187 turtles; Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2014), where juveniles
forage on the seagrasses, S. filiforme and H. wrightii, and the algae
T. testudinum. There is little movement between the two areas, and each
bay appears to represent a distinct foraging ground with a unique
aggregation of juveniles (Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2011). Acoustic
tracking of 21 green turtles (38 to 70 cm SCL) confirmed high site
fidelity within each bay, with little connectivity between the bays
(Griffin et al. 2019). Green turtles were also captured in Mosquito
Bay, where there are abundant seagrass beds (Patricio et al. 2014).
These data support the designation of waters around Culebra as
specific areas containing the benthic foraging/resting essential
features; however, we are not aware of any data to support the
designation to 5.6 km (3 nautical miles). The original designation was
based largely on the data presented by Collazo et al. (1992), but these
data described turtles foraging and resting in 9.1 m or less (Collazo
et al. 1992). Studies of green turtles conducted over the past 20 years
at Culebra further support the presence of the benthic foraging/resting
essential features in depths of 20 m or less (C. Diez, PRDRNA pers.
comm. 2022).
Recent rapid assessments identified high density foraging/resting
areas off the main island of Puerto Rico, where juvenile turtles
aggregate at Punta Salinas, Escambron-Normandy, and Arrecifes Isla
Verde (C. Diez, PRDRNA unpublished data 2022). While Culebra supports a
greater overall abundance of green turtles, these small areas host high
densities of green turtles (C. Diez, PRDRNA pers. comm. 2022). For
example, 30 green turtles were captured off Punta Salinas in 2 days,
and another 10 green turtles were sighted in 2 hours (C. Diez, PRDRNA
unpublished data 2022). Additional rapid assessment surveys have
identified green turtles in seagrass and coral reef habitats throughout
the northern coast of the main island of Puerto Rico (Diez 2022). Green
turtles were observed foraging and resting in urban sites, including:
Escambron (San Juan; n = 45), Rompeolas (n = 33), Tres Palmas (Rincon;
n = 25), Isla Verde (Carolina; n = 40), and Pt. Salinas (n = 26) in the
municipality of Toa Baja (Diez 2022). The presence of green turtles
during these rapid assessments indicates that the area contains the
benthic foraging/resting essential features in sufficient condition,
distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support
survival, development, and growth of green turtles.
Around Mona Island, turtles are most commonly observed off the
southern coast, in Sectors 1 and 5 (C. Diez and R. vanDam, PRDRNA
unpublished data 2021). All size classes have been observed, but most
are juveniles and sub-adults (30 to 50 cm), especially in Sector 5 (C.
Diez and R. vanDam, PRDRNA unpublished data 2021). In Sector 1, which
is adjacent to one of the higher density green turtle nesting beaches,
more adults (males and females) have been observed in recent years (C.
Diez and R. vanDam, PRDRNA unpublished data 2021). There are several
areas where turtles forage on Thalassia and Halodule seagrass beds (C.
Diez, PRDRNA pers. comm. 2016). These areas include waters off
Pajargos, Brava, Coco, and Caigo no Caigo beaches.
In addition, green turtles were identified foraging on the north
central beach on Vieques Island (i.e., Mosquito Cay). To evaluate
possible important foraging areas for sea turtles, PRDRNA evaluated
coastal marine habitats around Vieques (Diez 2003). They surveyed from
Mosquito Cay through Bahia Esperanza to the southwest; turtles were
observed along the north coast at Mosquito Cay and between Isable and
Punta Goleta, at Pocito Reef in the Federal Reserve, and in lagoons in
the south (including Puerto Mosquito; Diez 2003).
Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded,
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of Puerto Rico, from the mean
high water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting
essential features that may require special management considerations
or protections. The Team concluded, and we agree, that the area
surrounding Culebra Island provides high conservation value. It has
been designated as critical habitat since 1998. The area between the
mean high water line and 20 m depth contour (which is different from
the original designation but better reflects the best available data)
hosts a high abundance (highest in Puerto Rico) of benthic foraging/
resting green turtles as demonstrated by tagging (i.e., 700 turtles in
20 years; C. Diez, PRDRNA unpublished data 2022) and numerous studies
(Collazo et al. 1992; Diez et al. 2010; Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2014;
Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2017; Griffin et al. 2019). The northern coast
of Puerto Rico Island (including Punta Salinas, Escambron, and
Arrecifes Isla Verde Natural Reserve) is also of high conservation
value because it hosts a high density of benthic foraging/resting green
turtles (C. Diez, PRDRNA unpublished data 2022). All other areas in
Puerto Rico are of low conservation value because they support a
relatively low or unknown density of foraging/resting turtles. However,
some areas (Maunabo, Guayama, eastern and southern Vieques Island and
southern Mona Island) contain the reproductive essential feature and
are thus of high conservation value to the DPS.
Review of INRMPs for the North Atlantic DPS
DoD provided, and we reviewed, INRMPs for 29 installations (NMFS
2023c). Of these, 3 do not overlap with areas under consideration as
critical habitat for the North Atlantic DPS (Naval Submarine Base New
London, Naval Support Facility Dahlgren, and Naval Research Laboratory
Chesapeake Bay Detachment), and 15 occur in areas that, as discussed in
the following section, we propose to exclude based on economic impacts.
The remaining 11 INRMPs include: Naval Station Mayport, Naval Air
Station Key West, Naval Support Activity Panama City, Naval Air Station
Pensacola, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Eglin Air Force Base,
Tyndall Air Force Base, Patrick Space Force Base and Cape Canaveral
Space Force Station, Hurlburt Field, MacDill Air Force Base, and
Mu[ntilde]iz Air National Guard Base Punta Salinas. We are working with
DoD to identify relevant elements to protect the habitat from the types
of effects that would be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-
modification analysis (50 CFR 424.12(h)). We will consider this and
other information to determine whether a benefit is provided prior to
publication of the final rule to designate critical habitat.
Economic Impacts for the North Atlantic DPS
For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the
benefits of
[[Page 46591]]
designation, as represented by its conservation value to the North
Atlantic DPS (see Table 1). Specific areas providing high conservation
value are associated with a combined total annualized impact of
$615,000. Specific areas providing moderate conservation value are
associated with a combined total annualized impact of $24,000. Specific
areas providing low conservation value are associated with a combined
total annualized impact of $375,000. Moderate and high conservation
value areas are moderately and highly important (respectively) to
supporting the overall life history and recovery of the DPS, and the
benefits of designating these areas are not outweighed by the low
economic impacts. We conclude, however, that the economic impacts
outweigh the benefits of designating specific areas of low conservation
value. Based on the Team's criteria and best available data, low
conservation value areas do not contain essential reproductive and/or
migratory features. Furthermore, these areas host a lower abundance
and/or density of foraging/resting green turtles, suggesting that they
provide less conservation value to the DPS relative to areas hosting
moderate or high abundances or densities. Although the estimated
annualized costs across all of the low conservation value areas for the
DPS were low ($375,000), we concluded that these impacts outweighed the
benefits of designating these areas. Therefore, we propose to exclude
the following areas from the critical habitat designation: northern
Texas, Louisiana through Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, northern
North Carolina, Virginia through Massachusetts, and several areas in
Puerto Rico. As discussed in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2)
Report (NMFS 2023c), we conclude that exclusion of these low
conservation value areas from the critical habitat designation will not
result in extinction of the DPS.
Table 1--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
Habitat for the North Atlantic DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Area Conservation value impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sargassum.................... High.................. $55,000
Texas: Mexico border to High.................. 14,000
Lavaca-Matagorda Bay.
Texas: Lavaca-Matagorda Bay Moderate.............. 9,800
to Galveston Bay.
Texas: all other areas....... Low................... 14,000
Louisiana.................... Low................... 15,000
Mississippi.................. Low................... 15,000
Alabama...................... Low................... 16,000
Florida...................... High.................. 510,000
Georgia...................... Low................... 18,000
South Carolina............... Low................... 18,000
North Carolina: Pamlico, High.................. 10,000
Core, and Back Sounds.
North Carolina: Bogue Sound, Moderate.............. 14,000
White Oak River, New River,
and Cape Fear River.
North Carolina: all other Low................... 7,600
areas.
Virginia to Massachusetts.... Low................... 246,000
Puerto Rico: Culebra......... High.................. 5,600
Puerto Rico: Vieques (South High.................. 4,000
and East).
Puerto Rico: South Mona High.................. 800
Island.
Puerto Rico: North Puerto High.................. 12,000
Rico Island.
Puerto Rico: Maunabo......... High.................. 1,200
Puerto Rico: Guayama......... High.................. 2,100
Puerto Rico: all other areas. Low................... 25,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Impacts for the North Atlantic DPS
We received 36 requests for exclusions due to national security
impacts of specific areas under consideration for proposed critical
habitat of the North Atlantic DPS (NMFS 2023c). Of these, 15 occur in
areas that were excluded based on economic impacts that outweighed the
benefits of designating critical habitat. The remaining 21 requests are
not yet reasonably specific to weigh national and homeland security
impacts against the benefits of a potential critical habitat
designation. We are working with DoD and DHS to gather the specific
information and will consider it prior to publication of the final rule
to designate critical habitat.
Specific Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the North
Atlantic DPS
For the threatened North Atlantic DPS of green turtles, we propose
to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 1,047,564 km\2\ of
Sargassum habitat and 96,349 km\2\ of nearshore waters (from the mean
high water line to 20 m depth) in Florida, Texas (from the Mexico
border to and including Galveston Bay), North Carolina (from the South
Carolina border to but not including Albemarle Sound), and Puerto Rico
(Culebra Island, Maunabo, Guayama, and northern Puerto Rico Island,
southern Mona Island, eastern and southern Vieques Island). Sargassum
habitat contains the surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential
features. Florida's nearshore waters contain reproductive, migratory,
and benthic foraging/resting essential features. Texas' (from the
Mexico border to and including Galveston Bay) and North Carolina's
(from the South Carolina border to but not including Albemarle Sound)
nearshore waters contain benthic foraging/resting essential features.
Puerto Rico's nearshore waters contain benthic foraging/resting
essential features, and nearshore waters off Maunabo, Guayama, southern
Mona Island, eastern and southern Vieques Island also contain the
reproductive essential feature. All areas proposed for designation are
of moderate or high conservation value to the DPS. A total area of
107,682 km\2\ is proposed for exclusion because the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of these low conservation
value areas. The Team found, and we agree, that exclusion of these
areas from
[[Page 46592]]
the critical habitat designation would not result in extinction of this
DPS (NMFS 2023a). At this time, we have not received reasonably
specific information with which to propose exclusions based on national
security impacts. At this time, no areas are ineligible for designation
as critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not
identified any unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation
of this DPS; thus we are not proposing to designate any unoccupied
areas.
South Atlantic DPS
The South Atlantic DPS is defined as green turtles originating from
the South Atlantic Ocean, including those hatching from nests on the
beaches of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The DPS is bounded by the
following lines and coordinates: along the northern and eastern coasts
of South America (east of 7.5[deg] N, 77[deg] W); 14[deg] N, 77[deg] W
to 14[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W to 19[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W in the north and
west; 19[deg] N Lat. in the northeast; 40[deg] S 19[deg] E in the
southeast; and 40[deg] S Lat. in the south. The geographical area
occupied by this DPS includes waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
Within the U.S. EEZ, the range of the DPS includes waters up to 200
nautical miles offshore of the USVI (St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John,
Great St. James, and Little St. James). See the Draft Biological Report
for a map of this area. Individuals of this DPS may also forage and
rest in areas used by the North Atlantic DPS (described above).
The Recovery Plan for the U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that recovery requires
protection of nesting and marine habitat, specifically: the
identification and restoration of important foraging habitats,
improvement of water quality, and prevention from degradation and
destruction from contamination, fishing gears, vessel anchoring, oil
and gas activities, and dredging.
Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their
Conservation Value to the South Atlantic DPS
The recovery of the South Atlantic DPS is dependent on successful
reproduction. While nesting occurs on beaches, the marine areas
adjacent to nesting beaches are essential for mating, movement of
reproductive females on and off nesting beaches, internesting, and the
swim frenzy and early dispersal (i.e., transit) of post-hatchlings.
Therefore, the following reproductive feature is essential to the
conservation of the South Atlantic DPS: From the mean high water line
to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters
adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS, to
allow for the transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive
individuals and the transit of post-hatchlings.
The Team used the following information to identify this
reproductive essential feature. USFWS reviewed nesting data to identify
beaches considered for terrestrial critical habitat, which begins at
the mean high water line. Therefore, in-water areas considered for
marine critical habitat also begin at the mean high water line (i.e.,
waters adjacent to nesting beaches). To determine the offshore boundary
of the reproductive essential feature, the Team reviewed satellite
tracking data for 10 females nesting at Buck Island, USVI; during the
internesting period, the females remained in nearshore (<1.5 km),
shallow waters (<20 m depth), and within approximately 10 km of their
nesting beaches (Hart et al. 2017). The Team concluded, and we agree,
that the reproductive essential feature occurs from the mean high water
line to 20 m depth in waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as
critical habitat by USFWS.
The reproductive essential feature may require special management
considerations or protection to maintain unobstructed access to and
from nesting beaches and disturbance-free nearshore areas for mating,
internesting, and post-hatchling transit. The Recovery Plan (NMFS and
USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed to prevent the
destruction of habitats from oil and gas, dredging, fishing, and vessel
activities. In addition, the reproductive essential feature may require
special management considerations regarding nearshore and offshore
structures, construction, aquaculture, and seismic surveys. Nearshore
structures or operations have the potential to block passage of nesting
females and post-hatchlings. Nearshore or offshore structures may also
affect post-hatchlings' movement through the following mechanisms:
disorientation due to lighting, concentration of predators, disruption
of wave patterns necessary for orientation, and/or creation of
excessive longshore currents, which run parallel to the beach, rather
than carrying post-hatchlings to their offshore habitats. Oil and gas
activities may impact the reproductive essential feature. Oil spills
pose a considerable threat by obstructing or contaminating access to
and from nesting beaches (Meylan 1982). Alternative energy facilities
(such as wind farms and underwater turbines) and large-scale fishing,
dredging, and aquaculture activities may block passage of reproductive
individuals or post-hatchlings. Construction (on land and in water),
vessel traffic, and seismic surveys may also act as deterrents (visual
or auditory) to reproductive individuals, preventing their use of
preferred areas. Finally, climate change may result in the shift or
loss of nesting beach habitat, which would alter the location or value
of adjacent marine reproductive areas.
To identify specific areas containing the reproductive feature
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS'
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed St. Croix nesting
beaches as terrestrial critical habitat elsewhere in today's Federal
Register (see <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-
0164).
For each of these areas, we identified the adjacent marine area,
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, as containing the
reproductive feature essential to the conservation of the South
Atlantic DPS and which may require special management consideration or
protection. Because some of these areas are located in proximity to one
another, and females move between them, we identified an inclusive area
as allowed in 50 CFR 424.12(d). All of these areas are of high
conservation value to the DPS because they are required for successful
reproduction, which is directly linked to population growth and
recovery. Females must use these reproductive areas to reach the
nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS and for
internesting. These areas are also essential for post-hatchling swim
frenzy and early dispersal.
No Migratory Essential Feature for the South Atlantic DPS
The recovery of the South Atlantic DPS requires that adult turtles
reproduce and forage/rest. When reproduction and benthic foraging/
resting areas are geographically separated, turtles must successfully
migrate between these areas; however, reproductive individuals of the
South Atlantic DPS generally do not migrate from nesting beaches to
distant foraging areas. Instead, the majority (7 of 10 tracked post-
nesting females) remain resident in USVI waters for both reproduction/
nesting and benthic foraging/resting (Hart et al. 2017). When they
migrate to distant areas, they do not use narrow, constricted migratory
corridors: long-distance captures of adults tagged at Buck Island (n =
3) reveal the use of multiple pathways,
[[Page 46593]]
over oceanic waters (Hart et al. 2017). We were unable to identify a
particular depth or distance from shore used by adult green turtles to
migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. We
were also unable to identify any other physical or biological feature
used by migrating turtles because the best available data demonstrate
variation among movement patterns of individuals in oceanic habitats.
That is to say that migration is not constricted or confined by a
continental shelf, current, or other feature, but rather occurs over a
large, oceanic environment without defining features (such as depth or
distance from shore). Therefore, we were unable to identify or define a
migratory essential feature for the South Atlantic DPS.
Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential
Features and Their Conservation Value to the South Atlantic DPS
The recovery of the South Atlantic DPS requires successful
survival, growth and development of juveniles and the successful
survival and reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to identify
surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features for post-hatchlings
and juveniles due to insufficient data on this developmental life stage
and its habitat requirements. For benthic juveniles and adults, benthic
habitats provide the food resources and refugia necessary to survive,
develop, grow, and reproduce. The following foraging/resting features
are essential to the conservation of the South Atlantic DPS: From the
mean high water line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia (e.g., rocks,
reefs, and troughs) and food resources (i.e., seagrass, marine algae,
and/or marine invertebrates) of sufficient condition, distribution,
diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support survival,
development, growth, and/or reproduction.
To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the
Team gathered data on foraging and resting green turtles in USVI. Post-
nesting females that did not migrate to distant benthic foraging/
resting areas (7 of 10) foraged within 50 km of nesting beaches and up
to 23 m in depth (Hart et al. 2017). The Team further analyzed these
data (Hart et al. 2017) and found that the turtles spent 94 percent of
their time in depths under 20 m. Green turtles forage and rest in
nearshore waters (within 1 mile (1.6 km) of land), where they are
significantly more abundant than in offshore waters of USVI (Boulon and
Olsen 1982). Green turtles forage on the abundance of seagrass beds
within USVI (Boulon 1983). Acoustic tracking of five juvenile green
turtles demonstrated the use of larger core habitats for foraging on
seagrass during the day and smaller core habitats for resting within
nearby coral reefs and artificial reefs at night (Ogden et al. 1983;
Gehrke 2017; P. Jobsis, University of the Virgin Islands pers. comm.
2022). The Team concluded, and we agree, that green turtles of this DPS
forage and rest primarily in waters up to 20 m deep.
The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special
management considerations or protection to maintain the quality and
quantity of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The
Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed
to prevent the degradation of habitats due to dredging, pollution, oil
and gas, fishing, and vessel activities. The Recovery Plan specifically
highlights the following activities needed to protect marine habitat:
restore and limit further development in important foraging habitats
(e.g., seagrass beds, which are relatively fragile habitats requiring
low energy and low turbidity waters; NMFS and USFWS 1991). The St.
Croix and St. Thomas East End Marine Park Management Plans identify sea
turtles, seagrass, and coral reefs (which serve as green turtle
refugia) as natural resources requiring conservation and protection
from threats, which include: land-based sources of pollution, fishing
practices that impact seagrass, oil spills, and climate change. There
has been a historical decline in the seagrass beds in Maho and Francis
Bays, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, due to heavy boat usage (Williams
1988). Anchor scars caused a loss of seagrass beds up to 6.5 m\2\/day
or 1.8 percent per year, and there was minimal regrowth within 7 months
(Williams 1988). Anchors destroy the regenerative capacity of seagrass
roots and rhizomes and disrupt critical nutrient remineralization
processes in the sediments; such losses are expected to reduce the
carrying capacity for green turtles (Williams 1998). In St. Croix,
sediment contamination from coastal and upstream industrial sites has
the potential to impact foraging habitat (Ross and DeLorenzo 1997).
Within the range of the South Atlantic DPS, many areas contain food
resources and underwater refugia. Specifically, green turtles forage on
seagrass beds and rest in reefs throughout USVI (Boulon 1983). The Team
relied on the occurrence of benthic foraging/resting green turtles to
determine which of these areas contain resources sufficient to support
survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. The major sources
of data for this DPS include rapid assessments and personal
observations by sea turtle biologists in USVI: N. Angeli and Sean
Kelly, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR); K.
Stewart, Ocean Foundation; P. Jobsis University of the Virgin Islands;
and A. Anderson and W. Melamet, Friends of Virgin Islands National
Park. As with other DPSs, the presence of green turtles during these
rapid assessments or observations indicates that the area supports the
benthic foraging/resting essential features in sufficient condition,
distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support
survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. The Team relied on
these scientists' expertise to compare the relative abundance or
densities of green turtles in each specific area to determine its
conservation value to the DPS. Some turtles of the South Atlantic DPS
may forage in distant areas identified as containing the benthic
foraging/resting essential features for the North Atlantic DPS; genetic
analyses are underway to evaluate the extent of shared foraging areas.
St. Croix
Green turtles forage within seagrass beds and rest in coral reefs
throughout the nearshore areas of St. Croix as demonstrated by foraging
studies, aerial surveys, and expert opinion (K. Stewart, Ocean
Foundation; N. Angelia and Sean Kelly, USVI DPNR pers. comm. 2022).
Aerial surveys documented 108 green turtles during 25 flights over 7
months in 1979 and 173 green turtles during 29 flights over 2 months in
1980 (Boulon and Olsen 1982). The highest densities were observed near
Buck Island, but turtles were observed throughout the waters of St.
Croix, ranging from 0.14 to 0.44 turtles per nautical mile (Boulon and
Olsen 1982). In waters off Buck Island Reef National Monument, Pollock
(2013) observed 132 green turtles, mainly juveniles and subadults.
Adult sightings are positively correlated to seagrass cover (Pollock
2013), where they have small (on average, less than 3 km\2\), specific
home ranges (Griffin et al. 2020). K. Hart (USGS unpublished data 2022)
captured 205 green turtles (mainly juveniles) around Buck Island. Near
this area (in Teague Bay, St. Croix), Ogden et al. (1983) reported that
green turtles forage on seagrass (T. testudinum) during the day and use
coral reef resting sites (separated from the feeding areas by 0.2 to
0.5 km) at night. Additional high density foraging areas in St. Croix
include East End Marine Park and the southwest portion of the island
(Hart et al. in review). Green turtles also occur
[[Page 46594]]
in large numbers along the south shore, such as south of the airport
and off the refinery (K. Stewart, Ocean Foundation and Claudia Lombard,
USFWS pers. comm. 2022), and all along the leeward side of the island,
near Frederiksted and the pier (K. Stewart, Ocean Foundation pers.
comm. 2022).
Based on these data, and the input from sea turtle researchers
working in St. Croix, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the east,
west, and south areas of St. Croix are of high conservation value
because they host a large abundance of foraging/resting green turtles
(K. Stewart, Ocean Foundation, N. Angelia and Sean Kelly, USVI DPNR
pers. comm. 2022) and also contain the reproductive essential feature.
The Team concluded, and we agree, that all other areas of St. Croix are
of moderate conservation value because of the moderate abundance of
foraging/resting green turtles.
St. Thomas
Green turtles forage within seagrass beds and rest in coral reefs
throughout the waters of St. Thomas (P. Jobsis University of the Virgin
Islands pers. comm 2022). Michael (2020) observed 167 green turtles in
13 bays around St. Thomas and St. John, with the highest densities of
turtles (at least 1 turtle per hectare) found in Druif, Brewers,
Bolongo, Magens, and Sapphire Bays in St. Thomas. Earlier studies also
identified juvenile benthic foraging areas in waters surrounding St.
Thomas (Boulon and Frazer 1990). Between 1981 and 1983, resident
foraging subadults and juveniles were captured in relatively large
numbers at Little St. James and in the following areas of St. Thomas:
Smith Bay, Magens Bay, Red Hook Point, and Thatch Cay (Boulon 1983).
Aerial surveys documented green turtles in nearshore waters off St.
Thomas and St. John, where 266 green turtles were observed during 27
flights over 7 months in 1979, and 260 green turtles were observed
during 21 flights over 2 months in 1980 (Boulon and Olsen 1982). The
greatest densities of green turtles were observed in Magens Bay (Boulon
and Olsen 1982). Additional studies also demonstrated green turtles in
large numbers in Smith Bay and Red Hook (near Sapphire Bay) and Magens
Bay (Boulon 1983). Recapture data indicate that most turtles remained
in the bay where they were tagged (Boulon 1983). Gehrke (2017) found a
high residency rate: five acoustically tracked sea turtles stayed
within Brewers Bay 98 percent of the time showing a relatively small
average home range of 63.3 hectares.
Based on these data, and the input from sea turtle researchers
working in St. Thomas, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the
Druif, Brewers, Bolongo, Magens, and Sapphire Bays provide high
conservation value because they host a high abundance of foraging/
resting green turtles (P. Jobsis, University of the Virgin Island pers.
comm. 2022). The Team concluded, and we agree, that all other areas of
St. Thomas provide moderate conservation value because of the moderate
abundance of foraging/resting green turtles.
St. John
Green turtles forage within seagrass beds and rest in coral reefs
throughout the waters of St. John (A. Anderson and W. Melamet, Friends
of Virgin Islands National Park pers. comm. 2022). On St. John Island,
Michael (2020) observed the highest densities of green turtles (at
least one turtle per hectare) in Great Lameshur, Salt Pond, and
Watermelon Bays. Earlier studies also identified juvenile benthic
foraging areas in waters surrounding St. John (Boulon and Frazer 1990).
Aerial surveys identified high densities of green turtles in nearshore
waters off St. John (Boulon and Olsen 1982). In 1986, Williams (1998)
observed 50 to 78 green turtles foraging on seagrass in Maho and
Francis Bays, moving in and out of the bays to forage and rest
(Williams 1998). A. Anderson and W. Melamet (Friends of Virgin Islands
National Park pers. comm. 2022) identified several bays that have a
high probability of green turtle detection: Maho, Francis, Leinster,
Great and Little Lameshur, Honeymoon, Chocolate Hole, Caneel/Scott,
Salt Pond, Bjork Creek/Hurricane Hole, Round Bay, Hawksnest, and Coral
Bay.
Based on these data, and the input from sea turtle researchers
working in St. John, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the
following bays provide high conservation value because they host a high
abundance of foraging/resting green turtles: Maho, Francis, Leinster,
Great and Little Lameshur, Honeymoon, Chocolate Hole, Caneel/Scott,
Salt Pond, Bjork Creek/Hurricane Hole, Round Bay, Hawksnest, and Coral
Bay (A. Anderson and W. Melamet, Friends of Virgin Islands National
Park pers. comm. 2022). The Team concluded, and we agree, that all
other areas of St. John provide moderate conservation value because of
the moderate abundance of foraging/resting green turtles.
Review of INRMPs Within the Range of the South Atlantic DPS
We are not aware of any INRMPs for DoD installations that overlap
with areas under consideration as critical habitat for the South
Atlantic DPS.
Economic Impacts Within the Range of the South Atlantic DPS
For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the
benefits of designation, as represented by its conservation value to
the South Atlantic DPS (see Table 2). Specific areas providing high
conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized
economic impact of $12,000. Specific areas providing moderate
conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized
impact of $13,000. These moderate and high conservation value areas are
moderately and highly important (respectively) to supporting the
overall life history and recovery of the DPS, and the benefits of
designating these areas are not outweighed by the low economic impacts
of designation. No areas were of low conservation value. Therefore, we
do not propose to exclude any areas from the critical habitat
designation on the basis of economic impacts.
Table 2--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
Habitat for the South Atlantic DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Area Conservation value impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Croix: east, south and High.................. $5,500
west.
St. Croix (all other areas).. Moderate.............. 1,000
St. Thomas: Druif, Brewers, High.................. 4,800
Bolongo, Magens, and
Sapphire Bays.
St. Thomas (all other areas). Moderate.............. 9,120
[[Page 46595]]
St. John: Maho, Francis, High.................. 1,700
Leinster, Great and Little
Lameshur, Honeymoon,
Chocolate Hole, Caneel/
Scott, Salt Pond, Bjork
Creek/Hurricane Hole, Round
Bay, Hawksnest, and Coral
Bay.
St. John (all other areas)... Moderate.............. 3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Impacts Within the Range of the South Atlantic DPS
We have not received any requests for exclusions based on national
security impacts of specific areas proposed as critical habitat for the
South Atlantic DPS.
Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the South Atlantic
DPS
For the threatened South Atlantic DPS of green turtles, we propose
to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 303 km\2\ of
nearshore waters in USVI, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth.
St. Croix's nearshore waters contain reproductive and benthic foraging/
resting essential features. St. Thomas' and St. John's nearshore waters
contain benthic foraging/resting essential features. Each of the
specific areas proposed for designation is of moderate or high
conservation value to the DPS. Economic impacts do not outweigh the
benefits of designating these areas as critical habitat, and no areas
are proposed for exclusion under section 4(b)(2). No areas are
ineligible for designation as critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not identified any unoccupied areas
that are essential to the conservation of this DPS; thus we are not
proposing to designate any unoccupied areas.
East Pacific DPS
The East Pacific DPS is defined as green turtles originating from
the eastern Pacific Ocean, including those hatching from nests on the
beaches in Mexico and foraging off the coast of California. The range
of the DPS is bounded by: 41[deg] N, 143[deg] W in the northwest;
41[deg] N Lat. in the north; along the western coasts of the Americas
in the east; 40[deg] S Lat. in the south; and 40[deg] S, 96[deg] W in
the southwest. The geographical area occupied by this DPS includes
waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Within the U.S. EEZ, the range of
the DPS includes waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore of the U.S.
West Coast. See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for a map of
this area.
The 1998 Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East
Pacific Green Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998b) requires protection and
management of marine habitat, including foraging habitats.
Specifically, the Recovery Plan states, ``East Pacific green turtles
inhabit a variety of marine habitats, although we are most familiar
with their coastal habitat. Increased human presence in this and other
sea turtle habitats have contributed to habitat degradation, primarily
by coastal construction, increased recreational and fisheries use, and
increased industrialization. Habitat loss and degradation must be
prevented or slowed.'' To relevant scientific information, the Team
worked with biologists from the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
No Reproductive Essential Feature for the East Pacific DPS
The East Pacific DPS primarily nests in Mexico, Costa Rica, and
Ecuador (Seminoff et al. 2015). It does not nest on beaches under U.S.
jurisdiction. Thus, USFWS is not proposing terrestrial critical habitat
for this DPS, and correspondingly, we did not identify a reproductive
essential feature (e.g., unobstructed waters adjacent to nesting
beaches proposed for critical habitat by USFWS) for this DPS.
Specific Areas Containing the Migratory Essential Feature and Their
Conservation Value to the East Pacific DPS
The recovery of the East Pacific DPS requires that adult turtles
forage and reproduce. Because foraging and reproductive areas are
geographically separated, recovery also requires turtles to
successfully migrate between these areas. The following migratory
feature is essential to the conservation of the East Pacific DPS: From
the mean high water line to 10 km offshore, sufficiently unobstructed
corridors that allow for unrestricted transit between foraging and
nesting areas for reproductive individuals.
Some green turtles that nest on beaches in Mexico forage in the
waters of California, thus requiring migration to complete their life
cycle. The foraging population in California is small but has been
increasing since the early 2000s, likely as a result of increased
nesting in Mexico, which has been attributed to nesting beach
protection (Cliffton et al. 1982; Alvarado-D[iacute]az et al. 2001).
Juveniles comprise the majority of the California foraging population,
which is expected given the 17 to 30 year age-to-maturity and recent
increases in abundance (Turner Tomaszewicz et al. 2022).
Satellite tracking (telemetry) data were collected for 25 green
turtles for a foraging study in San Diego Bay (Eguchi et al. 2020,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) unpublished data 2021). The
majority of tracked turtles were juveniles, reflecting the demography
of the population. Juvenile turtles remained in San Diego Bay to forage
for the duration of the study. However, some adults were also tracked,
and five left the Bay (Dutton et al. 2019; SWFSC, unpublished data
2021). Four of the five adult turtles that left San Diego Bay migrated
south to Mexico, beyond U.S. jurisdiction; the fifth turtle migrated
north to other foraging areas. Three adult turtles were tracked to
nesting beaches in Mexico, with one making the round trip back to San
Diego Bay after nesting. The fourth turtle was male and presumably
migrated to waters off Mexico nesting beaches to mate. Between North
San Diego Bay and the U.S./Mexico border, the turtles remained close to
shore. They did not use a particular depth range but rather remained
between the high water line and 10 km offshore. Thus, distance from
shore, rather than depth, best describes the data and was used to
identify the migratory essential feature.
While the number of tracked turtles using the migratory corridor
from San Diego Bay to Mexico is small (n = 4), it is a relatively large
proportion of the entire foraging population, whose annual abundance
was estimated by Eguchi et al. (2010) as ranging from 16 to 60 green
turtles, with a confidence interval of 4 to 88 green turtles (this
number has likely increased in recent years; SWFSC unpublished data
2022). Thus, the tracking data of four green turtles represents a
relatively large proportion of the population, especially
[[Page 46596]]
given the age structure of the foraging population (i.e., mostly
juveniles) and given that adult females remigrate every 3 years (i.e.,
approximately one-third of adult females would be expected to migrate
from San Diego Bay to Mexico each year). Therefore, we conclude that
the migratory behavior of these four turtles is representative of the
population. Furthermore, this constricted, narrow migratory corridor is
essential to the conservation of the DPS because it allows adults to
move between their foraging areas in California and reproductive areas
off nesting beaches in Mexico.
During migration, reproductive individuals become concentrated in
narrow corridors, making them particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic
threats. These constricted migratory corridors may require special
management considerations or protection to ensure that migration is not
obstructed, deterred, or disturbed by: oil and gas activities
(including seismic exploration, construction, removal of platforms, oil
spills and response); alternative energy activities (including
installation of turbines, offshore wind facilities, and structures to
convert wave or tidal energy into power); dredging; and fishing and
aquaculture activities. For example, an oil spill and resulting
response activities may force migrating turtles far off their preferred
track. Similarly, alternative energy, fishing, aquaculture, and
dredging operations may deter turtles via blockages or noise (e.g.,
seismic surveys, Nelms et al. 2015). While we do not expect these
disturbances to prevent migration, they may delay arrival at mating
areas and nesting beaches, which could lead to suboptimal productivity.
Furthermore, the additional energy used during longer migrations could
reduce energy available for reproductive effort.
To identify specific areas containing the migratory feature
essential to the conservation of the DPS, the Team reviewed the
satellite tracking data described above. These data demonstrate that
green turtles migrate between benthic foraging/resting areas in San
Diego Bay and reproductive areas off nesting beaches in Mexico. Green
turtles remain close to shore, using the narrow migratory corridor
between the mean high water line and 10 km offshore, from North San
Diego Bay to the U.S./Mexico border. The Team concluded, and we agree,
that the migratory corridor between North San Diego Bay and the U.S./
Mexico border provides high conservation value to the DPS because
reproductive individuals use it to migrate between reproductive and
benthic foraging/resting areas. This migration is directly linked to
population growth, and if the narrow corridor was obstructed, the DPS
would not recover.
In addition to the tracking data described above, an individual was
tracked from Seal Beach NWR in Orange and Los Angeles Counties to Baja
California, Mexico. This female did not use a nearshore (i.e., 10 km
offshore) constricted or narrow corridor but instead moved more than 10
km offshore, into oceanic waters. Therefore, this area does not contain
the migratory essential feature.
Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential
Features and Their Conservation Value to the East Pacific DPS
The recovery of the East Pacific DPS requires successful survival,
growth, and development of juveniles and sub-adults, as well as the
successful survival and reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to
identify surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features for post-
hatchlings and juveniles due to insufficient data on this developmental
life stage and its habitat requirements. For benthic juveniles and
adults, benthic habitats provide the food resources and refugia
necessary to survive, develop, grow, and reproduce. The following
benthic foraging/resting features are essential to the conservation of
the East Pacific DPS: From the mean high water line to 20 m depth,
underwater refugia (e.g., rocks, reefs, and troughs) and food resources
(i.e., seagrass, marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates) of
sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density
necessary to support survival, development, growth, and/or
reproduction.
To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the
Team reviewed the following information. Within Southern California,
green turtles use diverse habitats within lagoons and bays, including
coastal inlets and estuaries. In depths up to 20 m, they forage on
seagrass, algae, and invertebrates in shallower areas and move to
deeper resting areas for rest. Areas located above the mean high tide
line are exposed to the air (i.e., not underwater) for a significant
amount of time and are unlikely to contain food resources at levels
necessary to support survival, development, growth, and/or
reproduction. Therefore, the benthic foraging/resting essential
features occur from the mean high water line to the 20 m depth contour.
A stable isotope study on 718 green turtles foraging in 16 areas
(including off the coast of California) indicates that turtles of this
DPS are omnivorous (Seminoff et al. 2021). Another stable isotope study
indicates that green turtles in San Diego Bay forage on invertebrates
(50 percent), seagrass (26 percent), and to a lesser extent red and
green algae (Lemons et al. 2011). Local seagrass pastures, especially
eelgrass (Zostera marina), are of great importance to the DPS because
they provide a major food resource and serve as habitat for mobile and
sessile invertebrate prey, such as sponges, tunicates, and mollusks
(Lemons et al. 2011; Crear et al. 2017). Where eelgrass is not present,
often in urbanized environments, green turtles forage on algae and
invertebrates that attach to rocky bottoms and hard man-made structures
(Crear et al. 2017). To account for their omnivorous diet, the
essential foraging feature includes a variety of food resources (i.e.,
seagrass, marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates).
After foraging, green turtles rest in underwater refugia (MacDonald
et al. 2013), even in urbanized environments where they rest among high
relief substrates and structures, including bridge pilings and
discharge outflows (Crear et al. 2017). Turtles move between foraging
sites and underwater refugia throughout the diel cycle (Seminoff et al.
2006; MacDonald et al. 2013; Crear et al. 2017). In the winter and in
some locations, turtles use underwater refugia during the day,
suggesting resting between diurnal foraging excursions (MacDonald et
al. 2013; Crear et al. 2017). Rest is marked by prolonged periods of
inactivity punctuated by long, deep, dives that allow turtles to
achieve neutral buoyancy and efficiently utilize oxygen; however,
turtles have also been documented resting for shorter time periods
(Crear et al. 2017; Seminoff et al. 2021). Turtles rest adjacent to
culverts (where tide scouring creates a deeper resting habitat), bridge
pilings, runoff outflows (Crear et al. 2017), and on the seafloor
within the warm-water effluent of power plants (MacDonald et al. 2012;
2013). Since the closure of a power plant and the loss of its warm
water effluent, green turtles continue to forage and rest in South San
Diego Bay; however, their night-time home ranges have expanded,
suggesting that they use resting sites that are separate from their
foraging areas (Eguchi et al. 2020). Thus, underwater refugia (e.g.,
rocks, reefs, and troughs) are essential for the conservation of the
DPS.
Generally, adults and benthic foraging juveniles occupy small home
ranges that include foraging resources and underwater refugia. For
example, green
[[Page 46597]]
turtles acoustically tracked in San Diego Bay occupied areas of 2.09 to
8.70 km\2\, remaining in one or two core areas more than half the time
(MacDonald et al. 2012). Larger turtles may use smaller core areas as a
result of increased familiarity and foraging efficiency (MacDonald et
al. 2012). Multiple recaptures within San Diego Bay between 1990 and
2020 confirm the site fidelity of foraging turtles (Eguchi et al. 2010;
MacDonald et al. 2012; NMFS' unpublished data 2021); however, some
individuals move long distances between foraging areas, including one
individual tracked from San Diego Bay to a foraging area near Long
Beach, California (SWFSC unpublished data 2016). Because of site
fidelity and small home ranges, underwater refugia and food resources
must be available in sufficient condition, distribution, diversity,
abundance, and density necessary to support survival, development,
growth, and/or reproduction.
The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special
management considerations or protection to maintain the quality and
quantity of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The
following may threaten these features (or threaten access to them)
include: dredging and disposal; shoreline development and construction
projects; beach nourishment; pipeline and cable projects; oil and gas
activities, such as seismic exploration, construction, removal of
platforms, and oil spills and response activities; alternative energy
structures or activities such as installation of turbines, wind farms,
and means to convert wave or tidal energy into power; agriculture and
other land-use projects; pollution; power and desalination plant
operations (i.e., discharges); wastewater treatment plant operations
(i.e., discharges); aquaculture and fishing activities; and vessel
operations. Such activities may alter the benthos and modify or destroy
eelgrass beds and associated shallow subtidal habitat, resulting in a
temporary loss of food resources, which would persist until seagrass,
macroalgae, and invertebrates are able to recolonize the area. For
example, Naval development in the Anaheim Bay/Seal Beach area involved
dredging, filling, and rip rap removal and placement, which likely
displaced green turtles from these areas temporarily (Hanna 2021).
Shoreline development and construction, agriculture, oil and gas
activities, desalination, wastewater treatment, and power plant
operations result in discharges or run-off, which may contribute to
sediment toxicity (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
2013), anthropogenic nitrogen loading (Seminoff et al. 2021), and other
water-quality impairments. Dredging also releases contaminants into
nearby waters and legacy chemicals back into coastal food webs, some of
which (e.g., trace metals) accumulate in eelgrass, Zostera marina
(Komoroske et al. 2011; Komoroske et al. 2012; Barraza et al. 2019;
Barraza et al. 2020). Power generating facilities, their warm water
discharges, and closures may affect the distribution of sea turtles and
their prey (Crear et al. 2016; Eguchi et al. 2020). Fishing and
aquaculture activities may reduce or displace food resources, such as
seagrass beds and invertebrates. Vessel activities modify seagrass beds
through propeller scarring, anchoring, and groundings. These activities
may also modify or destroy the underwater rocks, reefs, and troughs
used as refugia. Several activities also produce noise, which may
discourage the use of refugia (e.g., seismic surveys; Nelms et al.
2016). In addition, climate change is likely to affect foraging/resting
essential features in ways that may require special management
considerations or protection. Fortification of coastal developments, in
response to sea level rise, is likely to limit habitat availability,
with a negative impact on foraging resources, such as submerged aquatic
vegetation.
Within the range of the East Pacific DPS, many areas contain food
resources and underwater refugia that may serve as resting sites. The
Team relied on the occurrence of green turtles to determine which of
these areas contain resources sufficient to support their survival,
development, and growth. First, the Team identified areas where
foraging or resting green turtles have been documented in published,
peer-reviewed, scientific research studies. Next, the Team identified
areas where foraging or resting green turtles have been sighted by
scientists or members of the public (i.e., the NMFS turtle sightings
database). Finally, the Team used stranding data to confirm the
presence and relative abundance of green turtles in areas containing
foraging/resting essential features. Within bays and estuaries, the
Team had high confidence that stranding data reflect green turtle
foraging or resting locations, because they likely entered these areas
to forage or rest before becoming stranded there; however, in coastal
areas where currents may carry stranded turtles, the Team was less
confident that the stranding location accurately represented a turtle
foraging or resting location. The Team also identified areas where
green turtles forage in the warm water effluent of once-through cooling
water intake channels of power plants. These live, healthy turtles
often become entrained (i.e., entrapped) within the intake channels
while foraging/resting near the entrance. While the range of this DPS
extends north of Point Conception, California, these areas do not
contain the essential features, as defined above. Green turtles require
an adequate warm water season to gain enough nutrition to support
normal body function and somatic growth. Six months is the minimum
duration that constitutes an adequate growth season, and 15 [deg]C is
the minimum temperature threshold for green turtle activity. While
temperatures at or slightly above 15 [deg]C are not ideal for green
turtle activity, turtles will still forage at this temperature with
mild regional endothermy (SWFSC unpublished data 2022). Areas north of
Point Conception exhibit a limited warm water season, as offshore
temperatures remain above 15 [deg]C for less than 3 months per year,
and some months fall below 10 [deg]C. Because these areas host
suboptimal temperatures for most of the year, they are unable to
support the survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction of green
turtles. Therefore, the Team did not recommend these areas for
consideration as critical habitat, and analyses focused on areas south
of Point Conception, which we refer to as Southern California.
Southern California
Numerous green turtle research studies have been conducted in San
Diego Bay, which hosts a resident population of benthic foraging
juvenile and adult green turtles (Stinson 1984; McDonald et al. 1994;
Eguchi et al. 2010; Turner-Tomaszewicz and Seminoff 2011; MacDonald et
al. 2012; MacDonald et al. 2013). When the South Bay Power Plant was
operational, turtles occupied small home ranges in South San Diego Bay
(south of Sweetwater Inlet), where they foraged on dense eelgrass (Z.
marina) and associated macroalgae and invertebrates during the day and
rested at night (and during the day in winter), along the effluent
outfall channel and jetty habitat (MacDonald et al. 2012; MacDonald et
al. 2013). Following power plant closure, turtles continue to be
observed year-round in this area. Turtles forage on seagrass in the
South and Central Bays (MacDonald et al. 2012; MacDonald et al. 2013),
which have dense seagrass beds that have expanded to several thousand
acres during the past several years;
[[Page 46598]]
however, the industrialized jetties on the eastern shores of the
Central Bay do not appear to be used by turtles, perhaps due to the
heavy boat traffic. Although less studied, the North Bay does not
appear to support significant green turtle foraging (MacDonald et al.
2012; NMFS, unpublished data 2016), likely because seagrass is less
abundant in this part of San Diego Bay; however, turtles must use this
area to access foraging areas in the Central and South Bay.
North of San Diego Bay, La Jolla Shores is an exceptionally
productive area with rocky reefs (habitat for invertebrates), seagrass,
and algae. Hanna et al. (2021) described a resident population of green
turtles at La Jolla Shores. In their community-based science study,
turtles were observed foraging 14.9 percent of the time and resting 2.3
percent of the time in water temperatures as low as 15.8 [deg]C, one of
the lowest recorded temperatures documented for foraging turtles of
this DPS (Hanna et al. 2021). At La Jolla Cove, a small area within La
Jolla Shores, consistent anecdotal data demonstrate year-round
occupation by green turtles, often with multiple turtles congregating
in a small area (R. Pace pers. comm. 2014 to 2016).
Studies of Seal Beach NWR demonstrate a resident green turtle
population in that area (Crear et al. 2016; Crear et al. 2017; Hanna
2021). Juvenile and sub-adult sea turtles forage and rest in the San
Gabriel River, Seal Beach NWR (including the 7th Street Basin),
Alamitos Bay, and Anaheim Bay (Crear et al. 2017). Hanna (2021)
satellite tracked 16 green turtles captured in Seal Beach NWR and found
that they spent the majority of their time there; however, 4 turtles
transitioned into Anaheim Bay, 2 moved offshore before returning to
Anaheim Bay, and 1 visited Huntington Harbor frequently (Hanna 2021).
Generally, areas occupied by turtles were characterized by eelgrass
and/or soft mud substrate, an important habitat for invertebrates
(Hanna 2021). Crear et al. (2016) described the movement and behavior
of 22 juvenile green turtles (45.2 to 96.8 cm SCL) at Seal Beach NWR
and in the San Gabriel River (a highly urbanized river that has been
channelized for flood control and receives warm water effluent from 2
power plants). These turtles appear to use the areas for foraging,
resting, and avoidance of cold water temperatures of less than 15
[deg]C. Elevated temperatures in this area are attributed to the power
plants' discharge of once-through-cooling-water (which will be phased
out by 2029), channelization (i.e., concrete lining for flood control
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on July 19, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.