Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Rule To Designate Marine Critical Habitat for Six Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles, 46572-46671 [2023-14109]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46572-46671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14109]



[[Page 46571]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 137

July 19, 2023

Part III





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226





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

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46572]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226

[Docket No. 230627-0157]
RIN 0648-BL82


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

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to 
designate specific areas in the marine environment as critical habitat 
for six distinct population segments (DPSs) of the green sea turtle 
(Chelonia mydas) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as 
amended. The DPSs that occur in waters under U.S. jurisdiction include 
the threatened North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Pacific, and 
Central North Pacific DPSs and the endangered Central South Pacific and 
Central West Pacific DPSs. Proposed critical habitat includes nearshore 
areas from the mean high water line to 20 m depth located along the 
coasts of Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, California (which also includes nearshore areas from the mean 
high water line to 10 km offshore), Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, and 
the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. It also includes 
Sargassum habitat, from 10 m depth to the outer boundary of the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone, in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. 
Based on consideration of economic impacts, we propose to exclude 
multiple areas from designation. We are soliciting comments on all 
aspects of the proposed critical habitat designations and will consider 
information received prior to making final designations. We are also 
announcing public informational meetings and public hearings.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 17, 2023.
    Public informational meetings and public hearings: We will hold six 
public informational meetings followed by public hearings on:
    (1) Central North Pacific DPS--Hawai`i: August 10, 2023, from 6 
p.m. to 8 p.m., Hawai`i-Aleutian time,
    (2) Central South Pacific DPS--Tutuila: August 16, 2023, from 6 
p.m. to 8 p.m., Samoan time,
    (3) Central West Pacific DPS--Guam: August 21, 2023, from 6 p.m. to 
8 p.m., Chamorro time,
    (4) Central West Pacific DPS--Saipan: August 23, 2023, from 6 p.m. 
to 8 p.m., Chamorro time,
    (5) North and South Atlantic DPSs--Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. 
Virgin Islands: August 29, 2023, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Eastern time, 
and
    (6) East Pacific DPS--California: August 30, 2023, from 6 p.m. to 8 
p.m., Pacific time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit data, information, or comments on this 
document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087, and on the supplemental 
documents by either of the following methods:
     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.
    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, [email protected]; 301-427-8443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 (ESA) requires the designation of critical habitat for threatened 
and endangered species to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
based on the best scientific data available and after taking into 
consideration national security, economic, and other relevant impacts 
(16 U.S.C. 1533). Section 7 of the ESA, requires Federal agencies to 
insure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely 
to destroy or adversely modify such habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)).
    This rule proposes critical habitat designations for the six DPSs 
of green sea turtle (hereafter referred to as ``green turtle'') 
occurring in U.S. waters: North Atlantic (threatened), South Atlantic 
(threatened), East Pacific (threatened), Central North Pacific 
(threatened), Central South Pacific (endangered), and Central West 
Pacific (endangered). It summarizes the best available scientific 
information regarding marine habitat requirements of green turtles and 
the methods used to develop the proposed critical habitat designations. 
The following supporting documents provide the detailed information 
used to make our determinations and are referenced throughout this 
rule: Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a), Draft Economic Impact 
Analysis (NMFS 2023b), and Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report 
(NMFS 2023c).

Background

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, we) and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) jointly administer the ESA regarding sea 
turtles. NMFS has jurisdiction in the marine environment, and USFWS has 
jurisdiction in the terrestrial environment (i.e., on beaches; 
Memorandum of Understanding Defining the Roles of USFWS and NMFS in 
Joint Administration of the ESA as to Sea Turtles 2015). In 1978, NMFS 
and USFWS listed the green turtle as a threatened species, except for 
the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast breeding populations that were 
listed as endangered, under the ESA (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978). In 
1998, NMFS designated critical habitat for the species in waters 
surrounding Culebra Island, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and its 
outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998). On February 16, 2012, 
NMFS and USFWS received a petition from the Association of Hawaiian 
Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a

[[Page 46573]]

DPS and to delist it. In response, NMFS and USFWS performed a status 
review of the entire species (Seminoff et al. 2015). On April 6, 2016, 
NMFS and USFWS published a final rule to list 11 green turtle DPSs as 
threatened or endangered (81 FR 20057). That action replaced the 
original listing for the species and concluded that previously 
designated critical habitat remained in effect for the North Atlantic 
DPS.
    The listing of green turtle DPSs under the ESA in 2016 triggered 
the requirement to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)). Critical habitat 
cannot be designated within foreign countries or in areas outside the 
jurisdiction of the United States (50 CFR 424.12(g)). Therefore, we are 
required to designate critical habitat for those DPSs occurring in 
areas under U.S. jurisdiction, specifically the North Atlantic, South 
Atlantic, East Pacific, Central North Pacific, Central South Pacific, 
and Central West Pacific DPSs.
    In the proposed listing rule, NMFS and USFWS requested information 
related to the identification of critical habitat, essential physical 
or biological features for green turtle DPSs within U.S. jurisdiction, 
and other relevant impacts of a critical habitat designation (80 FR 
15271, March 23, 2015); however, we did not receive information related 
to the designation of critical habitat at that time. Therefore, we 
found that critical habitat was not determinable at the time of listing 
and announced our intention to designate critical habitat in a future 
rulemaking.
    On January 8, 2020, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sea Turtle 
Oversight Protection, and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed a 
complaint, alleging failure to designate critical habitat by the 
statutory deadline (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Bernhardt 
et al., No. 1:20-cv-00036-EGS (D.D.C.)). On August 21, 2020, the 
parties entered into a settlement agreement that stipulates that NMFS 
and USFWS shall submit proposed determinations concerning the 
designation of critical habitat to the Federal Register on or before 
June 30, 2023 (Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Bernhardt et 
al., 1:20-cv-00036-EGS (D.D.C.)).
    To meet the court-ordered deadline and fulfill our obligation to 
designate critical habitat for green turtle DPSs in U.S. waters, we 
followed a four-step process described in the following sections: (1) 
identification of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat; 
(2) review of Department of Defense Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plans (INRMPs) under ESA section 4(a)(3); (3) weighing 
economic, national security, and other impacts against the benefits of 
designation under ESA section 4(b)(2); and (4) proposing areas for 
critical habitat designation based on the previous three steps. We 
applied this process to each DPS, as summarized in the DPS-specific 
sections.

Identification of Areas That Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat

    To identify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, we 
convened a critical habitat review team (the Team) to gather and 
evaluate the best available scientific information on green turtle 
habitat use within U.S. waters. The Team consisted of NMFS' Regional 
Sea Turtle Recovery Coordinators and sea turtle researchers from NMFS' 
Science Centers. For each DPS, the Team evaluated the best available 
scientific information on green turtles, which is described in detail 
in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here. In 
addition to reviewing published information, the Team solicited data 
and input from Federal, State, and Territory agency sea turtle programs 
and non-governmental researchers studying green turtles and their 
habitats. The Team followed the process described below to identify 
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and to qualitatively 
rate the conservation value (which reflects the benefit to the DPS) of 
each area.
    Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as (i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at 
the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological 
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) 
which may require special management considerations or protection; and 
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16 
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). As defined in the ESA, a species includes any 
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 
Conservation is defined as the use of all methods and procedures which 
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to 
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no 
longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
    The Team was asked to identify the areas within the geographical 
areas occupied by each DPS that contain features essential to its 
conservation that may require special management considerations or 
protection. The Team was also asked to provide a qualitative rating of 
conservation value (e.g., high, moderate, or low) for each area meeting 
the definition of critical habitat. This process is summarized in the 
sections below and described in detail in the Draft Biological Report 
(NMFS 2023a).
Geographical Area Occupied
    For each DPS, the Team summarized information regarding the 
geographical area occupied, which is defined by regulation as an area 
that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as 
determined by the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those 
areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if 
not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal 
habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant 
individuals) (50 CFR 424.02). As defined in the ESA, critical habitat 
shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by 
the threatened or endangered species, except in those circumstances 
determined by the Secretary (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(C)). Furthermore, for 
green turtles, the range of each DPS includes areas outside of U.S. 
jurisdiction, which cannot be designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 
424.12(g)). Therefore, for each DPS, we identified the geographic area 
occupied within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 
200 nautical miles from the coast of the United States and its 
Territories.
    The ESA allows designation of unoccupied areas that are essential 
for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). However, we 
have concluded that there are no unoccupied areas that are essential 
for the conservation of the species and do not propose to designate 
unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
Physical and Biological Features Essential to Conservation
    Physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species (hereafter referred to as essential features) are defined 
as the features that occur in specific areas and that are essential to 
support the life-history needs of the species, including but not 
limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, 
sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A 
feature may be a single habitat characteristic or a more complex 
combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include habitat 
characteristics that support ephemeral

[[Page 46574]]

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms 
relating to principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, 
distribution distances, and connectivity (50 CFR 424.02).
    As detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and 
summarized here, the life cycle of a green turtle requires survival, 
growth, development, and reproduction. Reproduction requires courtship, 
mating, ovulation, and nesting, and results in the production of the 
next generation of green turtles. Generally, green turtle life history 
also requires migration from reproductive areas to foraging and resting 
areas (hereafter referred to as foraging/resting areas or refugia). 
Food resources include seagrass, macroalgae, and invertebrates and are 
required to provide energy for survival, growth, development, and 
reproduction. Resting areas or refugia are underwater areas of reduced 
disturbance, which allow turtles to rest, digest, thermoregulate, and 
avoid predation. While foraging and resting are inextricably linked 
(turtles cannot forage without resting and vice versa), food resources 
and refugia are often located in different areas. Therefore, turtles 
must move between these areas. These life history needs dictate the 
habitat requirements (i.e., essential features) for each DPS. Based on 
the life history needs of each DPS and the best available scientific 
information, the Team identified essential features. Those detailed 
essential features (and the information used to identify them) are 
described in the DPS-specific sections below. The following generalized 
features are essential to the conservation of at least one DPS:
     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. 
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. (We identified 
these features for the North Atlantic DPS only because there is 
insufficient data to identify these features for other DPSs)
    As described in the Draft Biological Report and summarized in the 
following paragraphs, these generalized features are essential to the 
conservation of at least one DPS. The Team also considered other 
physical and biological features, but none were essential to the 
conservation of a DPS. In the DPS-specific sections below, more 
detailed information is provided, including the data used to identify 
and define the essential features for each DPS.
    The reproductive essential feature is essential to the conservation 
of green turtle DPSs because it is required for mating, females' access 
to and from nesting beaches (i.e., where egg clutches are deposited) 
and internesting areas (i.e., for rest and egg production), and post-
hatchlings' swim frenzy and early dispersal. Without successful mating, 
nesting, and recruitment, the DPSs cannot recover. Because the East 
Pacific DPS does not nest within U.S. jurisdiction, this essential 
feature does not apply to that DPS. Reproductive individuals return to 
their natal beaches to nest and to waters off those beaches to mate 
(Bowen et al. 1992; Karl et al. 1992), even if such habitats are 
adversely modified over time. Therefore, it is essential to the 
conservation of green turtle DPSs to minimize such adverse 
modifications and maintain in-water access to known nesting beaches. 
During mating, turtles may remain mounted for hours at the surface 
(Witherington et al. 2006), rendering them vulnerable to in-water 
obstructions and disturbances. Therefore, it is essential to the 
conservation of green turtle DPSs that such areas remain free from 
obstructions and disturbances that would harm or interrupt mating 
turtles.
    Females lay up to nine clutches separated by approximately 2-week 
internesting intervals (Witherington et al. 2006; Hart et al. 2013; 
Balazs et al. 2015). During internesting intervals, females use 
underwater refugia off nesting beaches to reovulate (i.e., produce eggs 
for subsequent nestings; Pearse and Avise 2001), rest (Carr et al. 
1974), and avoid harassment from courting males (Booth and Peters 
1972). Adult females are the most valuable individuals in the 
population (i.e., those most directly contributing to the next 
generation). Therefore, it is essential to the conservation of green 
turtle DPSs that such underwater areas remain free from obstructions 
and disturbances that would prevent them from resting, reovulating, and 
returning to nesting beaches to lay additional clutches. Dark 
unobstructed waters off nesting beaches are also essential to post-
hatchlings' swim frenzy and early dispersal. Post-hatchlings use this 
essential feature in a manner similar to post-nesting females: they 
move away from nesting beaches to foraging/resting areas. Hatchlings 
emerge from their nests en masse almost exclusively at night (Bustard 
1967) and crawl to the surf, where they begin a swim frenzy, moving 
quickly away from land and toward oceanic surface currents. Even after 
entering the ocean, post-hatchlings are attracted to artificial 
lighting, which can cause them to linger in nearshore habitats and 
increase their risk of predation (Thums et al. 2016). Although this 
life stage is generally the most abundant and requires many years and 
stages of development before contributing to the next generation, it is 
essential to the recovery of the species because systemic reductions in 
post-hatchling survival are likely to lead to future reductions in 
abundance and productivity. A modeling study indicates that 
fluctuations in the survival of early life stages drive variation in 
abundance and suggests protecting early life stages from hostile 
environments (Halley et al. 2018). Therefore, conservation of green 
turtle DPSs requires that such areas remain free from obstructions and 
lighting that would concentrate predators, reduce the

[[Page 46575]]

survival of post-hatchlings, or prevent post-hatchlings from reaching 
developmental habitats.
    The migratory essential feature is essential to the conservation of 
the North Atlantic and East Pacific DPSs because it is required for 
connectivity between areas used by adults for foraging/resting and 
areas used for reproduction. Without successful migration, individuals 
could not survive and reproduce, which are both essential for recovery. 
The migration of reproductive individuals may occur over hundreds to 
thousands of kilometers (Witherington et al. 2006) or a few kilometers 
(Hart et al. 2013; Hart et al. 2017). The North Atlantic and East 
Pacific DPSs use relatively narrow paths (i.e., constricted migratory 
corridors) in coastal waters to move between foraging/resting and 
reproductive areas. In such instances, reproductive individuals that 
are otherwise spread out over many, often distant, foraging/resting 
sites become concentrated into a relatively small area (e.g., Foley et 
al. 2013), increasing the DPS's vulnerability to anthropogenic threats. 
Thwarted or delayed (i.e., arriving late for the mating/nesting season) 
migration is likely to interfere with successful reproduction. 
Therefore, conservation of green turtle DPSs that use narrow migratory 
corridors requires that such areas remain free from obstructions or 
other activities that would restrict transit of reproductive 
individuals between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas.
    At all life stages, benthic and surface pelagic foraging/resting 
essential features are essential for the conservation of green turtle 
DPSs. Surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features provide the 
energy required for post-hatchlings and juveniles to develop, grow, and 
transition into the next life stage. Benthic foraging/resting essential 
features provide the energy required for juveniles to mature and for 
adults to migrate and reproduce. Foraging includes locating and 
consuming food resources (e.g., seagrasses, macroalgae, and/or 
invertebrates). Resting includes the use of underwater refugia for 
digestion, protection from predators, thermoregulation, and 
recuperation. Food resources and refugia are often located in adjacent 
areas, and turtles must move between these areas. Without successful 
foraging/resting, the DPSs cannot recover.
    Green turtles use different habitats at different life stages. 
Generally, the earliest marine life stages (post-hatchling and surface-
pelagic juvenile, often called the ``lost years'') have been the most 
difficult to study, and sufficient data are available only for the 
North Atlantic DPS. After their swim frenzy and early dispersal, post-
hatchlings swim and are carried by currents to pelagic habitats where 
surface waters converge to form local downwellings that result in 
linear accumulations of floating material, especially macroalgae (e.g., 
Sargassum spp.) (Carr 1987a; Witherington et al. 2006; Witherington et 
al. 2012b; Mansfield et al. 2021). They remain at or near the sea 
surface, where thermal benefits promote the growth and survival of 
young turtles (Mansfield et al. 2021). These surface-pelagic habitats 
provide a place to rest and hide from predators as well as abundant 
food resources, including hydroids, bryozoans, polychaetes, gastropods, 
cnidarians, fish eggs, and organic debris associated with the Sargassum 
community (Witherington et al. 2006; Boyle and Limpus 2008; Jones and 
Seminoff 2013). Therefore, the conservation of green turtle DPSs 
requires surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features because 
they provide the food, shelter, and thermal benefits required for 
survival, growth, and development of this early life stage.
    Recruitment refers to the process through which juveniles are added 
to the adult population; it is essential to the continued existence of 
a DPS. As they grow and develop, green turtles recruit to benthic 
habitats (Bolten 2003), which also provide foraging/resting essential 
features. Benthic foraging green turtles consume seagrasses, 
macroalgae, and invertebrates (Estaban et al. 2020), exhibiting 
different foraging preferences among sites and varying degrees of 
omnivory (Jones and Seminoff 2013; Long et al. 2021). Primarily or 
partially herbivorous diets result in slow growth rates, with green 
turtles maturing at 12 to 50 years and 60 to 100 cm straight carapace 
length (SCL; Seminoff et al. 2002; Bell et al. 2005; Zurita et al. 
2012; Avens and Snover 2013; Van Houtan et al. 2014a). These diets must 
support survival, development, and growth for juveniles, and energy-
expensive migration and reproduction for adults. Thus, multiple and/or 
large foraging areas are needed. In addition, nearby refugia areas are 
used for underwater rest, digestion, thermoregulation, and protection 
from predators. Therefore, conservation of green turtle DPSs requires 
that benthic foraging/resting resources remain available in sufficient 
condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to 
support survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
    A specific area within the geographic area occupied by a species 
meets the definition of critical habitat if the area contains one or 
more physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that ``may require special management 
considerations or protection'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)(II)). The 
phrase, ``special management considerations or protection,'' is defined 
as the methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of listed species (50 
CFR 424.02). Courts have made clear that the ``may require'' standard 
requires that we determine that special management considerations or 
protection of the features might be required either now or in the 
future, but such considerations or protection need not be immediately 
required. See Cape Hatteras Access Pres. Alliance v. U.S. Dept. of 
Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108, 123-24 (D.D.C. 2004); Home Builders 
Ass'n of N. California v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 268 F. Supp. 2d 
1197, 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2003). The relevant management need may be ``in 
the future based on possibility.'' See Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. 
Salazar, No. SACV 11-01263-JVS, 2012 WL 5353353, at 25 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 
17, 2012). See also Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. 
Supp. 2d 1090, 1098-99 (D. Ariz. 2003) (noting that the ``may require'' 
phrase can be rephrased and understood as ``can require'' or ``possibly 
requires'').
    The reproductive essential feature may require special management 
considerations or protection because anthropogenic threats may 
interrupt, delay, or prevent mating, internesting, and post-hatching 
swim frenzy and early dispersal. Examples of threats to the 
reproductive essential feature include inwater structures and 
construction, dredging, beach nourishment, oil and gas activities, 
alternative energy development and generation, vessel activities 
(including the establishment of shipping lanes), fishing and 
aquaculture activities, recreational activities, and pollution (e.g., 
run-off and contaminants).
    The migratory essential feature may require special management 
considerations or protection for DPSs that use narrow or constricted 
coastal corridors. In narrow corridors, migration could be blocked or 
impeded by in-water structures and construction, dredging, oil and gas 
activities (including oil spills and their cleanup),

[[Page 46576]]

energy development and generation, vessel activities (including the 
establishment of shipping lanes), and fishing and aquaculture 
activities.
    The benthic and surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features 
may require special management considerations or protection for 
activities that reduce access to or availability of food resources and 
refugia. For benthic features, these activities include construction, 
dredging, oil and gas activities (including oil spills and their 
cleanup), vessel activities (e.g., grounding, anchoring, and propeller 
scarring), fishing and aquaculture activities (i.e., those that disturb 
or destroy submerged aquatic vegetation or substrates used for 
refugia), recreational activities, and pollution (e.g., run-off and 
contaminants). For surface-pelagic features, these activities include 
any that damage or degrade this habitat, including oil and gas 
activities (including oil spills and their cleanup), pollution (e.g., 
marine debris/plastics and their removal, ocean dumping, and vessel 
discharges), and commercial harvest of Sargassum spp.
Specific Areas Containing the Essential Feature(s)
    We are required to determine the ``specific areas'' within the 
geographical area occupied by the species that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (16 
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Specific areas are identified ``at a scale 
determined by the Secretary [of Commerce] to be appropriate'' (50 CFR 
424.12(b)(1)). Furthermore, when several habitats, each satisfying the 
requirements for designation as critical habitat, are located in 
proximity to one another, the Secretary may designate an inclusive area 
as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)).
    The Team relied on the best available data on green turtle 
occurrence and use of essential features to determine the appropriate 
scale and boundaries of specific areas considered for designation. Many 
areas contain multiple essential features. Some elements of essential 
features (e.g., macroalgae, invertebrates, and refugia in the benthic 
and surface-pelagic essential features) are not adequately mapped, and 
some areas containing the essential features are not used by green 
turtles. Therefore, we used the presence of green turtles to identify 
which specific areas contain essential features. For example, we 
considered an area where green turtles forage and rest (as indicated by 
data or expert observation) to contain a benthic or surface-pelagic 
foraging/resting essential features. Areas that did not contain an 
essential feature or the presence of green turtles were not considered 
further; this includes data deficient areas without documented use of 
essential features by green turtles (as indicated by data or expert 
observation). Data considered, analyses conducted, and conclusions 
reached by the Team are discussed in detail in the Draft Biological 
Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized herein. The Team considered the best 
available information to be published and unpublished data from 
scientific studies and surveys. The Team also gave great weight to 
observations made by sea turtle biologists working with a particular 
DPS. Although not as robust as data from scientific studies and 
surveys, stranding data were also used to confirm the presence and 
relative abundance of green turtles in an area. When evaluating 
stranding data, which include data on dead, sick, injured, and cold-
stunned turtles, the Team considered the following caveats. Live 
stranded turtles may have reduced mobility, and their movements (and by 
extension, the places they strand) can be influenced by surface winds, 
water temperatures, and water currents. Dead stranded turtles may have 
died in an area other than where they were found due to transport by 
wind or water currents. Strandings are more likely to be observed and 
reported in areas with higher human populations (Cook et al. 2021).
    The Team identified specific areas containing the reproductive 
essential feature as waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as 
terrestrial critical habitat by USFWS (see 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). The benefits 
of designating specific areas include the protection afforded under 
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, which requires all Federal agencies to 
insure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat also provides 
benefits to the species, such as improved education and awareness by 
informing the public about the species' habitat needs. The 4(b)(2) 
Policy identifies the benefits of inclusion as primarily the 
conservation value of designating the area. Thus, the conservation 
value represents the benefits of designation for a specific area. For 
this designation, the conservation value of a specific area is the 
biological importance of that area to the DPS.
    The Team was asked to evaluate the conservation value of each 
specific area containing essential features that may require special 
management considerations or protection. The Team could not identify 
quantitative measures and therefore provided a qualitative assessment 
(e.g., high, moderate, or low conservation value), based on the best 
available scientific information. High conservation value areas are 
highly important to the conservation of the DPS. Moderate conservation 
value areas are moderately important to the conservation of the DPS. 
Low conservation value areas, while important, are less important to 
the conservation of the DPS than high or moderate conservation value 
areas.
    For specific areas under consideration for exclusion, the Team was 
also asked to review whether such an exclusion would result in 
extinction to the DPS. They did not find that any excluded

[[Page 46577]]

area, or all excluded areas together, would result in extinction to a 
DPS.
    The Team determined that all areas containing reproductive and/or 
migratory essential features are of high conservation value because 
they allow adults (and often a large proportion of the adults within a 
DPS) to reproduce, and reproduction is directly linked to population 
growth (Wallace et al. 2008). Conservation efforts focused on these 
areas are the most likely to lead to population recovery (Heppell 
1998). Furthermore, without the essential reproductive and migratory 
features, green turtles could not transit to and access the nesting 
beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS. The Team concluded, and 
we agree, that any area containing essential reproductive or migratory 
features is of high conservation value to the DPS.
    The Team determined that the conservation value of an area 
containing benthic and/or surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential 
features depends on the relative abundance or density of turtles within 
a DPS using that area. An area that supports a relatively high number 
or density of foraging/resting individuals would provide high 
conservation value, whereas an area that supports a relatively low 
number or density of foraging/resting individuals would provide low 
conservation value. Low conservation value does not mean that the area 
does not contain foraging/resting essential features or is not suitable 
habitat for green turtles. An area of low conservation value simply 
supports fewer foraging/resting green turtles than areas of moderate or 
high conservation value.
    Often areas contain multiple essential features. As stated above, 
any area containing reproductive and/or migratory essential features 
would provide high conservation value to the DPS, and the presence of 
foraging/resting features would increase the conservation value of that 
area.
    The relative conservation value provided by foraging/resting areas 
is evaluated for each DPS and is not comparable across DPSs. As stated 
in the ESA, the term ``species'' includes any DPS of any species of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 
1532(16)). Therefore, each DPS is a ``species'' or separate listed 
entity under the ESA. The identification of DPSs under the ESA 
reflected the discreteness or marked separation among green turtle 
populations as a consequence of ecological, behavioral, and 
oceanographic factors, and was based on genetic and morphological 
evidence (Seminoff et al. 2015; 81 FR 20057, April 6, 2016). Because 
there is little gene flow and co-occurrence among green turtle DPSs, 
high abundance or density within one DPS would not benefit another DPS. 
Furthermore, green turtle DPSs differ in their abundance, trend (i.e., 
increasing or decreasing population size), demographics, and threats, 
resulting in different conservation needs. Therefore, we did not 
compare turtle abundance or densities in foraging/resting areas among 
DPSs. Instead, we independently evaluated the conservation value 
provided by foraging/resting areas within each DPSs.
    Within a DPS, the Team relied on standardized data, where 
available, to compare the relative abundance or density of green 
turtles in areas containing only foraging/resting essential features. 
Where standardized data were not available, the Team used the best 
available green turtle occurrence and habitat use data (e.g., 
observations, tracking, or bycatch data) to determine whether an area 
is of high, moderate, or low conservation value. When comparing these 
data, the Team considered data type. For example, because satellite 
tracking is still relatively expensive compared to flipper tagging, 
fewer individuals are satellite tracked. However, if a large proportion 
of tracked individuals used the same area for foraging and/or resting, 
the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area is of high conservation 
value.
    The Team found wide variance in the amount and specificity of 
scientific data available for the six green turtle DPSs occurring in 
U.S. waters. For the North Atlantic DPS, the Team relied on an 
abundance of published and unpublished data, as well as input from 
green turtle experts from academia and State agencies to differentiate 
between high, moderate, and low conservation values of specific areas. 
There is less published or unpublished data for the South Atlantic DPS, 
so the Team relied heavily on input from green turtle experts from the 
Territory, academia, and non-profit organizations to evaluate specific 
areas for high, moderate, and low conservation values. For the Central 
North, South, and West Pacific DPSs, the Team was unable to identify 
specific areas of moderate conservation value because, although Team 
members were involved in research in some areas, they were not familiar 
with all specific areas and, based on the best available data (which 
includes input from the State and Territory agencies), could only 
distinguish between high and low conservation value. For the East 
Pacific DPS, the Team provided additional resolution for the 
conservation value of each specific area (moderate-high and moderate-
low) because of their high level of familiarity with these areas: a 
Team member was involved in all published and unpublished research on 
this DPS. For the purposes of this designation, we combined high and 
moderate-high conservation values because both were based on relatively 
high abundances of foraging/resting turtles. We combined low and 
moderate-low conservation values because both were based on relatively 
low abundances of foraging/resting turtles.

Review of INRMPs Under Section 4(a)(3)

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA precludes designating as critical 
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by 
the Department of Defense (DoD) or designated for its use, that are 
subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such a plan 
provides a conservation benefit to the species for which critical 
habitat is proposed for designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)). Our 
implementing regulations direct us to consider the following to 
determine whether such a benefit is provided (50 CFR 424.12(h)): (1) 
the extent of the area and features present; (2) the type and frequency 
of use of the area by the species; (3) the relevant elements of the 
INRMP in terms of management objectives, activities covered, and best 
management practices, and the certainty that the relevant elements will 
be implemented; and (4) the degree to which the relevant elements of 
the INRMP will protect the habitat from the types of effects that would 
be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. If 
we determine that a conservation benefit is provided by the INRMP, the 
relevant area is ineligible for consideration as potential critical 
habitat.
    After identifying specific areas that potentially meet the 
definition of critical habitat for green turtles, we contacted DoD 
representatives and requested information regarding relevant INRMPs. 
Their responses are available in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) 
Report (NMFS 2023c). We evaluated INRMPs and responses in terms of the 
criteria outlined in our implementing regulations to determine whether 
an INRMP provides a conservation benefit to the DPS. At this time, no 
areas are ineligible for consideration as potential critical habitat. 
We continue to work with DoD to review additional information (e.g., 
spatial data on areas owned, controlled,

[[Page 46578]]

or designated for use by DoD and new, relevant elements). We will 
consider any additional information prior to publication of the final 
rule to designate critical habitat.

Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude a 
particular area if she determines that the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation, unless that exclusion will result 
in the extinction of the species, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The 
4(b)(2) Policy provides non-binding guidance on how to implement 
section 4(b)(2). Below, we summarize the process for considering 
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of designating 
specific areas meeting the definition of critical habitat for green 
turtle DPSs. Additional detail is provided in the Draft Economic 
Analysis (NMFS 2023b) and the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report 
(NMFS 2023c).
Economic Impacts
    The Secretary has discretion to exclude any particular area from 
the critical habitat designation upon a determination that the benefits 
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the particular 
area as part of the critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2); 50 CFR 
424.19(c)). Exercising the delegated authority of the Secretary, we 
weighed the economic impacts against the benefits of designating 
critical habitat for each of the specific areas meeting the definition 
of critical habitat. Specifically, we compared the incremental economic 
costs of designating critical habitat in a specific area against the 
benefits of designating critical habitat, as represented by the 
conservation value of that specific area to the DPS.
    The 4(b)(2) Policy states that when considering the probable 
incremental economic impacts of designating a particular area, it is 
the nature of those impacts, not necessarily a particular threshold 
level, that is relevant to our determination (81 FR 7226, February 11, 
2016). Incremental impacts refer to those that are solely attributable 
to the critical habitat designation (i.e., relative to a baseline that 
reflects existing regulatory impacts in the absence of critical 
habitat).
    The detailed methods used to estimate incremental economic impacts 
are described in the Draft Economic Analysis (NMFS 2023b). We followed 
these general steps to quantify the economic impacts associated with 
designating critical habitat:
    (1) Identified the baseline of economic activity and the relevant 
statutes and regulations that constrain that activity in the absence of 
the critical habitat designation;
    (2) Identified the types of activities that are likely to be 
affected by critical habitat designation;
    (3) Estimated the costs of administrative effort and, where 
applicable, conservation efforts recommended for the activity to comply 
with the ESA's critical habitat provisions;
    (4) Projected over space and time the occurrence of the activities 
and the likelihood they will need to be modified; and
    (5) Aggregated the costs to the particular area and provide 
economic impacts as present value impacts and annualized impacts.
    As discussed in the Draft Economic Report (NMFS 2023b), the costs 
quantified in the economic analysis mainly include the additional 
administrative effort associated with consideration of potential 
impacts to critical habitat as part of future section 7 consultations. 
Few additional conservation measures were identified as likely to 
result from the projected consultations, largely due to baseline 
protections in place. Depending on the specific area and Federal 
action, relevant baseline protections include protections and 
designated critical habitat for other co-occurring species under the 
ESA.
    The Draft Economic Report indicates that, if designated as 
proposed, all critical habitat (for all six DPSs) may increase 
administrative costs of consultations involving green turtles by an 
estimated $6.4 million over the next 10 years, assuming a 7 percent 
discount rate (NMFS 2023b). This equates to an estimated annualized 
cost of approximately $900,000 (rounded total) over the next 10 years 
(NMFS 2023b).
    These economic impacts are largely associated with the 
administrative costs borne by NMFS and other Federal agencies and not 
by private entities or small governmental jurisdictions. However, some 
consultations may include third parties (e.g., permittees, applicants, 
grantees) that may be small entities. These third parties may bear some 
portion of the administrative consultation costs. Ultimately, the 
analysis found that consultations on in-water and coastal construction, 
including dredging and beach nourishment activities, may generate costs 
borne by small entities. All other activities are either not expected 
to involve small entities or are associated with two or fewer 
consultations annually spread across all critical habitats.
National Security Impacts
    After identifying specific areas that potentially meet the 
definition of critical habitat for green turtles, we contacted 
representatives from DoD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
to request specific information regarding potential impacts on national 
security. As outlined in our 4(b)(2) Policy, we cannot automatically 
exclude areas as requested, and the requesting agency must provide a 
reasonably specific justification for asserting that an incremental 
impact on national security would result from the designation of that 
specific area as critical habitat (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016). If 
an agency provides a reasonably specific justification for their 
request, we defer to their expert judgment as to: (1) whether 
activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other lands or 
waters, have national security or homeland-security implications; (2) 
the importance of those implications; and (3) the degree to which the 
cited implications would be adversely affected by the critical habitat 
designation.
    Initial requests for exclusion due to national security impacts 
were received from DoD and are available in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) 
and 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2023c). To date, the requests have not been 
reasonably specific to weigh national and homeland security impacts 
against the benefits of designating particular areas as critical 
habitat. We continue to work with DoD and DHS regarding requests for 
exclusions based on national security impacts and will give great 
weight to the national security and homeland security concerns in our 
final designation (81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016).
Other Relevant Impacts
    Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA also allows for the consideration of 
other relevant impacts associated with the designation of critical 
habitat. One other potentially relevant impact we identified for 
designation of green turtle critical habitat was Tribal impacts. In 
developing this proposed rule, we reviewed maps and engaged NMFS' 
Tribal coordinators; however, we did

[[Page 46579]]

not find any overlap between Indian lands and the specific areas 
meeting the definition of critical habitat. Indian lands are those 
defined in Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act'' 
(June 5, 1997), and include: (1) lands held in trust by the United 
States for the benefit of any Indian Tribe; (2) land held in trust by 
the United States for any Indian Tribe or individual subject to 
restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3) fee lands, 
either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned by the 
Tribal government; and (4) fee lands within the reservation boundaries 
owned by individual Indians. Therefore, we preliminarily find that 
there were no Indian lands subject to consideration for possible 
exclusion. However, we will coordinate and consult with potentially 
affected Tribes and Native corporations if such impacts are identified 
during the rulemaking and public comment process. We did not identify 
any other relevant impacts.

Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation

    For each of the six green turtle DPSs, we propose to designate 
specific marine areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and 
exclude specific marine areas where the impacts outweigh the benefits 
of designation. The following sections provide detailed information 
about each of the six proposed critical habitat designations and 
exclusions. After the public comment period, we will review all 
comments and the best available information before designating critical 
habitat in a final rule.

North Atlantic DPS

    The North Atlantic DPS is defined as green turtles originating from 
the North Atlantic Ocean, bounded by the following lines and 
coordinates: 48[deg] N Lat. in the north, along the western coasts of 
Europe and Africa (west of 5.5[deg] W Long.); north of 19[deg] N Lat. 
in the east; 19[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W to 14[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W then 
14[deg] N, 77[deg] W in the south and west; and along the eastern 
coasts of the Americas (north of 7.5[deg] N, 77[deg] W). The 
geographical area occupied by this DPS includes waters outside of U.S. 
jurisdiction. Within the U.S. EEZ, the range of the DPS includes waters 
up to 200 nautical miles offshore of the U.S. East and Gulf of Mexico 
Coasts and Puerto Rico. See the Draft Biological Report for a map of 
this area.
    The Recovery Plan for the U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green 
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that recovery requires 
protection of nesting and marine habitat, specifically: the 
identification and restoration of important foraging habitats, 
improvement of water quality, and prevention from degradation and 
destruction from contamination, fishing gears, vessel anchoring, oil 
and gas activities, and dredging. To identify relevant scientific 
information, the Team worked with biologists from the National Park 
Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Puerto Rico 
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDRNA), and several 
academic institutions and research organizations, including but not 
limited to University of Central Florida, Florida State University, 
Mote Marine Laboratory, and Inwater Research Group.

Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the North Atlantic DPS

    The recovery of the North Atlantic DPS is dependent on successful 
reproduction. While nesting occurs on beaches, the marine areas 
adjacent to nesting beaches are essential for mating, movement of 
reproductive females on and off nesting beaches, internesting, and the 
swim frenzy and early dispersal (i.e., transit) of post-hatchlings. 
Therefore, the following reproductive feature is essential to the 
conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: From the mean high water line 
to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters 
adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS, to 
allow for the transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive 
individuals and the transit of post-hatchlings.
    The Team used the following information to identify this 
reproductive essential feature. Upon reaching sexual maturity, male and 
female green turtles return to the waters adjacent to their natal 
nesting beaches to mate (FitzSimmons et al. 1997a; FitzSimmons et al. 
1997b). Mating and internesting occur in waters adjacent to nesting 
beaches. Mating occurs prior to and during the nesting season, 
generally from May to September (Witherington et al. 2006). During this 
time, males and females occupy a similar nearshore area adjacent to 
nesting beaches (D. Bagley, University of Central Florida unpublished 
data 2016; K. Hart, USGS unpublished data 2016). USFWS reviewed nesting 
data to identify beaches considered for terrestrial critical habitat, 
which begins at the mean high water line. Therefore, in-water areas 
considered for marine critical habitat also begin at the mean high 
water line (i.e., waters adjacent to nesting beaches). To determine the 
offshore boundary of the reproductive essential feature, the Team 
reviewed published and unpublished satellite tracking data on 
internesting females and males in waters adjacent to nesting beaches. 
These data are described in detail in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a). The Team found that males (n = 10) and females (n = 56) spent 
the majority of their time in waters of depths of 20 m or less during 
mating and internesting periods (Hart et al. 2013; Sloan et al. 2022; 
B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished data 2016; D. Bagley, University of 
Central Florida unpublished data 2022; M. Lamont, USGS unpublished data 
2022). The Team also reviewed data on post-hatchlings' swim frenzy, 
directional movement, and early dispersal transport. Within 20 m depth, 
post-hatchlings are likely to encounter the currents needed to carry 
them to distant offshore pelagic habitats, where they will forage and 
rest in Sargassum habitats (Mansfield et al. 2021). The Team concluded, 
and we agree, that the reproductive essential feature occurs from the 
mean high water line to 20 m depth in waters adjacent to nesting 
beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS.
    The reproductive essential feature may require special management 
considerations or protection to maintain unobstructed access to and 
from nesting beaches and disturbance-free nearshore areas for mating, 
internesting, and post-hatchling transit. The reproductive season is a 
time of increased vulnerability for sea turtles because a large 
proportion of adults congregate within relatively small areas adjacent 
to nesting beaches (Meylan 1982). Copulating turtles may remain mounted 
for hours at the surface (Witherington et al. 2006), limiting their 
mobility, vigilance, and ability to avoid in-water obstructions or 
operations. Internesting females require underwater areas near nesting 
beaches to reovulate, rest, and escape courting males (Booth and Peters 
1972). Females and post-hatchlings need unobstructed waters to move to 
(females only) and from (females and post-hatchlings) nesting beaches. 
Darkness is another important feature because artificial lighting can 
cause post-hatchlings to linger in nearshore habitats, which increases 
their risk of predation (Thums et al. 2016). Their early transit is 
considered to be a critical

[[Page 46580]]

period because it plays an overriding role in population dynamics 
(Putman et al. 2020). Threats at this important stage include 
predation, obstructions, and artificial lighting. These threats are 
most likely to occur in shallow water (Gyuris 1994), where post-
hatchlings and predators are concentrated, most submerged or emergent 
structures occur, and land-based lighting effects are strongest. The 
Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed 
to prevent the destruction of habitats from oil and gas, dredging, 
fishing, and vessel activities. The reproductive essential feature may 
also require special management considerations for other activities. 
Nearshore structures or operations have the potential of blocking the 
passage of nesting females and post-hatchlings. They may constrain 
post-hatchlings' movement through several mechanisms, including: 
disorientation due to lighting, concentration of predators, disruption 
of wave patterns necessary for orientation, and creation of excessive 
longshore currents. Alternative energy facilities (such as wind farms 
and underwater turbines), dredging (for beach nourishment, as mentioned 
above, and in support of navigation), and fishing and aquaculture 
activities, when located adjacent to nesting beaches, may also block 
passage of females and post-hatchlings. Oil spills pose a considerable 
threat by obstructing or contaminating access to and from nesting 
beaches (Meylan 1982; Shigenaka et al. 2021). Construction (on land and 
in water), vessel traffic, military activities, and seismic surveys may 
also act as deterrents (visual or auditory) to reproductive 
individuals, preventing their use of preferred areas. Finally, climate 
change may result in the shift or loss of nesting beach habitat, which 
would alter the location or value of adjacent marine reproductive 
areas.
    To identify specific areas containing the reproductive feature 
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS' 
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed Florida and Puerto 
Rico nesting beaches as terrestrial critical habitat elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register (see 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.

Specific Areas Containing the Migratory Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the North Atlantic DPS

    The recovery of the DPS requires that adult turtles forage and 
reproduce; when foraging and reproductive areas are geographically 
separated, recovery requires that adults successfully migrate between 
these areas. Therefore, the following migratory feature is essential to 
the conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: From the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth, sufficiently unobstructed corridors that allow for 
unrestricted transit between foraging and nesting areas for 
reproductive individuals.
    To identify this migratory essential feature, the Team reviewed 
published and unpublished satellite tracking data of post-nesting 
females (n = 58) and post-mating males (n = 10), described in detail in 
the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a). The Team found that adults 
generally migrate to foraging areas in southern Florida using nearshore 
waters of 20 m depth or less (Schroeder et al. 2008; Sloan et al. 2022; 
B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished data 2022; D. Bagley, University of 
Central Florida unpublished data 2022; K. Mazzarella, Mote Marine 
Laboratory unpublished data 2022).
    This narrow, constricted migratory corridor may require special 
management considerations or protection to ensure that the passage of 
reproductive individuals is not obstructed, deterred, or disturbed. 
During migration, sea turtles that are otherwise spread out over many, 
and often distant, foraging sites become concentrated into relatively 
narrow corridors, making them particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic 
threats (Foley et al. 2013). The Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) 
indicates that protection is needed to prevent the degradation of 
habitats due to offshore structures, dredging, oil and gas activities 
(including oil spills and their cleanup), fishing, aquaculture, and 
vessel activities (including the establishment of shipping lanes). In 
addition, energy generation activities may block passage or generate 
anomalous magnetic fields, altering cues used by green turtles for 
navigation (Lohmann et al. 2004) and causing turtles to deviate from 
their course. Large structures or excessive noise from seismic surveys 
(Nelms et al. 2016), military activities, or vessel activities may 
force turtles off the most direct route, requiring longer migrations 
and more energy.
    To identify specific areas containing the migratory essential 
feature, the Team reviewed available published and unpublished 
satellite tracking data. The Team reviewed migratory data included in 
scientific publications (Hart et al. 2013; Chabot et al. 2018; Sloan et 
al. 2022). The Team also analyzed unpublished telemetry data (i.e., 
tracking data from 58 post-nesting females and 10 males, mapped in the 
Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a)). The data show that green turtles 
use constricted migratory corridors (i.e., generally waters of 20 m or 
less) along the eastern and western coasts of Florida. These 
constricted migratory corridors begin at the nesting beaches where the 
turtles are tagged and end at foraging/resting areas in southeastern 
Florida, Florida Bay, Cape Sable, Everglades, Florida Keys, Marquesas 
Keys, and Dry Tortugas. The Team determined, and we agree, that the 
entire Florida coast, in depths up to 20 m, contains the migratory 
essential feature, connecting reproductive areas along the east and 
west coast of Florida to foraging areas in Monroe County, Florida. This 
area is of high conservation value because adult males and females use 
it to migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. 
This migration is directly linked to population growth, and if the 
narrow corridor was obstructed, the DPS would not recover.
    Unlike adult green turtles in Florida, adults originating in Puerto 
Rico do not appear to use constricted or narrow migratory corridors to 
move between nesting and benthic foraging/resting areas. Instead, they 
move offshore into oceanic waters, deeper than 20 m. Long-distance 
captures of adults tagged at Culebra reveal the use of multiple 
pathways. Therefore, the Team was unable to identify any specific areas 
outside of Florida (e.g., Puerto Rico) containing the migratory 
essential feature.

[[Page 46581]]

Specific Areas Containing the Surface-Pelagic Foraging/Resting 
Essential Features and Their Conservation Value to the North Atlantic 
DPS

    The recovery of the DPS requires foraging and resting to provide 
energy for post-hatchling and juvenile survival, growth, and 
development. After their swim frenzy and early dispersal, post-
hatchlings of the North Atlantic DPS are transported via ocean currents 
to habitats that provide adequate food resources and cover, such as 
Sargassum-dominated drift communities. Green turtles likely remain in 
such habitats throughout their surface-pelagic juvenile stage. 
Therefore, the following surface-pelagic foraging/resting features are 
essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: Convergence 
zones, frontal zones, surface-water downwelling areas, the margins of 
major boundary currents, and other areas that result in concentrated 
components of the Sargassum-dominated drift community, as well as the 
currents which carry turtles to Sargassum-dominated drift communities, 
which provide sufficient food resources and refugia to support the 
survival, growth, and development of post-hatchlings and surface-
pelagic juveniles, and which are located in sufficient water depth (at 
least 10 m) to ensure offshore transport via ocean currents to areas 
which meet forage and refugia requirements.
    To identify the surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential 
features, the Team gathered information on green turtles' use of 
Sargassum habitats. Surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features 
are associated with Sargassum habitats, which provide structured 
habitat, rich food supply, refugia for rest and predator protection, 
and thermal benefits promoting growth for green turtles (Mansfield et 
al. 2021). Sargassum occurring in the surf zone or close to shore may 
not provide the essential features; whereas Sargassum-dominated drift 
communities occurring in depths of 10 m and greater provide sufficient 
food resources and refugia and aid in offshore transport. Such depths 
overlap with benthic foraging areas to facilitate the developmental 
transition from surface-pelagic to benthic foraging. A growing number 
of studies provide information on the location, diet, and behavior of 
post-hatchlings and surface-pelagic juveniles of the North Atlantic DPS 
(Putman and Mansfield 2015; Hardy et al. 2018; Mansfield et al. 2021). 
Post-hatchling and surface-pelagic green turtles forage primarily on 
animals within the Sargassum-dominated drift communities, including 
invertebrates, fish eggs, and insects (Witherington et al. 2012a). 
Turtles appeared to use Sargassum principally as habitat (i.e., 
although they consume Sargassum, this may be incidental to their 
foraging on animals located within the plant material; Witherington et 
al. 2012a). In addition to providing a food supply and structured 
habitat, Sargassum provides predator protection and thermal benefits 
that promote growth, i.e., exposure to direct sunlight and/or localized 
warming that facilitates temperature-dependent processes including 
digestion and growth (Mansfield et al. 2021). Post-hatchling green 
turtles selectively use and burrow into Sargassum for these purposes 
(Smith and Salmon 2009).
    The surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features may require 
special management considerations or protection to maintain the food 
resources and refugia provided by Sargassum habitat. The surface 
convergence zones that aggregate Sargassum-dominated drift communities 
also aggregate pollutants (Wallace et al. 2020; Shigenaka et al. 2021); 
this includes plastics, which can cause blockage in the gut, diminish 
nutrition, and/or increase the risk of entanglement (Witherington et 
al. 2012a; Rice et al. 2021). The frequent co-occurrence of Sargassum 
and marine debris within the pelagic environment may require special 
consideration when planning marine debris removal activities. Oil 
exploration, production, and associated spills are major concerns 
because post-hatchling and surface-pelagic juvenile sea turtles within 
Sargassum-dominated drift communities become fouled in oil or exposed 
to oil through inhalation or ingestion (McDonald et al. 2017; Wallace 
et al. 2020; Shigenaka et al. 2021). The cleanup of oil spills may also 
introduce toxic chemicals (Ylitalo et al. 2017). Powers et al. (2013) 
described direct and indirect effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil 
spill on the Sargassum-dominated drift communities as follows: (1) 
Sargassum accumulated oil on the surface exposing animals to high 
concentrations of contaminants; (2) application of a dispersant sank 
the Sargassum, thus removing the habitat and potentially transporting 
oil and dispersant vertically; and (3) low oxygen surrounded the 
habitat potentially stressing animals that reside in the algae. This 
oil spill was estimated to impact 148,000 surface-pelagic turtles 
(McDonald et al. 2017). Other sources of pollution include ocean 
dumping, vessel discharges, and dredging (e.g., from disruption of 
contaminated sediment and release of contaminants).
    To identify specific areas containing the surface-pelagic foraging/
resting essential features, the Team reviewed data on post-hatchling 
and surface-pelagic juveniles and their habitats. Sargassum-dominated 
drift communities occur where surface waters converge to form local 
downwelling (Wallace et al. 2020; Shigenaka et al. 2021) in the Gulf of 
Mexico and the northwest Atlantic Ocean. As post-hatchlings and 
surface-pelagic juveniles, green turtles occupy the same Sargassum 
habitat as other sea turtle species, including the loggerhead sea 
turtle, Caretta caretta (Witherington et al. 2012). Therefore, areas 
containing surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features for 
green turtles overlap with those designated as critical habitat for the 
loggerhead sea turtle (79 FR 39855, July 10, 2014): the Atlantic Ocean 
from the Gulf of Mexico along the northern/western boundary of the Gulf 
Stream and east to the outer edge of the U.S. EEZ; and the western Gulf 
of Mexico to the eastern edge of the Loop Current. At the time that 
loggerhead critical habitat was designated, limited data were available 
on essential features in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Data available 
since then indicate that surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential 
features occur throughout the Gulf, including waters of the eastern 
Gulf of Mexico (McDonald et al. 2017; Hardy et al. 2018), and in 
particular along the West Florida Shelf (Putman and Mansfield 2015). 
Data also indicate that juvenile green turtles forage and rest in 
Sargassum habitat of the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Witherington et al. 
2012a; Putman and Mansfield 2015; McDonald et al. 2017; Hardy et al. 
2018). In 2010, McDonald et al. (2017) captured 220 surface-pelagic 
green turtles in the eastern Gulf of Mexico during rescue operations 
within the Deepwater Horizon spill area. Witherington et al. (2012a; 
unpublished data 2019) observed 195 surface-pelagic juvenile green 
turtles associated with Sargassum-dominated drift communities in the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico, 18 of which were tracked via satellite 
transmitters. A majority of those tracked individuals remained within 
the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, while five individuals departed the 
Gulf of Mexico and followed the Gulf Stream System into North Atlantic 
waters (FWC, unpublished data 2019). Putman and Mansfield (2015) 
captured 24 surface-pelagic juvenile green turtles in offshore areas of 
the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico: Cortez, Sarasota, Panama City, 
and Pensacola, Florida;

[[Page 46582]]

Orange Beach, Alabama; and Venice, Louisiana. Other studies have 
identified increasing numbers of surface-pelagic juvenile green turtles 
throughout the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean 
(Hardy et al. 2018; Mansfield and Phillips in review); some of these 
juveniles are carried via the Loop Current, Straits of Florida, and 
Gulf Stream into the North Atlantic (Mansfield and Phillips in review).
    Green turtles are also found in Sargassum-dominated drift 
communities of the northwest Atlantic Ocean, where Witherington et al. 
(2012a; Witherington and FWC unpublished data 2019) observed 17 post-
hatchlings. Mansfield et al. (2021) satellite tracked 21 surface-
pelagic green turtles (3 to 9 months old) from Boca Raton, Florida to 
waters associated with the Sargasso Sea, via the Gulf Stream. Prior to 
exiting the U.S. EEZ, most green turtles remained in oceanic waters, 
off the Continental Shelf (greater than 200 m depth; Mansfield et al. 
2021), within the Sargassum critical habitat designated for 
loggerheads. Therefore, the Sargassum habitat in the Atlantic, 
designated for loggerhead turtles (79 FR 39855, July 10, 2014), also 
contains the surface-pelagic foraging/resting features essential to the 
conservation of green turtles.
    Based on the best available scientific information, the Team 
concluded, and we agree, that the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
Sargassum-dominated drift communities in waters greater than 10 m depth 
to the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ contain surface-pelagic foraging/
resting features essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic 
DPS that may require special management considerations or protection. 
These areas include the Sargassum habitat designated for loggerhead 
turtles (79 FR 39855, July 10, 2014) and Sargassum habitat in the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico. These areas are of high conservation value 
because they contain high densities of foraging/resting post-hatchlings 
and surface-pelagic juveniles (Witherington et al. 2012; Hardy et al. 
2018; Mansfield et al. 2021). These are the only areas that provide the 
essential features required for the survival, growth, and development 
of this important early life stage for the North Atlantic DPS. A 
modeling study indicates that fluctuations in the survival of early 
life stages drive variation in abundance and suggests protecting early 
life stages from hostile environments (Halley et al. 2018). Therefore, 
these areas are essential to the recovery of the DPS.

Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential 
Features and Their Conservation Value to the North Atlantic DPS

    The recovery of the DPS requires benthic foraging/resting resources 
to support juveniles, subadults, and adults. After their surface-
pelagic juvenile stage, green turtles recruit to benthic foraging/
resting habitats that provide adequate food resources and cover from 
predators to allow successful survival, growth and development to 
maturity. Adults require adequate long-term residence areas, which 
include food resources and adjacent refugia, to provide the energy 
needed to survive, migrate to nesting beaches, and reproduce. 
Therefore, the following benthic foraging/resting features are 
essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic DPS: From the mean 
high water line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia (e.g., sandy troughs, 
hard-bottom substrates, and Sabellariid worm reefs) and food resources 
(i.e., seagrass, marine algae, and/or invertebrates) of sufficient 
condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to 
support survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. The Team 
considered other potentially essential features because green turtles 
of the North Atlantic DPS may pass through multiple developmental 
habitats in coastal waters during their maturation from benthic 
foraging juveniles to adults (Bolten 2003; Witherington et al. 2006; 
Bresette et al. 2010; Meylan and Meylan 2011). Juveniles appear to use 
deeper waters as they mature (M. Lamont, USGS, and M. Bresette, In-
water Research Group pers. comm. 2022). However, the Team accounted for 
these movements during the identification of benthic foraging/resting 
essential features as waters up to 20 m depth, which includes the 
waters used to move from shallow to deeper depths. Furthermore, when 
gathering data on green turtles, the Team focused on the occurrence of 
green turtles within this DPS because it is difficult to distinguish 
between foraging/resting turtles and those moving to other foraging/
resting areas. For these reasons, the Team concluded, and we agree, 
that developmental migratory behavior is addressed under the benthic 
foraging/resting essential feature and does not warrant the 
identification of a separate essential feature.
    To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the 
Team gathered data on the DPS's use of benthic foraging/resting 
habitats, including coral and nearshore reefs, seagrass beds, inshore 
bays, estuaries (Ehrhart 1983; Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Wershoven and 
Wershoven 1992; Bresette et al. 1998; Ehrhart et al. 2007; Meylan and 
Meylan 2011), man-made embayments (Redfoot and Ehrhart 2000), and 
passes (Shaver 1994). Benthic foraging juveniles may use shallower 
foraging/resting areas than adults (Witherington et al. 2006; Meylan 
and Meylan 2011) and move to deeper habitats as they mature (Bagley et 
al. 2008; Reich et al. 2008; Vander Zanden et al. 2013). During this 
stage of development, juveniles feed primarily on seagrass (e.g., 
Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme, Halodule wrightii, and 
Zostera marina; Mendon[ccedil]a 1983), benthic macroalgae (e.g., 
Gracilaria mammillaris, Bryothamnion seaforthii, Laurencia poiteau, 
Ulva spp., and Hypnea spp.; Bjorndal 1980; Mortimer 1981; Bellmund et 
al. 1987; Coyne 1994; Shaver 1994; Redfoot 1997; Makowski et al. 2006; 
Kubis et al. 2009; Vander Zanden et al. 2013), and/or invertebrates 
(Mendon[ccedil]a 1983; Bjorndal 1990; Makowski et al. 2006; Stringell 
et al. 2016; Holloway-Adkins et al. 2017). Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak 
(2017) found that juveniles commonly foraged on benthic invertebrates, 
including polychaetes, hydrozoa, and gastropods. In a study of 90 green 
turtles, 28 percent ingested 8 different species of sponges that are 
found in relatively small proportions (i.e., biomass) in the foraging 
habitat, and 3 percent ingested cnidarians and ``other invertebrates'' 
(Stringell et al. 2016). Turtles generally occur where there are 
sufficient food resources (Witherington et al. 2006); however, there is 
a complex relationship between food availability and juvenile abundance 
and growth rates (Long et al. 2021). Juvenile green turtles occupy 
small, stable home ranges, where they forage and rest in one or two 
exclusive sites (Mendon[ccedil]a 1983; Makowski et al. 2006). The 
depths at which juveniles forage and rest differ throughout their range 
and are dependent on the depths of available food resources. 
Seagrasses, for example, need light and are generally limited to depths 
where at least 20 percent of surface irradiance reaches the seafloor; 
this depth varies among sites as a function of water clarity (Dixon 
1999; P. Carlson, FWC pers. comm. 2016). As juveniles mature, they 
forage in deeper waters (3 to 27.3 m; In-water Research Group 2008; 
Bresette et al. 2010; FWC and NMFS unpublished data 2016) and may 
occupy a more narrow range in southern Florida, including the Florida 
Keys, Marquesas Keys, and Dry Tortugas (Witherington et al. 2006; 
Bresette et al. 2010). Adult and subadult turtles may

[[Page 46583]]

forage in herds to provide increased vigilance of large predators, such 
as sharks that also forage at these depths, or to increase grazing 
maintenance of seagrasses, which provide food resources that are higher 
in nutrition and easier to digest (Bjorndal 1980; Moran and Bjorndal 
2007; Bresette et al. 2010). Juvenile and adult green turtles forage on 
algae or seagrass growing on manmade structures, such as docks, 
seawalls, piers, pipelines, boat ramps, platforms, ramparts, pilings, 
and jetties. This includes algae in the Florida Trident Submarine Basin 
(Kubis et al. 2009; Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak 2017) and on jetties in 
southeast Texas (Shaver 1994; Metz and Landry 2013; Shaver et al. 
2013). In addition to these data, the Team mapped unpublished data on 
foraging/resting green turtles. They found that the majority of turtles 
were found in waters up to 20 m (see Draft Biological Report NMFS 
2023a).
    In addition to productive benthic foraging areas, green turtles 
need access to protective resting areas. Because they are vulnerable to 
predation and tidal exposure, they seek refugia in Sabellariid worm 
reefs (Stadler et al. 2015), nearshore reef ledges (Wershoven and 
Wershoven 1988; Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Ehrhart 1992), or other 
shallow-water areas that are less accessible to sharks (Bresette et al. 
2010). When resting, turtles often wedge their head and body under 
ledges along the reef (Makowski et al. 2006; Mott and Salmon 2011; 
Stadler et al. 2015). Hart et al. (2016) found that 6 of 11 juvenile 
turtles equipped with tri-axial acceleration data loggers near the Dry 
Tortugas made excursions to deep waters (4 to 27 m) for rest, often at 
night. Makowski et al. (2006) found that turtles rested only during 
nocturnal hours, avoiding marine predators and sleeping underneath the 
same patch reefs upon which they actively foraged. Renaud et al. (1995) 
also reported daytime foraging and nocturnal resting. However, 
Mendon[ccedil]a (1983) observed juvenile green turtles within Mosquito 
Lagoon, Florida, actively feeding on shallow (0.5 to 1.0 m) seagrass 
flats in mid-morning and mid-afternoon, with resting occurring in 
deeper waters (2.0 to 2.5 m) during the mid-day hours. Mott and Salmon 
(2011) suggest that turtles use solar cues to move offshore toward deep 
water reefs to escape threats; they return to shallow foraging areas 
after several hours. The Team concluded, and we agree, that depths up 
to 20 m contain the majority of refugia used by green turtles.
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special 
management considerations or protection to maintain the quality and 
quantity of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The 
Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed 
to prevent the degradation of habitats due to dredging, pollution, oil 
and gas, fishing, and vessel activities. The Recovery Plan specifically 
highlights the need to restore and limit further development in 
important foraging habitats (e.g., seagrass beds, which are relatively 
fragile habitats requiring low energy and low turbidity waters; NMFS 
and USFWS 1991). Seagrass habitats are among the most threatened 
ecosystems on Earth (Waycott et al. 2009). Since 1980, seagrass beds 
have disappeared at a rate of 110 km\2\/year (Waycott et al. 2009). The 
reductions are mainly due to declines in water quality and other human 
impacts (Orth et al. 2006). Dredging activities (including 
channelization, sand mining, and dredge/trawl fisheries) may remove, 
bury, or inhibit the growth of important food resources and destroy or 
disrupt resting areas (Hopkins and Murphy 1980). In Texas, turtles 
using jetties and channel entrances are likely to be affected by 
dredging activities that remove foraging resources and alter refugia 
(Renaud et al. 1995). Landry et al. (1992) indicate that maintenance 
dredging around South Padre Island, Texas poses a direct threat to 
green turtles through destruction of their benthic foraging/resting 
areas. Beach nourishment may reduce the availability of food resources 
(especially seagrass) and destroy underwater refugia (especially 
Sabellariid worm rock reefs) by covering these nearshore areas in sand 
(NMFS 2008). For example, sand placement projects along parts of the 
Florida coastline bury the reef habitat and food resources required by 
green turtles (Lindeman and Snyder 1999). These alterations may have 
lasting effects because turtle abundance is linked to reef stability: 
benthic foraging/resting turtles are most abundant on nearshore worm 
rock reefs with little change in reef area (and rarely covered by sand) 
over a decade (Stadler et al. 2015). Vessel activities may also reduce 
or interfere with the availability of food resources. For example, 
propellers scar seagrass beds throughout the coastal waters of Florida. 
The most severe scarring occurs in areas where green turtles are known 
to forage, such as the Florida Keys and northern Indian River Lagoon 
(Sargent et al. 1995). Oil and gas activities may reduce the quality 
and quantity of food resources, especially if an oil spill occurs. 
Pollution (including runoff and contaminants) diminishes water clarity 
and light availability, which may reduce the growth and availability of 
seagrass and algae and reduce turtles' visibility, which impacts their 
ability to forage and avoid predators (Long et al. 2021). In coastal 
lagoons in Florida, such as the Indian River Lagoon, agricultural and 
residential runoff may expose green turtles to high levels of 
pollutants (Hirama and Ehrhart 2007). Increased nutrient load in 
coastal waters causes eutrophication, which is linked to harmful algal 
blooms that result in the loss of seagrass beds and macroalgae cover 
(Milton and Lutz 2003; Long 2021), resulting in changes to green turtle 
foraging ecology that last beyond the harmful algal bloom event (Long 
2021). Such environmental degradation is also linked to increased 
incidence of fibropapillomatosis (Borrowman 2008), which was one of the 
factors identified in the listing of the North Atlantic DPS (81 FR 
20057, April 6, 2016).
    To identify specific areas containing the benthic foraging/resting 
essential features, the Team considered the best available data, 
including maps of seagrass coverage. Because many areas within the 
range of the North Atlantic DPS contain seagrass, the Team relied on 
the occurrence of benthic foraging/resting green turtles to determine 
which of these areas contain resources sufficient to support juvenile 
green turtles' survival, development, and growth, and adults' survival, 
migration, and reproduction. The Team considered published and 
unpublished studies on green turtles to be the best available data; 
these included satellite tracking, tagging, and in-water observation 
data. The Team also considered data derived from fisheries bycatch, 
incidental capture in power plants, and dredging relocation projects. 
The Team also evaluated available stranding data from 2010 to 2020. 
Stranding data include cold-stunned turtles; however, cold-stunned 
turtles are likely healthy turtles that were foraging in an area when 
temperatures dropped, resulting in cold stunning; whereas, other 
strandings are more likely to involve injured or sick turtles. There 
are many caveats to using stranding data (including data on cold-
stunned turtles): (1) Data collection and effort is not standardized 
throughout the region; (2) Reporting is dependent on observation, 
creating a bias toward areas of greater human density or greater 
accessibility (e.g., beach areas vs. marshy shorelines); and (3) 
Stranded turtles may be carried by currents such that reported 
locations may not accurately represent the area originally occupied by 
the turtle (Santos et al.

[[Page 46584]]

2018a; Santos et al. 2018b). Given these caveats, the Team only used 
stranding data to support areas identified as containing the benthic 
foraging/resting essential features based on other data sources (such 
as research studies). Nevertheless, stranding data corroborate research 
data that indicate high abundances of green turtles foraging/resting in 
Florida, Texas, and North Carolina, where the number of strandings (and 
thus resident population) is at least an order of magnitude higher than 
in other States (NMFS 2023a).
Texas
    In Texas, juvenile and subadult turtles forage in depths of up to 
20 m on macroalgae, seagrass, and invertebrates (Howell et al. 2016; 
Howell and Shaver 2021; P. Plotkin and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M 
University unpublished data 2022). Texas waters provide one of the most 
important developmental and foraging habitats for juvenile green 
turtles in the western Gulf of Mexico (Shaver et al. 2017). The 
majority of these turtles originate from Mexico nesting beaches 
(Shamblin et al. 2017). Turtles forage on seagrass and macroalgae in 
natural habitats and on jetty rocks and other artificial structures 
(fishing piers, docks, oil and gas platforms, and bridge support 
structures) that occur in the bays and passes of nearshore Gulf of 
Mexico waters (Shaver et al. 2017). They also consume animal matter and 
are best described as omnivores (Howell and Shaver 2021). These jettied 
passes also provide refugia for resting turtles and quick access to 
deeper, warmer waters to avoid cold-stunning (Shaver 1994; Shaver et 
al. 2013; Shaver et al. 2017). In recent years, cold stunning has 
become a frequent occurrence in Texas. The February 2021 cold stunning 
event in Texas was the largest on record, with approximately 13,300 
turtles documented. Approximately 6,600 green turtles were found in the 
inshore waters of the Upper Laguna Madre, 5,700 in the Lower Laguna 
Madre, and 1,200 along the Upper Texas Coast.
    Green turtles forage and rest throughout the bays, passes, and 
nearshore waters of Texas from Galveston Bay to the Mexico border, as 
demonstrated by numerous published studies and incidental capture of 
turtles from 2010 to 2020 (D. Shaver, NPS unpublished data 2022). The 
abundance of juveniles in these areas appears to be increasing over 
time (Shaver 1994; Metz and Landry 2013). Juveniles establish residency 
in the bays but also southward into Mexican waters (Metz et al. 2020; 
Shaver et al. 2013). Most use jettied passes to travel between the bays 
and the Gulf of Mexico (Shaver et al. 2013), with the exception of 
Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay supports a resident green turtle 
population that feeds on seagrass beds and algae (Shaver et al. 2019; 
L. Howell, NMFS pers. comm. 2015). The other bays are connected via an 
intercoastal waterway, which turtles use to move up and down the coast 
from Lavaca-Matagorda Bay through Laguna Madre and into Mexico.
    Lavaca-Matagorda and Aransas Bays are hotspots for benthic 
foraging/resting juvenile green turtles, especially in May and June 
(Metz et al. 2020). Recent satellite tracking of 18 green turtles 
demonstrated use of most coastal areas within Lavaca-Matagorda Bay; 
some turtles moved south to Corpus Christi Bay, Laguna Madre, and into 
Mexico (P. Plotkin and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M University unpublished 
data 2022). Green turtles use waters less than 20 m depth for benthic 
foraging/resting but may use waters of greater depths for southern 
migration (P. Plotkin and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M University 
unpublished data 2022). Tracking of 15 juveniles demonstrated that 
turtles' use of Lavaca-Matagorda and Aransas Bays depends on the season 
(Metz et al. 2020). Two radio-tracked turtles increased their movements 
during November and December, moving south to warmer waters (Renaud and 
Williams 1994). Their home range encompassed 19.5 km\2\ of Lavaca-
Matagorda Bay (Renaud and Williams 1994). In 2006 and 2007, 11 
juveniles were captured in Lavaca-Matagorda Bay in areas with patchy 
shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), and 11 juveniles were captured in 
Aransas Bay, which hosts turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum (Metz and 
Landry 2013). These bays appear to be important juvenile developmental 
areas (Metz et al. 2020).
    The most important juvenile developmental area in Texas is Laguna 
Madre, which hosts the greatest amount of seagrass coverage (81 
percent) and the greatest abundance of green turtles in Texas (Shaver 
et al. 2013; Howell and Shaver 2021; D. Shaver, NPS unpublished data 
2022). Juveniles are concentrated near the Mansfield Channel and appear 
to use it for foraging, resting, and for passage between Laguna Madre 
and the Gulf of Mexico (Shaver 1994; Shaver 2000; Shaver et al. 2013; 
Shaver et al. 2019). Shaver (2000) netted 258 green turtles in the 
Mansfield Channel from 1989 to 1997 (3.63 turtles/km-h). Juveniles also 
forage on macroalgae at the Brazos Santiago Pass near South Padre 
Island (Renaud et al. 1995). Core and home range analyses show 
foraging/resting hotpots year round in this area (Metz and Landry 2013; 
Metz et al. 2020). Metz et al. (2013) tagged 247 juveniles between 1991 
and 2010; they found significant increases in abundance during that 
time and a significantly higher catch per unit effort in Laguna Madre 
compared to Matagorda and Aransas Bays. Larger green turtles forage on 
the seagrass beds at South Bay, Mexiquita Flats, and Laguna Madre 
(Landry et al. 1992; Coyne 1994). Females nesting at Padre Island 
travel south to Mexico to forage and rest (D. Shaver, NPS unpublished 
data 2022). Green turtles also overwinter in Laguna Madre (Arms 1996), 
which has the highest prevalence of cold stunning in Texas (Shaver et 
al. 2017).
    Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft 
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of Texas, from the mean high 
water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential 
features that may require special management considerations or 
protections. The Team concluded, and we agree, that the area between 
the Mexico border and Lavaca-Matagorda Bay (including Laguna Madre and 
Lavaca-Matagorda Bay) provides high conservation value because it 
supports high density benthic foraging/resting (Shaver et al. 2013; 
Metz et al. 2013; Metz et al. 2020; Howell and Shaver 2021; P. Plotkin 
and N. Wilderman, Texas A&M University unpublished data 2022; D. Shaver 
and S. Walker, NPS unpublished data 2022). The area between Lavaca-
Matagorda Bay and Galveston Bay (including Galveston Bay) provides 
moderate conservation value because it supports moderate density 
benthic foraging/resting (Shaver et al. 2019; D. Shaver and S. Walker, 
NPS unpublished data 2022). All other areas in Texas provide low 
conservation value to the DPS because of relatively lower density 
benthic foraging/resting in these areas.
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
    Seagrass cover and other submerged vegetation occur in nearshore 
areas of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana (Commission for 
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 2021), including throughout the 
Chandeleur Islands. Benthic macroalgae grows in abundance on and around 
jetties at Belle Pass (USGS and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 
Fisheries (LDWF), unpublished data 2016).
    In Louisiana, K. Hart (USGS unpublished data 2022) has documented 
the occurrence of green turtles at Belle Pass, Ship Shoal, and the

[[Page 46585]]

Chandeleur Islands. Since 2014, 131 juvenile green turtles (25.6 to 
44.2 cm SCL) have been tagged while foraging on algae on and around 
jetties at Belle Pass (K. Hart, USGS and LDWF unpublished data 2022). 
These turtles appear to be year-round residents, as demonstrated by 31 
recaptures (K. Hart, USGS and LDWF unpublished data 2022). Individuals 
tracked from Belle Pass (n = 6) generally remained within 40 km of 
Belle Pass, but one visited Ship Shoal (K. Hart, USGS and LDWF 
unpublished data 2022). Juvenile green turtles were also observed 
foraging at seagrass beds of the Chandeleur Islands during a scientific 
rapid assessment conducted by the USGS and LDWF in April 2015 (K. Hart, 
USGS pers. comm. 2015). In both areas, juveniles were observed 
foraging/resting close to the jetties and islands, although these 
observations may reflect sampling bias (i.e., small boat surveys 
conducted close to shore and jetties). Inwater Research Group (IRG 
2014) conducted vessel-based sea turtle surveys in nearshore coastal 
waters (out to 3 nautical miles offshore) of Terrebonne, Lafourche, 
Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and Orleans Parishes in eastern 
Louisiana; IRG observed one juvenile green turtle at the surface near 
the Chandeleur Islands, in Plaquemines Parish (IRG 2014). Although 
aerial survey sightings are sparse (possibly because turbid water in 
these areas is not optimal for visual sightings), stranding data 
indicate use of nearshore waters along Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Alabama. Bycatch data are also available for the region. For example, 
the Gulf of Mexico shrimp otter trawl fishery captured 6 green turtles 
in try nets and 14 green turtles in standard nets between 2007 and 
2017, with total bycatch mortality estimated at 22 to 81 green turtles 
(Babcock et al. 2018).
    Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft 
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
Alabama, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic 
foraging/resting essential features that may require special management 
considerations or protections. However, the Team concluded, and we 
agree, that nearshore waters of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 
provide low conservation value because they support relatively low 
density benthic foraging/resting, compared to other areas within the 
range of the DPS. We support this conclusion despite a concentration of 
foraging turtles at Belle Pass and to a lesser degree at Chandeleur 
Islands and Ship Shoals (K. Hart, USGS unpublished data 2022), because 
these areas still support far fewer foraging turtles than other areas 
within the range of the North Atlantic DPS (e.g., Texas, Florida, and 
North Carolina).
Florida
    Seagrass habitat is ubiquitous throughout much of the Florida 
coastline (CEC 2021). Both continuous and patchy seagrass beds provide 
food resources and shelter (Dawes et al. 2004). Seagrass beds are 
especially abundant in the shallow marine waters surrounding the 
southern tip of the peninsula from Biscayne Bay, through Florida Bay 
and the Florida Keys, and north to Cape Romano (Fourqurean et al. 
2001). Sabellariid (polychaete) worm reefs stretch from Indian River 
County to Key Biscayne and appear to be important developmental 
habitats for juvenile green turtles (Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Ehrhart 
1992; FWC 2022).
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features are found 
throughout nearshore waters of Florida, where studies on green turtles 
demonstrate their widespread occurrence. The Team provided a non-
exhaustive list, map, and summary of data on foraging/resting green 
turtles throughout Florida waters. In addition to these scientific 
studies, stranding data (including thousands of records of cold-stunned 
turtles) demonstrate green turtle use of foraging and refugia areas 
throughout Florida estuarine and marine habitats (FWC unpublished data 
2022). See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for figures.
    In the Florida panhandle, a ``reasonable high density'' of juvenile 
green turtles forage in nearshore habitats (artificial reefs, piers, 
and jetties) from Escambia to South Walton Counties, as demonstrated by 
video footage of 23 turtles (Siegfried et al. 2021). Rock jetties serve 
as important foraging and refugia areas for small juveniles as they 
recruit to nearshore areas. Juvenile green turtles were observed year-
round at these areas, indicating site fidelity, residency, and 
overwintering (Lamont et al. 2018; Siegfield et al. 2021). Numerous 
juveniles forage in St. Joseph Bay, St. Andrew Bay (including Crooked 
Island Sound), and in nearshore waters off Eglin Air Force Base and 
Santa Rosa Island, where they exhibit strong site fidelity and small 
home ranges (Lamont et al. 2015; Lamont and Iverson 2018; Lamont and 
Johnson 2021b; Lamont and Johnson 2021a). St. Joseph Bay is an 
especially important benthic foraging/resting area for juvenile turtles 
because of the quality and density of seagrass habitat and its 
proximity to deep, sandy-bottom channels for turtles to rest (Lamont et 
al. 2015; Rodriguez and Heck Jr 2020; Lamont and Johnson 2021b). 
Between 2011 and 2019, 175 juvenile green turtles were captured in 
shallow waters (less than 4 m depth) of St. Joseph Bay (Lamont and 
Johnson 2021). Satellite tracking of seven juvenile green turtles in 
St. Andrew and St. Joseph Bays indicates shallow (mean 4.3 m depth), 
near-shore (mean 0.9 km) core use areas and home ranges of 4.2 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.
    Coastal waters of Florida's Big Bend once supported one of the 
largest sea turtle fisheries in the United States and continue to be a 
hotspot for foraging green turtles (Chabot et al. 2021). Chabot et al. 
(2021) recorded 624 green turtles near the St. Martins Marsh Aquatic 
Preserve between 2012 and 2018; juvenile densities ranged from 57 to 
221 turtles/km\2\; larger turtles (>60 cm SCL) were primarily limited 
to the southern section of their study area. This area provides benthic 
foraging/resting features to numerous turtles of diverse origins: mtDNA 
analyses indicated that turtles foraging in this

[[Page 46586]]

area originated from the western Gulf of Mexico, Mexican Caribbean, and 
Costa Rica (Chabot et al. 2021). Another important area for benthic 
foraging/resting turtles is the Crystal River Region, including St. 
Martins Marsh and Chassahowitzka Bay (Wildermann et al. 2019; 
Wildermann et al. 2020). Based on turtle fishery landings data from the 
late 1800s, Homosassa appears to have hosted one of two of ``the most 
abundant in-water populations of green turtles in the entire Gulf of 
Mexico'' (Valverde and Holzwart 2017). Florida's Big Bend provides 
shallow seagrass habitats and other resources critical to the growth 
and survival of juvenile and subadult green turtles (IRG 2013). During 
vessel surveys conducted between 2012 and 2014, one subadult and 27 
juvenile green turtles (up to 0.93 turtles/km) were observed in the Big 
Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve, and 14 juvenile green turtles (up to 
1.33 turtles/km) were observed in the St. Martins Marsh Aquatic 
Preserve (IRG 2013). Green turtles have also been observed and captured 
around Pepperfish Keys (C. Campbell, University of Florida pers. comm. 
2016). They also occur from Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Carr 1967). 
Unpublished data from scientific studies provide evidence for 
additional juvenile benthic foraging/resting areas. In 2021, IRG 
(unpublished data 2022) observed 164 juvenile green turtles during 
exploratory vessel surveys (90.3 km) of Pasco County. Although current, 
systematic survey data are not available for the Homosassa region, 
incidental sightings near Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 
indicate high levels of green turtle abundance. For example, sightings 
from a vessel traveling at 5 knots documented 65 green turtles over 20 
minutes of observation (C. Sasso, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science 
Center (SEFSC) pers. comm. 2022). Juvenile green turtles of multiple 
size classes were present, with small juveniles (approximately 20-30 cm 
carapace length) sighted in shallow water (to approximately 3 m depth) 
and large juveniles and sub-adults found in deeper water (C. Sasso, 
SEFSC pers. comm. 2022). Numerous sub-adult (Chabot et al. 2021) and 
possibly adult-sized green turtles have also been sighted in the 
Homosassa Shipping Channel, where the water depth is approximately 4 m 
(M. Bresette, In-water Research Group pers. comm. 2022). The Gulf 
Specimen Marine Laboratory has tagged and released several green 
turtles; one turtle caught and tagged off Piney Island near Panacea, 
Florida was caught in the same seagrass bed several years later (J. 
Rudloe, Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory pers. comm. 2016). Between 1995 
and 1997, 11 green turtles were captured in nets set in narrow channels 
or over shallow seagrass beds in Apalachee Bay (FWC 2022). Thus, 
Florida's Big Bend supports high density juvenile foraging/resting 
(Wildermann et al. 2019; Wildermann et al. 2020; Chabot et al. 2021; A. 
Foley, FWC unpublished data 2022; M. Fuentes, Florida State University 
unpublished data 2022). It also comprises a portion of the west coast 
migratory corridor. Therefore, the Team concluded, and we agree, that 
the area provides high conservation value.
    In Southwest Florida, 1 to 12 green turtles have been sighted in 
waters of Charlotte Harbor, or captured in waters off Collier County, 
Siesta Key, Longboat Key, and Tampa Bay during dredging relocation 
projects (FWC 2022). In a pier study, over 1,000 fishers were 
interviewed over 3 years; 7.7 percent reported catching sea turtles 
within the past 12 months, and 4.4 percent reported catching sea 
turtles within Tampa Bay (M. Flint, University of Florida and Florida 
Aquarium, unpublished data 2016). As demonstrated by directed research 
capture and bycatch data (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a), 
this area appears to host a moderate density of benthic foraging/
resting green turtles (A. Foley, FWC unpublished data 2022). However, 
the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area provides high 
conservation value because it also contains the reproductive essential 
feature and comprises a portion of the west coast migratory corridor.
    Many green turtles forage on seagrass beds found in waters of 
Monroe County, which includes Florida Bay, Florida Keys, Marquesas 
Keys, Dry Tortugas, Everglades, and Cape Sable. These areas appear to 
be especially important benthic foraging/resting areas for subadults 
and adults, who migrate to these areas after mating and nesting (Bagley 
and Welsh 2022). Analyzing transect survey data (i.e., 187 green 
turtles observed over 364 km), Bagley and Welsh (2022) found increasing 
green turtle density as they surveyed further south and west through 
the Florida and Marquesas Keys, with an estimated 15,957 adults and 
subadults and 4,655 juvenile green turtles in the 1,500 km\2\ area 
surveyed. Eastern Quicksands, located west of Marquesas Keys, hosts one 
of the densest aggregations of foraging adults (47.3 turtles/km\2\) and 
subadults (72.5 turtles/km\2\) in Florida and worldwide (Welsh and 
Mansfield 2022). At eastern Quicksands and other locations around 
Marquesas Keys, 1,087 green turtles were sighted foraging on seagrass 
beds (Thalissia testudinum, S. filiforme, and H. wrighti): adults and 
subadults were found in depths of 3 to 5 m, and smaller turtles foraged 
in shallower waters of less than 3 m (Herren et al. 2018). Bresette et 
al. (2010) describe juvenile green turtles foraging in shallow seagrass 
habitat (i.e., less than 2 m) in Mooney Harbor of the Marquesas Keys. 
Large juvenile and adult green turtles exhibited extended site fidelity 
to foraging sites in Dry Tortugas National Park, primarily in areas 
with submerged rooted vascular plants (Fujisaki et al. 2016), where 
turtles primarily consume seagrass and macroalgae, with some incidence 
of omnivory (Roche 2016). Hart (USGS unpublished data 2015) identified 
205 juveniles foraging in the Dry Tortugas from 2008 to 2015. In the 
Lower Florida Keys (from Big Pine Key to Boca Chica Key just east of 
Key West), IRG (unpublished data 2022) observed 108 green turtles (up 
to 1.86 turtles/km) over 268 km of vessel-based visual transects; IRG 
also captured 64 of these turtles, ranging in size from 29.7-91.9 cm 
SCL. Approximately 30 km off Cape Sable is another important adult 
resident benthic foraging/resting area, as demonstrated by tracking 
data of 10 post-nesting females in southwestern Florida (Sloan et al. 
2022). Their 50 percent core use resident areas ranged from 8 to 904 
km\2\, with a mean of 296 309.3 km\2\ (Sloan et al. 2022). 
The Everglades National Park also provides important developmental 
habitat and benthic foraging/resting resources in shallow waters to 10 
m depth (Hart and Fujisaki 2010). Schroeder (NMFS unpublished data 
2022) documented 595 sightings of juvenile green turtles over a 19-year 
period (2000 to 2018) in a relatively small area of the western portion 
of Florida Bay (within the boundaries of Everglades National Park), in 
waters generally less than 3 m depth. Additionally, green turtles 
forage near Ten Thousand Islands, western Everglades (Witzell and 
Schmid 2004). Hart et al. (2013) and Hart et al. (2021) tracked 22 
females from their nesting beaches in the Dry Tortugas to benthic 
foraging/resting areas in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 
the Dry Tortugas, the Marquesas Keys, Biscayne National Park 
(southeastern Florida), and Everglades National Park. FWC and NMFS 
(unpublished data 2016) tracked 12 post-reproductive individuals to 
these same locations, where they foraged in depths of 4.1 to 27.3 m 
(with an average of 12.8 m and a standard deviation of 6.9 m) near

[[Page 46587]]

patchy or continuous seagrass habitat. Post-nesting females (n = 19) 
tracked from Archie Carr NWR and two males tracked from St. Lucie 
County, Florida (Schroeder et al. 2008; B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished 
data 2022) foraged in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. Similarly, of 
15 turtles satellite tracked from the Archie Carr NWR between 2013 and 
2015, 14 migrated to foraging areas in the Florida Keys/Florida Bay 
region (Chabot 2018; D. Bagley, University of Central Florida 
unpublished data 2016). The other turtle was tracked to a foraging area 
in southeastern Florida. Thus, Monroe County Florida supports high 
density juvenile and adult foraging/resting (Bresette et al. 2010; 
Fujisaki et al. 2016; Hart et al. 2020; Hart et al. 2021; Welsh and 
Mansfield 2022). In addition, the area contains the reproductive 
essential feature and serves as the destination for east and west coast 
migratory corridors (Hart et al. 2013; K. Hart, USGS unpublished data 
2014 and 2015; M. Lopez, ProNatura unpublished data 2022). Therefore, 
the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area provides high 
conservation value.
    Southeast Florida is another important benthic foraging/resting 
area for green turtles (Redfoot and Ehrhart 2000; Hirama and Ehrhart 
2007; Kubis et al. 2009; Long et al. 2021; Kelley et al. 2022). As 
summarized by Witherington et al. (2006), green turtles forage/rest 
throughout the year in Mosquito Lagoon and the Indian River Lagoon 
Complex (Ehrhart 1983; Bresette et al. 2002; Ehrhart et al. 2007; Long 
et al. 2021; Kelley et al. 2022); within Port Canaveral (Redfoot and 
Ehrhart 2000); on nearshore Atlantic reefs from Brevard to Broward 
counties (Guseman and Ehrhart 1990; Wershoven and Wershoven 1992; 
Bresette et al. 1998); and in nearshore, hard-bottom habitats in St. 
Lucie County (Bresette et al. 1998; Foley 2005). During the 19th 
century, a large green turtle fishery flourished in the Indian River 
(Ehrhart 1983), which continues to be an important benthic foraging/
resting area for green turtles. From 2000 to 2018, juvenile green 
turtle abundance in the Indian River Lagoon Complex has declined, 
concurrent with declines in seagrass and, since 2011, declines in 
macroalgae (Long 2021), stressing the importance of protecting the 
essential features in this area. Green turtles also forage in Banana 
River and adjacent Mosquito Lagoon, off Brevard and Volusia Counties on 
the east central coast of Florida, where shallow depths (i.e., 1.5 m 
average depth) support extensive seagrass beds, including S. filiforme 
(manatee grass) and H. wrightii (shoal grass) (Ehrhart 1983; 
Mendon[ccedil]a 1983). Juveniles forage on algae along the rock riprap-
lined embayment of the Trident Submarine Basin (i.e., Turning Basin) at 
Port Canaveral (Redfoot and Ehrhart 2013) and the Cape Canaveral 
Shipping Channel (Henwood 1987; Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak 2017), 
indicating that man-made environments also contain benthic foraging/
resting essential features. Juveniles forage in water depths of 2 to 6 
m at a hard-bottom, nearshore reef segment in Broward and Palm Beach 
Counties. This is an especially important benthic foraging/resting area 
because of the worm rock reef that provides refugia habitat (Guseman 
and Ehrhart 1990) and supports macroalgae species, including G. 
mammillaris (Makowski et al. 2006). In 2021, IRG conducted 23 5-km 
surveys between West Palm Inlet and approximately 20 km north of 
Sebastian Inlet, in Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and 
Brevard Counties; they captured 95 green turtles: 24 adult females, 21 
adult males, 42 sex unidentified adults, and 8 juveniles (IRG 
unpublished data 2022). From 1994 to 2018, 4,215 green turtles were 
drawn into the intake canal of the St. Lucie Power Plant (Bentley et 
al. 2021). Between September 1998 and January 2000, 73 green turtles 
were captured at Jennings Cove, also in St. Lucie County (Bresette et 
al. 2002; Perrault et al. 2021). From 2017 to 2022, IRG captured 50 
juvenile green turtles foraging on sandy seagrass beds in Jupiter Inlet 
and the Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County Florida (IRG 
unpublished data 2022). Between 2010 and 2012, Stadler et al. (2015) 
observed 351 juvenile green turtles (including resightings) swimming, 
breathing at the surface, or resting on the bottom of nearshore reef 
habitat in Palm Beach County (Breakers = 29 turtles/km and Boca Raton 
reefs = 44 turtles/km) and Broward County (Broward North, Middle, and 
South reefs = 77 turtles/km); the greatest abundance occurred at the 
Boca Raton reef (n = 85). From 2005 to 2013, Gorham et al. (2016) 
observed 719 juvenile green turtles (0.80 turtles/km) foraging on 
seagrass in the urbanized Lake Worth Lagoon, Palm Beach. K. Hart (USGS 
pers. comm. 2022) captured 16 adult green turtles in Biscayne Bay 
National Park. Biscayne Bay historically hosted green turtles in 
sufficient abundance to support a fishery (Smith 1896). Although the 
salinity of the Bay increased over the 20th century due to decreased 
freshwater input, Biscayne Bay currently contains extensive seagrass 
beds, and sightings and captures indicate the presence of numerous 
green turtles (C. Sasso, SEFSC pers. comm. 2022). Thus, Southeast 
Florida (from Cape Canaveral to Monroe County) supports high density 
foraging/resting especially at worm rock reefs (Ehrhart 1983; Guseman 
and Ehrhart 1990; Wershoven and Wershoven 1992; Bresette et al. 1998; 
Redfoot and Ehrhart 2000; Bresette et al. 2002; Makowski et al. 2006; 
Stadler et al. 2015; Gorham et al. 2016; Holloway-Adkins and Hanisak 
2017; Long et al. 2021). It also contains the reproductive essential 
feature and comprises a portion of the east coast migratory corridor 
(Schroeder et al. 2008; D. Bagley, University of Central Florida 
unpublished data 2016; B. Schroeder, NMFS unpublished data 2022). 
Therefore, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the area provides 
high conservation value to the North Atlantic DPS.
    In Northeast Florida, from Cape Canaveral to Georgia, NMFS (SEFSC 
unpublished data 2022) captured 41 juvenile green turtles in trawls 
between 1986 and 1991. As demonstrated by directed research capture and 
bycatch data (See Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a), this area 
appears to host a moderate density of benthic foraging/resting green 
turtles (A. Foley, FWC pers. comm. 2022). However, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that the area provides high conservation value because it 
also contains the reproductive essential feature and comprises a 
portion of the east coast migratory corridor.
South Carolina and Georgia
    Seagrass cover is low in Georgia and South Carolina and relatively 
few studies have focused on green turtle presence and habitat use in 
this region. In Georgia, juveniles are anecdotally reported to forage 
on macroalgae (e.g., Ulva spp.) on docks and rock pilings, and 
necropsies of stranded turtles indicate that they also consume invasive 
red algae (Graciliaria vermiculophylla) and Spartina alterniflora (M. 
Dodd, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pers. comm. 2022). 
A study of live-bottom reefs within Grays' Reef National Marine 
Sanctuary found that three green turtles wedged themselves into 
sandstone ledges for rest (Auster et al. 2020).
    In South Carolina, green turtles were historically reported as 
being present at low population levels. During the late 1800s, small 
juvenile green turtles were infrequently captured incidental to other 
fisheries and sold commercially, with maximum annual take estimated at 
approximately 150 individuals (True 1884). Since 2019, South Carolina 
(SC)

[[Page 46588]]

DNR satellite tracked eight turtles (for a total of 625 standardized 
observation days), all of which remained in waters off southern Georgia 
and northeastern Florida (M. Arendt, SCDNR; C. Eastman, University of 
Florida Whitney Sea Turtle Hospital; D. Evans, Sea Turtle Conservancy; 
T. Norton, Jekyll Island Georgia Sea Turtle Center; unpublished data 
2022). Fisheries bycatch data provide additional information about sea 
turtle occurrence in South Carolina waters. Between 1992 and 2014, a 
total of 330 turtles were incidentally captured by inshore fisheries in 
Port Royal Sound, St. Helena Sound, Charleston Harbor, Cape Romain, and 
Winyah Bay (M. Pate, SCDNR unpublished data 2016). The majority of 
these captures comprise bycatch in trammel net fisheries (n >300 from 
1992 to 2012; M. Arendt, SCDNR pers. comm. 2015). SCDNR captured 21 
green turtles in trawl surveys between 2000 and 2021 (SCDNR unpublished 
data 2022).
    Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft 
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of South Carolina and Georgia, 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/
resting essential features that may require special management 
considerations or protections. However, the Team concluded, and we 
agree, that the area between and including Georgia and South Carolina 
provides low conservation value because it supports relatively low 
density benthic foraging/resting compared to other areas within the 
range of the DPS.
North Carolina
    Seagrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation are found 
throughout nearshore waters of North Carolina. Juvenile green turtles 
forage on seagrass beds in the waters of Core, Pamlico, Bogue, and 
Albemarle Sounds (Epperly et al. 1995; Bass et al. 2006; Epperly et al. 
2007; McClellan et al. 2009). Juveniles also forage in Back Sound and 
the Cape Fear, New, and White Oak River estuaries from April through 
November (Avens et al. 2003; Avens and Lohmann 2004; Snoddy et al. 
2009; Snoddy and Southwood Williard 2010) or December (Williard et al. 
2017). Within the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System, a comprehensive 
survey conducted during 2006 and 2007 documented 100,843 acres (408 
km\2\) of seagrass beds. A subsequent survey during 2013 demonstrated 
an overall decrease of 5.6 percent in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine 
System, with a decrease in continuous seagrass extent of 34.2 percent, 
but an increase in patchy seagrass extent of 18.4 percent (Field et al. 
2021).
    Green turtles were documented to commonly occur in North Carolina's 
inshore waters as early as 1884, prior to which the population had been 
sufficient to support a small-scale fishery both for individual fisher 
consumption and commercial sale (True 1884). These green turtles were 
reported to be small, suggesting that the majority of green turtles 
inhabiting these waters were juveniles. At the peak of the fishery, up 
to 100 green turtles were caught at one time, and turtles were 
``shipped by the barrel'' for sale (Coker 1906). By the early 1920s, 
green turtles were rarely encountered; their scarcity was attributed to 
overfishing and egg collection from southern nesting beaches (Coker 
1906).
    Since then, direct capture for research studies, bycatch data, and 
satellite telemetry show that there is a large population of benthic 
foraging/resting green turtles in waters off North Carolina. From 1988 
to 1992, commercial fishers in Core and Pamlico Sounds reported that 
juvenile green turtles comprised 4 to 16 percent of annual sea turtle 
bycatch (total n = 21; Epperly et al. 1995). Subsequent standardized 
fishery-dependent sampling conducted in Core and Pamlico Sounds from 
1997 to 2009 demonstrated a significant increase in green turtle catch 
per unit effort (CPUE) of 4,250 percent and an increased proportion of 
green turtles in the species distribution from 19 to 42 percent 
(Epperly et al. 2007; Braun McNeill et al. 2018). This increase in the 
number of green turtles captured corresponded with a significant 
decrease in size distribution, with the predominant SCL size class 
shifting from 30-35 cm to 25-30 cm (Braun McNeill et al. 2018). 
Analysis of green turtle bycatch in the North Carolina inshore gillnet 
fishery also indicated an increase in CPUE of more than 650 percent 
between 2001 and 2016 (Putman et al. 2020). The presence of foraging/
resting green turtles in North Carolina is also supported by data on 
incidental captures collected by the North Carolina Division of Marine 
Fisheries and the NMFS Beaufort Laboratory (n = 1,485), stranding 
records (n = 2,969), and necropsy data indicating that at least 43.5 
percent of necropsied turtles (n = 485) had seagrass or other 
vegetation in their gut (NCWRC unpublished data 2015). Analyzing a 
subset of incidental captures (n = 757) indicates that most individuals 
are juveniles, with an average SCL of 32.4 cm, a minimum SCL of 20.6 
cm, and a maximum SCL of 94.5 cm (SEFSC unpublished data 2022). 
Incidental captures confirm that the benthic foraging/resting essential 
features extend westward into the Pamlico and Albemarle Sound estuaries 
and northward into the Cape Fear, New, and White Oak Rivers (Epperly et 
al. 2007; SEFSC unpublished data 2015). Seven juveniles that survived 
capture in gillnets in the lower Cape Fear River remained there (within 
a 3 km radius of the capture site) after release for up to 42 days 
(Snoddy and Williard 2010). Similarly, 10 juveniles (27.9 to 42.5 cm 
SCL) captured in Core, Back, and Pamlico Sounds inhabited areas from 
Bogue Sound to Pamlico Sound. These turtles were strongly associated 
with seagrass habitat (most frequently at the edge of seagrass beds) 
and retreated into the beds when disturbed by natural and anthropogenic 
activities, including vessel and fishing activities (McClellan and Read 
2009). In general, each turtle used a restricted area and showed little 
movement during the summer, followed by an increase in movement during 
the fall, consistent with an onset of migratory behavior (McClellan and 
Read 2009). Generally, turtles occupied mean temperatures between 26 
and 28 [deg]C in water depths of generally less than one meter (but up 
to depths of four meters) and in areas close to the shoreline, near 
seagrass meadows (McClellan and Read 2009). During winter months, when 
water temperatures fall below habitable levels, juveniles typically 
move out of shallow estuarine waters to deeper waters on the North 
Carolina shelf south of Cape Hatteras, migrate south along the 
continental shelf to waters off the coast of Florida, or migrate east 
to oceanic waters in the North Atlantic (Epperly et al. 1995; Read et 
al. 2004; Southwood Williard et al. 2017). Barden Inlet and the Cape 
Lookout Bight appear to be important transit routes, although other 
nearby inlets are also used by green turtles to move in and out of 
estuarine waters (McClellan and Read 2009; Southwood Williard et al. 
2017). During rapid drops in water temperatures in fall and winter 
months, juvenile green turtles may be susceptible to cold-stunning 
(Niemuth et al. 2020). In early 2016, more than 1,800 hypothermic green 
turtles were found in eastern Pamlico and southern Core Sounds in a 4-
week period, documenting the importance of these benthic foraging/
resting areas (NCWRC unpublished data 2016).
    Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft 
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that all nearshore waters

[[Page 46589]]

of North Carolina, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain 
benthic foraging/resting essential features that may require special 
management considerations or protections. The Team also concluded, and 
we agree, that the area including Pamlico, Core, and Back Sound (i.e., 
up to but not including Currituck and Albemarle Sounds) provides high 
conservation value to the DPS. This area supports a high density of 
green turtles (predominantly small juveniles) inhabiting extensive 
seagrass habitat during the majority of the year, as documented by 
numerous records of satellite tracking, directed captures for research, 
fishery bycatch, cold stuns, and strandings (McClellan and Read 2009; 
Braun McNeill et al. 2018; Putman et al. 2020; NCWRC unpublished data 
2022). The area from Cape Fear River to Bogue Sound (including Cape 
Fear, New, and White Oak Rivers and Bogue Sound) provides moderate 
conservation value because the area supports a moderate density of 
green turtles (predominantly small juveniles) inhabiting areas of 
extensive submerged aquatic vegetation, as documented by fishery 
bycatch and stranding data (NCWRC unpublished data 2022). The area from 
Albemarle Sound to the Virginia border provides low conservation value 
because it supports a relatively low density of green turtles 
(predominantly small juveniles) compared to other areas and as 
documented by few records of satellite tracking, relocation trawling, 
fishery bycatch, and stranding observations (Southwood Williard et al. 
2017, NCWRC unpublished data 2022).
Virginia Through Massachusetts
    Seagrass beds are found throughout inshore and nearshore waters 
from Virginia through Massachusetts. Green turtles occur in this area, 
but there are relatively few published studies. Aerial survey data 
indicate the presence of green turtles in nearshore waters from 
Virginia to New York (S. Barco, Virginia Aquarium unpublished data 
2022; Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species 
unpublished data 2022). Stranding, cold stun, and incidental capture 
data also demonstrate the presence of green turtles from Virginia to 
Massachusetts. Schwartz (1960) published the first record of a green 
turtle in Maryland's Chincoteague Bay, along the Atlantic coast. Green 
turtles occur in the Chesapeake Bay (Hardy 1972; Barnard et al. 1989) 
and in parts of the Potomac River, where they graze on underwater 
grasses (Carter and Rybicki 1985). Analyses of stomach contents of 
turtles stranded in Virginia and Maryland suggest that these turtles 
are foraging on eelgrass and macroalgae, including Ulva spp. (Bellmund 
et al. 1987; Barco et al. 2015). From 2004 through 2006, four green 
turtles were captured alive in pound nets set in Chesapeake Bay (around 
Fishing Bay, Maryland), one of which was a recapture (Kimmel 2006; 
Kimmel 2007). These occurrence data are corroborated by S. Barco 
(Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center unpublished data 2022), who 
acoustically tagged and monitored seven green turtles using a Navy 
acoustic receiver array in the Virginia Chesapeake Bay, James River 
tributary, and coastal waters. Stranding, cold stun, and incidental 
capture data also demonstrate the presence of green turtles from 
Virginia to Massachusetts. Twelve cold stunned green turtles were 
rehabilitated and released off Massachusetts with satellite tags by the 
New England Aquarium; most exhibited normal migratory behaviors, moving 
south or offshore as water temperatures dropped; however, one remained 
in Long Island Sound (Robinson et al. 2020). In New York, juvenile 
green turtles forage on seagrass and algae throughout the eastern 
Peconic Bay Estuary system, Long Island Sound, and in Shinnecock Bay on 
Long Island's southern shore (Montello et al. 2022). In these areas, 35 
green turtles were incidentally captured in pound nets between 2002 and 
2004 (Morreale et al. 2005). Further, between 1988 and 1992, 30 green 
turtles were captured and tagged in New York waters. Seven individuals 
were recaptured, indicating residency, with one 38 cm SCL green turtle 
recaptured approximately 1 year after initial encounter, 13 km from its 
original tagging site in Gardiners Bay (Morreale and Standora 1998). 
Based on the annual timing of encounters, green turtles appear to 
reside in these New York waters seasonally, arriving in early July and 
departing in October. Evaluation of gut contents from 11 green turtles 
demonstrated that green turtles in this area were foraging on algae and 
eelgrass (Zostera marina) (Burke et al. 1992). Growth rates calculated 
for the seven recaptures (ranging from 20 to 40 cm SCL) demonstrated 
significant growth, and rates of growth were comparable to those 
observed in other regions (Morreale and Standora 1998). Two green 
turtles were recovered in North Carolina within 180 days after 
originally being tagged during the foraging season in New York, 
indicating capacity for seasonal migration to avoid lethally cold water 
temperatures. Since 2019, five green turtles have been rehabilitated, 
satellite tagged, and released by the New York Marine Rescue Center (M. 
Montello, New York Marine Rescue Center unpublished data 2021). Several 
turtles remained in New York waters before transmissions ceased, two 
migrated south along the coast, and one moved south in more offshore 
waters.
    Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft 
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that all nearshore waters from Virginia to Massachusetts, 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, contain the benthic 
foraging/resting essential features that may require special management 
considerations or protections. However, the Team concluded, and we 
agree, that this area provides low conservation value because it 
supports relatively low density benthic foraging/resting, compared to 
other areas within the range of the DPS.
Puerto Rico
    In Puerto Rico, green turtles forage on seagrasses, macroalgae, and 
invertebrates and rest on coral reefs. Seagrass is especially abundant 
around Culebra and Vieques Islands. Juveniles forage throughout 
shallow, nearshore areas of Culebra Island, in inshore bays around Mona 
Island, and on the northern coast of the main island of Puerto Rico. 
From 1985 to 2021, 840 green turtles, mainly juveniles, have stranded 
in Puerto Rico (C. Diez, PRDRNA, unpublished data 2022). The existing 
critical habitat designation (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998) 
identifies the marine areas around Culebra Island, from the mean high 
water line extending seaward 5.6 km (3 nautical miles), as essential to 
the conservation of the species. These waters include Culebra's 
outlying Keys including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniqu[iacute], 
Isla Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pe[ntilde]a, Las 
Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, 
Los Gemelos, and Piedra Steven.
    Seagrass beds surrounding Culebra provide important foraging 
resources for juvenile, subadult and adult green turtles. Additionally, 
coral reefs surrounding the island provide refugia for rest, shelter, 
and protection from predators. The 1998 critical habitat designation 
was based largely on 165 green turtles captured at Culebra between 1987 
and 1989 in depths of 9.1 m or less (Collazo et al. 1992). Collazo et 
al. (1992) found that juveniles foraged on seagrass beds at Culebrita 
Island, Mosquito Bay, Puerto Manglar, and Tamarindo Grande. Diez et al. 
(2010),

[[Page 46590]]

Patr[iacute]cio et al. (2014), and Patr[iacute]cio et al. (2017) 
confirmed that Culebra areas continue to contain the benthic foraging/
resting essential features and serve as an important developmental 
habitat for juvenile green turtles. Griffin et al. (2017) recommended 
continued protection of this critical habitat unit to ensure 
recruitment into the adult life stage. An mtDNA mixed stock analysis of 
103 juvenile green turtles foraging around Culebra Island indicates 
origin from four locations: Costa Rica, Mexico, Florida, and Suriname 
(Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2017). Capture data (n = 665) over 13 years of 
surveys at Culebra Island indicate that juvenile turtles reside in 
Tortuga Bay (n = 122 turtles; Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2014) and Manglar 
Bay (n = 187 turtles; Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2014), where juveniles 
forage on the seagrasses, S. filiforme and H. wrightii, and the algae 
T. testudinum. There is little movement between the two areas, and each 
bay appears to represent a distinct foraging ground with a unique 
aggregation of juveniles (Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2011). Acoustic 
tracking of 21 green turtles (38 to 70 cm SCL) confirmed high site 
fidelity within each bay, with little connectivity between the bays 
(Griffin et al. 2019). Green turtles were also captured in Mosquito 
Bay, where there are abundant seagrass beds (Patricio et al. 2014).
    These data support the designation of waters around Culebra as 
specific areas containing the benthic foraging/resting essential 
features; however, we are not aware of any data to support the 
designation to 5.6 km (3 nautical miles). The original designation was 
based largely on the data presented by Collazo et al. (1992), but these 
data described turtles foraging and resting in 9.1 m or less (Collazo 
et al. 1992). Studies of green turtles conducted over the past 20 years 
at Culebra further support the presence of the benthic foraging/resting 
essential features in depths of 20 m or less (C. Diez, PRDRNA pers. 
comm. 2022).
    Recent rapid assessments identified high density foraging/resting 
areas off the main island of Puerto Rico, where juvenile turtles 
aggregate at Punta Salinas, Escambron-Normandy, and Arrecifes Isla 
Verde (C. Diez, PRDRNA unpublished data 2022). While Culebra supports a 
greater overall abundance of green turtles, these small areas host high 
densities of green turtles (C. Diez, PRDRNA pers. comm. 2022). For 
example, 30 green turtles were captured off Punta Salinas in 2 days, 
and another 10 green turtles were sighted in 2 hours (C. Diez, PRDRNA 
unpublished data 2022). Additional rapid assessment surveys have 
identified green turtles in seagrass and coral reef habitats throughout 
the northern coast of the main island of Puerto Rico (Diez 2022). Green 
turtles were observed foraging and resting in urban sites, including: 
Escambron (San Juan; n = 45), Rompeolas (n = 33), Tres Palmas (Rincon; 
n = 25), Isla Verde (Carolina; n = 40), and Pt. Salinas (n = 26) in the 
municipality of Toa Baja (Diez 2022). The presence of green turtles 
during these rapid assessments indicates that the area contains the 
benthic foraging/resting essential features in sufficient condition, 
distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support 
survival, development, and growth of green turtles.
    Around Mona Island, turtles are most commonly observed off the 
southern coast, in Sectors 1 and 5 (C. Diez and R. vanDam, PRDRNA 
unpublished data 2021). All size classes have been observed, but most 
are juveniles and sub-adults (30 to 50 cm), especially in Sector 5 (C. 
Diez and R. vanDam, PRDRNA unpublished data 2021). In Sector 1, which 
is adjacent to one of the higher density green turtle nesting beaches, 
more adults (males and females) have been observed in recent years (C. 
Diez and R. vanDam, PRDRNA unpublished data 2021). There are several 
areas where turtles forage on Thalassia and Halodule seagrass beds (C. 
Diez, PRDRNA pers. comm. 2016). These areas include waters off 
Pajargos, Brava, Coco, and Caigo no Caigo beaches.
    In addition, green turtles were identified foraging on the north 
central beach on Vieques Island (i.e., Mosquito Cay). To evaluate 
possible important foraging areas for sea turtles, PRDRNA evaluated 
coastal marine habitats around Vieques (Diez 2003). They surveyed from 
Mosquito Cay through Bahia Esperanza to the southwest; turtles were 
observed along the north coast at Mosquito Cay and between Isable and 
Punta Goleta, at Pocito Reef in the Federal Reserve, and in lagoons in 
the south (including Puerto Mosquito; Diez 2003).
    Based on the best available information detailed in the Draft 
Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, 
and we agree, that all nearshore waters of Puerto Rico, from the mean 
high water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting 
essential features that may require special management considerations 
or protections. The Team concluded, and we agree, that the area 
surrounding Culebra Island provides high conservation value. It has 
been designated as critical habitat since 1998. The area between the 
mean high water line and 20 m depth contour (which is different from 
the original designation but better reflects the best available data) 
hosts a high abundance (highest in Puerto Rico) of benthic foraging/
resting green turtles as demonstrated by tagging (i.e., 700 turtles in 
20 years; C. Diez, PRDRNA unpublished data 2022) and numerous studies 
(Collazo et al. 1992; Diez et al. 2010; Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2014; 
Patr[iacute]cio et al. 2017; Griffin et al. 2019). The northern coast 
of Puerto Rico Island (including Punta Salinas, Escambron, and 
Arrecifes Isla Verde Natural Reserve) is also of high conservation 
value because it hosts a high density of benthic foraging/resting green 
turtles (C. Diez, PRDRNA unpublished data 2022). All other areas in 
Puerto Rico are of low conservation value because they support a 
relatively low or unknown density of foraging/resting turtles. However, 
some areas (Maunabo, Guayama, eastern and southern Vieques Island and 
southern Mona Island) contain the reproductive essential feature and 
are thus of high conservation value to the DPS.

Review of INRMPs for the North Atlantic DPS

    DoD provided, and we reviewed, INRMPs for 29 installations (NMFS 
2023c). Of these, 3 do not overlap with areas under consideration as 
critical habitat for the North Atlantic DPS (Naval Submarine Base New 
London, Naval Support Facility Dahlgren, and Naval Research Laboratory 
Chesapeake Bay Detachment), and 15 occur in areas that, as discussed in 
the following section, we propose to exclude based on economic impacts. 
The remaining 11 INRMPs include: Naval Station Mayport, Naval Air 
Station Key West, Naval Support Activity Panama City, Naval Air Station 
Pensacola, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Eglin Air Force Base, 
Tyndall Air Force Base, Patrick Space Force Base and Cape Canaveral 
Space Force Station, Hurlburt Field, MacDill Air Force Base, and 
Mu[ntilde]iz Air National Guard Base Punta Salinas. We are working with 
DoD to identify relevant elements to protect the habitat from the types 
of effects that would be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-
modification analysis (50 CFR 424.12(h)). We will consider this and 
other information to determine whether a benefit is provided prior to 
publication of the final rule to designate critical habitat.

Economic Impacts for the North Atlantic DPS

    For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the 
benefits of

[[Page 46591]]

designation, as represented by its conservation value to the North 
Atlantic DPS (see Table 1). Specific areas providing high conservation 
value are associated with a combined total annualized impact of 
$615,000. Specific areas providing moderate conservation value are 
associated with a combined total annualized impact of $24,000. Specific 
areas providing low conservation value are associated with a combined 
total annualized impact of $375,000. Moderate and high conservation 
value areas are moderately and highly important (respectively) to 
supporting the overall life history and recovery of the DPS, and the 
benefits of designating these areas are not outweighed by the low 
economic impacts. We conclude, however, that the economic impacts 
outweigh the benefits of designating specific areas of low conservation 
value. Based on the Team's criteria and best available data, low 
conservation value areas do not contain essential reproductive and/or 
migratory features. Furthermore, these areas host a lower abundance 
and/or density of foraging/resting green turtles, suggesting that they 
provide less conservation value to the DPS relative to areas hosting 
moderate or high abundances or densities. Although the estimated 
annualized costs across all of the low conservation value areas for the 
DPS were low ($375,000), we concluded that these impacts outweighed the 
benefits of designating these areas. Therefore, we propose to exclude 
the following areas from the critical habitat designation: northern 
Texas, Louisiana through Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, northern 
North Carolina, Virginia through Massachusetts, and several areas in 
Puerto Rico. As discussed in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) 
Report (NMFS 2023c), we conclude that exclusion of these low 
conservation value areas from the critical habitat designation will not 
result in extinction of the DPS.

   Table 1--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
 Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
   10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
                   Habitat for the North Atlantic DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
             Area                Conservation value         impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sargassum....................  High..................            $55,000
Texas: Mexico border to        High..................             14,000
 Lavaca-Matagorda Bay.
Texas: Lavaca-Matagorda Bay    Moderate..............              9,800
 to Galveston Bay.
Texas: all other areas.......  Low...................             14,000
Louisiana....................  Low...................             15,000
Mississippi..................  Low...................             15,000
Alabama......................  Low...................             16,000
Florida......................  High..................            510,000
Georgia......................  Low...................             18,000
South Carolina...............  Low...................             18,000
North Carolina: Pamlico,       High..................             10,000
 Core, and Back Sounds.
North Carolina: Bogue Sound,   Moderate..............             14,000
 White Oak River, New River,
 and Cape Fear River.
North Carolina: all other      Low...................              7,600
 areas.
Virginia to Massachusetts....  Low...................            246,000
Puerto Rico: Culebra.........  High..................              5,600
Puerto Rico: Vieques (South    High..................              4,000
 and East).
Puerto Rico: South Mona        High..................                800
 Island.
Puerto Rico: North Puerto      High..................             12,000
 Rico Island.
Puerto Rico: Maunabo.........  High..................              1,200
Puerto Rico: Guayama.........  High..................              2,100
Puerto Rico: all other areas.  Low...................             25,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Security Impacts for the North Atlantic DPS

    We received 36 requests for exclusions due to national security 
impacts of specific areas under consideration for proposed critical 
habitat of the North Atlantic DPS (NMFS 2023c). Of these, 15 occur in 
areas that were excluded based on economic impacts that outweighed the 
benefits of designating critical habitat. The remaining 21 requests are 
not yet reasonably specific to weigh national and homeland security 
impacts against the benefits of a potential critical habitat 
designation. We are working with DoD and DHS to gather the specific 
information and will consider it prior to publication of the final rule 
to designate critical habitat.

Specific Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the North 
Atlantic DPS

    For the threatened North Atlantic DPS of green turtles, we propose 
to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 1,047,564 km\2\ of 
Sargassum habitat and 96,349 km\2\ of nearshore waters (from the mean 
high water line to 20 m depth) in Florida, Texas (from the Mexico 
border to and including Galveston Bay), North Carolina (from the South 
Carolina border to but not including Albemarle Sound), and Puerto Rico 
(Culebra Island, Maunabo, Guayama, and northern Puerto Rico Island, 
southern Mona Island, eastern and southern Vieques Island). Sargassum 
habitat contains the surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential 
features. Florida's nearshore waters contain reproductive, migratory, 
and benthic foraging/resting essential features. Texas' (from the 
Mexico border to and including Galveston Bay) and North Carolina's 
(from the South Carolina border to but not including Albemarle Sound) 
nearshore waters contain benthic foraging/resting essential features. 
Puerto Rico's nearshore waters contain benthic foraging/resting 
essential features, and nearshore waters off Maunabo, Guayama, southern 
Mona Island, eastern and southern Vieques Island also contain the 
reproductive essential feature. All areas proposed for designation are 
of moderate or high conservation value to the DPS. A total area of 
107,682 km\2\ is proposed for exclusion because the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of these low conservation 
value areas. The Team found, and we agree, that exclusion of these 
areas from

[[Page 46592]]

the critical habitat designation would not result in extinction of this 
DPS (NMFS 2023a). At this time, we have not received reasonably 
specific information with which to propose exclusions based on national 
security impacts. At this time, no areas are ineligible for designation 
as critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not 
identified any unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation 
of this DPS; thus we are not proposing to designate any unoccupied 
areas.

South Atlantic DPS

    The South Atlantic DPS is defined as green turtles originating from 
the South Atlantic Ocean, including those hatching from nests on the 
beaches of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). The DPS is bounded by the 
following lines and coordinates: along the northern and eastern coasts 
of South America (east of 7.5[deg] N, 77[deg] W); 14[deg] N, 77[deg] W 
to 14[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W to 19[deg] N, 65.1[deg] W in the north and 
west; 19[deg] N Lat. in the northeast; 40[deg] S 19[deg] E in the 
southeast; and 40[deg] S Lat. in the south. The geographical area 
occupied by this DPS includes waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. 
Within the U.S. EEZ, the range of the DPS includes waters up to 200 
nautical miles offshore of the USVI (St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John, 
Great St. James, and Little St. James). See the Draft Biological Report 
for a map of this area. Individuals of this DPS may also forage and 
rest in areas used by the North Atlantic DPS (described above).
    The Recovery Plan for the U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green 
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that recovery requires 
protection of nesting and marine habitat, specifically: the 
identification and restoration of important foraging habitats, 
improvement of water quality, and prevention from degradation and 
destruction from contamination, fishing gears, vessel anchoring, oil 
and gas activities, and dredging.

Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the South Atlantic DPS

    The recovery of the South Atlantic DPS is dependent on successful 
reproduction. While nesting occurs on beaches, the marine areas 
adjacent to nesting beaches are essential for mating, movement of 
reproductive females on and off nesting beaches, internesting, and the 
swim frenzy and early dispersal (i.e., transit) of post-hatchlings. 
Therefore, the following reproductive feature is essential to the 
conservation of the South Atlantic DPS: From the mean high water line 
to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters 
adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS, to 
allow for the transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive 
individuals and the transit of post-hatchlings.
    The Team used the following information to identify this 
reproductive essential feature. USFWS reviewed nesting data to identify 
beaches considered for terrestrial critical habitat, which begins at 
the mean high water line. Therefore, in-water areas considered for 
marine critical habitat also begin at the mean high water line (i.e., 
waters adjacent to nesting beaches). To determine the offshore boundary 
of the reproductive essential feature, the Team reviewed satellite 
tracking data for 10 females nesting at Buck Island, USVI; during the 
internesting period, the females remained in nearshore (<1.5 km), 
shallow waters (<20 m depth), and within approximately 10 km of their 
nesting beaches (Hart et al. 2017). The Team concluded, and we agree, 
that the reproductive essential feature occurs from the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth in waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as 
critical habitat by USFWS.
    The reproductive essential feature may require special management 
considerations or protection to maintain unobstructed access to and 
from nesting beaches and disturbance-free nearshore areas for mating, 
internesting, and post-hatchling transit. The Recovery Plan (NMFS and 
USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed to prevent the 
destruction of habitats from oil and gas, dredging, fishing, and vessel 
activities. In addition, the reproductive essential feature may require 
special management considerations regarding nearshore and offshore 
structures, construction, aquaculture, and seismic surveys. Nearshore 
structures or operations have the potential to block passage of nesting 
females and post-hatchlings. Nearshore or offshore structures may also 
affect post-hatchlings' movement through the following mechanisms: 
disorientation due to lighting, concentration of predators, disruption 
of wave patterns necessary for orientation, and/or creation of 
excessive longshore currents, which run parallel to the beach, rather 
than carrying post-hatchlings to their offshore habitats. Oil and gas 
activities may impact the reproductive essential feature. Oil spills 
pose a considerable threat by obstructing or contaminating access to 
and from nesting beaches (Meylan 1982). Alternative energy facilities 
(such as wind farms and underwater turbines) and large-scale fishing, 
dredging, and aquaculture activities may block passage of reproductive 
individuals or post-hatchlings. Construction (on land and in water), 
vessel traffic, and seismic surveys may also act as deterrents (visual 
or auditory) to reproductive individuals, preventing their use of 
preferred areas. Finally, climate change may result in the shift or 
loss of nesting beach habitat, which would alter the location or value 
of adjacent marine reproductive areas.
    To identify specific areas containing the reproductive feature 
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS' 
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed St. Croix nesting 
beaches as terrestrial critical habitat elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-
0164).
    For each of these areas, we identified the adjacent marine area, 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, as containing the 
reproductive feature essential to the conservation of the South 
Atlantic DPS and which may require special management consideration or 
protection. Because some of these areas are located in proximity to one 
another, and females move between them, we identified an inclusive area 
as allowed in 50 CFR 424.12(d). All of these areas are of high 
conservation value to the DPS because they are required for successful 
reproduction, which is directly linked to population growth and 
recovery. Females must use these reproductive areas to reach the 
nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS and for 
internesting. These areas are also essential for post-hatchling swim 
frenzy and early dispersal.

No Migratory Essential Feature for the South Atlantic DPS

    The recovery of the South Atlantic DPS requires that adult turtles 
reproduce and forage/rest. When reproduction and benthic foraging/
resting areas are geographically separated, turtles must successfully 
migrate between these areas; however, reproductive individuals of the 
South Atlantic DPS generally do not migrate from nesting beaches to 
distant foraging areas. Instead, the majority (7 of 10 tracked post-
nesting females) remain resident in USVI waters for both reproduction/
nesting and benthic foraging/resting (Hart et al. 2017). When they 
migrate to distant areas, they do not use narrow, constricted migratory 
corridors: long-distance captures of adults tagged at Buck Island (n = 
3) reveal the use of multiple pathways,

[[Page 46593]]

over oceanic waters (Hart et al. 2017). We were unable to identify a 
particular depth or distance from shore used by adult green turtles to 
migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. We 
were also unable to identify any other physical or biological feature 
used by migrating turtles because the best available data demonstrate 
variation among movement patterns of individuals in oceanic habitats. 
That is to say that migration is not constricted or confined by a 
continental shelf, current, or other feature, but rather occurs over a 
large, oceanic environment without defining features (such as depth or 
distance from shore). Therefore, we were unable to identify or define a 
migratory essential feature for the South Atlantic DPS.

Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential 
Features and Their Conservation Value to the South Atlantic DPS

    The recovery of the South Atlantic DPS requires successful 
survival, growth and development of juveniles and the successful 
survival and reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to identify 
surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features for post-hatchlings 
and juveniles due to insufficient data on this developmental life stage 
and its habitat requirements. For benthic juveniles and adults, benthic 
habitats provide the food resources and refugia necessary to survive, 
develop, grow, and reproduce. The following foraging/resting features 
are essential to the conservation of the South Atlantic DPS: From the 
mean high water line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia (e.g., rocks, 
reefs, and troughs) and food resources (i.e., seagrass, marine algae, 
and/or marine invertebrates) of sufficient condition, distribution, 
diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support survival, 
development, growth, and/or reproduction.
    To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the 
Team gathered data on foraging and resting green turtles in USVI. Post-
nesting females that did not migrate to distant benthic foraging/
resting areas (7 of 10) foraged within 50 km of nesting beaches and up 
to 23 m in depth (Hart et al. 2017). The Team further analyzed these 
data (Hart et al. 2017) and found that the turtles spent 94 percent of 
their time in depths under 20 m. Green turtles forage and rest in 
nearshore waters (within 1 mile (1.6 km) of land), where they are 
significantly more abundant than in offshore waters of USVI (Boulon and 
Olsen 1982). Green turtles forage on the abundance of seagrass beds 
within USVI (Boulon 1983). Acoustic tracking of five juvenile green 
turtles demonstrated the use of larger core habitats for foraging on 
seagrass during the day and smaller core habitats for resting within 
nearby coral reefs and artificial reefs at night (Ogden et al. 1983; 
Gehrke 2017; P. Jobsis, University of the Virgin Islands pers. comm. 
2022). The Team concluded, and we agree, that green turtles of this DPS 
forage and rest primarily in waters up to 20 m deep.
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special 
management considerations or protection to maintain the quality and 
quantity of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The 
Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1991) indicates that protection is needed 
to prevent the degradation of habitats due to dredging, pollution, oil 
and gas, fishing, and vessel activities. The Recovery Plan specifically 
highlights the following activities needed to protect marine habitat: 
restore and limit further development in important foraging habitats 
(e.g., seagrass beds, which are relatively fragile habitats requiring 
low energy and low turbidity waters; NMFS and USFWS 1991). The St. 
Croix and St. Thomas East End Marine Park Management Plans identify sea 
turtles, seagrass, and coral reefs (which serve as green turtle 
refugia) as natural resources requiring conservation and protection 
from threats, which include: land-based sources of pollution, fishing 
practices that impact seagrass, oil spills, and climate change. There 
has been a historical decline in the seagrass beds in Maho and Francis 
Bays, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, due to heavy boat usage (Williams 
1988). Anchor scars caused a loss of seagrass beds up to 6.5 m\2\/day 
or 1.8 percent per year, and there was minimal regrowth within 7 months 
(Williams 1988). Anchors destroy the regenerative capacity of seagrass 
roots and rhizomes and disrupt critical nutrient remineralization 
processes in the sediments; such losses are expected to reduce the 
carrying capacity for green turtles (Williams 1998). In St. Croix, 
sediment contamination from coastal and upstream industrial sites has 
the potential to impact foraging habitat (Ross and DeLorenzo 1997).
    Within the range of the South Atlantic DPS, many areas contain food 
resources and underwater refugia. Specifically, green turtles forage on 
seagrass beds and rest in reefs throughout USVI (Boulon 1983). The Team 
relied on the occurrence of benthic foraging/resting green turtles to 
determine which of these areas contain resources sufficient to support 
survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. The major sources 
of data for this DPS include rapid assessments and personal 
observations by sea turtle biologists in USVI: N. Angeli and Sean 
Kelly, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR); K. 
Stewart, Ocean Foundation; P. Jobsis University of the Virgin Islands; 
and A. Anderson and W. Melamet, Friends of Virgin Islands National 
Park. As with other DPSs, the presence of green turtles during these 
rapid assessments or observations indicates that the area supports the 
benthic foraging/resting essential features in sufficient condition, 
distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support 
survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. The Team relied on 
these scientists' expertise to compare the relative abundance or 
densities of green turtles in each specific area to determine its 
conservation value to the DPS. Some turtles of the South Atlantic DPS 
may forage in distant areas identified as containing the benthic 
foraging/resting essential features for the North Atlantic DPS; genetic 
analyses are underway to evaluate the extent of shared foraging areas.
St. Croix
    Green turtles forage within seagrass beds and rest in coral reefs 
throughout the nearshore areas of St. Croix as demonstrated by foraging 
studies, aerial surveys, and expert opinion (K. Stewart, Ocean 
Foundation; N. Angelia and Sean Kelly, USVI DPNR pers. comm. 2022). 
Aerial surveys documented 108 green turtles during 25 flights over 7 
months in 1979 and 173 green turtles during 29 flights over 2 months in 
1980 (Boulon and Olsen 1982). The highest densities were observed near 
Buck Island, but turtles were observed throughout the waters of St. 
Croix, ranging from 0.14 to 0.44 turtles per nautical mile (Boulon and 
Olsen 1982). In waters off Buck Island Reef National Monument, Pollock 
(2013) observed 132 green turtles, mainly juveniles and subadults. 
Adult sightings are positively correlated to seagrass cover (Pollock 
2013), where they have small (on average, less than 3 km\2\), specific 
home ranges (Griffin et al. 2020). K. Hart (USGS unpublished data 2022) 
captured 205 green turtles (mainly juveniles) around Buck Island. Near 
this area (in Teague Bay, St. Croix), Ogden et al. (1983) reported that 
green turtles forage on seagrass (T. testudinum) during the day and use 
coral reef resting sites (separated from the feeding areas by 0.2 to 
0.5 km) at night. Additional high density foraging areas in St. Croix 
include East End Marine Park and the southwest portion of the island 
(Hart et al. in review). Green turtles also occur

[[Page 46594]]

in large numbers along the south shore, such as south of the airport 
and off the refinery (K. Stewart, Ocean Foundation and Claudia Lombard, 
USFWS pers. comm. 2022), and all along the leeward side of the island, 
near Frederiksted and the pier (K. Stewart, Ocean Foundation pers. 
comm. 2022).
    Based on these data, and the input from sea turtle researchers 
working in St. Croix, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the east, 
west, and south areas of St. Croix are of high conservation value 
because they host a large abundance of foraging/resting green turtles 
(K. Stewart, Ocean Foundation, N. Angelia and Sean Kelly, USVI DPNR 
pers. comm. 2022) and also contain the reproductive essential feature. 
The Team concluded, and we agree, that all other areas of St. Croix are 
of moderate conservation value because of the moderate abundance of 
foraging/resting green turtles.
St. Thomas
    Green turtles forage within seagrass beds and rest in coral reefs 
throughout the waters of St. Thomas (P. Jobsis University of the Virgin 
Islands pers. comm 2022). Michael (2020) observed 167 green turtles in 
13 bays around St. Thomas and St. John, with the highest densities of 
turtles (at least 1 turtle per hectare) found in Druif, Brewers, 
Bolongo, Magens, and Sapphire Bays in St. Thomas. Earlier studies also 
identified juvenile benthic foraging areas in waters surrounding St. 
Thomas (Boulon and Frazer 1990). Between 1981 and 1983, resident 
foraging subadults and juveniles were captured in relatively large 
numbers at Little St. James and in the following areas of St. Thomas: 
Smith Bay, Magens Bay, Red Hook Point, and Thatch Cay (Boulon 1983). 
Aerial surveys documented green turtles in nearshore waters off St. 
Thomas and St. John, where 266 green turtles were observed during 27 
flights over 7 months in 1979, and 260 green turtles were observed 
during 21 flights over 2 months in 1980 (Boulon and Olsen 1982). The 
greatest densities of green turtles were observed in Magens Bay (Boulon 
and Olsen 1982). Additional studies also demonstrated green turtles in 
large numbers in Smith Bay and Red Hook (near Sapphire Bay) and Magens 
Bay (Boulon 1983). Recapture data indicate that most turtles remained 
in the bay where they were tagged (Boulon 1983). Gehrke (2017) found a 
high residency rate: five acoustically tracked sea turtles stayed 
within Brewers Bay 98 percent of the time showing a relatively small 
average home range of 63.3 hectares.
    Based on these data, and the input from sea turtle researchers 
working in St. Thomas, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the 
Druif, Brewers, Bolongo, Magens, and Sapphire Bays provide high 
conservation value because they host a high abundance of foraging/
resting green turtles (P. Jobsis, University of the Virgin Island pers. 
comm. 2022). The Team concluded, and we agree, that all other areas of 
St. Thomas provide moderate conservation value because of the moderate 
abundance of foraging/resting green turtles.
St. John
    Green turtles forage within seagrass beds and rest in coral reefs 
throughout the waters of St. John (A. Anderson and W. Melamet, Friends 
of Virgin Islands National Park pers. comm. 2022). On St. John Island, 
Michael (2020) observed the highest densities of green turtles (at 
least one turtle per hectare) in Great Lameshur, Salt Pond, and 
Watermelon Bays. Earlier studies also identified juvenile benthic 
foraging areas in waters surrounding St. John (Boulon and Frazer 1990). 
Aerial surveys identified high densities of green turtles in nearshore 
waters off St. John (Boulon and Olsen 1982). In 1986, Williams (1998) 
observed 50 to 78 green turtles foraging on seagrass in Maho and 
Francis Bays, moving in and out of the bays to forage and rest 
(Williams 1998). A. Anderson and W. Melamet (Friends of Virgin Islands 
National Park pers. comm. 2022) identified several bays that have a 
high probability of green turtle detection: Maho, Francis, Leinster, 
Great and Little Lameshur, Honeymoon, Chocolate Hole, Caneel/Scott, 
Salt Pond, Bjork Creek/Hurricane Hole, Round Bay, Hawksnest, and Coral 
Bay.
    Based on these data, and the input from sea turtle researchers 
working in St. John, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the 
following bays provide high conservation value because they host a high 
abundance of foraging/resting green turtles: Maho, Francis, Leinster, 
Great and Little Lameshur, Honeymoon, Chocolate Hole, Caneel/Scott, 
Salt Pond, Bjork Creek/Hurricane Hole, Round Bay, Hawksnest, and Coral 
Bay (A. Anderson and W. Melamet, Friends of Virgin Islands National 
Park pers. comm. 2022). The Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
other areas of St. John provide moderate conservation value because of 
the moderate abundance of foraging/resting green turtles.

Review of INRMPs Within the Range of the South Atlantic DPS

    We are not aware of any INRMPs for DoD installations that overlap 
with areas under consideration as critical habitat for the South 
Atlantic DPS.

Economic Impacts Within the Range of the South Atlantic DPS

    For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the 
benefits of designation, as represented by its conservation value to 
the South Atlantic DPS (see Table 2). Specific areas providing high 
conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized 
economic impact of $12,000. Specific areas providing moderate 
conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized 
impact of $13,000. These moderate and high conservation value areas are 
moderately and highly important (respectively) to supporting the 
overall life history and recovery of the DPS, and the benefits of 
designating these areas are not outweighed by the low economic impacts 
of designation. No areas were of low conservation value. Therefore, we 
do not propose to exclude any areas from the critical habitat 
designation on the basis of economic impacts.

   Table 2--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
 Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
   10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
                   Habitat for the South Atlantic DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
             Area                Conservation value         impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Croix: east, south and     High..................             $5,500
 west.
St. Croix (all other areas)..  Moderate..............              1,000
St. Thomas: Druif, Brewers,    High..................              4,800
 Bolongo, Magens, and
 Sapphire Bays.
St. Thomas (all other areas).  Moderate..............              9,120

[[Page 46595]]

 
St. John: Maho, Francis,       High..................              1,700
 Leinster, Great and Little
 Lameshur, Honeymoon,
 Chocolate Hole, Caneel/
 Scott, Salt Pond, Bjork
 Creek/Hurricane Hole, Round
 Bay, Hawksnest, and Coral
 Bay.
St. John (all other areas)...  Moderate..............              3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Security Impacts Within the Range of the South Atlantic DPS

    We have not received any requests for exclusions based on national 
security impacts of specific areas proposed as critical habitat for the 
South Atlantic DPS.

Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the South Atlantic 
DPS

    For the threatened South Atlantic DPS of green turtles, we propose 
to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 303 km\2\ of 
nearshore waters in USVI, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth. 
St. Croix's nearshore waters contain reproductive and benthic foraging/
resting essential features. St. Thomas' and St. John's nearshore waters 
contain benthic foraging/resting essential features. Each of the 
specific areas proposed for designation is of moderate or high 
conservation value to the DPS. Economic impacts do not outweigh the 
benefits of designating these areas as critical habitat, and no areas 
are proposed for exclusion under section 4(b)(2). No areas are 
ineligible for designation as critical habitat under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not identified any unoccupied areas 
that are essential to the conservation of this DPS; thus we are not 
proposing to designate any unoccupied areas.

East Pacific DPS

    The East Pacific DPS is defined as green turtles originating from 
the eastern Pacific Ocean, including those hatching from nests on the 
beaches in Mexico and foraging off the coast of California. The range 
of the DPS is bounded by: 41[deg] N, 143[deg] W in the northwest; 
41[deg] N Lat. in the north; along the western coasts of the Americas 
in the east; 40[deg] S Lat. in the south; and 40[deg] S, 96[deg] W in 
the southwest. The geographical area occupied by this DPS includes 
waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Within the U.S. EEZ, the range of 
the DPS includes waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore of the U.S. 
West Coast. See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for a map of 
this area.
    The 1998 Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East 
Pacific Green Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998b) requires protection and 
management of marine habitat, including foraging habitats. 
Specifically, the Recovery Plan states, ``East Pacific green turtles 
inhabit a variety of marine habitats, although we are most familiar 
with their coastal habitat. Increased human presence in this and other 
sea turtle habitats have contributed to habitat degradation, primarily 
by coastal construction, increased recreational and fisheries use, and 
increased industrialization. Habitat loss and degradation must be 
prevented or slowed.'' To relevant scientific information, the Team 
worked with biologists from the California Department of Fish and 
Wildlife.

No Reproductive Essential Feature for the East Pacific DPS

    The East Pacific DPS primarily nests in Mexico, Costa Rica, and 
Ecuador (Seminoff et al. 2015). It does not nest on beaches under U.S. 
jurisdiction. Thus, USFWS is not proposing terrestrial critical habitat 
for this DPS, and correspondingly, we did not identify a reproductive 
essential feature (e.g., unobstructed waters adjacent to nesting 
beaches proposed for critical habitat by USFWS) for this DPS.

Specific Areas Containing the Migratory Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the East Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the East Pacific DPS requires that adult turtles 
forage and reproduce. Because foraging and reproductive areas are 
geographically separated, recovery also requires turtles to 
successfully migrate between these areas. The following migratory 
feature is essential to the conservation of the East Pacific DPS: From 
the mean high water line to 10 km offshore, sufficiently unobstructed 
corridors that allow for unrestricted transit between foraging and 
nesting areas for reproductive individuals.
    Some green turtles that nest on beaches in Mexico forage in the 
waters of California, thus requiring migration to complete their life 
cycle. The foraging population in California is small but has been 
increasing since the early 2000s, likely as a result of increased 
nesting in Mexico, which has been attributed to nesting beach 
protection (Cliffton et al. 1982; Alvarado-D[iacute]az et al. 2001). 
Juveniles comprise the majority of the California foraging population, 
which is expected given the 17 to 30 year age-to-maturity and recent 
increases in abundance (Turner Tomaszewicz et al. 2022).
    Satellite tracking (telemetry) data were collected for 25 green 
turtles for a foraging study in San Diego Bay (Eguchi et al. 2020, 
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) unpublished data 2021). The 
majority of tracked turtles were juveniles, reflecting the demography 
of the population. Juvenile turtles remained in San Diego Bay to forage 
for the duration of the study. However, some adults were also tracked, 
and five left the Bay (Dutton et al. 2019; SWFSC, unpublished data 
2021). Four of the five adult turtles that left San Diego Bay migrated 
south to Mexico, beyond U.S. jurisdiction; the fifth turtle migrated 
north to other foraging areas. Three adult turtles were tracked to 
nesting beaches in Mexico, with one making the round trip back to San 
Diego Bay after nesting. The fourth turtle was male and presumably 
migrated to waters off Mexico nesting beaches to mate. Between North 
San Diego Bay and the U.S./Mexico border, the turtles remained close to 
shore. They did not use a particular depth range but rather remained 
between the high water line and 10 km offshore. Thus, distance from 
shore, rather than depth, best describes the data and was used to 
identify the migratory essential feature.
    While the number of tracked turtles using the migratory corridor 
from San Diego Bay to Mexico is small (n = 4), it is a relatively large 
proportion of the entire foraging population, whose annual abundance 
was estimated by Eguchi et al. (2010) as ranging from 16 to 60 green 
turtles, with a confidence interval of 4 to 88 green turtles (this 
number has likely increased in recent years; SWFSC unpublished data 
2022). Thus, the tracking data of four green turtles represents a 
relatively large proportion of the population, especially

[[Page 46596]]

given the age structure of the foraging population (i.e., mostly 
juveniles) and given that adult females remigrate every 3 years (i.e., 
approximately one-third of adult females would be expected to migrate 
from San Diego Bay to Mexico each year). Therefore, we conclude that 
the migratory behavior of these four turtles is representative of the 
population. Furthermore, this constricted, narrow migratory corridor is 
essential to the conservation of the DPS because it allows adults to 
move between their foraging areas in California and reproductive areas 
off nesting beaches in Mexico.
    During migration, reproductive individuals become concentrated in 
narrow corridors, making them particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic 
threats. These constricted migratory corridors may require special 
management considerations or protection to ensure that migration is not 
obstructed, deterred, or disturbed by: oil and gas activities 
(including seismic exploration, construction, removal of platforms, oil 
spills and response); alternative energy activities (including 
installation of turbines, offshore wind facilities, and structures to 
convert wave or tidal energy into power); dredging; and fishing and 
aquaculture activities. For example, an oil spill and resulting 
response activities may force migrating turtles far off their preferred 
track. Similarly, alternative energy, fishing, aquaculture, and 
dredging operations may deter turtles via blockages or noise (e.g., 
seismic surveys, Nelms et al. 2015). While we do not expect these 
disturbances to prevent migration, they may delay arrival at mating 
areas and nesting beaches, which could lead to suboptimal productivity. 
Furthermore, the additional energy used during longer migrations could 
reduce energy available for reproductive effort.
    To identify specific areas containing the migratory feature 
essential to the conservation of the DPS, the Team reviewed the 
satellite tracking data described above. These data demonstrate that 
green turtles migrate between benthic foraging/resting areas in San 
Diego Bay and reproductive areas off nesting beaches in Mexico. Green 
turtles remain close to shore, using the narrow migratory corridor 
between the mean high water line and 10 km offshore, from North San 
Diego Bay to the U.S./Mexico border. The Team concluded, and we agree, 
that the migratory corridor between North San Diego Bay and the U.S./
Mexico border provides high conservation value to the DPS because 
reproductive individuals use it to migrate between reproductive and 
benthic foraging/resting areas. This migration is directly linked to 
population growth, and if the narrow corridor was obstructed, the DPS 
would not recover.
    In addition to the tracking data described above, an individual was 
tracked from Seal Beach NWR in Orange and Los Angeles Counties to Baja 
California, Mexico. This female did not use a nearshore (i.e., 10 km 
offshore) constricted or narrow corridor but instead moved more than 10 
km offshore, into oceanic waters. Therefore, this area does not contain 
the migratory essential feature.

Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential 
Features and Their Conservation Value to the East Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the East Pacific DPS requires successful survival, 
growth, and development of juveniles and sub-adults, as well as the 
successful survival and reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to 
identify surface-pelagic foraging/resting essential features for post-
hatchlings and juveniles due to insufficient data on this developmental 
life stage and its habitat requirements. For benthic juveniles and 
adults, benthic habitats provide the food resources and refugia 
necessary to survive, develop, grow, and reproduce. The following 
benthic foraging/resting features are essential to the conservation of 
the East Pacific DPS: From the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
underwater refugia (e.g., rocks, reefs, and troughs) and food resources 
(i.e., seagrass, marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates) of 
sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density 
necessary to support survival, development, growth, and/or 
reproduction.
    To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the 
Team reviewed the following information. Within Southern California, 
green turtles use diverse habitats within lagoons and bays, including 
coastal inlets and estuaries. In depths up to 20 m, they forage on 
seagrass, algae, and invertebrates in shallower areas and move to 
deeper resting areas for rest. Areas located above the mean high tide 
line are exposed to the air (i.e., not underwater) for a significant 
amount of time and are unlikely to contain food resources at levels 
necessary to support survival, development, growth, and/or 
reproduction. Therefore, the benthic foraging/resting essential 
features occur from the mean high water line to the 20 m depth contour.
    A stable isotope study on 718 green turtles foraging in 16 areas 
(including off the coast of California) indicates that turtles of this 
DPS are omnivorous (Seminoff et al. 2021). Another stable isotope study 
indicates that green turtles in San Diego Bay forage on invertebrates 
(50 percent), seagrass (26 percent), and to a lesser extent red and 
green algae (Lemons et al. 2011). Local seagrass pastures, especially 
eelgrass (Zostera marina), are of great importance to the DPS because 
they provide a major food resource and serve as habitat for mobile and 
sessile invertebrate prey, such as sponges, tunicates, and mollusks 
(Lemons et al. 2011; Crear et al. 2017). Where eelgrass is not present, 
often in urbanized environments, green turtles forage on algae and 
invertebrates that attach to rocky bottoms and hard man-made structures 
(Crear et al. 2017). To account for their omnivorous diet, the 
essential foraging feature includes a variety of food resources (i.e., 
seagrass, marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates).
    After foraging, green turtles rest in underwater refugia (MacDonald 
et al. 2013), even in urbanized environments where they rest among high 
relief substrates and structures, including bridge pilings and 
discharge outflows (Crear et al. 2017). Turtles move between foraging 
sites and underwater refugia throughout the diel cycle (Seminoff et al. 
2006; MacDonald et al. 2013; Crear et al. 2017). In the winter and in 
some locations, turtles use underwater refugia during the day, 
suggesting resting between diurnal foraging excursions (MacDonald et 
al. 2013; Crear et al. 2017). Rest is marked by prolonged periods of 
inactivity punctuated by long, deep, dives that allow turtles to 
achieve neutral buoyancy and efficiently utilize oxygen; however, 
turtles have also been documented resting for shorter time periods 
(Crear et al. 2017; Seminoff et al. 2021). Turtles rest adjacent to 
culverts (where tide scouring creates a deeper resting habitat), bridge 
pilings, runoff outflows (Crear et al. 2017), and on the seafloor 
within the warm-water effluent of power plants (MacDonald et al. 2012; 
2013). Since the closure of a power plant and the loss of its warm 
water effluent, green turtles continue to forage and rest in South San 
Diego Bay; however, their night-time home ranges have expanded, 
suggesting that they use resting sites that are separate from their 
foraging areas (Eguchi et al. 2020). Thus, underwater refugia (e.g., 
rocks, reefs, and troughs) are essential for the conservation of the 
DPS.
    Generally, adults and benthic foraging juveniles occupy small home 
ranges that include foraging resources and underwater refugia. For 
example, green

[[Page 46597]]

turtles acoustically tracked in San Diego Bay occupied areas of 2.09 to 
8.70 km\2\, remaining in one or two core areas more than half the time 
(MacDonald et al. 2012). Larger turtles may use smaller core areas as a 
result of increased familiarity and foraging efficiency (MacDonald et 
al. 2012). Multiple recaptures within San Diego Bay between 1990 and 
2020 confirm the site fidelity of foraging turtles (Eguchi et al. 2010; 
MacDonald et al. 2012; NMFS' unpublished data 2021); however, some 
individuals move long distances between foraging areas, including one 
individual tracked from San Diego Bay to a foraging area near Long 
Beach, California (SWFSC unpublished data 2016). Because of site 
fidelity and small home ranges, underwater refugia and food resources 
must be available in sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, 
abundance, and density necessary to support survival, development, 
growth, and/or reproduction.
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special 
management considerations or protection to maintain the quality and 
quantity of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The 
following may threaten these features (or threaten access to them) 
include: dredging and disposal; shoreline development and construction 
projects; beach nourishment; pipeline and cable projects; oil and gas 
activities, such as seismic exploration, construction, removal of 
platforms, and oil spills and response activities; alternative energy 
structures or activities such as installation of turbines, wind farms, 
and means to convert wave or tidal energy into power; agriculture and 
other land-use projects; pollution; power and desalination plant 
operations (i.e., discharges); wastewater treatment plant operations 
(i.e., discharges); aquaculture and fishing activities; and vessel 
operations. Such activities may alter the benthos and modify or destroy 
eelgrass beds and associated shallow subtidal habitat, resulting in a 
temporary loss of food resources, which would persist until seagrass, 
macroalgae, and invertebrates are able to recolonize the area. For 
example, Naval development in the Anaheim Bay/Seal Beach area involved 
dredging, filling, and rip rap removal and placement, which likely 
displaced green turtles from these areas temporarily (Hanna 2021). 
Shoreline development and construction, agriculture, oil and gas 
activities, desalination, wastewater treatment, and power plant 
operations result in discharges or run-off, which may contribute to 
sediment toxicity (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 
2013), anthropogenic nitrogen loading (Seminoff et al. 2021), and other 
water-quality impairments. Dredging also releases contaminants into 
nearby waters and legacy chemicals back into coastal food webs, some of 
which (e.g., trace metals) accumulate in eelgrass, Zostera marina 
(Komoroske et al. 2011; Komoroske et al. 2012; Barraza et al. 2019; 
Barraza et al. 2020). Power generating facilities, their warm water 
discharges, and closures may affect the distribution of sea turtles and 
their prey (Crear et al. 2016; Eguchi et al. 2020). Fishing and 
aquaculture activities may reduce or displace food resources, such as 
seagrass beds and invertebrates. Vessel activities modify seagrass beds 
through propeller scarring, anchoring, and groundings. These activities 
may also modify or destroy the underwater rocks, reefs, and troughs 
used as refugia. Several activities also produce noise, which may 
discourage the use of refugia (e.g., seismic surveys; Nelms et al. 
2016). In addition, climate change is likely to affect foraging/resting 
essential features in ways that may require special management 
considerations or protection. Fortification of coastal developments, in 
response to sea level rise, is likely to limit habitat availability, 
with a negative impact on foraging resources, such as submerged aquatic 
vegetation.
    Within the range of the East Pacific DPS, many areas contain food 
resources and underwater refugia that may serve as resting sites. The 
Team relied on the occurrence of green turtles to determine which of 
these areas contain resources sufficient to support their survival, 
development, and growth. First, the Team identified areas where 
foraging or resting green turtles have been documented in published, 
peer-reviewed, scientific research studies. Next, the Team identified 
areas where foraging or resting green turtles have been sighted by 
scientists or members of the public (i.e., the NMFS turtle sightings 
database). Finally, the Team used stranding data to confirm the 
presence and relative abundance of green turtles in areas containing 
foraging/resting essential features. Within bays and estuaries, the 
Team had high confidence that stranding data reflect green turtle 
foraging or resting locations, because they likely entered these areas 
to forage or rest before becoming stranded there; however, in coastal 
areas where currents may carry stranded turtles, the Team was less 
confident that the stranding location accurately represented a turtle 
foraging or resting location. The Team also identified areas where 
green turtles forage in the warm water effluent of once-through cooling 
water intake channels of power plants. These live, healthy turtles 
often become entrained (i.e., entrapped) within the intake channels 
while foraging/resting near the entrance. While the range of this DPS 
extends north of Point Conception, California, these areas do not 
contain the essential features, as defined above. Green turtles require 
an adequate warm water season to gain enough nutrition to support 
normal body function and somatic growth. Six months is the minimum 
duration that constitutes an adequate growth season, and 15 [deg]C is 
the minimum temperature threshold for green turtle activity. While 
temperatures at or slightly above 15 [deg]C are not ideal for green 
turtle activity, turtles will still forage at this temperature with 
mild regional endothermy (SWFSC unpublished data 2022). Areas north of 
Point Conception exhibit a limited warm water season, as offshore 
temperatures remain above 15 [deg]C for less than 3 months per year, 
and some months fall below 10 [deg]C. Because these areas host 
suboptimal temperatures for most of the year, they are unable to 
support the survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction of green 
turtles. Therefore, the Team did not recommend these areas for 
consideration as critical habitat, and analyses focused on areas south 
of Point Conception, which we refer to as Southern California.
Southern California
    Numerous green turtle research studies have been conducted in San 
Diego Bay, which hosts a resident population of benthic foraging 
juvenile and adult green turtles (Stinson 1984; McDonald et al. 1994; 
Eguchi et al. 2010; Turner-Tomaszewicz and Seminoff 2011; MacDonald et 
al. 2012; MacDonald et al. 2013). When the South Bay Power Plant was 
operational, turtles occupied small home ranges in South San Diego Bay 
(south of Sweetwater Inlet), where they foraged on dense eelgrass (Z. 
marina) and associated macroalgae and invertebrates during the day and 
rested at night (and during the day in winter), along the effluent 
outfall channel and jetty habitat (MacDonald et al. 2012; MacDonald et 
al. 2013). Following power plant closure, turtles continue to be 
observed year-round in this area. Turtles forage on seagrass in the 
South and Central Bays (MacDonald et al. 2012; MacDonald et al. 2013), 
which have dense seagrass beds that have expanded to several thousand 
acres during the past several years;

[[Page 46598]]

however, the industrialized jetties on the eastern shores of the 
Central Bay do not appear to be used by turtles, perhaps due to the 
heavy boat traffic. Although less studied, the North Bay does not 
appear to support significant green turtle foraging (MacDonald et al. 
2012; NMFS, unpublished data 2016), likely because seagrass is less 
abundant in this part of San Diego Bay; however, turtles must use this 
area to access foraging areas in the Central and South Bay.
    North of San Diego Bay, La Jolla Shores is an exceptionally 
productive area with rocky reefs (habitat for invertebrates), seagrass, 
and algae. Hanna et al. (2021) described a resident population of green 
turtles at La Jolla Shores. In their community-based science study, 
turtles were observed foraging 14.9 percent of the time and resting 2.3 
percent of the time in water temperatures as low as 15.8 [deg]C, one of 
the lowest recorded temperatures documented for foraging turtles of 
this DPS (Hanna et al. 2021). At La Jolla Cove, a small area within La 
Jolla Shores, consistent anecdotal data demonstrate year-round 
occupation by green turtles, often with multiple turtles congregating 
in a small area (R. Pace pers. comm. 2014 to 2016).
    Studies of Seal Beach NWR demonstrate a resident green turtle 
population in that area (Crear et al. 2016; Crear et al. 2017; Hanna 
2021). Juvenile and sub-adult sea turtles forage and rest in the San 
Gabriel River, Seal Beach NWR (including the 7th Street Basin), 
Alamitos Bay, and Anaheim Bay (Crear et al. 2017). Hanna (2021) 
satellite tracked 16 green turtles captured in Seal Beach NWR and found 
that they spent the majority of their time there; however, 4 turtles 
transitioned into Anaheim Bay, 2 moved offshore before returning to 
Anaheim Bay, and 1 visited Huntington Harbor frequently (Hanna 2021). 
Generally, areas occupied by turtles were characterized by eelgrass 
and/or soft mud substrate, an important habitat for invertebrates 
(Hanna 2021). Crear et al. (2016) described the movement and behavior 
of 22 juvenile green turtles (45.2 to 96.8 cm SCL) at Seal Beach NWR 
and in the San Gabriel River (a highly urbanized river that has been 
channelized for flood control and receives warm water effluent from 2 
power plants). These turtles appear to use the areas for foraging, 
resting, and avoidance of cold water temperatures of less than 15 
[deg]C. Elevated temperatures in this area are attributed to the power 
plants' discharge of once-through-cooling-water (which will be phased 
out by 2029), channelization (i.e., concrete lining for flood control), 
urban runoff, and shallowness (Crear et al. 2016). The rock riprap in 
the San Gabriel River supports a variety of algae and invertebrates for 
foraging turtles; bridge pilings and runoff outflows may provide 
resting habitat by sheltering turtles from tidal flow (Crear et al. 
2017). Turtles forage downstream and rest upstream in the river 
throughout the year; some turtles leave the river to forage in other 
locations, for example, in Alamitos Bay, where algae and invertebrates 
are abundant along the rock riprap, boat docks, and flats (Crear et al. 
2017). Three turtles tracked in the San Gabriel River exhibited home 
ranges (95 percent daily area use) of 0.46 0.023 km\2\ with 
an average core area of 0.0118 0.0066 km\2\. Three turtles 
tracked in the 7th Street Basin exhibited home ranges of 0.024 0.012 km\2\ with an average core area of 0.0051 0.0028 km\2\ (Crear et al. 2017). The basin supports large, dense 
eelgrass beds (Merkel and Associates 2014), and the turtles appear to 
rest in deeper waters, including near the culvert within the 7th Street 
Basin (Crear et al. 2017). Turtles move through Anaheim Bay to access 
the 7th Street Basin and San Gabriel River (Crear et al. 2017). Crear 
et al. (2017) conclude that the urbanized San Gabriel River, with its 
rocky edges and lack of seagrass, nonetheless offers suitable habitat 
for green turtles, even in comparison to more natural habitats (such as 
the restored 7th Street Basin that has a single culvert and an 
abundance of eelgrass). This is further demonstrated by satellite 
tagged turtles that remain in these habitats despite access to more 
natural habitats (Hanna 2021).
    Sightings provide additional data on the occurrence of foraging/
resting green turtles (SWFSC unpublished data 2022). These data 
demonstrate the greatest densities of green turtles in known foraging/
resting areas around Seal Beach NWR, San Diego Bay, and La Jolla. 
Multiple or consistent sightings and live strandings also occur at 
Mission Bay, Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, and Santa Monica Bay, indicating the 
presence of the foraging/resting essential features in these areas 
(SWFSC unpublished data 2021). See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) for figures.
    Based on the best available information, presented above, the Team 
concluded, and we agree, that South and Central San Diego Bay and the 
Seal Beach Wetland and Nearshore Complex (including San Pedro Bay, San 
Gabriel River, Alamitos Bay, Anaheim Bay, Huntington Harbor, Bolsa 
Chica (excluding lowlands), Seal Beach NWR, 7th Street Basin, and 
offshore waters) provide high conservation value because they support a 
high abundance of foraging/resting green turtles. We also identified La 
Jolla Shores and Cove, Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, and San Onofre as 
providing high conservation value because the abundance of green 
turtles foraging and resting in these waters is relatively high. The 
following areas support a moderate abundance of foraging/resting green 
turtles and provide moderate conservation value to the DPS: Mission Bay 
(San Diego); Point Loma to (but not including) La Jolla Shores; La 
Jolla Shores to Oceanside (including Oceanside); San Onofre to Newport 
(including Newport Bay); Newport to Huntington Beach; Bolsa Chica 
Lowlands; Los Angeles and Long Beach Breakwater; Palos Verdes; Santa 
Monica Bay; and Catalina Island. The following areas provide low 
conservation value to the East Pacific DPS because of relatively lower 
density foraging/resting in these areas: Los Angeles and Long Beach 
Harbors, Channel Islands, and the area from Santa Monica Bay to Point 
Conception. No data were available for waters along Camp Pendleton.

Review of INRMPs Within the Range of the East Pacific DPS

    DoD provided, and we reviewed, INRMPs for nine installations (NMFS 
2023c). Three installations do not overlap with areas under 
consideration as critical habitat for this DPS: Naval Base Ventura 
County Port Hueneme; Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu; and Marine 
Corps Base Camp Pendleton, which is adjacent to an area that was data 
deficient and therefore not considered for critical habitat. As 
discussed in the following section, based on economic impacts, we 
propose to exclude areas overlapping with the following two 
installations: Naval Base Ventura County San Nicolas Island, and Naval 
Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island. The remaining two INRMPs 
include: San Diego Bay INRMP, which is inclusive of Naval Base San 
Diego, Naval Base Coronado, and Naval Base Point Loma installations; 
and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach INRMP. We are working with DoD to 
identify relevant elements to protect the habitat from the types of 
effects that would be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-
modification analysis (50 CFR 424.12(h)). We will consider this 
analysis and other information to determine whether a benefit is 
provided prior to publication of the final rule to designate critical 
habitat.

Economic Impacts Within the Range of the East Pacific DPS

    For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat, we

[[Page 46599]]

weighed the economic impact of designation against the benefits of 
designation, as represented by its conservation value to the East 
Pacific DPS (see Table 3). Specific areas providing high conservation 
value are associated with a combined total annualized impact of 
$70,000. Specific areas providing moderate conservation value are 
associated with a combined total annualized impact of $55,000 
(administrative costs only) to $61,000 (administrative and project 
modification costs). Specific areas providing low conservation value 
are associated with a combined total annualized impact of $28,000. 
Moderate and high conservation value areas are moderately and highly 
important (respectively) to supporting the overall life history and 
recovery of the DPS, and the benefits of designating these areas are 
not outweighed by the low economic impacts. We conclude, however, that 
the economic impacts outweigh the benefits of designating specific 
areas of low conservation value. Based on the Team's criteria and best 
available data, low conservation value areas do not contain essential 
reproductive and/or migratory features. Furthermore, these areas host a 
lower abundance and/or density of foraging/resting green turtles, 
suggesting that they provide less conservation value to the DPS 
relative to areas hosting moderate or high abundances or densities. 
Although the estimated annualized costs across all of the low 
conservation value areas for the DPS were low ($28,000), we concluded 
that these impacts outweighed the benefits of designating these areas. 
Therefore, we propose to exclude the following areas from the critical 
habitat designation: Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Channel 
Islands, and Santa Monica Bay to Point Conception. As discussed in the 
Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2023c), we conclude 
that exclusion of these low conservation value areas from the critical 
habitat designation will not result in extinction of the East Pacific 
DPS.

   Table 3--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
 Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
   10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
                    Habitat for the East Pacific DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
             Area                Conservation value         impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico border to North San     High..................            $10,000
 Diego Bay.
Central and South San Diego    High..................             28,000
 Bay.
Mission Bay..................  Moderate..............              1,900
Point Loma to La Jolla Shores  Moderate..............                430
La Jolla Shores/Cove.........  High..................                430
La Jolla Shores to Oceanside.  Moderate..............     4,000 to 7,400
Aqua Hedionda................  High..................              2,300
San Onofre...................  High..................              3,000
San Onofre to Newport........  Moderate..............   34,000 to 37,000
Newport to Huntington Beach..  Moderate..............              1,100
Bolsa Chica Lowlands.........  Moderate..............              1,700
Seal Beach Complex...........  High..................             26,000
Los Angeles and Long Beach     Low...................             13,000
 Harbors.
Los Angeles and Long Beach     Moderate..............              1,100
 Breakwaters.
Palos Verdes.................  Moderate..............              1,100
Santa Monica Bay.............  Moderate..............              7,400
Catalina Island..............  Moderate..............              2,000
Channel Islands..............  Low...................              1,700
Santa Monica Bay to Point      Low...................             12,000
 Conception.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Security Impacts Within the Range of the East Pacific DPS

    We received two requests for exclusions due to national security 
impacts of specific areas under consideration for proposed critical 
habitat of the East Pacific DPS (NMFS 2023c). These requests are not 
yet reasonably specific to weigh national and homeland security impacts 
against the benefits of a potential critical habitat designation. We 
are working with DoD and DHS to gather the specific information and 
will consider it prior to publication of the final rule to designate 
critical habitat.

Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the East Pacific 
DPS

    For the threatened East Pacific DPS of green turtles, we propose to 
designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 652 km\2\ of 
nearshore waters. The proposed designation includes the migratory 
essential feature from the Mexico border to and including North San 
Diego Bay, from the mean high water line to 10 km offshore. The 
proposed designation also includes areas containing the benthic 
foraging/resting essential features from the mean high water line to 20 
m depth in the following areas: South and Central San Diego Bay, San 
Diego Bay to and including Santa Monica Bay (not including waters 
adjacent to Camp Pendleton), and Catalina Island. All areas proposed 
for designation are of moderate or high conservation value to the DPS. 
A total area of 630 km\2\ is proposed for exclusion because the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of these low 
conservation value areas. The Team found, and we agree, that exclusion 
of these areas from the critical habitat designation would not result 
in extinction of this DPS (NMFS 2023a). At this time, we have not 
received reasonably specific information with which to propose 
exclusions based on national security impacts. At this time, no areas 
are ineligible for designation as critical habitat under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not identified any unoccupied areas 
that are essential to the conservation of this DPS; thus we are not 
proposing to designate any unoccupied areas.

Central North Pacific DPS

    The Central North Pacific DPS is defined as green turtles 
originating from the Central North Pacific Ocean, including those 
hatching from nests on the beaches within the Hawaiian Archipelago and 
those occurring at Johnston Atoll. The range of the DPS is bounded by 
the following coordinates:

[[Page 46600]]

41[deg] N, 169[deg] E in the northwest; 41[deg] N, 143[deg] W in the 
northeast; 9[deg] N, 125[deg] W in the southeast; and 9[deg] N, 
175[deg] W in the southwest. The geographical area occupied by this DPS 
includes waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Within the U.S. EEZ, the 
range of the DPS includes waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore of 
the Hawaiian Archipelago (which includes the main Hawaiian Islands 
(MHI), and the Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument 
(PMNM)) and Johnston Atoll. See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) for a map of this area.
    The 1998 Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green 
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998) identified recovery criteria to delist the 
species (i.e., the goal of the plan), including activities needed to 
protect and prevent the degradation of marine habitat. To identify 
relevant scientific information, the Team worked with biologists from 
the Hawai[revaps]i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of 
Aquatic Resources.

Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the Central North Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the Central North Pacific DPS is dependent on 
successful reproduction, and as indicated by the Recovery Plan, 
increased nesting and nesting locations. While nesting occurs on 
beaches (i.e., terrestrial habitat, under USFWS jurisdiction), 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 Central North Pacific DPS: From 
the mean high water line to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and 
unobstructed nearshore waters adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as 
critical habitat by USFWS, to allow for the transit, mating, and 
internesting of reproductive individuals, and the transit of post-
hatchlings.
    The Team used the following information to identify this 
reproductive essential feature. USFWS reviewed nesting data to identify 
beaches considered for terrestrial critical habitat, which begins at 
the mean high water line. Therefore, in-water areas considered for 
marine critical habitat also begin at the mean high water line (i.e., 
waters adjacent to nesting beaches). To determine the offshore boundary 
of the reproductive essential feature, the Team reviewed 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). Both males and 
females return to the nearshore waters off their natal beaches (Dizon 
and Balazs 1982), where mating occurs in shallow waters, usually within 
2 km of the coastline (Balazs 1980). Preliminary analyses of adult 
males and females (n = 28) demonstrate that turtles spend 90 percent or 
more of their time at depths of 20 m or less (NMFS Pacific Islands 
Fishery Science Center (PIFSC) unpublished data 2022). The Team 
concluded 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. Hatchlings emerge from their 
nests and enter the water at night, usually within a few hours after 
sunset (Balazs 1980). Post-hatchlings move rapidly (i.e., swim frenzy) 
through nearshore waters on their way to their oceanic habitat using 
light cues to orient toward the relatively bright horizon over the 
ocean (Balazs 1980). This supports the need for dark waters off nesting 
beaches.
    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 (the most productive life stage) is concentrated 
within relatively small areas adjacent to nesting beaches. The 
reproductive essential feature may require special consideration due to 
nearshore structures, which have the potential of blocking access to 
nesting beaches or open water for hatchlings and post-nesting females. 
In 2018, Hurricane Walaka passed directly over Lalo/French Frigate 
Shoals, all but destroying East Island. As a result, Tern Island has 
become increasingly important to nesting turtles, despite its degraded 
habitat, which was heavily modified by artificial structures and the 
building of a runway prior to World War II (Baker et al. 2020). Baker 
et al. (2020) indicated the need to mitigate habitat degradation. For 
example, the seawall surrounding Tern Island is dilapidated, trapping 
green turtles as they move on and off nesting beaches (Staman et al. 
2021). Additionally, landfilled materials adjacent to beaches at Tern 
Island have been shown to contain hazardous substances such as dioxins/
furans, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, hydrocarbons, and heavy 
metals, which can have negative impacts on wildlife in the marine and 
terrestrial ecosystems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014).
    Climate change is likely to alter or result in additional losses of 
essential reproductive habitat. Sea level rise is likely to result in a 
3 to 75 percent loss of terrestrial habitat in the PMNM (Baker et al. 
2006), reducing nesting habitat (Reynolds et al. 2012). Increased use 
of nesting sites in the MHI could buffer against the loss of low-lying 
areas in the PMNM due to sea level rise (Dutton et al. 2014). However, 
habitats in the MHI have a greater likelihood of human disturbance than 
those in the remote and uninhabited PMNM. Nesting beach access in the 
MHI can be blocked or impeded by inwater structures and construction, 
dredging, oil and gas activities, power generating activities, fishing 
and aquaculture activities, recreational activities, and pollution 
(e.g., run-off and contaminants). Artificial lighting in nearshore 
habitats is likely to disorient nesting females and post-hatchlings.
    To identify specific areas containing the reproductive features 
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS' 
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed nesting beaches in 
the Hawaiian Archipelago as terrestrial critical habitat elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164).
    For each of these areas, we identified the adjacent marine area, 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, as containing the 
reproductive features essential to the conservation of the Central 
North Pacific DPS and which may require special management 
consideration or protection. These areas are of high conservation value 
to the DPS because they are required for successful reproduction, which 
is directly linked to population growth and recovery. Females must use 
reproductive areas to reach the nesting beaches proposed as critical 
habitat by USFWS and for internesting. These areas are also essential 
for successful mating and post-hatchling swim frenzy and early 
dispersal. Green turtles do not nest at Johnston Atoll. Thus, USFWS is 
not proposing terrestrial critical habitat at Johnston Atoll, and 
correspondingly, we did not identify any areas containing the 
reproductive essential feature at Johnston Atoll.

[[Page 46601]]

No Migratory Essential Feature for the Central North Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the Central North Pacific DPS requires that adult 
turtles forage and reproduce. Because reproduction and benthic 
foraging/resting are often geographically separated, the recovery of 
the DPS requires turtles to successfully migrate between these areas.
    Individual green turtles of the Hawaiian Archipelago return to 
their resident foraging areas at the end of each breeding season, i.e., 
individuals demonstrate both nesting and foraging site fidelity (Balazs 
1976; Rice and Balazs 2008). Most adult green turtles of the Central 
North Pacific DPS migrate between foraging sites in the MHI and 
reproductive sites at Lalo/French Frigate Shoals (Balazs 1976, 1980); 
they take 20 to 94 days to travel the 800 to 1,100 km distance (Rice 
and Balazs 2008; Balazs et al. 2017). To migrate between Lalo and MHI, 
reproductive turtles use two general routes: south over deep, oceanic 
waters or a direct track via Mokumanamana/Necker and Nihoa Islands 
(Balazs et al. 2017). Most turtles used the oceanic route (Balazs et 
al. 2017; PIFSC unpublished data). A female tracked from Lalo to 
Johnston Atoll used a direct open-ocean pathway (Balazs et al. 2017).
    Given these data, the Team concluded that green turtles of this DPS 
do not use a narrow, constricted migratory corridor. Instead, they use 
multiple oceanic migratory paths. We were unable to identify a 
particular depth or distance from shore used by adult green turtles to 
migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. We 
were also unable to identify any other physical or biological feature 
used by migrating turtles because the best available data demonstrate 
variation among movement patterns of individuals in oceanic habitats. 
That is to say that migration is not constricted or confined by a 
continental shelf, current, or other feature, but rather occurs over a 
large, oceanic environment without defining features (such as depth or 
distance from shore). Thus, while migration between reproductive and 
benthic foraging/resting habitats is essential to the conservation of 
the DPS, we were unable to identify or define a migratory feature for 
this DPS.

Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential 
Features and Their Conservation Value to the Central North Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the Central North Pacific DPS requires successful 
survival, growth, and development of juvenile life stages and the 
successful survival and reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to 
identify foraging/resting essential features for post-hatchlings and 
surface-pelagic juveniles due to insufficient data on this 
developmental life stage and its habitat requirements. For benthic 
juveniles and adults, benthic habitats provide the food resources and 
refugia necessary to survive, develop, grow, and reproduce. The 
following benthic foraging/resting features are essential to the 
conservation of the Central North Pacific DPS: From the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia (e.g., caves, reefs, protective 
outcroppings, submarine cliffs, and ``potholes'') and food resources 
(i.e., seagrass, marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates) of 
sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and density 
necessary to support survival, development, growth, and/or 
reproduction.
    To identify the foraging/resting essential features, the Team 
gathered data on the DPS's use of benthic foraging/resting habitats. In 
Hawai`i, green turtles spend most of their lives residing in nearshore 
areas, alternating between feeding and resting (Balazs 1980). The 
underwater refugia are generally located within 2 km of foraging 
locations (Balazs et al. 1987). Preliminary analyses of adult males and 
females (n = 28) demonstrates that turtles spend 90 percent or more of 
their time at depths of 20 m or less (PIFSC unpublished data 2022). 
Once recruited to an area, juveniles demonstrate foraging site fidelity 
and have small home ranges (Balazs 1980; Brill et al. 1995). Adults are 
likely to return to the same foraging site after nesting migrations 
(Balazs 1976; Rice and Balazs 2008).
    Green turtles of the Central North Pacific DPS appear to be 
selective foragers that target a few species but opportunistically feed 
on many others, including 275 species of marine macroalgae, 2 species 
of seagrass (Halophila hawaiiana and H. decipiens), and 9 marine 
invertebrate taxa (Balazs 1980; Russell et al. 2003; McDermid et al. 
2015). The most common diet items include seagrass (H. hawaiiana) and 
nine species of benthic red, green, and brown algae, including: Ulva 
fasciata, Codium edule, C. arabicum, and C. phasmaticum throughout the 
Archipelago; Pterocladia capillacea and Amansia glomerata in the MHI; 
and Caulepa racemosa, Spyridia filamentosa, and Turbinaria ornata in 
the PMNM (Balazs 1980). Some introduced algal species (Acanthophora 
spicifera, Hypnea musciformis, and Gracilaria salicornia) have become a 
common element in the turtles' diet (Arthur and Balazs 2008; Russel and 
Balazs 2009; Russell and Balazs 2015). As these non-native algal 
species have increased in abundance, their prevalence in the green 
turtle diet has also increased (Russell and Balazs 2015). The preferred 
algal species generally occur in greater abundance in the MHI (Balazs 
1980), whereas seagrasses occur only in the MHI and at Kuaihelani/
Midway Atoll (Balazs 1980). In addition, sea turtles forage on 
introduced terrestrial grasses and tree leaves, which are abundant in 
the MHI and provide high caloric content (Ashley 2010; Wills 2010; 
Russell et al. 2011; McDermid et al. 2015, 2018). Balazs (1980) 
observed juveniles and subadults ``voraciously foraging'' on hydrozoans 
(Physalia and Velella spp.) and planktonic mollusks (Janthina spp.) in 
coastal areas of the PMNM. The analysis of 2,471 digestive track 
samples, collected over 35 years, revealed more than 30 animal taxa, 
including cnidarians, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, and sponges 
(Russell et al. 2011).
    For rest and protection from predators, green turtles retreat to 
underwater refugia located near foraging areas. Such refugia include 
caves, coral recesses, the undersides of ledges, and sandy bottom areas 
(called ``nests'') that are relatively free of strong currents and 
disturbances (Balazs 1980). Refugia occur adjacent to foraging areas at 
depths of up to 50 m; however, most turtles use shallower resting areas 
(Balazs 1980).
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special 
management considerations or protection to maintain sufficient food 
resources and refugia in nearshore habitats. The Recovery Plan (NMFS 
and USFWS 1998) indicates that protection is needed to prevent the 
degradation of marine habitats due to construction, dredging, disposal, 
pollution, coastal erosion, fishing, and vessel activities (e.g., 
groundings, anchoring, and propeller scarring). The turtles' main food 
source, macroalgae, is available in nearshore areas throughout the 
Archipelago, often associated with coral reefs. Coral reefs are highly 
sensitive to and threatened by overfishing, terrestrial runoff, 
recreational activities, and climate change (Friedlander et al. 2005; 
Becker et al. 2019). Such activities may result in siltation and 
contamination of foraging areas (Bowen et al. 1992; NMFS and USFWS 
1998; Friedlander et al. 2006; Wedding and Friedlander 2008; Wedding et 
al. 2008;

[[Page 46602]]

Van Houtan et al. 2010). Seagrass and coral reef habitats of the MHI 
have been degraded by upland soil erosion and siltation, sedimentation, 
sewage, and coastal construction (NMFS and USFWS 1998). Discharges from 
agriculture, development, construction, and stormwater occur throughout 
the MHI and have a significant effect on the taxonomic and chemical 
composition of algal communities (e.g., Lapointe and Bedford 2011; 
Dailer et al. 2010; Swarzenski et al. 2017). The herbicide glyphosate 
is introduced to coastal environments through run-off and was shown to 
negatively impact native macroalgae and seagrasses in Hawaiian waters 
(Kittle and McDermid 2016). The protection of food resources is 
especially important at high density foraging areas, such as the 
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park on Hawai[revaps]i Island. 
Wabnitz et al. (2010) expressed concern over water quality in the area 
because plans have been proposed for the development of adjacent lands 
that would result in a 300 percent expansion of the small boat harbor 
and construction of hotels, condominiums, and an industrial park; 
expected impacts include reduced groundwater flow and increases in 
sedimentation, nutrient influx, and chemical pollutants. There is also 
a proposal to dredge areas in front of the Kahala Hotel on O`ahu, where 
both seagrass species are located (K. Foster, USFWS pers. comm. 2015). 
In the PMNM, there is concern regarding pollution from previous 
construction. At Tern Island, landfill materials contain hazardous 
substances such as dioxins/furans, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, 
hydrocarbons, and heavy metals, which can have negative impacts on 
wildlife in marine and terrestrial ecosystems (U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency 2014). Underwater refugia may also be in need of 
special management considerations or protection as well. Dredging and 
beach nourishment may cover or destroy underwater refugia. Disrupted 
underwater rest may prevent adequate digestion, development, and 
growth.
    Within the range of the Central North Pacific DPS, many areas 
contain food resources and underwater refugia. The Team relied on the 
occurrence of foraging/resting green turtles to determine which of 
these areas contain resources sufficient to support their survival, 
development, growth, and/or reproduction. First, the Team identified 
areas containing the foraging/resting essential features where green 
turtles have been documented in published scientific research studies. 
Next, the Team considered unpublished data from scientific research 
studies and aerial and in-water surveys. The Team only used stranding 
data to support other data and to demonstrate the likely extent of the 
essential features because the origins of strandings are often unknown 
and strandings may be the result of suboptimal habitat use.
    For this DPS, the Team used the best available data to determine 
whether specific areas provide a high or low conservation value to the 
DPS. From 2002 to 2015, Becker et al. (2019) conducted biennial or 
triennial nearshore towed diver surveys throughout the U.S. Pacific 
Islands, estimating green turtle densities at each island. Such 
densities provide a relative, objective, and consistent measure of an 
area's conservation value to each DPS (Becker et al. 2019). To 
delineate between high and low densities (and thus high and low 
conservation value), the Team also considered additional data (e.g., 
in-water captures). First the Team reviewed in-water capture data that 
demonstrate high abundances of green turtles in waters of Hawai`i, 
Maui, Moloka`i, Lana`i, O`ahu, and Kaua`i O`ahu and Lana`i (NMFS 
2023a). Then, the Team reviewed the Becker et al. (2019) density data 
for those islands. The lowest density estimates for those islands was 
0.10 green turtles/km at Lana`i (Becker et al. 2019). Therefore, 
estimates greater than or equal to 0.10 green turtles/km (Becker et al. 
2019) constitute high density within the Hawaiian Archipelago. Based on 
this threshold, high densities of foraging/resting green turtles occur 
in waters off the Island of Hawai`i (0.27 green turtles/km), Maui 
(0.24), Moloka`i (0.13), Lana`i (0.10), O`ahu (0.11), and Kaua`i 
(0.18). Low densities (less than 0.10 green turtles/km) of foraging/
resting green turtles occur in waters off Ni`ihau and throughout the 
PMNM (Becker et al. 2019). The Team also compared data at a finer 
scale, combining PIFSC in-water capture surveys between 1985 and 2016 
with NMFS' Coral Reef Ecosystem Program (CREP) towed diver surveys 
between 2000 and 2015 in some nearshore waters throughout the 
Archipelago (Becker et al. 2019). Green turtles were observed foraging 
or resting in most areas surveyed (CREP, unpublished data 2016; PIFSC 
unpublished data 2022). In support of the above data, stranding data 
are available throughout much of the Archipelago (PIFSC unpublished 
data 1975 to 2016; Robertson et al. 2016). See the Draft Biological 
Report (NMFS 2023a) for figures. These data indicate that green turtles 
forage and rest in nearshore areas throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago.
    Throughout the Hawaiian Archipelago, benthic foraging areas for 
green turtles are spatially and behaviorally linked to adjacent beaches 
where basking occurs (PIFSC unpublished data 2015; Robertson et al. 
2016). Basking is an alternate and more energy-efficient strategy to 
resting underwater after bouts of foraging. Green turtles bask on 
beaches for rest, thermoregulation, digestion, and predator avoidance 
(Balazs 1977; Wittow and Balazs 1982; Rice and Balazs 2008; Van Houtan 
et al. 2015). The distances between foraging sites and basking sites 
are most often within 300 to 500 meters and rarely over 1 km (G. 
Balazs, PIFSC pers. comm. 2016; Balazs and Chaloupka 2004; Balazs et 
al. 2015). USFWS included basking beaches in their consideration of 
terrestrial critical habitat. Green turtles bask on these beaches after 
foraging in adjacent waters, demonstrating that these marine areas 
contain the essential foraging feature. Similar to nesting beaches, 
adjacent marine areas are important because green turtles must use 
these waters to access basking beaches proposed as critical habitat by 
USFWS. Therefore, where USFWS proposed to designate basking beaches as 
terrestrial critical habitat elsewhere in today's Federal Register (see 
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164), we 
identify the adjacent marine areas as containing the essential foraging 
feature from the mean high water line to 20 m depth.
Hawai[revaps]i (Big Island)
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
island (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters off Hawai`i Island. Juvenile turtles use 
benthic foraging/resting habitat along the Kona/Kohala coast. Numerous 
turtles (over 300; Balazs et al. 2000) forage in Kiholo Bay (Balazs and 
Chaloupka 2004; Seaborn et al. 2005) on red and green macroalgae, 
especially Pterocladia and Cladophora spp. (Arthur and Balazs 2008). 
Juvenile turtles (n = 44) use the Wainanali`i Lagoon and adjacent 
fishponds for rest and thermoregulation (Balazs et al. 2000; Harrington 
et al. 2000). The rocky inshore reef of Kaloko-Honokohau National 
Historical Park provides

[[Page 46603]]

foraging habitat for juvenile green turtles (Arthur and Balazs 2008). 
Turtles also forage on turf algae close to shore, possibly to avoid 
shark predation, at this important foraging area (Wabnitz et al. 2010). 
Kahalu`u Bay is also an important foraging area for juvenile and 
subadult green turtles (Balazs 1996; Kohala Center 2015). The waters 
off the Ka`u and North Kohala Districts contain foraging/resting 
essential features for resident adult turtles (Balazs 1980). Balazs 
(1980) describes turtles foraging along the coastlines of the Ka`u 
District, where red algae (P. capillacea) grows in shallow, turbulent 
water on rocks just below the low tide line and in areas where 
freshwater enters the ocean from underground springs. This area 
includes Punalu'u Bay, where green turtles forage on intertidal red 
algae inside the bay at depths up to 2 m for approximately 9 hours 
daily and rest outside of the bay at depths of 4 to 38.5 m for 
approximately 12 hours nightly (Rice et al. 2000). Prior to 2018 when 
lava completely filled Kapoho Bay, juvenile turtles used the 
geothermal-heated pools for thermoregulation and underwater resting; 
they foraged on red macroalgae, including Gracilaria and Amansia spp. 
(Arthur and Balazs 2008). Turtles in the waters off Hilo forage at high 
tide on a terrestrial, salt-tolerant turfgrass (seashore paspalum, 
Paspalum vaginatum), which was first introduced to the Hawaiian Islands 
in the 1930s (McDermid et al. 2015).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Hawai`i Island, from the mean high water line to 20 
m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protections. This area is 
of high conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because it 
supports a high density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et 
al. 2019).
Maui
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
island (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters off Maui. The waters off the Paia and the 
Hana District contain foraging/resting essential features for resident 
adult turtles (Balazs 1980). Balazs (1987) studied foraging areas off 
Honokowai, Maliko Bay, Olowalu, and Kahului Bay, where numerous turtles 
forage and rest. At Kahului Bay, large turtles (including many adults) 
aggregate in the warm water outfall of the power plant, where 
temperatures range from 27 to 33 [deg]C, for thermoregulation and 
resting; foraging likely occurs outside of the warm water plume (Balazs 
et al. 1987). The Kahului Generating Station, which was built in 1947, 
will be decommissioned by 2024. This cessation of warm water outfall is 
likely to reduce physiological functions, somatic growth rates, and 
nesting frequencies of resident turtles (G. Balazs, PIFSC pers. comm. 
2016). The following have been identified as areas where sea turtles 
are known to occur in Maui: Slaughterhouse Beach, Black Rock Beach, 
Ho`okipa Beach Park, Five Caves, Maluaka Beach, Ulua Beach, Hanakao`o 
Park, Makena Landing, Mala Pier, Chang's Beach, Honokeana Bay, and 
Kapalua Bay.
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Maui, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may require 
special management considerations or protections. This area is of high 
conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because it supports 
a high density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019).
Kaho[revaps]olawe
    On Kaho`olawe Island, King (2007) observed 708 sea turtles during 
aerial, in-water, and coast surveys throughout nearshore waters of the 
island. Most observed turtles were juveniles; they foraged on turf 
algae in clear, shallow water (1 to 6 m depth) within coral reef 
habitats 5 to 20 m from shore (King 2007). Observations were evenly 
distributed around the island with the highest densities in 
K[amacr]k[amacr], Hakioawa, and Kealaikahiki (King 2007).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Kaho`olawe, from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protections. This area is 
of high conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because it 
supports a high density of foraging/resting green turtles (King 2007).
Lana[revaps]i
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of Lana`i 
(see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following published data 
also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green turtles in 
nearshore waters off Lana`i. The northern and northeastern coastal 
areas bordering Kalohi and Auau Channels contain essential foraging and 
refugia features for resident adult turtles (Balazs 1980). Balazs 
(1987) studied foraging areas off Keomuku, Kuahua, and Polihua Beach 
for their current or historic importance to green turtles or their 
unique or representative ecology. Diets of juvenile turtles (n = 20) 
from the northeastern coast of Lana`i included red macroalgae, 
primarily A. spicifera, which was accidentally introduced to the 
Hawaiian Islands in the 1950s (Doty 1961) and has become a principal 
component of green turtle diets (Arthur and Balazs 2008).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Lana`i, from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protections. USFWS has 
identified important basking areas on Lana`i, including Shipwreck, 
Federation, and White Stone beaches. Adjacent marine areas are of high 
conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because they 
provide access to the beaches needed for adequate rest, 
thermoregulation, and digestion. Other areas of Lana`i also provide 
high conservation value because they support high densities of 
foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019).
Moloka[revaps]i
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of 
Moloka`i (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters off Moloka`i. The southern coastal areas 
from Kamalo to Halena contain foraging/resting essential features for 
resident adult turtles (Balazs 1980). There is significant foraging 
habitat along the Pala`au coastline (Balazs and Chaloupka 2004; Balazs 
et al. 1987), where algae grow on hard-bottom surfaces and coral 
rubble; resting occurs in crevices, holes, sand channels, and at the 
base of coral heads inside of the reef

[[Page 46604]]

zone within the breakers (Balazs et al. 1987). In these areas, green 
turtles forage on red macroalgae including Amansia spp., Hypnea spp., 
and non-native A. spicifera (Arthur and Balazs 2008).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Moloka`i, from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protections. USFWS has 
identified important basking areas on beaches off Kawa`aloa Bay. The 
adjacent marine area is of high conservation value to the Central North 
Pacific DPS because it provides access to the beaches needed for 
adequate rest, thermoregulation, and digestion. Other areas of Moloka`i 
also provide high conservation value because they support high 
densities of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019).
O[revaps]ahu
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
island (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters off O[revaps]ahu Island. Many areas contain 
essential foraging and refugia features, with concentrated foraging/
resting areas on the North Shore, West coast (Ewa Beach/Pearl Harbor), 
South Shore, and East coast (Kaneohe and Kailua Bays). Kaneohe Bay, 
Kailua Bay, and the northwestern coastal areas from Mokuleia to 
Kawailoa host foraging/resting resident adult turtles (Balazs 1980). 
Kaneohe Bay is an important adult and juvenile benthic foraging/resting 
area, where patch reefs are common and algal growth is most abundant 
(Brill et al. 1995). It provides 135 species of algae and seagrass 
(Brill et al. 1995; Balazs et al. 2000; Russell et al. 2003; Balazs and 
Chaloupka 2004; Russell and Balazs 2009; Russell and Balazs 2015), 
including the seagrasses H. decipiens and H. hawaiiana (Russell et al. 
2003; Seaborn et al. 2005; Arthur and Balazs 2008). The three most 
common algal species consumed are non-native species: A. spicifera, H. 
musciformis, and Gracilaria salicornia (Russell and Balazs 2009; 
Russell and Balazs 2015). In Kailua Bay, juvenile green turtles (n = 
41) primarily foraged on the non-native red macroalgae, A. spicifera 
(Arthur and Balazs 2008). Six juveniles tracked in the Kawainui Marsh 
Estuary of Kailua Bay foraged in the bay and rested along the channel 
and ledge (Francke et al. 2013). Balazs (1987) also studied foraging 
areas off Kawela Bay, Maunalua Bay, West Beach, and Sandy Beach for 
their current or historic importance to foraging green turtles or their 
unique or representative ecology. Numerous turtles forage within Kawela 
Bay (North Shore) but rest further offshore, where turtles are likely 
to find deeper depths or to avoid human disturbance within the bay 
(e.g., boating, fishing, and in-water recreation; Balazs et al. 1987). 
They appear to forage at night (primarily on the non-native red 
macroalgae, A. spicifera) and rest during the day (Balazs et al. 1987). 
Turtles also forage off Laniakea Beach, which is an important basking 
beach (Rice and Balazs 2008; Van Houtan et al. 2015). Balazs (1980) 
describes turtles foraging along Bellows Beach, where algae (Codium and 
Ulva spp.) concentrate along sandy bottoms 25 to 100 m from shore, due 
to wave action and currents. Green turtles also forage in streams, 
including the Anahulu River, where 968 green turtle sightings were made 
over 9 evening and 2 morning observation sessions (Clarke et al. 2012).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of O'ahu, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may require 
special management considerations or protections. This area is of high 
conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because it supports 
a high density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019).
Kaua`i
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of Kaua`i 
(see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). Published data indicate that 
Princeville, the northwestern coastal areas of Na Pali, and southern 
coastal areas from Kukuiula to Makahuena Point contain foraging/resting 
essential features for resident adult turtles (Balazs 1980).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Kaua`i, from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protections. This area is 
of high conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because it 
supports a high density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et 
al. 2019).
Ni[revaps]ihau
    Although less studied than the other Main Hawaiian Islands, 
Ni[revaps]ihau also hosts marine benthic algae (Tsuda et al. 2021) and 
coral (Brainard and Asher 2008). Low densities of green turtles use 
these resources to forage and rest (Baird and Wood 2010; Becker et al. 
2019). Therefore, while the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Ni`ihau, from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may 
require special management considerations or protections, this area is 
of low conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS because it 
supports a relatively low density of foraging/resting green turtles.
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument (PMNM)
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
PMNM (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following published 
data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green turtles in 
nearshore waters. Resident aggregations of adults and juveniles forage 
at Mokumanamana/Necker Island, Lalo/French Frigate Shoals Atoll, Kapou/
Lisianski Island, Manawai/Pearl and Hermes Atoll, and to a lesser 
extent at Kamole/Laysan, Kuaihelani/Midway Atoll, and 
H[omacr]lanik[umacr]/Kure Islands (Balazs 1980). Juveniles and adults 
(at least 50, as estimated in 1977) forage throughout Mokumanamana/
Necker Island's nearshore waters; Shark Bay is an especially important 
foraging area (Balazs 1977). Stomach contents of three juveniles 
revealed foraging on Caulerpa spp. (Balazs 1977). At Lalo, resident 
juveniles forage on algae (Caulerpa spp. and Codium spp.) and 
anthozoans growing on calcareous reef structures, and reproductive 
adults feed throughout the breeding season (Balazs 1980). At 
Kuaihelani/Midway Atoll, turtles forage in algal and partial seagrass 
habitat (Balazs and Chaloupka 2004). Benthic foraging juvenile turtles, 
as small as 6 kg (i.e., greater than 6 years of age; Balazs and 
Chaloupka 2004), are regularly found throughout the PMNM, which may 
serve as important benthic foraging habitat at this early stage of 
development (Balazs 1976).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and

[[Page 46605]]

summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all nearshore 
waters of the PMNM, from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
contain benthic foraging/resting essential features that may require 
special management considerations or protections. USFWS has identified 
important basking areas on beaches of Lalo/French Frigate Shoals Atoll, 
Kamole/Laysan, Kapou/Lisianski Island, Manawai/Pearl and Hermes Atoll, 
Kuaihelani/Midway Atoll, and H[omacr]lanik[umacr]/Kure Islands. These 
areas are of high conservation value to the Central North Pacific DPS 
because they provide access to the beaches needed for adequate rest, 
thermoregulation, and digestion. Manawai/Pearl and Hermes Atoll also 
supports high density foraging/resting (Becker et al. 2019). Other 
areas of the PMNM (i.e., Nihoa and Mokumanamana/Necker Island) provide 
low conservation value because they support relatively low densities of 
foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019).
Johnston Atoll
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of 
Johnston Atoll (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters off Johnston Atoll. Marine algae (Tsuda et 
al. 2010) and corals (Maragos and Jokiel 1986) occur throughout the 
nearshore waters of Johnston Atoll, where adults and juveniles forage 
and rest (Balazs 1985). While all areas contain the foraging/resting 
essential features, most turtles occur off the southern shore of 
Johnston Island, where they forage on algae, including Bryopsis pennata 
and C. racemosa (Balazs 1985). During 28 days of effort in 1983, 21 
turtles were captured in this area; 60 percent of the captured turtles 
were adults (Balazs 1985). Only 3 turtles were sighted during 26 diving 
surveys; the low number may be attributed to poor underwater visibility 
(from 1.5 to 10 m); in addition, there were 8 sightings at the water's 
surface (Balazs 1985). These survey data are corroborated by reports of 
green turtle abundance (i.e., up to 30 turtles in 1 hour of 
observation) along the southern shores of Johnston Island (Balazs 
1985). The primary foraging habitat for turtles at Johnston Atoll 
consists of a narrow band of heterogeneous algal pastures immediately 
off and along the southern shore of Johnston Atoll (Balazs 1985). Near 
this area, two possible refugia sites were identified (Balazs 1985). 
CREP conducted towed diver surveys in the nearshore waters around 
Johnston Atoll and identified green turtles along the southern shores 
(CREP, unpublished data 2016). While the Team concluded, and we agree, 
that all nearshore waters of Johnston Atoll, from the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential features 
that may require special management considerations or protections, this 
area provides low conservation value because it supports relatively low 
densities of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019).

Review of INRMPs Within the Range of the Central North Pacific DPS

    DoD provided, and we reviewed, INRMPs for three installations 
within the range of the Central North Pacific DPS (NMFS 2023c): Joint 
Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Pacific Missile Range Facility, and Marine 
Corps Base Hawaii. We are working with DoD to identify relevant 
elements to protect the habitat from the types of effects that would be 
addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis (50 
CFR 424.12(h)). We will consider this and other information to 
determine whether a benefit is provided prior to publication of the 
final rule to designate critical habitat.

Economic Impacts Within the Range of the Central North Pacific DPS

    For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the 
benefits of designation, as represented by its conservation value to 
the Central North Pacific DPS (see Table 4). Specific areas providing 
high conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized 
impact of $71,000. Specific areas providing low conservation value were 
associated with a combined total annualized impact of $5,600. High 
conservation value areas are highly important to supporting the overall 
life history and recovery of the DPS, and the benefits of designating 
these areas are not outweighed by the low economic impacts. We 
conclude, however, that the economic impacts outweigh the benefits of 
designating specific areas of low conservation value. Based on the 
Team's criteria and best available data, low conservation value areas 
do not contain essential reproductive and/or migratory features. 
Furthermore, these areas host a lower abundance and/or density of 
foraging/resting green turtles, suggesting that they provide less 
conservation value to the DPS relative to areas hosting moderate or 
high abundances or densities. Although the estimated annualized costs 
across all of the low conservation value areas for the DPS were low 
($5,600), we concluded that these impacts outweighed the benefits of 
designating these areas. Therefore, we propose to exclude the following 
areas from the critical habitat designation: Niihau, Nihoa, 
Mokumanamana/Necker Island, and Johnston Atoll. As discussed in the 
Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2023c), we conclude 
that exclusion of these low conservation value areas from the critical 
habitat designations will not result in extinction of the DPS.

   Table 4--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
 Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
   10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
                Habitat for the Central North Pacific DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
             Area                Conservation value         impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawai`i......................  High..................             $6,900
Kaho`olawe...................  High..................              1,000
Maui.........................  High..................              7,900
Lana`i.......................  High..................              2,900
Moloka`i.....................  High..................              1,300
O`ahu........................  High..................             31,000
Kaua`i.......................  High..................              4,000
Ni`ihau......................  Low...................              1,100
Nihoa........................  Low...................              1,900

[[Page 46606]]

 
Mokumanamana/Necker Island...  Low...................              1,700
Lalo/French Frigate Shoals...  High..................              2,800
Kamole/Laysan Island.........  High..................              1,600
Kapou/Lisianski Island.......  High..................              2,600
Manawai/Pearl and Hermes       High..................              1,600
 Atoll.
Kuaihelani/Midway Atoll......  High..................              5,500
H[omacr]lanik[umacr]/Kure      High..................              1,600
 Atoll.
Johnston Atoll...............  Low...................                940
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Security Impacts Within the Range of the Central North Pacific 
DPS

    We received 17 requests for exclusions due to national security 
impacts of specific areas under consideration for proposed critical 
habitat of the Central North Pacific DPS (NMFS 2023c). Of these, two 
occur in areas proposed for exclusion based on economic impacts that 
outweighed the benefits of designating critical habitat. The remaining 
15 requests are not yet reasonably specific to weigh national and 
homeland security impacts against the benefits of a potential critical 
habitat designation. We are working with DoD and DHS to gather the 
specific information and will consider it prior to publication of the 
final rule to designate critical habitat.

Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the Central North 
Pacific DPS

    For the threatened Central North Pacific DPS of green turtles, we 
propose to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 2,623 
km\2\ of nearshore waters from the mean high water line to 20 m depth 
of the following Hawaiian Islands: Hawai`i, Maui, Kaho`olawe, Lana`i, 
Moloka`i, O`ahu, Kaua`i, Lalo/French Frigate Shoals, Kamole/Laysan 
Island, Kapou/Lisianski Island, Manawai/Pearl and Hermes Atoll, 
Kuaihelani/Midway Atoll, and H[omacr]lanik[umacr]/Kure Atoll. These 
areas include reproductive and benthic foraging/resting essential 
features. All areas proposed for designation are of high conservation 
value to the DPS. A total area of 368 km\2\ is proposed for exclusion 
because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of 
these low conservation value areas. The Team found, and we agree, that 
exclusion of these areas from the critical habitat designation would 
not result in extinction of this DPS (NMFS 2023a). At this time, we 
have not received reasonably specific information with which to propose 
exclusions based on national security impacts. At this time, no areas 
are ineligible for designation as critical habitat under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not identified any unoccupied areas 
that are essential to the conservation of this DPS; thus we are not 
proposing to designate any unoccupied areas.

Central South Pacific DPS

    The Central South Pacific DPS is defined as green turtles 
originating from the Central South Pacific Ocean, including those 
hatching from nests on the beaches of American Samoa and Palmyra Atoll. 
The range of the DPS is bounded by the following coordinates: 9[deg] N, 
175[deg] W in the northwest; 9[deg] N, 125[deg] W in the northeast; 
40[deg] S, 96[deg] W in the southeast; 40[deg] S, 176[deg] E in the 
southwest; and 13[deg] S, 171[deg] E in the west. 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 off all islands of American Samoa and the following 
islands of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument: Baker 
Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll. 
See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for a map of this area.
    The 1998 Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green 
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998) identified recovery criteria to delist the 
species (i.e., the goal of the plan), including activities needed to 
protect and prevent the degradation of marine habitat. To identify 
relevant scientific information, the Team worked with biologists from 
the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR).

Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the Central South Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the 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 Central 
South Pacific DPS: From the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters adjacent to nesting 
beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS, to allow for the 
transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive individuals, and the 
transit of post-hatchlings.
    The Team used the following information to identify this 
reproductive essential feature. Nesting occurs at Rose Atoll (Tuato'o-
Bartley et al. 1993; Craig and Balazs 1995; Craig et al. 2004; B. Peck, 
USFWS pers. comm. 2018), Ofu and Olosega (DMWR, unpublished data 2015), 
Ta`[umacr] (J. Browning, USFWS pers. comm. 2022), and Palmyra Atoll 
(Sterling et al. 2013). 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). Seven satellite 
tracked post-nesting females remained at or around Rose Atoll for 
approximately 2 months before

[[Page 46607]]

departing to foraging areas in late December (Craig et al. 2004). Their 
movements, in addition to those of 53 satellite tracked post-nesting 
females (from Rose Atoll between 2013 and 2018; PIFSC unpublished data 
2022), demonstrate the use of nearshore internesting habitat. The Team 
concluded, and we agree, that the reproductive essential feature occurs 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth in waters off 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 following may impede 
access to and from nesting beaches: inwater structures and 
construction, dredging, lighting, oil and gas activities, alternative 
energy development and generation, vessel activities, fishing and 
aquaculture activities, recreational activities, and pollution (e.g., 
run-off and contaminants). 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. In American Samoa, we are 
especially concerned about ship groundings and proposed construction 
projects near nesting beaches and their adjacent marine waters. For 
example, a ship grounded at Rose Atoll in 1993, damaging reef habitat 
and spilling 100,000 gallons of fuel and other contaminants (Marine 
Conservation Institute 2022). This likely impeded or oiled females 
accessing nesting beaches and post-hatchlings entering the sea, but no 
assessments were made at the time. Construction activities include an 
airport resurfacing project from 2020 to 2022 and a proposed expansion, 
which would extend the runway onto nesting beaches on Ofu Island. 
Resulting pollution, noise, and lighting may impede movement on and off 
nesting beaches. At Swains Island, there is a proposal to create a 
channel via blasting and dredging, which would reduce available nesting 
and reproductive habitat. In addition, climate change has the potential 
to negatively impact green turtle nesting and reproductive habitat via 
changes in sand temperatures (Santos et al. 2017), water temperatures 
(Crear et al. 2016), wave climate (Friedlander et al. 2008), and 
available habitat due to sea level rise (Fish et al. 2005).
    To identify specific areas containing the reproductive features 
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS' 
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed nesting beaches in 
American Samoa and Palmyra Atoll as terrestrial critical habitat 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register (see https://www.regulations.gov, 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164).
    For each of these areas (and for the entire islands at Rose and 
Palmyra Atolls), we identified the adjacent marine area, from the mean 
high water line to 20 m depth, as containing the reproductive features 
essential to the conservation of the Central South Pacific DPS and 
which may require special management consideration or protection. These 
areas are of high conservation value to the DPS because they are 
required for successful reproduction, which is directly linked to 
population growth and recovery. Females must use these reproductive 
areas to reach the nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by 
USFWS and for internesting. These areas are also essential for 
successful mating and post-hatchling swim frenzy and early dispersal.

No Migratory Essential Feature for the Central South Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the Central South Pacific DPS requires that adult 
turtles forage and reproduce. Because foraging and reproduction are 
geographically separated, the recovery of the DPS requires turtles to 
successfully migrate between these areas. Satellite telemetry of 70 
individuals from Rose Atoll indicates that adults migrate long 
distances between foraging and reproductive areas in the South Pacific. 
Craig et al. (2004) satellite tracked seven post-nesting females at 
Rose Atoll; six migrated west towards foraging areas in Fiji and the 
seventh migrated east to Raiatea, French Polynesia. Of 53 post-nesting 
females tracked from Rose Atoll between 2013 and 2018 (PIFSC 
unpublished data 2022), most migrated to foraging areas in Fiji (n = 
39); individuals also migrated to Western Samoa (n = 5), New Caledonia 
(n = 4), Vanuatu (n = 1), Solomon Islands (n = 1), Papua New Guinea (n 
= 1), Cook Islands, (n = 1), and French Polynesia (n = 1; PIFSC 
unpublished data 2022).
    Given these data, the Team concluded that green turtles of this DPS 
do not use a narrow, constricted migratory corridor. Instead, they use 
multiple oceanic migratory paths. We were unable to identify a 
particular depth or distance from shore used by adult green turtles to 
migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. We 
were also unable to identify any other physical or biological feature 
used by migrating turtles because the best available data demonstrate 
variation among movement patterns of individuals in oceanic habitats. 
That is to say that migration is not constricted or confined by a 
continental shelf, current, or other feature, but rather occurs over a 
large, oceanic environment without defining features (such as depth or 
distance from shore). Therefore, while migration between reproductive 
and benthic foraging/resting habitats is essential to the conservation 
of the DPS, we were unable to identify or define a migratory feature 
for this DPS.

Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential 
Features and Their Conservation Value to the Central South Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the DPS requires successful survival, growth, and 
development of juvenile life stages and the successful survival and 
reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to identify foraging/
resting essential features for post-hatchlings and surface-pelagic 
juveniles due to insufficient data on this developmental life stage and 
its habitat requirements. For benthic juveniles and adults, benthic 
habitats provide the food resources and refugia necessary to survive, 
develop, grow, and reproduce. The following benthic foraging/resting 
essential features are essential to the conservation of the Central 
South Pacific DPS: From the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
underwater refugia (e.g., rocks, reefs, and troughs), and food 
resources (i.e., seagrass, marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates) 
of sufficient condition, distribution, diversity, abundance, and 
density necessary to support survival, development, growth, and/or 
reproduction.
    To identify the benthic foraging/resting essential features, the 
Team reviewed the following information. As demonstrated by research 
performed at Fijian foraging areas, green turtles forage on 
invertebrates (40 percent), fishes (31 percent), and marine plants 
(including seagrass and algae; 29 percent); seagrass pastures serve as 
both a primary food source and essential habitat hosting other primary 
food sources (Piovano et al. 2020). Areas to the east of Fiji (e.g., 
within the U.S. EEZ) exhibit less shallow-water foraging habitat, 
species diversity, and vegetative biomass (Craig et al. 2004). However, 
237 algal species and 2 seagrass species occur in the waters of 
American Samoa (Skelton 2003), and juvenile green turtles are observed 
foraging in these waters year-round. At Palmyra Atoll, adults and 
juveniles forage on macroalgae and turf

[[Page 46608]]

algal communities at depths of less than 50 m, demonstrating high site 
fidelity and small home ranges (0.8 to 3.6 km; Naro-Maciel et al. 
2018). Turf algae species include Jania, Cladophora, and Spyridia 
(McFadden et al. 2010). Macroalgae species include Bryopsis, 
Turbinaria, Halimeda (calcareous green algae), Lobophora (brown algae), 
Dictyosphaeria (green algae), and Galaxaura and Dichotomaria (red 
algae) (Braun et al. 2008). The Recovery Plan includes two criteria for 
foraging habitats: existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy 
environments, and foraging populations are exhibiting statistically 
significant increases at several key foraging areas within each stock 
region (NMFS and USFWS 1998). Although little information is available 
regarding the health of foraging areas or the size of the foraging 
populations, it is clear that multiple benthic foraging areas are 
needed for the conservation of this DPS. While data indicate that green 
turtles forage and rest in depths of up to 50 m, they generally remain 
in shallow waters (Naro-Maciel et al. 2018). Therefore, the Team 
concluded, and we agree, that the benthic foraging/resting essential 
features occur from the mean high water line to 20 m depth.
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special 
management considerations to maintain sufficient quality and quantity 
of food resources and refugia in nearshore waters. The Recovery Plan 
(NMFS and USFWS 1998) indicates that protection is needed to prevent 
the degradation of marine habitats due to construction, dredging, 
disposal, pollution, coastal erosion, fishing, and vessel activities 
(e.g., groundings, anchoring, and propeller scarring). Coral reefs, 
important feeding areas for green turtles (Becker et al. 2019), are 
highly sensitive to and threatened by overfishing, terrestrial runoff, 
and climate change (Dutra et al. 2021). Oil spills and other discharges 
are also a concern. Construction may result in increased siltation and 
reduced food availability. Naro-Maciel et al. (2018) described the high 
quality of habitat and resources available to green turtles at Palmyra 
Atoll and the importance of continuing to protect this area because it 
sustains these endangered green turtles that spend most of their lives 
within these waters and effectively shields them from threats. USFWS 
has reviewed proposals to restore hydrodynamic flow in the lagoons at 
Palmyra Atoll. Such activities may create toxic plumes from pollutants 
left by the military during World War II and load large amounts of 
sediment into the marine environment (Collen et al. 2009), potentially 
degrading the lagoon and reef flat habitats used by foraging green 
turtles (Sterling et al. 2013b). In American Samoa, development results 
in silt-laden runoff and the sedimentation of coastal habitat (Aeby et 
al. 2008). Direct or indirect disposal of anthropogenic waste and 
nutrients may increase reef eutrophication and threaten reef health 
(Dailer et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010; Swarzenski et al. 2017) or 
introduce contaminants into green turtle foraging habitats (NMFS and 
USFWS 1998). Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa is polluted, and 
uncontrolled effluent contaminants have impaired water quality (Aeby et 
al. 2008). Proposed construction projects (including channel blasting 
and dredging at Swains Island and a power plant at Ofu and Olosega) 
would reduce available foraging and refugia habitat. Marine debris 
presents a threat to green turtles and the quality of their foraging 
habitat in American Samoa (Aeby et al. 2008; Tagarino et al. 2008). 
Ship groundings (e.g., at Rose Atoll in 1993) damage reef habitat and 
spill fuel and other contaminants (Marine Conservation Institute 2022). 
Climate change also has the potential to negatively impact food 
resources via changes in water temperatures, ocean acidification, and 
coral reef habitat (Friedlander et al. 2008).
    Within the range of the Central South Pacific DPS within U.S. 
jurisdiction, many areas contain food resources and underwater refugia. 
The Team relied on the occurrence of foraging/resting green turtles to 
determine which of these areas contain resources sufficient to support 
their survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction. Throughout 
the range of the DPS, the best available data were gathered during 
biennial or triennial nearshore towed diver surveys that estimated 
green turtle densities in the month of April from 2002 to 2015 (Becker 
et al. 2019). Such densities provide a relative, objective, and 
consistent measure of an area's conservation value to each DPS (Becker 
et al. 2019). To delineate between high and low densities (and thus 
high and low conservation value), the Team first considered additional 
capture data that demonstrate a high abundance of foraging/resting 
green turtles at Rose Atoll (NMFS 2023a). Then, the Team reviewed the 
Becker et al. (2019) density data for Rose Atoll, which was 0.31 green 
turtles/km. Therefore, estimates greater than or equal to 0.31 green 
turtles/km (Becker et al. 2019) constitute high density for the Central 
South Pacific DPS. Based on this threshold, high densities of foraging/
resting green turtles occur in waters off Jarvis, (3.62 green turtles/
km), Palmyra (1.05), Baker (1.21), Howland (0.80), Ta`[umacr] (0.63) 
Tutuila (0.34), Swains (0.38), and Rose Atoll (0.31). Densities were 
low (less than 0.31 green turtles/km) at Ofu and Olosega (0.15 green 
turtles/km) and Kingman Reef (0.06 green turtles/km). The Team mapped 
these data and an additional 2 years of unpublished data (CREP, PIFSC 
unpublished data 2022). The towed diver survey data demonstrate the 
presence of benthic foraging/resting essential features throughout the 
nearshore waters throughout American Samoa and the Pacific Remote 
Islands used by the Central South Pacific DPS. See the Draft Biological 
Report (NMFS 2023a) for figures. These data indicate that green turtles 
forage and rest in nearshore areas throughout American Samoa and the 
Pacific Remote Islands National Monument.
American Samoa
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
islands (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters around Tutuila, Ofu, Olosega, Ta`[umacr], 
and Swains Islands (NMFS and USFWS 1998; Tagarino et al. 2008; Tagarino 
and Utzurrum 2010; Maison et al. 2010). Grant (1997) described seven 
juvenile green turtles in the waters around Tutuila and three juveniles 
at Rose Atoll, indicating utilization of the area by multiple life-
history stages. From 2004 to 2008, DMWR recorded 84 green turtle 
sightings in nearshore waters of the following areas (with the number 
of green turtle sightings in parentheses): Fagaalu (23), Olosega Beach 
(6), Coconut Point (4), Nuuuli (4), Utulei (3), Aoa (3), Ofu Beach (2), 
airport (2), Alofau (1), Aua (2), Fagasa (1), Fagatogo (1), Fogagogo 
(2), Leone (1), Masefau (1), Mataae (1), Mu Point Asili (1), Niuloa 
Point (1), Pago Harbor (1), Vatia (1), and Rose Atoll (1). More 
recently DMWR has documented foraging turtles on the following islands 
and atolls (DMWR unpublished data 2015): Tutuila Island (Coconut Point, 
Masefau, Fagaitua, and Aua), Ofu Island (Toaga Beach and harbor 
channel), Rose Atoll, and Swains Island.
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of American Samoa, from the mean high

[[Page 46609]]

water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential 
features that may require special management considerations or 
protections. Rose, Tutuila, and Ta`[umacr] Island areas are of high 
conservation value to the DPS because they support a high density of 
foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019). Areas off Ofu and 
Olosega are of low conservation value because they support a relatively 
low density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019). 
However, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the marine areas 
adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS on 
Ofu and Olosega provide high conservation value because they also 
contain the reproductive essential feature.
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019) and CREP towed diver 
survey data demonstrate occurrence of foraging/resting green turtles 
throughout nearshore waters of the islands (see Draft Biological 
Report, NMFS 2023a). The following published data also demonstrate that 
green turtles forage and rest throughout the waters of the following 
islands of the Pacific Remote Islands National Monument: Baker Island, 
Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, and Palmyra Atoll. The 
Palmyra benthic foraging/resting area is used almost exclusively (97 
percent) by green turtles of the Central South and Central West DPSs 
(Naro-Maciel et al. 2014). A total of 555 green turtles were captured 
between 2008 and 2013 of which 123 (22.2 percent) were adults, 193 
turtles (34.8 percent) were subadults, and 239 (43 percent) were 
juveniles (Naro-Maciel et al. 2018). High-use areas included the 
Southern, Northern, and Eastern Lagoon and Flats, and larger turtles 
were found at the Western and Central Lagoon and Flats (Sterling et al. 
2013). Turtles generally remained within Palmyra nearshore waters year-
round (Naro-Maciel et al. 2018).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of the Pacific Remote Islands, from the mean high 
water line to 20 m depth, contain benthic foraging/resting essential 
features that may require special management considerations or 
protections. Areas off Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands and Palmyra 
Atoll are of high conservation value to the DPS because they support a 
high density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019). 
Areas off Kingman Reef are of low conservation value because they 
support a relatively low density of foraging/resting green turtles 
(Becker et al. 2019).

Review of INRMPs Within the Range of the Central South Pacific DPS

    We are not aware of any INRMPs for DoD installations that overlap 
with areas being considered for critical habitat.

Economic Impacts Within the Range of the Central South Pacific DPS

    For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the 
benefits of designation, as represented by its conservation value to 
the Central South Pacific DPS (see Table 5). Specific areas providing 
high conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized 
impact of $18,000. Specific areas providing low conservation value were 
associated with a combined total annualized impact of $620. High 
conservation value areas are highly important to supporting the overall 
life history and recovery of the DPS, and the benefits of designating 
these areas are not outweighed by the low economic impacts. We 
conclude, however, that the economic impacts outweigh the benefits of 
designating specific areas of low conservation value. Based on the 
Team's criteria and best available data, low conservation value areas 
do not contain essential reproductive and/or migratory features. 
Furthermore, these areas host a lower abundance and/or density of 
foraging/resting green turtles, suggesting that they provide less 
conservation value to the DPS relative to areas hosting moderate or 
high abundances or densities. Although the estimated annualized costs 
across all of the low conservation value areas for the DPS were low 
($620), we concluded that these impacts outweighed the benefits of 
designating these areas. Therefore, we propose to exclude the following 
areas from the critical habitat designation: Kingman Reef and the non-
reproductive areas of Ofu and Olosega (see Draft Biological Report; 
NMFS 2023a). As discussed in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) 
Report (NMFS 2023c), we conclude that exclusion of these low 
conservation value areas from the critical habitat designation will not 
result in extinction of the DPS.

   Table 5--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
 Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
   10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
                Habitat for the Central South Pacific DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
             Area                Conservation value         impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tutuila......................  High..................             $8,200
Ofu and Olosega: reproductive  High..................              1,700
 areas.
Ofu and Olosega: all other     Low...................                 60
 areas.
Ta`[umacr]...................  High..................              2,000
Rose Atoll...................  High..................              1,500
Swains Island................  High..................              1,500
Baker Island.................  High..................                400
Howland Island...............  High..................                400
Jarvis Island................  High..................                250
Palmyra Atoll................  High..................              1,800
Kingman Reef.................  Low...................                560
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46610]]

National Security Impacts Within the Range of the Central South Pacific 
DPS

    We have not received any requests for exclusions due to national 
security impacts of specific areas under consideration for proposed 
critical habitat.

Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the Central South 
Pacific DPS

    For the endangered South Pacific DPS of green turtles, we propose 
to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 106 km\2\ of 
nearshore waters in American Samoa (Rose, Tutuila, Ta`[umacr], Swains, 
Aunuu Island, and parts of Ofu and Olosega Islands), Baker Island, 
Howland Island, Jarvis Island, and Palmyra Atoll, from the mean high 
water line to 20 m depth. Nearshore waters of Palmyra, Rose, 
Ta`[umacr], Swains, Aunuu Island, and Ofu and Olosega (an area 
encompassing Aunuu Island; Matasina, Vaoto, Fatauana, Toaga, Olosega, 
Faiava-Sili-Lalomoana, Asagatai, Mafafa, and Tuafanua Beaches) contain 
essential reproductive and benthic foraging/resting features. Nearshore 
waters of Tutuila, Baker Island, Howland Island, and Jarvis Islands 
contain benthic foraging/resting essential features. All areas proposed 
for designation are of high conservation value to the DPS. A total area 
of 14 km\2\ is proposed for exclusion (Kingman Reef and two areas on 
Ofu and Olosega) because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion of these low conservation value areas. The Team 
found, and we agree, that exclusion of these areas from the critical 
habitat designation would not result in extinction of this DPS (NMFS 
2023a). No exclusions are proposed based on national security impacts, 
and no areas are ineligible for designation as critical habitat under 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not identified any unoccupied 
areas that are essential to the conservation of this DPS; thus we are 
not proposing to designate any unoccupied areas.

Central West Pacific DPS

    The Central West Pacific DPS is defined as green turtles 
originating from the Central West Pacific Ocean, including those 
hatching from nests on the beaches of the Mariana Archipelago (which 
includes Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
CNMI) and those found in the waters of Wake Island. The range of the 
DPS is bounded by the following coordinates: 41[deg] N, 146[deg] E in 
the northwest; 41[deg] N, 169[deg] E in the northeast; 9[deg] N, 
175[deg] W in the east; 13[deg] S, 171[deg] E in the southeast; along 
the northern coast of the island of New Guinea; and 4.5[deg] N, 
129[deg] E in the west. 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 
Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and Wake Island. 
See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for a map of this area.
    The 1998 Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green 
Turtle (NMFS and USFWS 1998) identified recovery criteria to delist the 
species (i.e., the goal of the plan), including activities needed to 
protect and prevent the degradation of marine habitat. To identify 
relevant scientific information, the Team worked with biologists from 
the Guam Department of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR) and the 
CNMI Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).

Specific Areas Containing the Reproductive Essential Feature and Their 
Conservation Value to the Central West Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the 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 Central 
West Pacific DPS: From the mean high water line to 20 m depth, 
sufficiently dark and unobstructed nearshore waters adjacent to nesting 
beaches proposed as critical habitat by USFWS, to allow for the 
transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive individuals, and the 
transit of post-hatchlings.
    The Team used the following information to identify this 
reproductive essential feature. Green turtles nest in Guam (Guam DAWR 
unpublished data 2014) and CNMI (Summers et al. 2018), where nesting 
occurs at Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Pagan, and Agrihan (J. Browning, USFWS 
pers. comm. 2022). 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 unpublished satellite 
tracking data on internesting females in waters adjacent to nesting 
beaches. These data are described in detail in the Draft Biological 
Report (NMFS 2023a). Dive data of post-nesting green turtles (n = 10) 
in the Mariana Archipelago indicated that they spent the majority (98.9 
percent) of time in waters shallower than 50 m, at an average depth of 
12 m (PIFSC unpublished data 2022). While depths of 12 m and 50 m were 
considered, the Team found that a 20 m depth limit accounted for over 
90 percent of the data. The Team concluded, and we agree, that the 
reproductive essential feature occurs from the mean high water line to 
20 m depth in waters off nesting beaches.
    The reproductive essential feature may require special management 
considerations or protection because of the importance of maintaining 
disturbance-free nearshore areas for mating, internesting, and post-
hatchling transit. The following activities may impede access to and 
from nesting beaches, interrupt mating, or disturb internesting 
females: offshore and nearshore structures, construction, dredging, 
artificial lighting, oil and gas activities, power generating 
activities, fishing, aquaculture, shipping, and military activities 
(NMFS and USFWS 1998; Summers et al. 2018). For example, in CNMI, human 
disturbances prevented females from emerging onto nesting beaches, 
causing them to nest on adjacent (smaller) pocket beaches with sub-
optimal habitat or to leave the original nesting beach until the threat 
had abated (Summers et al. 2018). Summers et al. (2018) recorded at 
least one type of disturbance during 8 percent (40 of 485) of their 
nocturnal surveys of Saipan. In CNMI, coastal erosion and exotic 
vegetation have been identified as a high risk to sea turtles (CNMI 
Coastal Resources Management Office 2011). Construction and associated 
lighting on the islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota may result in loss 
or degradation of green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS 1998; 
Tetratech 2014). Some nesting beaches on Tinian and Guam occur on 
military-leased land, where the potential for construction impacts 
exists (NMFS and USFWS 1998; Project GloBAL 2009a; CNMI Coastal 
Resources Management Office 2011). 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 features 
essential to the conservation of the DPS, we relied on USFWS' 
identification of nesting beaches. USFWS proposed Guam and CNMI nesting 
beaches as terrestrial

[[Page 46611]]

critical habitat elsewhere in today's Federal Register (see https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2022-0164).
    For each of these areas, we identified the adjacent marine area, 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth, as containing the 
reproductive feature essential to the conservation of the Central West 
Pacific DPS and which may require special management consideration or 
protection. These areas are of high conservation value to the DPS 
because they are required for successful reproduction, which is 
directly linked to population growth and recovery. Females must use 
reproductive areas to reach the nesting beaches proposed as critical 
habitat by USFWS and for internesting. These areas are also essential 
for successful mating and post-hatchling swim frenzy and early 
dispersal.

No Migratory Essential Feature for the Central West Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the DPS requires that adult turtles reproduce and 
forage/rest. When reproduction and benthic foraging/resting areas are 
geographically separated, turtles must successfully migrate between 
these areas. The Team reviewed satellite tracking data of 26 post-
nesting females in the Mariana Archipelago: 9 in Guam, and 17 in CNMI 
(Summers 2011; PIFSC unpublished data 2022). Most post-nesting females 
migrated thousands of miles to foraging areas outside the Marianas, to 
nearshore waters of the Philippines (n=13), Japan (n=5), Taiwan (n=1), 
Spratly Islands (n=1), Palau (n=1), Federated States of Micronesia 
(n=1), and Indonesia (n=1) (PIFSC unpublished data 2022). Such long-
distance migratory patterns are common to turtles within this DPS 
(Kolinski 1995; Kolinski et al. 2014; Parker et al. 2015). However, 
some post-nesting females remain in the Mariana Archipelago to forage 
(Summers et al. 2017; PIFSC unpublished data 2022).
    Given these data, the Team concluded that green turtles of this DPS 
do not use a narrow, constricted migratory corridor. Instead, they use 
multiple oceanic migratory paths. We were unable to identify a 
particular depth or distance from shore used by adult green turtles to 
migrate between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. We 
were also unable to identify any other physical or biological feature 
used by migrating turtles because the best available data demonstrate 
variation among movement patterns of individuals in oceanic habitats. 
That is to say that migration is not constricted or confined by a 
continental shelf, current, or other feature, but rather occurs over a 
large, oceanic environment without defining features (such as depth or 
distance from shore). Therefore, while migration between reproductive 
and benthic foraging/resting habitats is essential to the conservation 
of the species, we were unable to identify or define a migratory 
feature for this DPS.

Specific Areas Containing the Benthic Foraging/Resting Essential 
Features and Their Conservation Value to the Central West Pacific DPS

    The recovery of the DPS requires successful survival, growth, and 
development of juvenile life stages as well as the successful survival 
and reproduction of adults. The Team was unable to identify foraging/
resting essential features for post-hatchlings and surface-pelagic 
juveniles due to insufficient data on this developmental life stage and 
its habitat requirements. For benthic juveniles and adults, benthic 
habitats provide the food resources and refugia necessary to survive, 
develop, grow, and reproduce. The following benthic foraging/resting 
features are essential to the conservation of the Central West Pacific 
DPS: From the mean high water line to 20 m depth, underwater refugia 
(e.g., rocks, reefs, and troughs) and food resources (i.e., seagrass, 
marine algae, and/or marine invertebrates) of sufficient condition, 
distribution, diversity, abundance, and density necessary to support 
survival, development, growth, and/or reproduction.
    To identify the foraging/resting essential features, the Team used 
information collected during surveys of the nearshore waters off CNMI, 
Guam, and Wake Island (Kolinski et al. 2001; Kolinski et al. 2004; 
Kolinski et al. 2005; Kolinski et al. 2006; Guam DAWR 2011; Jones and 
Van Houtan 2014; Tetratech 2014; Martin et al. 2016; Summers et al. 
2017; Becker et al. 2019; Gaos et al. 2020a; Gaos et al. 2020b; CNMI 
DLNR unpublished data 2016; NMFS CREP unpublished data 2022; PIFSC 
unpublished data 2022). These studies demonstrate that predominantly 
juveniles and some adults forage and rest throughout nearshore habitats 
in the Mariana Archipelago and Wake Island. For example, during 19 in-
water surveys in Guam, Saipan, and Tinian for a total of 47 days, Gaos 
et al. (2020a; 2020b) encountered 258 green turtles; of the 97 green 
turtles that were captured and equipped with satellite tags, only 6 
appeared to be adults (Gaos et al. 2020a; Gaos et al. 2020b), 
consistent with earlier analyses. Between 2006 and 2014, Summers et al. 
(2017) captured 493 green turtles in nearshore habitats of Saipan, 
Tinian, and Rota, and all but 4 were juveniles (mean SCL = 50.7 cm). 
These studies also revealed limited movement (0.5 to 3 km\2\) and high 
foraging/resting site fidelity (Summers et al. 2017; Gaos et al. 2020a; 
Gaos et al. 2020b) of foraging juveniles, with an estimated mean 
residency of 17 years (Summers et al. 2017). Dive data of green turtles 
(n=84) in the Mariana Archipelago indicated that green turtles spent 
the majority (98 percent) of their time in waters shallower than 50 m 
(Gaos et al. 2020a). Diel dive comparisons suggested that green turtles 
remain in deeper waters during daylight hours (average depth 13.2 m) 
and move to shallower depths during the night (average depth 8.7 m; 
Gaos et al. 2020a). While the Team considered both 13.2 m and 50 m 
depth limits, foraging/resting turtles spent more than 90 percent of 
their time in waters of 20 m depth or less (PIFSC unpublished data 
2022). Therefore, the Team concluded, and we agree, that the majority 
of foraging/resting features essential to the conservation of the DPS 
occur from the mean high water line to 20 m depth.
    Known green turtle food resources found in CNMI include 2 seagrass 
species (i.e., Halodule uninervis and Halophila ovalis) and 
approximately 30 algal species (Kolinski et al. 2001; Kolinski et al. 
2004; Kolinski et al. 2006). Algae is more prevalent than seagrass in 
CNMI, especially in areas of high turtle density; however, stomach 
contents of a single turtle and reports of cropped blades indicate 
foraging on seagrass as well (Kolinski et al. 2004). Analyzing samples 
from the oral cavity of 44 turtles, Summers et al. (2017) identified 
the following algal genera: Amansia (found in 95.7 percent of the 
samples), Gelidiella (12.8 percent), Hypnea, and Ceramium.
    The benthic foraging/resting essential features may require special 
management considerations to protect food resources and underwater 
refugia. The Recovery Plan (NMFS and USFWS 1998) indicates that 
protection is needed to prevent the degradation of marine habitats due 
to construction, dredging, disposal, pollution, coastal erosion, 
fishing, and vessel activities (e.g., groundings, anchoring, and 
propeller scarring). Impacts to the nearshore marine environment also 
include shoreline development, sediment-laden runoff, pollution, 
wastewater effluent, and invasive species (Kelly and Cayanan 2020; 
Hapdei 2020). Coastal development in Guam has resulted in 
sedimentation, which has damaged Guam's coral reefs (NMFS and USFWS 
1998). Coastal

[[Page 46612]]

erosion has also been identified as a high risk in the CNMI due to the 
existence of concentrated human population centers near erosion-prone 
zones, coupled with the increasing threat of erosion from sea level 
rise (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office 2011). Direct or 
indirect disposal of anthropogenic waste and nutrients contribute to 
eutrophication, affecting reef health and green turtle foraging 
habitats (Dailer et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010; Swarzenski et al. 
2017). Although seagrasses around Tinian and Rota Islands are in good 
condition, those around Saipan have been degraded by tourism activities 
(Project GloBAL 2009b).
    Within the range of the Central West Pacific DPS, many areas 
contain food resources and underwater refugia. The Team relied on the 
occurrence of foraging/resting green turtles to determine which of 
these areas contain resources sufficient to support their survival, 
development, growth, and/or reproduction. The Team identified specific 
areas containing the foraging/resting essential features, where green 
turtles have been documented foraging/resting in published scientific 
research studies and unpublished data (e.g., aerial and in-water 
surveys). Archipelago-wide, the best available data were gathered 
during biennial or triennial nearshore towed diver surveys that 
estimated green turtle densities by island in the month of April from 
2002 to 2015 (Becker et al. 2019). Such densities provide a relative, 
objective, and consistent measure of an area's conservation value to 
each DPS (Becker et al. 2019). To delineate between high and low 
densities (and thus high and low conservation value), the Team first 
reviewed additional data (such as in-water capture data and surveys) 
that demonstrate high abundances of green turtles in waters of Guam, 
Saipan, Tinian, Rota (NMFS 2023a), and Pagan (Tetratech 2014). Then, 
the Team reviewed the Becker et al. (2019) density data for those 
islands. The lowest density estimates for those islands was 0.33 green 
turtles/km at Pagan (Becker et al. 2019). Therefore, estimates greater 
than or equal to 0.33 green turtles/km (Becker et al. 2019) constitute 
high density within the Mariana Archipelago. Based on this threshold, 
high densities of foraging/resting green turtles occur in waters off 
Tinian (1.77 green turtles/km), Saipan (1.6), Guam (0.65), Rota (0.64), 
Sarigan (0.48), Alamagan (0.38), Pagan (0.33), and Aguijan (0.34). All 
other areas surveyed, including Wake Island, had low densities (less 
than 0.33 green turtles/km). These densities reflect other data, 
described below, that demonstrate high densities of foraging/resting 
green turtles in Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and Pagan. Throughout the 
Mariana Archipelago, published and unpublished data have been gathered 
during PIFSC in-water captures from 2013 to 2019, CNMI DLNR in-water 
captures from August 2006 to July 2016, and NMFS CREP towed diver 
surveys from October 2000 to April 2017. These data, combined with 
stranding data (CNMI DLNR unpublished data 2022) indicate the presence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
Mariana Archipelago. See the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) for 
figures.
Guam
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
island (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters around Guam. Guam DAWR has conducted 
coastal aerial surveys semimonthly (24 surveys per year under ideal 
conditions) during three time periods: 1963 to 1965, 1975 to 1979, and 
1989 to 2012 (Martin et al. 2016). Mean number of green turtles 
increased from 31 (range 8 to 61 in 1963 through 1965) to 299 (range 
242 to 355 in 2008 through 2012; Martin et al. 2016). Increases mainly 
occurred on the southern and northern coasts of Guam (Martin et al. 
2016). The increase in zone 8 (southern Guam) is correlated with the 
implementation of the Achang Reef Flat Preserve, a marine protected 
area, in 1999; zone 8 also contains extensive seagrass beds (Martin et 
al. 2016). The surveys also indicate consistent usage of zone 5 (the 
area around Apra Harbor) over time, which is supported by in-water 
surveys identifying abundant seagrass beds, coral reefs, and foraging 
turtles in the area (Gaos et al. 2020a, 2020b). PIFSC observed and 
captured green turtles at numerous locations around Guam at sites 
consisting of rock, coral, and sandy substrate, including Piti Bomb 
Holes, Apra Harbor, Orote Point, Dadi Beach, Sella Bay, Cocos Island, 
Achang Reef Flat, Talo'fo'fo, Pago Bay, Ritidian, Tarague, Tumon Bay, 
and Tanguisson (Gaos et al. 2020a, 2020b). PIFSC tracked foraging green 
turtles (n = 46) via satellite telemetry at several locations around 
Guam. Turtles remained within restricted home ranges, with average core 
home ranges of 0.15 km\2\ 0.13km\2\ and overall home ranges 
of 1.08 km\2\ 0.78 km\2\ (Gaos et al. 2020a). It is 
important to note that the in-water surveys were designed to capture 
turtles in specific locations, and therefore they do not reflect 
systematic sampling of all reef areas around Guam, but efforts were 
made to survey as many areas as possible (Gaos et al. 2020a).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Guam, 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. The waters 
surrounding Guam are of high conservation value to the DPS because they 
support a high density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 
2019).
CNMI
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019), CREP towed diver survey 
data, and PIFSC observational and capture data demonstrate occurrence 
of foraging/resting green turtles throughout nearshore waters of the 
islands (see Draft Biological Report, NMFS 2023a). The following 
published data also demonstrate the presence of foraging/resting green 
turtles in nearshore waters throughout CNMI. PIFSC in-water surveys and 
satellite telemetry between 2013 and 2019 confirmed the residency of 
juvenile green turtles within much of the nearshore habitat around 
Saipan, including Balisa, Fishing Basin, Chalan Kanoa Reef, Coral Ocean 
Point, Dan Dan, Lao Lao Bay, Tank Beach, Forbidden Island, Spotlight, 
Cowtown, Pau Pau Beach, and Aqua Reef (Gaos et al. 2020a). A total of 
33 satellite tags were deployed on green turtles. Nearly all turtles 
remained within restricted foraging areas during tracking and had 
average core and overall home ranges of 0.22 km\2\ 0.2 
km\2\ and 1.45 km\2\ 1.3 km\2\ respectively. Between 2006 
and 2014, Hapdei (2020) captured 493 foraging or resting green turtles 
(mostly juveniles) in the nearshore habitats of Saipan, Tinian, and 
Rota. Surveying Saipan from 2006 to 2016, CNMI DLNR (Summers et al. 
2017; unpublished data through 2016) identified the following foraging 
locations (the total number of unique individuals captured is in 
parentheses): Balisa (576); Lao Lao Bay (35); Chalan Kanoa Reef (3); 
Cow Town (1); and Spotlight (1). Summers et al. (2017) captured 
foraging/resting turtles at: Laguna Garapan (Balisa), Lao Lao Bay, 
Barcinas Cove, Tachungnya Bay, Tinian Harbor, Dumpcoke, Turtle Cove, 
Fleming Point, Sasanlagu or Pinatang, Teteto, Sasanhaya Bay (including 
Jerry's

[[Page 46613]]

Reef), and Puntan Po[ntilde]a. During a 10-day in-water survey 
conducted in 2005, Ilo et al. (2005) observed 30 juveniles and 1 adult 
female between Naftan Point and Banzai Cliff (including the reefs of 
Chalan Kanoa, Chalan Laulau, and Tanapag Lagoons). Ilo et al. (2005) 
also observed 37 green turtles (including 26 juveniles) during 
shoreline and cliff-side assessments of the eastern shore of Saipan, 
conducted in July 2005. During their in-water and cliff-side surveys of 
Saipan, Kolinski et al. (2001) encountered most foraging turtles (60 
percent) along the relatively uninhabited east coast, where human 
access is limited, the benthos is topographically complex, and a 
variety of food resources occur; they also observed turtles at Central 
Naftan, Forbidden Island (north of the isthmus), North Naftan, the 
Kingfisher Golf Course, and Balisa.
    Tinian also hosts a large resident population of green turtles. In-
water and cliff-side surveys of Tinian waters, contracted by the Navy 
and conducted over several weeks in 2013, estimated a population size 
of 795 to 1,107 resident (i.e., foraging and resting) green turtles 
(Tetratech 2014). In-water surveys and satellite telemetry conducted 
between 2013 and 2019 confirmed the residency of juvenile green turtles 
at several sites around Tinian, specifically at Dumpcoke Cove, Fleming 
Point, Tinian Harbor, Tachungnya Bay, Red Wall, Tohgong, Dangkolo, and 
Chulu (Gaos et al. 2020a). A total of 17 satellite tags were deployed 
on green turtles around the island and the tags transmitted for an 
average of 154 days, 82.1 days. All turtles remained within 
restricted foraging areas during tracking and had average core and 
overall home ranges of 0.57 km\2\ 0.19 km\2\ and 3.09 km\2\ 
0.78 km\2\, respectively. From 2006 to 2016, CNMI DLNR 
(unpublished data 2016) identified the following foraging locations on 
Tinian (the total number of individuals captured is in parentheses): 
Dumpcoke (5); Fleming Point (6); Red Wall (Puntan Carolinas to 
Horseshoe Reef; 8); and Turtle Cove (2). Kolinski et al. 2001 reported 
that most turtles are juvenile and occur along the relatively 
uninhabited east coast but identified many foraging locations 
throughout the nearshore waters of Tinian.
    Rota also hosts a large resident population of green turtles. 
During surveys covering 67 percent of Rota's shoreline, Kolinski et al. 
(2006) observed an estimated 73 green turtles (Kolinski et al. 2006). 
While these estimates are based on 2 days of surveys in a single year, 
the results are comparable to previous surveys conducted by Ilo and 
Manglona (2001), who surveyed 94.4 percent of Rota's shorelines, 
observed 56 turtles, and projected a total of 92 green turtles. The 
similarity of estimates suggests short-term stability in turtle 
abundance at Rota (Kolinski et al. 2006).
    In-water and cliff-side surveys of Pagan waters contracted by the 
Navy and conducted over several weeks in 2013 were used to estimate a 
population size of 297 green turtles (Tetratech 2014). Foraging has 
been observed at Leeward South, South (Jurassic Park), Green, and Blue 
beaches.
    Other islands of CNMI also support foraging/resting green turtles. 
At Aguijan and Farallon de Medinilla Islands, 14 and 9 green turtles 
respectively were observed during marine surveys covering 95 percent of 
the islands in 2001 (Kolinski et al. 2004). In 2003, Kolinski et al. 
(2005) conducted 36 hours of surface surveys and 34 hours of submerged 
surveys (tow-board and dive) throughout seven reef systems throughout 
the Archipelago: Stingray Shoal, Supply Reef, Zealandia Bank, 
Pathfinder Reef, Arakane Reef, and Tatsumi Reef. They observed a total 
of three turtles (one each at Supply Reef, Zealandia Bank, and Arakane 
Reef); two were juveniles, and one was juvenile/adult (Kolinski et al. 
2005). The authors attributed the low abundance to low recruitment 
rates, inadequate habitat range and resources, increased exposure to 
predation, and/or increased effort required to remain on location 
(Kolinski et al. 2005).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of CNMI, 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. The areas 
surrounding Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Sarigan, Alamagan, Pagan, and Aguijan 
are of high conservation value to the DPS because they support a high 
density of foraging/resting green turtles (Becker et al. 2019). Other 
islands of CNMI hosted relatively low densities of turtles and thus 
provide low conservation value. However, the Team concluded, and we 
agree, that the marine areas adjacent to nesting beaches proposed as 
critical habitat by USFWS on Agrihan provide high conservation value 
because they also contain the reproductive essential feature.
Wake Island
    The density estimates (Becker et al. 2019) and CREP towed diver 
survey data demonstrate occurrence of foraging/resting green turtles 
throughout nearshore waters of the island (see Draft Biological Report, 
NMFS 2023a). The following published data also demonstrate the presence 
of foraging/resting green turtles in nearshore waters off Wake Island. 
During a 1998 terrestrial survey, multiple turtles were observed in 
nearshore and lagoon waters at Wake Island (DoD 2007). Green turtles 
are regularly observed in the waters surrounding Wake Island (PRSC 
2017).
    Based on the data detailed in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 
2023a) and summarized here, the Team concluded, and we agree, that all 
nearshore waters of Wake Island, 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, Wake 
Island hosts relatively low densities of benthic foraging/resting 
turtles (Becker et al. 2019) and thus provides low conservation value 
to the DPS.

Review of INRMPs Within the Range of the Central West Pacific DPS

    DoD provided, and we reviewed, INRMPs on two installations within 
the range of the Central West Pacific DPS (NMFS 2023c). One 
installation occurs near an area that, as discussed in the following 
section, we propose to exclude based on economic impacts (Wake Island 
Airfield). For the Joint Region Marianas INRMP, we are working with DoD 
to identify relevant elements to protect the habitat from the types of 
effects that would be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-
modification analysis (50 CFR 424.12(h)). We will consider this and 
other information to determine whether a benefit is provided prior to 
publication of the final rule to designate critical habitat.

Economic Impacts Within the Range of the Central West Pacific DPS

    For each of the specific areas meeting the definition of critical 
habitat, we weighed the economic impact of designation against the 
benefits of designation, as represented by its conservation value to 
the Central West Pacific DPS (see Table 6). Specific areas providing 
high conservation value are associated with a combined total annualized 
impact of $28,000. Specific areas providing low conservation value were 
associated with a combined total annualized impact of $1,700. High 
conservation value areas are highly important to supporting the overall 
life history and recovery of the DPS, and the benefits of designating 
these areas are not outweighed by the low economic

[[Page 46614]]

impacts. We conclude, however, that the economic impacts outweigh the 
benefits of designating specific areas of low conservation value. Based 
on the Team's criteria and best available data, low conservation value 
areas do not contain essential reproductive and/or migratory features. 
Furthermore, these areas host a lower abundance and/or density of 
foraging/resting green turtles, suggesting that they provide less 
conservation value to the DPS relative to areas hosting high abundances 
or densities. Although the estimated annualized costs across all of the 
low conservation value areas for the DPS were low ($1,700), we 
concluded that these impacts outweighed the benefits of designating 
these areas. Therefore, we propose to exclude the following areas from 
the critical habitat designation: Wake Island, non-reproductive areas 
of Agrihan Island, and Anatahan, Guguan, Asuncion, and Maug Islands. As 
discussed in the Draft Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 
2023c), we conclude that exclusion of these low conservation value 
areas from the critical habitat designations will not result in 
extinction of the DPS.

   Table 6--Conservation Value and Estimated, Incremental, Annualized
 Economic Impacts Associated With Section 7 Consultations Over the Next
   10 Years for the Specific Areas Meeting the Definition of Critical
                Habitat for the Central West Pacific DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Annualized
             Area                Conservation value         impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guam.........................  High..................            $19,000
Rota.........................  High..................                810
Aguijan......................  High..................                370
Saipan.......................  High..................              4,200
Tinian.......................  High..................              2,200
Alamagan.....................  High..................                370
Sarigan......................  High..................                370
Pagan........................  High..................                370
Agrihan (reproductive areas).  High..................                370
CNMI: all other areas........  Low...................                480
Wake Island..................  Low...................              1,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Security Impacts Within the Range of the Central West Pacific 
DPS

    We received 16 requests for exclusions due to national security 
impacts of specific areas under consideration for proposed critical 
habitat of the Central West Pacific DPS (NMFS 2023c). Of these, one 
occurs in an area that was excluded based on economic impacts that 
outweighed the benefits of designating critical habitat. The remaining 
15 requests are not yet reasonably specific to weigh national and 
homeland security impacts against the benefits of a potential critical 
habitat designation. We are working with DoD and DHS to gather the 
specific information and will consider it prior to publication of the 
final rule to designate critical habitat.

Areas Proposed for Critical Habitat Designation for the Central West 
Pacific DPS

    For the endangered Central West Pacific DPS of green turtles, we 
propose to designate occupied critical habitat, encompassing 202 km\2\ 
of nearshore waters in Guam and CNMI (Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Pagan, 
Aguijan, Alamagan, Sarigan, and off the nesting beaches at Agrihan), 
from the mean high water line to 20 m depth. Nearshore waters of Guam, 
Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Pagan, and Agrihan contain essential reproductive 
and benthic foraging/resting features. Nearshore waters of Aguijan, 
Alamagan, and Sarigan contain the foraging/resting essential features. 
All areas proposed for designation are of high conservation value to 
the DPS. A total area of 271 km\2\ is proposed for exclusion because 
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion of these 
low conservation value areas. The Team found, and we agree, that 
exclusion of these areas from the critical habitat designation would 
not result in extinction of this DPS (NMFS 2023a). At this time, we 
have not received reasonably specific information with which to propose 
exclusions based on national security impacts. At this time, no areas 
are ineligible for designation as critical habitat under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. We have not identified any unoccupied areas 
that are essential to the conservation of this DPS; thus we are not 
proposing to designate any unoccupied areas.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designations

    Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including 
NMFS, to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by 
the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat. In addition to actions carried out by a 
Federal agency, activities subject to the ESA section 7 consultation 
process include those occurring on Federal lands, requiring a permit or 
other authorization from a Federal agency, or funded by a Federal 
agency. ESA section 7 consultation is not required for actions on non-
Federal and private lands that are not carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency.
    Federal agencies must consult with us on any proposed agency action 
that may affect the listed species or its critical habitat. During 
section 7 consultation, we evaluate the agency action to determine 
whether the action is likely to adversely affect listed species or 
critical habitat. The potential effects of a proposed action may depend 
on, among other factors, the specific timing and location of the action 
relative to seasonal presence of essential features or seasonal use of 
critical habitat by the listed species for essential life history 
functions. While the requirement to consult on an action that may 
affect critical habitat applies regardless of the season, NMFS 
addresses the varying spatial and temporal considerations when 
evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed action during 
consultation. If we conclude that the agency action would likely result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we 
would recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action in 
the biological opinion. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined 
in 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during formal 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent

[[Page 46615]]

with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and 
jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and 
that would avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. In the biological opinion, NMFS may also provide a statement 
containing discretionary conservation recommendations. Conservation 
recommendations are advisory and are not intended to carry any binding 
legal force.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to confer with 
us on any action likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed 
critical habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies 
that have retained discretionary involvement or control over an action, 
or where such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by 
law, to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in 
instances where, with respect to critical habitat: (1) critical habitat 
is subsequently designated that may be affected by the identified 
action; or (2) new information or changes to the action may result in 
effects to critical habitat not previously considered in the biological 
opinion.

Activities That May Be Affected

    ESA section 4(b)(8) requires, to the maximum extent practicable, in 
any proposed regulation to designate critical habitat, an evaluation 
and brief description of those activities (whether public or private) 
that may adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such 
designation. A wide variety of activities may affect the proposed 
critical habitat and may be subject to the ESA section 7 consultation 
processes when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. 
These include: (1) in-water structures and construction, including 
dredging and beach nourishment; (2) oil and gas activities, including 
construction, maintenance, operations, oil spills, and clean-up; (3) 
alternative energy development, including the construction, 
maintenance, and operation of wind farms; (4) vessel activities, 
including the establishment of shipping lanes and those that may cause 
damage by grounding, anchoring, and propeller scarring; (5) military 
activities; (6) space vehicle and missile launches; (7) Federal 
fisheries; (8) aquaculture; (9) water quality management including 
pesticide registration, establishment of water quality standards, and 
Clean Water Act general permits; and (10) any activity resulting in 
run-off, pollution, or contamination into waters occupied by green 
turtles.
    The designation of critical habitat does not preclude a Federal 
agency from performing its action within that specific area. Rather, a 
Federal agency is required to insure that its action will not result in 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. During section 
7 consultations, NMFS' biologists would review Federal actions and 
their effects on the essential features within specific areas 
designated as critical habitat, in addition to effects to the species. 
For continuing actions that have previously undergone section 7 
consultation for the species, reinitiation of consultation would be 
required to assess effects to the critical habitat upon its 
designation. Although not required, a Federal agency may request a 
conference on any action that may affect proposed critical habitat; the 
conference opinion may be adopted as the biological opinion to satisfy 
the section 7 consultation requirements once the designation is 
finalized.
    For areas containing the reproductive essential feature, consulting 
biologists would evaluate whether the Federal action is likely to 
obstruct areas used for transit to or from nesting beaches, mating, or 
internesting; the action would also be evaluated for artificial 
lighting, which may impede post-hatchlings' swim frenzy and early 
dispersal. A destruction or adverse modification analysis would 
consider the extent to which these areas are obstructed or lighted, 
including but not limited to timing (during the mating/nesting season), 
duration (permanent or temporary), and magnitude (large or small 
scale). Actions having effects that are temporary, small-scale, or 
occur outside of the mating/nesting season are not expected to result 
in a destruction or adverse modification determination.
    Similarly, for areas containing the migratory essential feature, 
consulting biologists would evaluate whether the Federal action is 
likely to obstruct corridors used by reproductive individuals for 
transit between reproductive and benthic foraging/resting areas. A 
destruction or adverse modification analysis would consider the extent 
to which a migratory corridor is obstructed, including but not limited 
to timing (before, during, or after the mating/nesting season), 
duration (permanent or temporary), and magnitude (large or small 
scale). Actions having effects that are temporary, small-scale, or 
occur outside of the migratory season are not expected to result in a 
destruction or adverse modification determination.
    For areas containing the foraging/resting essential features, 
consulting biologists would evaluate whether the Federal action is 
likely to adversely affect underwater refugia and food resources (i.e., 
seagrasses, macroalgae, and/or invertebrates) and/or Sargassum habitat 
for the North Atlantic DPS. A destruction or adverse modification 
analysis would consider the extent to which such resources are modified 
or destroyed, including but not limited to magnitude (large or small 
scale) and availability of other resources nearby. Actions having 
effects that are small in scale or that allow turtles to forage and 
rest nearby are not expected to result in a destruction or adverse 
modification determination.
    Given these considerations, it is anticipated that many Federal 
actions would not result in a destruction or adverse modification 
determination. For many actions, it is also anticipated that simple 
modifications could be made to proposed actions to avoid or minimize 
adverse effects to critical habitat. Such determinations will be made 
by consulting biologists on a case-by-case basis. However, we provide 
some examples for guidance. Obstructions to areas containing 
reproductive and migratory features could be avoided by planning 
actions well outside of mating/nesting and migratory seasons, 
minimizing the footprint of the action (so that turtles could easily 
move around the obstruction), or minimizing the duration of the action. 
To avoid artificial lighting, actions could be performed during the 
day. Actions could minimize the damage and loss of seagrass beds by 
relocating their action or minimizing its footprint and impact. 
Minimizing the footprint of an action would also minimize impacts to 
macroalgae and invertebrates. These species may grow on artificial 
substrates, which may need to be removed or maintained. In such 
instances, Federal agencies could ensure that other foraging resources 
are available to green turtles (e.g., avoid removing all available food 
resources at one time). Similarly, refugia may be destroyed by dredging 
or in-water construction. In such instances, Federal agencies could 
ensure that other refugia are available (e.g., avoid removing all 
available refugia at one time). In some cases, these modifications may 
have already been incorporated into Federal actions (e.g., best 
management practices).
    Private or non-Federal entities may be affected by the proposed 
critical habitat designation if their project is authorized or funded 
by a Federal agency (i.e., a Federal action). The Federal agency would 
need to consult on any action that may affect designated critical 
habitat, as described above; however,

[[Page 46616]]

the Federal agency may request information from the private or non-
Federal entities. We do not anticipate a non-Federal project (i.e., one 
that is not authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency) to 
be affected by the designation of critical habitat.

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure the final action resulting from this proposed rule will 
be as accurate and effective as possible, we solicit comments on and 
information about this proposed rule from the public, other government 
agencies, federally recognized tribes and organizations, the scientific 
community, industry, non-governmental organizations, and any other 
interested party. In particular, we are interested in data and 
information regarding the following: (1) the distribution and habitat 
use of green turtles in waters under U.S. jurisdiction; (2) the 
relative conservation value of specific areas containing the features 
essential to green turtles; (3) the boundaries of specific areas and 
proposed critical habitat units; (4) information regarding potential 
benefits of designating any particular area as critical habitat; (5) 
information regarding the types of Federal actions that may trigger an 
ESA section 7 consultation and possible modifications that may be 
required of those activities; (6) information regarding current or 
planned activities in the areas proposed as critical habitat, including 
both Federal and non-Federal activities, that may be impacted by the 
proposed critical habitat designation; (7) any foreseeable economic, 
national security, Tribal, or other relevant impact resulting from the 
proposed designations; (8) whether any data used in the economic 
analysis needs to be updated; (9) additional costs arising specifically 
from the designation of green turtle critical habitat that have not 
been identified in the Draft Economic Analysis or improved costs 
estimates for activities that are included in the Draft Economic 
Analysis; and (10) additional information regarding impacts on small 
businesses that were not identified in the Draft Economic Analysis or 
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. To the extent possible, we 
request that the data or information provided be clearly specific to 
one or more of the DPSs addressed in this proposed rule. Please include 
sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal 
articles or other publications) to support your comment. Please note 
that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the 
action under consideration without providing supporting information, 
although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to 
support a determination because Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA directs the 
Secretary to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best 
scientific data available.
    You may submit your comments and supporting information concerning 
this proposal electronically or by mail (see ADDRESSES) or during 
public hearings (see DATES). The proposed rule and supporting 
documentation can be found on the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at 
https://www.regulations.gov by entering NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087 in the 
Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required 
fields, and enter or attach your comments. In preparing the final rule, 
we will consider all comments pertaining to the proposed designations 
received during the comment period. Accordingly, the final designation 
may differ from that which is proposed here.

Public Informational Meetings and Public Hearings

    Section 4(b)(5) of the ESA requires us to promptly hold at least 
one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of 
publication of a proposed rule to designate critical habitat. In-person 
or virtual public hearings provide a forum for accepting formal verbal 
comments on this proposed rule. Prior to the public hearings, we will 
provide an overview of the proposed rule during public informational 
meetings. We have scheduled the following public informational meetings 
and public hearings on this proposed rule (see DATES):
     For the North and South Atlantic DPSs: We are holding a 
virtual public informational meeting and virtual public hearing in 
coordination with USFWS.
     For the East Pacific DPS: We are holding a virtual public 
informational meeting and virtual public hearing.
     For the Central North Pacific DPS: We are holding a 
virtual public informational meeting and virtual public hearing in 
coordination with USFWS.
     For the Central South Pacific DPS: We are holding an in-
person public informational meeting and in-person public hearing in 
coordination with USFWS.
     For the Central West Pacific DPS: We are holding in-person 
public informational meetings and in-person public hearings in 
coordination with USFWS.
    Requests for additional public hearings must be made in writing 
(see ADDRESSES) by September 5, 2023. Dates and specific locations for 
additional hearings will be announced in a separate Federal Register 
notice.

Reasonable Accommodation

    We are committed to providing access to the public informational 
meetings and public hearings for all participants. Requests for 
accommodations should be directed to Jennifer Schultz (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) as soon as possible, but no later than 10 business 
days prior to the hearing date (see DATES).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule can 
be found on the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov by entering NOAA-NMFS-2023-0087 in the Search box, 
and is available upon request from the NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an environmental analysis as provided for 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for critical 
habitat designations made pursuant to the ESA is not required. See 
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 
116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). We have prepared an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), which is provided in 
the Draft Economic Analysis (NMFS 2023b). The IRFA describes the 
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. The IRFA is summarized below.
    This proposed rule, if adopted, does not directly apply to any 
particular entity, small or large. It directly applies to Federal 
agencies, which are required to consult on activities that may affect 
designated critical habitat and insure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
Section 7 consultations may result in economic impacts to Federal

[[Page 46617]]

agencies and third parties (e.g., permittees, applicants, grantees) of 
Federal actions. Those economic impacts may include the administrative 
costs of section 7 consultation and, in some instances, project 
modification costs.
    This proposed, if adopted, rule will not impose any recordkeeping 
or reporting requirements on small entities. During section 7 
consultations, there may be communication among NMFS, the Federal 
action agency, and a third party applicant applying for Federal funding 
or permitting. Third party applicants may include non-Federal entities 
that are permitted or funded by a Federal agency. Communication may 
include written letters, phone calls, and/or meetings. Third party 
costs may include administrative work (such as cost of time and 
materials to prepare for letters, calls, and/or meetings) and analyses 
of effects to designated critical habitat. In addition, third parties 
may be required to monitor for impacts to critical habitat, as a 
requirement of the funding or permit received from the Federal action 
agency.
    The proposed rule, if adopted, will not duplicate or conflict with 
any other laws or regulations. The incremental impacts contemplated in 
this IRFA are expected to result from the critical habitat designation 
and not from other Federal regulations.
    While we do not here prejudge the outcome of any section 7 
consultation, the best available information supports the conclusion 
that for nearly all Federal activities that are predicted to occur over 
the time horizon of the analysis (i.e., in the next 10 years), those 
activities that are likely to adversely affect critical habitat and 
require formal consultation are also expected to constitute adverse 
effects to listed green turtles, other listed species, or other 
designated critical habitat, either directly or indirectly (i.e., such 
activities already require formal consultation). Therefore, most 
projects likely to adversely affect proposed green turtle critical 
habitat are not expected to result in incremental project modification 
costs. However, beach nourishment activities occurring in California 
could require project modifications beyond those required under the 
baseline. With the exception of approximately $10,000 in potential 
annualized costs of project modifications to beach nourishment projects 
in California, these costs reflect administrative costs of adding 
critical habitat analyses to future section 7 consultations. Therefore, 
the vast majority of costs attributable to this rule are the 
administrative costs of adding critical habitat analyses to a section 7 
consultation that would otherwise occur.
    The designation of green turtle critical habitat proposed herein is 
expected to have a limited economic impact over the next 10 years, on 
the order of $639,000 in annualized costs for the North Atlantic DPS, 
$25,000 for the South Atlantic DPS, $125,000-$131,000 for the East 
Pacific DPS, $71,000 for the Central North Pacific DPS, $18,000 for the 
Central South Pacific DPS, and $28,000 for the Central West Pacific 
DPS. Most incremental impacts are borne by NMFS and other Federal 
agencies and not by private entities or small governmental 
jurisdictions. However, some consultations may include third parties 
that may be also be small entities.
    The best available information was used to identify the potential 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation on small entities. 
However, there are uncertainties that complicate quantification of 
these impacts, particularly with respect to the extent to which the 
quantified impacts may be borne by small entities. As a result, the 
IRFA employed a conservative approach (i.e., more likely to 
overestimate than underestimate impacts to small entities) in assuming 
that the quantified costs that are not borne by the Federal government 
are borne by small entities. Because the proposed critical habitat 
designation occurs in marine waters, the analysis focused on small 
entities located coastally in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Puerto 
Rico, USVI, California, Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI. For 
purposes of this analysis, we separated activity categories into 
construction activities (e.g., construction, dredging, and beach 
nourishment) and non-construction activities (e.g., commercial fishing, 
oil and gas, renewable energy, aquaculture, military activities, space 
launches and reentry, and water quality management).
    For all non-construction activity categories relevant to this 
analysis, the expected costs borne by third parties are expected to be 
negligible. For each of these activities, two or fewer consultations 
are anticipated per year across all areas proposed as critical habitat. 
As a result, the annualized incremental costs that may be borne by 
small entities in related industries is estimated to be less than 
$1,100, even under a conservative scenario that assumes that a single 
small entity bears all third party costs associated with a particular 
activity category. The analysis, therefore, focused on the costs of 
consultations on construction activities, which occur more frequently 
within the critical habitat area.
    We next considered all construction activity categories relevant to 
this analysis. As described in the Draft Economic Report (NMFS 2023b), 
approximately 254 consultations per year focus on construction 
activities. We estimate that small entities may bear the third party 
costs of up to 211 of these consultations annually. Small entities that 
may incur third party costs associated with section 7 consultations on 
construction projects are assumed to be primarily involved in the 
following North American Industry Classification System industry 
sectors: Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction; Other Heavy and 
Civil Engineering Construction; and Dredging and Surface Cleanup 
Activities. Along with private businesses, there also may be 
consultations for which small governmental jurisdictions (i.e., 
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 people) participate 
in consultations as third parties. The IRFA identified 70 small 
government jurisdictions adjacent to critical habitat that may be 
involved in future consultations.
    Ultimately, based on the IRFA, up to 211 small entities per year 
may bear costs associated with participation in consultation regarding 
green turtle critical habitat, as proposed. Total annualized 
administrative and project modification costs that may be borne by 
these small entities (businesses or governments) engaged in 
construction activities are approximately $133,000. Under a scenario in 
which the $133,000 in total annualized costs are spread across 211 
small entities, or the maximum number of small entities potentially 
subject to Section 7 consultation annually, the average annual cost of 
$630 borne by each small entity represents less than 0.1 percent of 
average annual revenues. This scenario may overstate the number of 
small entities impacted by the critical habitat designation but 
understate the revenue impact. Under a scenario in which a single small 
entity bears all third party costs, the $133,000 in costs represents 
9.8 percent of average annual revenues of the small companies involved 
in construction activities. However, this scenario is not feasible, as 
it requires that a single small entity be involved in all 211 
construction projects potentially subject to section 7 consultation 
annually. In addition, it is likely that a substantial portion of the 
costs that this IRFA assumes would be borne by small entities would be 
passed along to Federal agencies or third parties.

[[Page 46618]]

    The RFA, as amended by SBREFA, requires us to consider alternatives 
to the proposed regulation that will reduce the impacts to small 
entities. We considered three alternatives. First, we considered the 
alternative of not designating any additional critical habitat for 
green turtles. This alternative would impose no additional economic, 
national security, or other relevant impacts. However, after compiling 
and reviewing the biological information for these DPSs, we rejected 
this alternative because it would violate section 4 of the ESA, which 
requires us to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable. A second alternative we considered was to propose to 
designate all areas meeting the definition of critical habitat. 
However, following our consideration of national security, economic, 
and other relevant impacts of designating all the specific areas, we 
rejected this alternative. In particular, and as described in our Draft 
Sections 4(a)(3) and 4(b)(2) Report, we determined that economic costs 
outweighed the benefits of designating areas of low conservation value 
and that excluding these areas would not result in the extinction of 
any DPS (see NMFS 2019c). We chose the third alternative, which 
proposes to exclude a subset of areas meeting the definition of 
critical habitat where the impacts outweigh the benefits, as described 
in this proposed rule. This alternative provides a conservation benefit 
to DPSs and reduces economic impacts.

Coastal Zone Management Act

    Under section 307(c)(1)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
(CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1)(A)) and its implementing regulations, each 
Federal activity within or outside the coastal zone that has reasonably 
foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural resource of the 
coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to 
the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of 
approved State coastal management programs. We have yet not made 
determinations in regards to the CZMA. We are reviewing enforceable 
policies of the approved coastal management programs of Florida, North 
Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, USVI, California, Hawai`i, American 
Samoa, Guam, and CNMI. We will send our determinations to the 
responsible agencies in the aforementioned States and Territories for 
review. After considering their responses, we will make determinations 
in the final rule to designate critical habitat.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to minimize the 
paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses, educational and 
nonprofit institutions, and other persons resulting from the collection 
of information by or for the Federal government. This proposed rule 
does not contain any new or revised collection of information 
requirement. This rule, if adopted, would not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State, Territory, local, or tribal 
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    The designation of critical habitat does not impose an 
``enforceable duty'' on State, Territory, local, or tribal governments, 
or the private sector and therefore does not qualify as a Federal 
mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, 
statute, or regulation that would impose an ``enforceable duty'' upon 
non-Federal governments or the private sector and includes both 
``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector 
mandates.''
    This proposed rule, if adopted, will not produce a Federal mandate. 
The designation of critical habitat does not impose an enforceable or 
legally-binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private 
parties. The only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
insure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7 of the ESA. Non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, but the Federal agency 
has the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We do not find that this proposed 
rule, if adopted, would significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it is not likely to produce a Federal mandate of 
$100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In 
addition, the designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State, Territory, local, or tribal governments. Therefore, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal 
and Tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive 
orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which 
differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal 
with, or are affected by, the Federal Government. This relationship has 
given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the 
legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward 
Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care 
with respect to Indian lands, Tribal trust resources, and the exercise 
of Tribal rights. Executive Order 13175 on Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments outlines the 
responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting Tribal 
interests. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as 
amended by section 518 of Public Law 108-447 (118 Stat. 3267), directs 
all Federal agencies to consult with Alaska Native corporations on the 
same basis as Indian Tribes under E.O. 13175.
    Because all of the specific areas under consideration as potential 
critical habitat area were located seaward of the coastline, we 
preliminarily found that there were no Indian lands subject to 
consideration for possible relevant impacts. We will continue to work 
with NMFS' Tribal coordinator and regional Tribal liaisons to request 
input regarding tribal resources and issues, usual and accustomed 
areas, or the exercise of Tribal rights that may be impacted by 
critical habitat designations for green turtle DPSs. If we receive 
information on Tribal impacts in response to this proposed rule, we 
will consult and coordinate with the affected Tribe(s) or Native 
corporations. However, at this time and based on communications with 
NMFS' Tribal coordinator and regional Tribal liaisons, it does not 
appear that this designation will have ``Tribal implications'' (defined 
as having a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes) that would trigger a requirement to 
conduct Government to Government consultations.

[[Page 46619]]

Information Quality Act and Peer Review

    The data and analyses supporting this proposed action have 
undergone a pre-dissemination review and have been determined to be in 
compliance with applicable information quality guidelines implementing 
the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).
    As described in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final 
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR 2664, January 14, 
2005), the primary purpose of the Bulletin is to improve the quality 
and credibility of scientific information disseminated by the Federal 
Government by requiring peer review of ``influential scientific 
information'' and ``highly influential scientific information'' prior 
to public dissemination. ``Influential scientific information'' is 
defined as ``information the agency reasonably can determine will have 
or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public 
policies or private sector decisions.'' The Bulletin provides agencies 
broad discretion in determining the appropriate process and level of 
peer review. Stricter standards were established for the peer review of 
``highly influential scientific assessments,'' defined as information 
whose ``dissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500 
million in any one year on either the public or private sector or that 
the dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has 
significant interagency interest.''
    The information in the Draft Biological Report (NMFS 2023a) and the 
Draft Economic Report (NMFS 2023b) supporting this proposed critical 
habitat rule are considered influential scientific information and 
subject to peer review. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB 
Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of these reports, and 
incorporated the peer reviewer comments as applicable into the draft 
reports prior to proposing critical habitat for designation. Comments 
received from peer reviewers of the Draft Biological Report and Draft 
Economic Report are available online at https://www.noaa.gov/organization/information-technology/peer-review-plans.

Executive Order 12630, Takings

    Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies must consider the effects of 
their actions on constitutionally protected private property rights and 
avoid unnecessary takings of property. A taking of property includes 
actions that result in physical invasion or occupancy of private 
property that substantially affect its value or use. In accordance with 
E.O. 12630, the proposed rule does not have significant takings 
implications. The designation of critical habitat affects only Federal 
agency actions. Further, no areas of private property exist within the 
proposed critical habitat, and therefore none would be affected by this 
action. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    OMB has determined that this proposed rule is significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866 review. The Draft Economic Report (NMFS 2023b) 
and Draft ESA Section 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS 2023c) have been prepared to 
support the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our 
consideration of alternatives to this rulemaking as required under E.O. 
12866. To review these documents, see ADDRESSES.
    Based on the Draft Economic Report (NMFS 2023b), the total 
estimated present value of the quantified incremental impacts of the 
proposed critical habitat designation is approximately $900,000 
(rounded total) in annualized costs: $639,000 for the North Atlantic 
DPS; $25,000 for the South Atlantic DPS; $125,000-$131,000 for the East 
Pacific DPS; $71,000 for the Central North Pacific DPS; $18,000 for the 
Central South Pacific DPS; and $28,000 for the Central West Pacific 
DPS. These total impacts include the additional administrative efforts 
necessary to consider critical habitat in section 7 consultations. 
Overall, economic impacts are expected to be small and mainly are 
associated with the administrative costs borne by Federal agencies. 
While there are expected economic benefits of designating critical 
habitat, insufficient data are available to monetize them.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to take into account any 
federalism impacts of regulations under development. It includes 
specific consultation directives for situations in which a regulation 
may preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
State, Territory, and local governments (unless required by statute). 
Pursuant to E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not 
have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is 
not required. The designation of critical habitat directly affects the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. As a result, the proposed rule 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, Territories, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States or 
Territories, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, as specified in the Order. State, 
Territories, or local governments may be indirectly affected by the 
proposed designation if they require Federal funds or formal approval 
or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting 
an action. In these cases, the State, Territories, or local government 
agency may participate in the section 7 consultation as a third party. 
However, in keeping with Department of Commerce policies and consistent 
with ESA regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(1)(ii), we will request 
information on this proposed rule from the appropriate resource 
agencies in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, USVI, 
California, Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI.

Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy 
Effects when undertaking a significant energy action. Under E.O. 13211, 
a significant energy action means any action by an agency that is 
expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that 
is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. We have considered the potential impacts of this proposed 
action on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and find that the 
designation of critical habitat would not have impacts that exceed the 
thresholds identified in OMB's memorandum M-01-27, Guidance for 
Implementing E.O. 13211. Thus, this proposed designation, if finalized, 
would not have a significant adverse effect within the meaning of the 
executive order. The energy impacts analysis is presented in the Draft 
Economic Analysis (NMFS 2023b).

List of Subjects

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, 
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species.


[[Page 46620]]


    Dated: June 28, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 
CFR parts 223, 224, and 226 as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec.  223.201-202 
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 
Sec.  223.206(d)(9).

0
2. In Sec.  223.102, amend the table in paragraph (e), by revising the 
entries for ``Sea turtle, green (Central North Pacific DPS),'' ``Sea 
turtle, green (East Pacific DPS),'' ``Sea turtle, green (North Atlantic 
DPS),'' and ``Sea turtle, green (South Atlantic DPS)'' under the 
``Reptiles'' subheading to read as follows:


 Sec.  223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous 
species.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Species \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing    Critical
                                                                  Description of listed         determination(s)       habitat           ESA rules
             Common name                  Scientific name                 entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                                                      Reptiles \2\
Sea turtle, green (Central North      Chelonia mydas.........  Green sea turtles            81 FR 20058, April 6,        226.208  223.205, 223.206,
 Pacific DPS).                                                  originating from the         2016.                                 223.207.
                                                                Central North Pacific
                                                                Ocean, bounded by the
                                                                following coordinates:
                                                                41[deg] N, 169[deg] E in
                                                                the northwest; 41[deg] N,
                                                                143[deg] W in the
                                                                northeast; 9[deg] N,
                                                                125[deg] W in the
                                                                southeast; and 9[deg] N,
                                                                175[deg] W in the
                                                                southwest.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sea turtle, green (East Pacific DPS)  Chelonia mydas.........  Green sea turtles            81 FR 20058, April 6,        226.208  223.205, 223.206,
                                                                originating from the East    2016.                                 223.207.
                                                                Pacific Ocean, bounded by
                                                                the following lines and
                                                                coordinates: 41[deg] N,
                                                                143[deg] W in the
                                                                northwest; 41[deg] N Lat.
                                                                in the north; along the
                                                                western coasts of the
                                                                Americas; 40[deg] S Lat.
                                                                in the south; and 40[deg]
                                                                S, 96[deg] W in the
                                                                southwest.
Sea turtle, green (North Atlantic     Chelonia mydas.........  Green sea turtles            81 FR 20058, April 6,        226.208  223.205, 223.206,
 DPS).                                                          originating from the North   2016.                                 223.207.
                                                                Atlantic Ocean, bounded by
                                                                the following lines and
                                                                coordinates: 48[deg] N
                                                                Lat. in the north, along
                                                                the western coasts of
                                                                Europe and Africa (west of
                                                                5.5[deg] W Long.); north
                                                                of 19[deg] N Lat. in the
                                                                east; bounded by 19[deg]
                                                                N, 65.1[deg] W to 14[deg]
                                                                N, 65.1[deg] W then
                                                                14[deg] N, 77[deg] W in
                                                                the south and west; and
                                                                along the eastern coasts
                                                                of the Americas (north of
                                                                7.5[deg] N, 77[deg] W).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sea turtle, green (South Atlantic     Chelonia mydas.........  Green sea turtles            81 FR 20058, April 6,        226.208  223.205, 223.206,
 DPS).                                                          originating from the South   2016.                                 223.207.
                                                                Atlantic Ocean, bounded by
                                                                the following lines and
                                                                coordinates: along the
                                                                northern and eastern
                                                                coasts of South America
                                                                (east of 7.5[deg] N,
                                                                77[deg] W); 14[deg] N,
                                                                77[deg] W to 14[deg] N,
                                                                65.1[deg] W to 19[deg] N,
                                                                65.1[deg] W in the north
                                                                and west; 19[deg] N Lat.
                                                                in the northeast; 40[deg]
                                                                S, 19[deg] E in the
                                                                southeast; and 40[deg] S
                                                                Lat. in the south.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
  evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, is
  limited to turtles while in the water.

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

0
4. In Sec.  224.101, amend the table in paragraph (h), by revising the 
entries for ``Sea turtle, green (Central South Pacific DPS)'' and ``Sea 
turtle, green (Central West Pacific DPS)'' under the ``Reptiles'' 
subheading to read as follows:


Sec.  224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 46621]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Species \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------  Citation(s) for    Critical
                                                   Description of          listing        habitat     ESA rules
         Common name           Scientific name      listed entity     determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Reptiles \2\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sea turtle, green (Central     Chelonia mydas.  Green sea turtles     81 FR 20058,          226.208      224.104
 South Pacific DPS).                             originating from      April 6, 2016.
                                                 the Central South
                                                 Pacific Ocean,
                                                 bounded by the
                                                 following
                                                 coordinates: 9[deg]
                                                 N, 175[deg] W in
                                                 the northwest;
                                                 9[deg] N, 125[deg]
                                                 W in the northeast;
                                                 40[deg] S, 96[deg]
                                                 W in the southeast;
                                                 40[deg] S, 176[deg]
                                                 E in the southwest;
                                                 and 13[deg] S,
                                                 171[deg] E in the
                                                 west.
Sea turtle, green (Central     Chelonia mydas.  Green sea turtles     81 FR 20058,          226.208      224.104
 West Pacific DPS).                              originating from      April 6, 2016.
                                                 the Central West
                                                 Pacific Ocean,
                                                 bounded by the
                                                 following
                                                 coordinates:
                                                 41[deg] N, 146[deg]
                                                 E in the northwest;
                                                 41[deg] N, 169[deg]
                                                 E in the northeast;
                                                 9[deg] N, 175[deg]
                                                 W in the east;
                                                 13[deg] S, 171[deg]
                                                 E in the southeast;
                                                 along the northern
                                                 coast of the island
                                                 of New Guinea; and
                                                 4.5[deg] N,
                                                 129[deg] E in the
                                                 west.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
  see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
  FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
  National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

0
5. The authority citation of part 226 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

0
6. Revise Sec.  226.208 to read as follows:


Sec.  226.208  Critical habitat for the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, 
East Pacific, Central North Pacific, Central South Pacific, and Central 
West Pacific distinct population segments (DPSs) of green turtles 
(Chelonia mydas).

    Critical habitat is designated for the North Atlantic, South 
Atlantic, East Pacific, Central North Pacific, Central South Pacific, 
and Central West Pacific green turtle DPSs as described in this 
section. The maps in paragraph (h) of this section, clarified by the 
textual descriptions in this section, are the definitive sources for 
determining the critical habitat boundaries.
    (a) Critical habitat designated for green turtles DPSs within U.S. 
jurisdiction. Critical habitat is designated for green turtles DPSs 
within U.S. jurisdiction in waters off the coasts of the following 
States and Territories: Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Alabama, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, California, 
Hawai`i, American Samoa, Pacific Remote Island Areas, Guam, and 
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. We identified the following 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of green 
turtles (some features were not identifiable or did not occur within 
U.S. jurisdiction for some DPSs):
    (1) Reproductive (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Central North 
Pacific, Central South Pacific, and Central West Pacific DPSs). From 
the mean high water line to 20 m depth, sufficiently dark and 
unobstructed nearshore waters adjacent to nesting beaches designated as 
critical habitat by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to allow 
for the transit, mating, and internesting of reproductive individuals 
and the transit of post-hatchlings.
    (2) Migratory (North Atlantic and East Pacific DPSs). From the mean 
high water line to 20 m depth (North Atlantic DPS) or 10 km offshore 
(East Pacific DPS), sufficiently unobstructed waters that allow for 
unrestricted transit of reproductive individuals between benthic 
foraging/resting and reproductive areas.
    (3) Benthic foraging/resting (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, East 
Pacific, Central North Pacific, Central South Pacific, and Central West 
Pacific DPSs). 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.
    (4) Surface-pelagic foraging/resting (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.
    (b) Critical habitat boundaries for the North Atlantic DPS of green 
sea turtles. Critical habitat for the North Atlantic DPS includes all 
marine waters within the designated areas as shown by the maps in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section and those prepared and made available 
by NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 424.18.
    (1) Florida. All nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 
20 m depth. These areas contain reproductive, migratory, and benthic 
foraging/resting essential features.
    (2) Texas. From the Mexico border to and including Galveston Bay, 
all nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 20 m depth. These 
areas contain benthic foraging/resting essential features.
    (3) North Carolina. From the South Carolina border to but not 
including Albemarle and Currituck Sounds, all nearshore areas from the 
mean high water line to 20 m depth. These areas contain benthic 
foraging/resting essential features.
    (4) Puerto Rico. All nearshore areas from the mean high water line 
to 20 m depth of: Culebra Island, the southern coast of Mona Island, 
the eastern and southern coasts of Vieques Island, the

[[Page 46622]]

reproductive areas of Maunabo and Guayama, and the northern coast of 
Puerto Rico Island including Punta Salinas, Escambron, and Arrecifes 
Isla Verde Natural Reserve. These areas contain benthic foraging/
resting essential features. The southern coast of Mona Island, the 
eastern and southern coasts of Vieques Island, and the reproductive 
areas of Maunabo and Guayama also contain the reproductive essential 
feature.
    (5) Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean (Sargassum Habitat). In the 
Gulf of Mexico, surface-pelagic areas from 10 m depth to the outer 
boundary of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In the Atlantic 
Ocean, surface-pelagic areas from 10 m depth to the outer boundary of 
the U.S. EEZ, with the exception of areas north of Cape Canaveral, 
where the nearshore boundary follows the edge of the Gulf Stream (as 
defined in the critical habitat designation for loggerhead turtle 
Sargassum habitat, Sec.  226.223 (a)(37)). These areas contain surface-
pelagic foraging/resting essential features.
    (c) Critical habitat boundaries for the South Atlantic DPS of green 
sea turtles. Critical habitat for the South Atlantic DPS includes all 
marine waters within the designated areas of U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) 
as shown by the maps in paragraph (h)(2) of this section and those 
prepared and made available by NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 424.18.
    (1) USVI. All nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth of: St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John, and other islands. These 
areas contain benthic foraging/resting essential features. St. Croix 
also contains the reproductive essential feature.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) Critical habitat boundaries for the East Pacific DPS of green 
sea turtles. Critical habitat for the East Pacific DPS includes all 
marine waters within the designated areas of California as shown by the 
maps in paragraph (h)(3) of this section and those prepared and made 
available by NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 424.18.
    (1) California (Migratory). From the Mexico border to and including 
North San Diego Bay, all nearshore areas from the mean high water line 
to 10 km offshore. These areas contain the migratory essential feature.
    (2) California (Foraging/resting). All nearshore areas from the 
mean high water line to 20 m depth, from and including San Diego Bay to 
and including Santa Monica Bay (except for the area between Oceanside 
and San Onofre, where no data were available) and surrounding Catalina 
Island. These areas contain benthic foraging/resting essential 
features.
    (e) Critical habitat boundaries for the Central North Pacific DPS 
of green sea turtles. Critical habitat for the Central North Pacific 
DPS includes all marine waters within the designated areas of Hawai`i 
as shown by the maps in paragraph (h)(4) of this section and those 
prepared and made available by NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 424.18.
    (1) Hawai`i. All nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 
20 m depth of: Hawai`i, Maui, Lana`i, Moloka`i, Kaho`olawe, O`ahu, 
Kaua`i, Lalo/French Frigate Shoals, Kamole/Laysan Island, Kapou/
Lisianski Island, Manawai/Pearl & Hermes Atoll, Kuaihelani/Midway 
Atoll, Kuaihelani/Midway Atoll, and H[omacr]lanik[umacr]/Kure Atoll. 
These areas contain reproductive and benthic foraging/resting essential 
features.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (f) Critical habitat boundaries for the Central South Pacific DPS 
of green sea turtles. Critical habitat for the East Pacific DPS 
includes all marine waters within the designated areas as shown by the 
maps in paragraph (h)(5) of this section and those prepared and made 
available by NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 424.18.
    (1) American Samoa. All nearshore areas from the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth of: Rose Atoll (Motu o Manu), Swains Island, 
Ta`[umacr] Island, Aunuu Island, and Tutuila Island, and the 
reproductive area of Ofu and Olosega. These areas contain benthic 
foraging/resting essential features. Rose Atoll (Motu o Manu), Swains 
Island, Ta`[umacr] Island, and Aunuu Island also contain the 
reproductive essential feature.
    (2) Palmyra Atoll. All nearshore areas from the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth. These areas contain essential reproductive and 
benthic foraging/resting features.
    (3) Jarvis Island. All nearshore areas from the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth. These areas contain benthic foraging/resting 
essential features.
    (4) Baker Island. All nearshore areas from the mean high water line 
to 20 m depth. These areas contain benthic foraging/resting essential 
features.
    (5) Howland Island. All nearshore areas from the mean high water 
line to 20 m depth. These areas contain benthic foraging/resting 
essential features.
    (g) Critical habitat boundaries for the Central West Pacific DPS of 
green sea turtles. Critical habitat for the East Pacific DPS includes 
all marine waters within the designated areas as shown by the maps in 
paragraph (h)(6) of this section and those prepared and made available 
by NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 424.18.
    (1) Guam. All nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 20 m 
depth. These areas contain reproductive and benthic foraging/resting 
essential features.
    (2) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). All 
nearshore areas from the mean high water line to 20 m depth of: Saipan, 
Tinian, Rota, Aguijan, Pagan, Alamagan, and Sarigan, and the 
reproductive area of Agrihan. These areas contain benthic foraging/
resting essential features. Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Pagan, and the 
reproductive area of Agrihan also contain the reproductive essential 
feature.
    (h) Maps of green turtle critical habitat. Spatial data for these 
critical habitats and mapping tools are maintained on our website and 
are available for public use (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical-habitat).
    (1) Maps of critical habitat for the North Atlantic DPS of green 
turtles.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Figure 1 to paragraph (h)(1)

[[Page 46623]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.000


Figure 1a to paragraph (h)(1)

[[Page 46624]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.001


Figure 1b to paragraph (h)(1)

[[Page 46625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.002


Figure 1c to paragraph (h)(1)

[[Page 46626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.003


Figure 1d to paragraph (h)(1)

[[Page 46627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.004


Figure 1e to paragraph (h)(1)

[[Page 46628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.005

    (2) Maps of critical habitat for the South Atlantic DPS of green 
turtles.

Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2)

[[Page 46629]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.006

    Figure 2a to paragraph (h)(2)

[[Page 46630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.007


Figure 2b to paragraph (h)(2)

[[Page 46631]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.008


Figure 2c to paragraph (h)(2)

[[Page 46632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.009

    (3) Maps of critical habitat for the East Pacific DPS of green 
turtles.

Figure 3 to paragraph (h)(3)

[[Page 46633]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.010


Figure 3a to paragraph (h)(3)

[[Page 46634]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.011


Figure 3b to paragraph (h)(3)

[[Page 46635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.012


Figure 3c to paragraph (h)(3)

[[Page 46636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.013


Figure 3d to paragraph (h)(3)

[[Page 46637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.014

    (4) Maps of critical habitat for the Central North Pacific DPS of 
green turtles.

Figure 4 to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46638]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.015


Figure 4a to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46639]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.016


Figure 4b to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.017


Figure 4c to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46641]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.018


Figure 4d to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46642]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.019

    Figure 4e to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.020


Figure 4f to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46644]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.021


Figure 4g to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46645]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.022


Figure 4h to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46646]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.023


Figure 4i to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46647]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.024

Figure 4j to paragraph (h)(4)


[[Page 46648]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.025


Figure 4k to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46649]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.026


Figure 4l to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46650]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.027


Figure 4m to paragraph (h)(4)

[[Page 46651]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.028

    (5) Maps of critical habitat for the Central South Pacific DPS of 
green turtles.

Figure 5 to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.029


Figure 5a to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46653]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.030

Figure 5b to paragraph (h)(5)


[[Page 46654]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.031


Figure 5c to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46655]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.032


Figure 5d to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46656]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.033


Figure 5e to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46657]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.034


Figure 5f to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.035


Figure 5g to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46659]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.036

Figure 5h to paragraph (h)(5)


[[Page 46660]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.037


Figure 5i to paragraph (h)(5)

[[Page 46661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.038

    (6) Maps of critical habitat for the Central West Pacific DPS of 
green turtles.

Figure 6 to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46662]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.039


Figure 6a to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46663]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.040


Figure 6b to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46664]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.041


Figure 6c to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46665]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.042


Figure 6d to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46666]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.043


Figure 6e to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46667]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.044


Figure 6f to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46668]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.045


Figure 6g to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46669]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.046


Figure 6h to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46670]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.047


Figure 6i to paragraph (h)(6)

[[Page 46671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY23.048

[FR Doc. 2023-14109 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C