Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule To Designate Marine Critical Habitat for Six Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 88 › 88 FR 46572

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

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:

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:

• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov 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.

• 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.

, 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 https://www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Schultz, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Jennifer.Schultz@noaa.gov; 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

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)

. 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 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

en 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

ous 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))

d (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

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

of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral

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:

• 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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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

fficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS (see https://www.regulations.gov, 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.)

• 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.)

• 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.)

• 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

s 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

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

as. 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

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

013; 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.

reas, 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)

ntinued 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)

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)

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

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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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

as containing the reproductive essential feature as waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as terrestrial critical habitat by USFWS (see https://www.regulations.gov, 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)

h 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

f 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

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

ging/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

refore, 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

tle 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))

at 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

equested 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,

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

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;

e 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).

nnualized 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

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

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

he 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° N Lat. in the north, along the western coasts of Europe and Africa (west of 5.5° W Long.); north of 19° N Lat. in the east; 19° N, 65.1° W to 14° N, 65.1° W then 14° N, 77° W in the south and west; and along the eastern coasts of the Americas (north of 7.5° N, 77° 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

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.

roductive 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)

entral 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 et al. 2020). Threats at this important stage include predation, obstructions, and artificial lighting

nly) 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 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

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 https://www.regulations.gov, 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

ection. 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)

or 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 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.

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

ide 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

l. 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)

on 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).

ges, 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

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; 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

field 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

he 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)

es 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)

d 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; Mendonça 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 (Mendonça 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 (Mendonça 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

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 (Mendonça 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 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)

o 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, Mendonça (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.

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)

ging/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)

noff 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

ncidental 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. 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)

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

aver, 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)

e 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)

nd 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

Alabama

In Louisiana, K. Hart (USGS unpublished data 2022) has documented the occurrence of green turtles at Belle Pass, Ship Shoal, and the 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).

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).

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)

t 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 ±5.2 and 15.8 ±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

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 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)

d 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)

cimen 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

ata 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

nile 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 ±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

ly, 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 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

portant 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; Mendonça 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

e 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

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.

th 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)

ince 2019, South Carolina (SC)

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).

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)

. 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)

). 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 °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)

illiard 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 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

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

e 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)

rting 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)

nvertebrates 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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.