Recovery plan for marine turtles

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

A RECOVERY PLAN F QR MARINE TURTLES

pww

A& Z

@oe mw

t-
74

RECOVERY PLAN for MARINE TURTLES

Prepared by

The Marine Turtle Recovery Team

Edited by

Sally,R. Hopkins
Lo
and

James I. Richardson

Co-Leaders:

Sally R. Hopkins, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

Peter C.H. Pritchard, Florida Audubon Society

Members:

Arthur E. Dammann, Caribbean Fisheries Management Council

Llewellyn Ehrhart,.University of Central Florida

Otto Florschutz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Milton M. Kaufmann, Monitor International

Thomas M. Murphy, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

Larry Ogren, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service

James I. Richardson, University of Georgia

Glenn Ulrich, S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

Ross Witham, Florida Department of Natural Resources

Date: Approved:
William G. Gordvi
Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service

Reviewing Consultants

George Balazs National Marine Fisheries Service

Douglas Beach National Marine Fisheries Service

Fredrick Berry National Marine Fisheries Service

Karen Bjorndal University of Florida

Charles Cowman Georgia Department of Natural Resources

John Colburn DESCO Marine, Inc.

Thomas Fritts U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Andreas Mager, Jr. National Marine Fisheries Service

Nicholas Mrosovsky University of Toronto

James O'Hara Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc.

Charles Oravetz National Marine Fisheries Service

James Pulliam U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services

Frank Schwartz University of North Carolina

Michael Weber Center for Environmental Education

Jack Woody U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Kenneth Dodd U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

This Marine Turtle Recovery Plan has been approved by the National Marine

Fisheries Service. it does not necessarily represent official positions or

approvals of cooperating agencies, and it does not necessarily represent the

view of all recovery team members who played the key role in preparing this

plan. This plan is subject to modification as dictated by new findings and

changes in species status and completion of tasks assigned in the plan.

This U.S. Goverment Recovery Plan identifies actions that can be taken

to promote the recovery and conservation of sea turtles. Reference to marine

turtle conservation in other countries is to assist with an understanding of

required U.S. actions within U.S. boundaries relative to cross-national

migratory species.

Acknowledgements

The team wishes to thank its advisors, Ken Chitwood (FWS) and

Charles Oravetz (NMFS) for their support and encouragement during the

preparation of this plan. We would also like to acknowledge Fritz

Aichele, cartographer, for the production of the maps, Pat Dupree for

typing the manuscript, and Karen Swanson for graphics. A special thanks

is due the staff at the Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, for

the typing and printing of the technical draft.

The artwork for the cover of this plan was provided by the Sea

Turtle Rescue Fund, a project of the Center for Environmental Education.

The artwork is based upon an original lithograph designed by Daniel

Gilbert, under Commision to the STRF/CEE, Miller Gilbert Publishing,

San Francisco, CA 1981.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale and Objective of the Recovery Plan ............... I

.1.2. International Cooperation .................................. 4

1.3. Evolutionary and Taxonomic Background ...................... 5

1.4. Geographic Definitions of Relevant Stocks ................ 7

1.5. Population Estimates of Relevant Stocks .................... 11

1.6. Causes for Declines in Stocks .............................. 16

2. GENERAL TOPICS

2.1. Population Models and Estimates ............................ 20

2.2. Tags and Tagging ........................................... 38

2.3. Remote Sensing .............................................. 43

2.4. Incidental Catch Overview .................................. 48

2.5. Nesting Beach Management Techniques ........................ 66

2.6. Hypothermic Stunning and Petroleum Impacts ................. 74

2.7. Public Education ........................................... 78

2.8. U.S. Federal Law ............................................. 83

3., INDIVIDUAL RECOVERY PLANS

3.1. Loggerhead Turtle .......................................... 90

Introduction ........................................... 95

Stepdown Plan ........................................... 98

Implementation Schedule ................................ 114

PAGE

Nesting Distribution ................................... 117

3.2. Green Turtle ............................................... 151

Introduction ............................................ 152

Stepdown Plan .......................................... 157

Implementation Schedule ................................ 172

Nesting Distribution ................................... 175

3.3. Leatherback Turtle ......................................... 181

Introduction ........................................... 182

Stepdown Plan .......................................... 189

Implementation Schedule ................................ 199

Nesting Distribution ................................... 202

3.4. Hawksbill Turtle ........................................... 207

Introduction ........................................... 208

Stepdown Plan .......................................... 214

Implementation Schedule ................................ 223

Nesting Distribution ................................... 226

3.5. Kemp's Ridley Turtle ....................................... 227

Introduction ........................................... 229

Stepdown Plan .......................................... 236

Implementation Schedule ................................ 247

Nesting Distribution ................................... 250

4. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

4.1 Introduction ............................................... 251

4.2 International Law .......................................... 253

4.3. Olive Ridley Turtle ........................................ 264

Introduction ........................................... 265

PAGE

Stepdown Plan .......................................... 269

Nesting Distribution ................................... 272

4.4 Regional Tabular Summary of National Statutory

and Regulatory Prohibitions Pursuant

to Marine Turtles ..................................... 273

5. LITERATURE CITED ................................................. 284

6. APPENDIX ......................................................... 297

Agency Review Comments ..................................... 298

vii

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE RECOVERY PLAN

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) provides for

the conservation, protection and propagation of species of wild fauna

and flora actually or potentially in danger of becoming extinct. All

but one species of marine turtles have been listed as either

"endangered" or "threatened" under the Act, and the jurisdictional

responsibilities for them are administered jointly by the Departments of

Interior and Commerce. The two categories are defined as follows:

"Endangered Species" means any species, subspecies or distinct

population segment of fish, or wildlife or plant which is in

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion

of its range.

"Threatened Species" means any species, subspecies or distinct

population segment of fish, or wildlife or plant which is likely

to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

The endangered category is more restrictive than the threatened

category which permits exceptions to the protective prohibitions de-

scribed in the Act. The status of discrete breeding populations of

listed species must be reviewed every five years and recommendations

made to the Secretary(ies) for delisting or reclassification if warranted

,by biological data.

In recent years considerable evidence has indicated a decline in

the populations of marine turtles (Fed. Reg.; 1977). Consequently,

three of the turtles, i.e. , Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi), hawks-

bill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

were listed as endangered. The Florida nesting population of the green

turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the Mexican west coast nesting populations

of the green turtle and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) are also

endangered. All of the remaining populations of green turtle, olive

ridley and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) are threatened. The only un-

listed species is the locally protected Australian flatback turtle

(Chelonia depressa).

The Act requires the preparation of recovery plans for all listed

species, unless the Secretary(ies) makes a finding that a recovery plan

will not further the recovery of a particular species. It allows for the

formation of recovery teams responsible for developing recovery plans.

The objective of these plans is the survival and eventual recovery of

listed species or populations, so they may be removed from the

endangered or threatened list. However, the species must be protected

after it is delisted. This Marine Turtle Recovery Plan describes manage-

ment programs that, if enacted, will foster the survival and recovery of

the remaining sea turtle populations. These management programs also

include the conservation of habitat.

The marine turtles of the southeast region comprise six species of

five genera and two families. They differ in their ecological needg as

well as in their survival outlook. Therefore, this Recovery Plan con-

tains six recovery plans, one for each species. Each plan describes

obj ectives and specific long and short range goals for preserving the

populations of marine turtles. These objectives are compatible with

international agreements ratified by the U.S. and with all federal and

state laws, rules and regulations. The first objective of the Recovery

Plan is to prevent extinction of any marine turtle species. Where

possible, declining populations would be stabilized and then increased.

The priorities listed in the Implementation Schedules were derived

relative to a jjyf@n species. No attempt was made by the Team to make

decisions on priorities between species. Thus, it must be the agencies

decision on how best to partition their available resources between sea

turtle species and to use the Recovery Plan's suggested priorities

within each species. The implementation of certain priority tasks will

impact several species, and such accumulative benefits should be con-

sidered.

The recovery procedure is based on a study of population dynamics,

habitat characteristics, and management methods. Objectives are both

species -specific and general, but all develop methods for enhancing the

populations. These objectives are to:

1. Obtain baseline data on population status for each species.

2. Identify problems by establishing species -specific data bases

from available information.

3. Set priorities for research necessary to describe the popu-

lation and habitat characteristics.

4. Develop management recommendations.

5. Reduce turtle mortality at sea and on land.

6. Enhance production on the nesting beaches.

7. Monitor the populations.

8. Assess the success or failure of the applied management.

9. Recommend changes in management.

As new information becomes available, the Recovery Plan will be

updated. Updating the Plan and monitoring the implementation of the

Plan will be a continuing responsibility of the Recovery Team until all

species of marine turtle can be removed from the endangered species

list. Many recommendations have already been acted upon during the

course of preparing the Plan.

1.2 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The primary purpose and focus of this Recovery Plan is to identify

actions to be undertaken within U.S. boundaries by U.S. agencies and

citizens. These actions are designed to prevent extinction of marine

turtle species and, where possible, to stabilize and increase their

populations.

However, conservation problems throughout the international range

of a species have been identified, because marine turtles are migratory

and may occupy territorial waters of more than one nation as well as

international waters.

Recovery actions outside U.S. jurisdictional waters and territories

are within the sovereign authority of 26 major political entities in the

area covered by the Plan. It is hoped that nations in the Wider

Caribbean Region will work together in bilateral and multilateral

cooperation to achieve common marine turtle conservation objectives.

The U.S. is currently working cooperatively with many countries in the

region and desires to continue to work cooperatively within the context

of existing relevant international agreements and technical liaisons and

to consider further cooperative mechanisms as required.

Specifically, all references to actions which are under the

jurisdiction of other nations in the Plan area are actions which the

U.S. understands may be (1) underway or (2) contemplated or considered

desirable for the species in view of their migratory nature. (See

Section 4.)

1.3 EVOLUTIONARY AND TAXONOMIC BACKGROUND

The principal evolutionary changes necessary for successful coloni-

zation of the marine environment were:

1. A large body size, presumably as a defense against a wide

variety of marine predators.

2. Paddle-like limbs for swimming.

3. High reproductive potential (a hundred or more eggs per nest

and multiple nestings per season) to compensate for the un-

avoidably high predation upon the hatchlings in the littoral

and marine environments.

4. A thick neck and non-retractile head in the interest of stream-

lining the anterior part of the body.

5. Physiological respiratory mechanisms and electrolyte balance

for existence at sea.

The first marine turtles are known from the late Jurassic and the

Cretaceous periods of Europe and are included in the extinct family

Thallassemyidae. These turtles showed parallels with modern marine tur-

tles, but the limbs were relatively short and incompletely adapted for

the marine environment. Other marine turtle families flourished briefly

during the,early Cretaceous. One of these, the Toxochelyidae, probably

was derived from the Thallassemyidae and included both littoral and

pelagic species. Although the front flippers_were well developed, the

hind limbs were relatively unmodified from the primitive terrestrial

condition. Another marine turtle family, the Protostegidae, reached its

zenith in the early Cretaceous in the Niobrara Sea which occupied what

is now the central United States. Earlier members of the subfamily

Chelospharginae were relatively small and had comparatively well ossi-

fied shells, although the more advanced genera, Protostega and espe-

cially Archelon, were very large. Archelon ischyros, with a two meter

carapace and a skull nearly half that length, was one of the largest

turtles that ever lived.

Modern marine turtles beloag to the families Cheloniidae and Der-

mochelyidae. The latter family includes only the highly divergent

leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and differs from other turtles in

numerous anatomical features including lack of scutes, scales and claws.

Some taxonomists recognize two subfamilies of the remaining marine

turtles, the Carettiinae and the Cheloniinae, with the former including

the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the two species of Ridley turtles

(Lepidochelys) and the latter including the green turtle (Chelonia

mydas) and the flatback turtle (Chelonia depressa). The position of the

hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is arguable; some taxonomists

place it closer to the loggerhead and some closer to the green turtle.

Although there are only seven modern marine turtle species, they

are not relicts from prehistoric times. The-small number of species

testifies to the relative uniformity of marine environments rather than

to the group being unsuccessful or obsolete. Most species are distrib-

uted throughout all of the tropical oceans. However, the loggerhead

occurs primarily in temperate latitudes, and the leatherback, although

nesting in the tropics, frequently migrates into cold waters at higher

latitudes (Bleakney, 1965) because of its unique physiology (Frair et al.,

1972).

From the viewpoint of their role in the marine ecosystem, marine

turtles show a wide range of ecological functions. The green turtle

grazes on marine grasses and algae; the leatherback is a specialized feeder

upon jellyfish, and the hawksbill dwells on coral reefs and feeds principally

upon sponges. The loggerhead is primarily carnivorous and has jaws well

adapted to crushing heavy-shelled molluscs and crustaceans and to

grazing on encrusting organisms attached to reefs, pilings and wrecks

(See Pritchard 1979a for discussion).

Until relatively recently, sea turtles existed in such huge popu-

lations that their function in marine ecosystems must have been highly

significant (Parsons, 1962). Today, that function has been reduced in

most places. Although marine habitats appear to be largely intact,

relative numbers of turtles have been reduced by turtle fisheries that

take turtles for food and other products and by other fisheries that

inadvertently kill turtles in the course of their fishing operations.

Most marine turtle species have not yet reached the point of no return;

they remain vigorous and potentially capable of recovering; Hopefully,

if the measures in the Plan are carried out, they will recover.

1.4 GEOGRAPHIC DEFINITIONS OF RELEVANT STOCKS

The Recovery Plan addresses all stocks of marine turtles known to

spend any or all of their life cycle within the National Marine Fisher-

ies Service, Southeast Region, which inclu@es the Gulf of Mexico, the

Atlantic coast (as far north as and including North Carolina), Puerto

Rico,, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and adjacent jurisdictional waters of the

Fishery Conservation Zone. Turtles are migratory, and recovery plans

for-them must include recommendations for the Northeast Region of NMFS

and recommendations for liaison with foreign-countries where these species

might nest or forage. This geographic region contains twenty-six major

political entities, and cooperation from these countries will have to be

obtained before a comprehensive recovery plan can succeed.

The Recovery Plan addresses the following taxa:*

1. Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

2. Green turtle (Chelonia mvdas)

3. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys h@)

4. Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea)

5. Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata)

6. Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

The Recovery Plan addresses West Atlantic stocks, as defined below

of these following taxa:

1. The loggerhead throughout the eastern and Gulf of Mexico sea-

boards of the United States and the Greater Antilles. Other

Caribbean nesting populations are also considered, including

those of the Guajira Peninsula (Colombia), scattered colonies

in Belize, the Albuquerque Keys (Colombia) and elsewhere.

2. The green turtle nesting in Florida, the Caribbean (including

Costa Rica, Aves Island, and Quintana Roo, Mexico) and along

the South American coast as far as Guyana. The decision

not to consider green turtle populations nesting beyond the

Guyana/Surinam border was reached because head-started green

'Subspecies of marine turtles are imperfectly defined and
are omitted from this plan.

turtles released in Florida are known to travel as far as

Guyana.* The Surinam nesting population is known to migrate

exclusively eastward to Brazil and apparently does not come

close to the United States Southeastern Region.

3. The Kemp's ridley throughout its range. Since the species is

critically endangered and an integral part of its feeding

range exists in Gulf and Atlantic waters of the United States,

the Plan will address the Kemp's ridley wherever the species

is found.

4. Although olive ridleys are almost unknown in the Southeastern

Region, they are on the U.S. endangered species list. Also,

occasional individuals have been recorded in the northern

Caribbean, including Puerto Rico. The olive ridley

nests in small numbers on Shell Beach, Guyana, and in larger

but sharply declining numbers at Eilanti, Surinam. A few

individuals also nest at Bigisanti, Surinam, and at Silebache,

French Guiana, but these may not constitute separate nesting

colonies. Since the Surinam population is declining, it is

felt that inclusion of this species within the Plan might aid

in its recovery.

5. The hawksbill occurring in southeastern U.S. waters, the Gulf

of Mexico, the Caribbean and the Bahamas. There are a few

nesting records for Florida, and stray animals have been

*One case of a head-started Florida green turtle recovered in Rio de
Janeiro.

reported as far north as New England. Some nesting takes place

on Vieques, Culebra and Mona Islands, Puerto Rico, and on the

U.S. Virgin Islands. Special emphasis is placed on recovery of

hawksbills nesting on Caribbean islands under United States

jurisdiction.

6. The leatherback frequenting the entire Gulf of Mexico and the

eastern seaboard of the United States as far as Canada. Nest-

ing on the mainland is very rare, and mainly confined to the

Atlantic coast of Florida. Small but important nesting

colonies are on St. Croix (U.S.V.I.) and on Vieques and

Culebra Islands, Puerto Rico. The recovery plan addresses

discrete nesting populations on Caribbean islands under United

States jurisdiction. Broad geographical areas which appear to

contain significant numbers of non-breeding animals are also

considered. The Plan includes leatherbacks nesting elsewhere

in the Atlantic system, since individuals from these colonies

are known to migrate occasionally to United States waters.

Major leatherback nesting colonies of interest in the western Atlantic

but not under United States jurisdiction are listed in order of magnitude:

French Guiana (Silebache-Point Isere)

Costa Rica (Limon to Parismina)

Surinam (Bigisanti and Marowijne beaches)

Panama (Chiriqui Gulf area)

Trinidad (Matura Bay, etc.)

Colombia (Golfo de Uraba)

Guyana (Shell Beach)

1.5 POPULATION ESTIMATES OF RELEVANT STOCKS

It is difficult to give even approximate numerical estimates for

any marine turtle population. This difficulty results from large gaps

in the knowledge of population characteristics and is compounded by the

cyclic nature of nesting populations. Obviously the total number of all

individuals reaches a peak during or immediately after each hatching

season when large numbers of hatchlings are generated, but this number

is reduced as hatchlings are eliminated by predation and other factors.

Young turtles are largely inaccessible to census, and for this

reason no attempt is made to estimate total population size for any

species in the Recovery Plan. Turtle populations are currently esti-

mated by counting nesting females. Estimating total stock size from

these counts is difficult. Some of the complicating factors are as

follows:

1. Nesting frequency varies within a season for individuals (Carr

et at., 1978).

2. Individuals do not nest in successive years for most species

of marine turtles (Carr et al., 1978; Hughes, 1976).

3. The number of turtles nesting on a given beach varies from one

year to another (Limpus, 1978).

4. Information on the sex ratio of marine turtle populations is

fragmentary, and some populations appear to deviate signifi-

cantly from a 1:1 sex ratio. Estimating the male segment of the

population from counts of nesting females is speculative.

Sufficient data on marine turtle nesting cycles are now available

to permit order-of -magnitude estimates for certain populations. The

estimates are summarized below:

Loggerhead: The nesting female population of the southeastern

United States (coasts of Florida to North Carolina), has most recently

been estimated to be about 14,150 (Murphy and Hopkins, 1984).

Populations elsewhere in the western Atlantic currently cannot

be estimated but are much smaller.

Green turtle: It is unclear whether Florida ever had a large

nesting population of green turtles (Dodd, 1982) [19811, although there

is historical evidence that immature green turtles were once *common in

the state. The fishery for immature green turtles was outlawed by

the Florida Department of Natural Resources in 1974.

Small numbers of green turtles have been reported during the last

two decades nesting on the Atlantic coast of Florida (Dodd, 1982 (1981]),

with one nest confirmed in Georgia (Litwin, 1980), false crawls reported

on Cape Romain, South Carolina (Hopkins, pers. obs.) and 5 nests at Camp

Lejeune, N.C. (Schwartz et al. , 1981). The population trend in Florida

has been increasing (Dodd, 1982 [19811; Ehrhart, 1979; Witham, pers. obs.).

Ehrhart (1979) suggests there may now be as many as 300-400 adult fe-

males in this population.

In the Caribbean, the largest green turtle colony is on Tortugero

Beach, Costa Rica, with an estimated average 24,692 adult females (Carr

et al., 1982). The colony nesting on Aves Island is much smaller, with

an estimated number of about 1,000 adult females (Laiz Blanco, 1979).

Although Hurricane David removed the nesting beach sand in August of

1979, Cuellar (pers. comm.) reports the sand has been re-deposited and

nesting has returned to normal levels.

The size of the green turtle population in Quintana Roo, Mexico,

has not been established, but local fishermen captured 2200-2300 turtles

in 1960-62. The catch declined to about 200 animals in 1963 and fewer

than 100 in 1971 (Rames, 1974).

There are other green turtle populations in the Caribbean that have

not been evaluated, including Shell Beach (Guyana), and the southern

coast of Cuba. Scattered nesting by green turtles also takes place on

most of the islands of the Greater and Lesser Antilles and on Little

Inagua Island (Bahamas), but the total number of animals involved is

probably small.

Kemp's ridley: The single known colony of this species, almost

all of which nests near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, is severely

depleted and in danger of extinction. An estimated 40,000 females

nested on a single day in 1947 (Carr, 1963), but since 1978 there have

been less than 1000 nests recorded per season (Pritchard, 1979b,80,81).

The species is known to nest in consecutive years but probably does not

always do so, and only a small proportion of females nest more than once

per season. If we assume that the individuals that nest twice in a season

equal the number of individuals that fail to.nest the following season,

the number of nests recorded per year is an approximation of the world-wide

population of breeding females. Therefore, the nesting female population of

Lepidochelys kempi is of the order of 800 individuals per season

(Bacon et al., 1984).

Olive ridley: Schulz (1982) reports that 3,290 nests were made

in Surinam in 1968, 890-1270 per year from 1972-1977 and only 795 in

1979. It is assumed that a female lays on an average between 1.4 and 2.0

nests per season and that the mean interval between nesting seasons is

1.4 years.

Hawksbill: No estimates have been made of the numbers of hawksbill

in the southeastern region. Estimates are exceedingly difficult to

make, as this species is not a colonial nester, and the usual population

census techniques cannot be applied (Witzell, 1983).

Leatherback: The few leatherback nests observed in Florida and

Georgia are probably deposited by less than a dozen females annually.

It is not yet known if this is a Florida nesting population or if these

nesting individuals are strays from a larger population elsewhere. The

latter possibility is feasible since individual leatherbacks in the

Guianas are capable of laying widely dispersed clutches within a single

season (Schulz, 1975).

Nesting by leatherbacks in the U.S. Virgin Islands is regularly

observed on the beaches of St. Croix and Culebra (Towle, 1978; K.L. Eckert,

pers. comm.). Approximately 113 leatherback nests were recorded in 1983

(Eckert and Eckert, 1984). Nesting by leatherbacks on the other Virgin

Islands is very rare. An estimated 113 nests per year corresponds to

about twenty adult female turtles, assuming an average of 5.8 nests per

turtle per year (Eckert and Eckert, 1984). Nesting on Vieques is less

frequent than on St. Croix, (Pritchard and Stubbs, 1982).

Other colonies, such as those on the Dominican Republic, have yet

to be quantified. The nesting colony in French Guiana is very large;

Pritchard (1971) estimated about 15,000 adult females, with about 300

turtles nesting per night. Preliminary data supplied by Carr and Ogren

(1959) indicate the population at Matina Beach to number at least 1000

animals. The Surinam and Trinidad populations are smaller, perhaps

200-400 animals in each, although leatherbacks nesting in Surinam inter-

change fairly freely with those in French Guiana. The Colombian and

Guyanese colonies are probably very small, perhaps less than 20 nesting

individuals in each.

The world population of a particular species of marine turtle

should not be viewed as a single entity. Because most species of marine

turtles apparently consist of several non-interbreeding populations, the

decline or extirpation of one po pulation will not be demographically

reinforced by another (Carr, 1975; Carr and Stancyk, 1976). Therefore,

the abundance of one nesting group may not benefit the whole complex,

and protection given to any one breeding unit will not necessarily

contribute to the survival of other units.

1.6 CAUSES FOR DECLINES IN STOCKS

Five factors have been listed as resulting in declines in marine

turtle stocks (Fed. Reg. Vol. 43, No. 146, pp.' 32800-32811). They are:

1. Destruction or modification of habitat: This factor is a

major cause of decline in many endangered species, not just

marine turtles. Coastal development, beach mining (sand

aggregate for construction) and natural erosion of beaches

and/or nests, along with erosion control structures, have

either made former nesting beaches unsuitable or have

eliminated them entirely. For example, loggerhead turtles

have deserted some developed beaches in South Carolina and

Georgia but still utilize the heavily developed beaches on the

east coast of Florida along with green turtles. Although

nesting may be successful on these beaches, disoriented

hatchlings are often killed on highways, by desiccation or

by subsequent predation when attracted away from the sea by

artificial lighting (MacFarlane, 1963).

In the ocean, sea turtles may be adversely affected

by the following activities and substances (Coston-Clements

and Hoss, 1983):

A. Pollutants from industrial and residential development.

These include oil, pesticides, herbicides, radionoclides,

PCB'-s heavy metals and sewage. The effects of pollutants

are difficult to detect and evaluate, except for oil and

tar balls that are known to have killed sea turtles by

fouling and/or ingestion. The other contaminants may

cause physiological problems that can reduce reproductive

success.

Exploratory oil and gas drilling. These actvities may

affect sea turtles by attracting them to lighted plat-

forms where they may be susceptible to increased pre-

dation; by disrupting feeding habitat when disposing

of drilling muds and sediments; and by discharging oil

which may contaminate turtles and cause irritation or

permanent damage to eyes, affect respiration, and produce

abnormal behavior.

C. Disposal of garbage at sea. Plastic and other foreign

materials that are ingested by turtles may cause death.

Also, turtles may be fouled by plastic which could

adversely affect survival if the animals are unable to

shed the plastic. Additionally, turtles attracted to

refuse may be subjected to more predators such as

sharks which may also be attracted to the refuse.

D. Dredge and fill. These activities may affect habitat

that turtles use or the equipment (e.g., dredge cutter

head) may harm or kill turtles if encountered during

the dredging operation.

E. Power boats. Power boats can injure or kill sea turtles.

2. Overutilization for commercial, scientific or educational

purposes: The commercial taking of turtles for meat, jewelry

and the curio trade is a cause for declines. The green,

hawksbill and two ridley species have suffered from excessive

egg harvest. The impact of projects for scientific or educa-

tional purposes on nesting beaches is difficult to assess. As

more and more turtle colonies are actively managed or inten-

sively studied, the cumulative effects of such projects should

be carefully monitored. The same caution should be exercised

when evaluating educational or public relation uses.

3. Inadequate regulatory mechanisms: Illegal marketing of eggs

is prevalent for all species. Inadequate laws and law en-

forcement result in overutilization for commercial purposes.

The six species of marine turtles were only recently protected

by the U.S. Endangered Species Act and are still unprotected

in many countries throughout their range. Lack of personnel,

extensive and inaccessible coastlines, and incompatible manage-

ment programs among different countries make enforcement

difficult or impossible.

4. Disease and/or predation: These act as natural controlling

mechanisms on all marine turtle populations. Nests can be

destroyed by a variety of factors such as plant roots, inver-

tebrate predators (ants, ghost crabs) and vertebrate predators

(raccoons, mongooses, feral hogs, foxes', rats, coatimundi, coyotes,

vultures and jaguars). Hatchlings may be destroyed on the beach

by nest predators or taken at sea by birds (gulls, jaegers, frigate

birds) and fish. Juvenile and adult turtles are also vulner-

able to attacks by sharks and killer whales. The extent of egg

loss has been documented for some species, but mortality of

hatchlings, juveniles and adults in the marine environment is

unknown for all species.

5. Other natural or man-made factors: Marine turtle populations

incur losses from pollution (Witham, 1978) and incidental

catch (Hillestad et al. , 1978). Losses to. incidental catch

are particularly costly to the populations since the animals

involved are either adults or the larger juveniles which have

already survived most natural predators.

Factors which have brought about declines in marine turtle stocks

have affected all species to varying degrees. It is not known whether

any one cause, acting singly, would have brought about the declines

noted above; however, it is doubtful if any species can withstand the

combined pressures of all factors acting together.

2. GENERAL TOPICS

2.1 POPULATION MODELS AND ESTIMATES

It is not the intention of this section to discuss marine turtle

tagging activities. There are many reasons to tag marine turtles,

including the investigation of migratory destinations, incidental and

directed take and such behavioral phenomena as remigration intervals

and within-season multiple nesting. This section deals with its

potential and limits to predictive population models of marine turtles.

Furthermore, not all marine turtle species and not all tagging projects

can obtain the comprehensive data required of population models.

Given limited funds and the directive of the Endangered Species Act

not to harass protected species without just cause, tagging efforts

should be directed toward filling the existing knowledge gaps. Certain

marine turtle species and certain populations will return more of

scientific value from tagging programs than other species. For instance,

nesting female loggerheads on U.S. beaches have been intensively tagged

for many years. Those who tag this segment of the loggerhead population

must evaluate what they have learned and direct their efforts toward the

remaining unanswered questions. Anything less could be construed as

tagging for recreational purposes and not in compliance with the

Endangered Species Act (see Sec. 1.6, Number 2).

Population estimation is a fundamental tool of management programs.

The relative effect of directed and incidental capture, habitat loss,

predation and other extrinsic causes of mortality on a population of

sea turtles can be assessed most objectively if total population numbers

can be predicted. In spite of intensive investigations for 25 years,

some marine turtle population parameters remain unknown or, at best,

conjectural. Most notable among these elusive parameters are: age at

breeding maturity, survivorship to maturity, years of reproductive

activity, recruitment to the nesting population, numbers of adult males

and turnover within the nesting population.

Sea turtles do not lend themselves to classical methods of popu-

lation analysis, such as mark-recapture and catch-per-unit-effort,

because such methods require a series of assumptions that cannot gener-

ally be met when sampling only nesting populations. For example, a

population can be confidently measured only if it is closed b etween

consecutive samples. In other words, there must be negligible mortality,

recruitment and moveme nt of individuals into and out of the study popu-

lation. Nesting." populations of sea turtles are not closed from season

to season (sample to sample). Since a single sample represents an entire

season of tagging records, many years of data would be needed for even

the most simple population estimate.

Current efforts to estimate sea turtle populations are limited to

small portions of the life cycle (Marquez and Doi, 1973; Carr et al. ,

1978; Bjorndal, 1980; Marquez et al. , 1981a,b; Meylan, 1981; Richardson

and Richardson, 1981; Richardson, 1982; Cornelius and Robinson, 1983;

Frazer, 1983). It is possible to count numbers of nesting females along

a given length of beach, and it is possible to measure the number of

hatchlings which enter the ocean along the same section of beach. It is

even possible to measure numbers of juvenile turtles observed along a reef

or caught per unit of tow time in a trawl net. The interrelatedness of

these measurements, however, is not known. Changes in recruitment of the

nesting stock cannot yet be predicted from knowledge of the number of

hatchlings entering the ocean per unit length of beach. To do so requires

the development of a comprehensive population model which considers all

aspects of a sea turtle life cycle.

The development of comprehensive population models for sea turtles

is still in its infancy. A series of empirical observations have been

concluded from field studies, primarily of nesting females. Fragments

of population models have been derived from these observations. Missing

portions of the models could be estimated with the Delphi technique,

whereby a consensus of expert opinions is used in place of solid

measurements. The reliability of the predictions from such completed

models would depend on the confidence of the observations and opinions

of the experts. Currently, sea turtle population modeling is exclusively

conceptual; it does not yet have predictive capability.

The most important mission of modeling efforts is to develop an

understanding of population means or average values. These include, for

example, average reproductive effort per turtle and average lifespan of

a nesting adult. Extreme values (oldest turtle, most nests for a turtle

in one season, etc.) indicate scope and potential; mean values provide

the foundation upon which future population models will be built.

Population modeling helps to integrate diverse categories of existing

data and to locate and define areas of knowledge. Ultimately, popula-

tion models should be able to simulate observed population behavior- and

to predict population response to selected perturbations. Sea turtle

recovery efforts must include a continuing effort to develop compre-

hensive population models with the predictive capability of assisting

the management process.

2.1.1 Empirical Observations: In order to build a population model

the following attributes need to be known.

1. Clutch size (fecundity, in part)

The mean number of eggs per clutch is well documented for all

species of marine turtles. Mean clutch size for a given species appears

to differ slightly from one geographic locality to another, but varia-

tion in clutch size from a single locality is of sufficient magnitude

that statistical differences between localities are masked.

2. Clutches per turtle per season (fecundity, in part)

The average number of clutches per female per laying season, when

combined with clutch size, provides a measure of annual reproductive

potential or fecundity of a population. Extremes of six or more

clutches for a single turtle in one season are well documented but

overemphasized in the literature. The observed mean number of clutches

,per turtle is directly related to the efficiency of the beach tagging

program. Realizing this fact, there has been a tendency for tagging

programs to predict an unrealistically high mean number of clutches

per turtle by rationalizing that means derived from *observed data

are much too low because of incomplete beach surveys (missed nests).

Evidence suggests that the average number of clutches for loggerheads

and greens will range between two and three clutches per turtle per

season. However, there is still no definitive answer to tag loss or

dispersed nesting outside of t he study area, so current estimates of

clutches per season may change in the future. The average number of

clutches per turtle per season is a potentially valuable parameter for

predicting total numbers of nesting females from direct nest counts.

Such a prediction must be adjusted to reflect the manner with which

females disperse their nesting effort along a beach.

3. Distribution of nesting efforts

A fundamental step in estimating population numbers is to define

the limits or boundaries of the population to be studied. For instance,

the population of greens nesting on Ascension Island has fully defined

boundaries. A population of loggerheads nesting along 10 km of coastal

Florida is less easily defined. Existing tagging studies of loggerheads,

Kemp's ridleys, and greens are probably sufficient to permit the disper-

sal of nesting effort to be defined as a probability function of distance

from a known nest site. The smaller the unit of beach to be studied, the

more important it becomes to consider nesting overlap in population esti-

mates. It is not presently known if nesting site fidelity of individual

female turtles is stronger on continuous mainland shores or on stretches

of nesting habitat that is interrupted by features such as passes, sounds,

cliffs, mangroves, or rocks. The measurement of nesting dispersal along

various coastlines is a prerequisite for estimating total nesting females

from counts of nests.

4. Remigration intervals

Marine turtles, have reproduction cycles (remigration intervals) of

one to five years, with 2- and 3-year cycles being the most commonly

encountered. If a population of sea turtles maintains a stationary age

distribution (total numbers of individuals in each sex and age class remain

constant from year to year), the total number of nesting females can be

predicted from remigration intervals. Carr et al. (1978) provides a formula

for calculating total females, if the number of nesting females per year and

the distribution of remigration intervals are known. Approximately 36%

of adult West Caribbean green (Carr et al., 1978) and 40% of adult Georgia

loggerhead females (Richardson & Richardson, 1982) would be expected to

nest in any given season.

5. Remigration rates (years of reproductive activity)

The contribution of an individual turtle to its species reproduc-

tion effort may be defined, in part, by the number of years that the

turtle remains reproductively active. Similarly, the mean number of

reproductive years play a role in determining a population's ability

to replace itself. The probability that a turtle will return to nest

in subsequent seasons is its remigration rate.

Remigration rate has proved to be one of the most elusive of popu-

lation parameters because of serious tag loss and the scarcity of

intensive beach surveys. However, remigration rate remains an essential

parameter for calculating population turnover, i.e., the-ability of a

population to replace itself. Remigrant turtles which have lost their

tags (calloused turtles) must either be returning for the first time

(neophyte when last observed) or for a second or subsequent time (not a

neophyte when last observed). These two alternatives establish maximum

and minimum rates of remigration. The selection of a mean remigration

rate, however, remains a subjective process.

6. Age to sexual maturity (growth rates)

Age to sexual maturity determines, in part, the response time of a

population to changes in reproductive effort. In other words, the rate

with which a population can increase its numbers is significantly af-

fected by generation time. Recent evidence suggests that generation

time in some sea turtle species is much longer than previously thought,

(Balazs, 1979; Frazer, 1982; Limpus,, 1979; Zug @@t 1983), although

captive reared turtles are known to mature in less than ten years (Wood

and Wood, 1980).

Growth rates of juvenile turtles in wild populations will have to

be determined before generation times can be calculated. The ability

to predict the rate of a population's re&ponse to management efforts

will depend on the accuracy with which generation times are known.

7. Recruitment

Recruitment is the rate with which new animals are being added to a

population. Recruitment is often measured by marking all individuals

present in the population at one time (saturation tagging) and then

monitoring the appearance of unmarked (new) animals into the population.

Recruitment to the adult female nesting population should theoretically

be measurable after approximately five years of intensive beach tagging

efforts given the remigration intervals measured for most species. -In

actuality, inefficient beach surveys, tag loss and nesting dispersal

combine to prolong this period for most tagging programs to at least ten

years. For species other than sea turtles, recruitment can often be

measured by observing size classes or age classes, but indeterminate

growth rates prevent the application of this method to populations of

sexually adult sea turtles. Recruitment has not been measured for popu-

lations of juvenile sea turtles.

Recruitment, if measurable, could possibly indicate the efficiency

of hatchery and restocking programs or, alternatively, the efficiency

with which a natural population is replacing itself. If juvenile growth

rates prove to be as slow as is presently indicated, monitoring programs

and restocking efforts must be willing to wait many years for evidence

of recruitment to appear. Similarly, the impact of hatching success and

egg predation may also be delayed many years before the effects are

manifested in the number of adults entering the breeding population.

Recommendations for building population models using empirical

observations:

1. Determine clutch size from published and unpublished data.

2. Re-examine existing data sets to determine mean numbers of clutches

per turtle per season. The efficiency of the beach survey, differ-

ences in behavior between neophytes and remigrants and the degree

with which populations disperse their nesting effort along a beach

should be taken into account. To maximize the quality of the data

collected, the scope (kilometers of beach patrolled) for each tagging

study should be adjusted downward such that the number of times a

turtle is encountered laying a clutch of eggs approaches 100% of the

total number of nests deposited within the study area.

3. In order to refine the relationship of total nests to total turtles

along a given length of beach, tagging programs should include calcu-

lations of mean nesting dispersal.

4. Remigration intervals from various existing data sets should be

compared to determine if there are significant changes from one

geographical locality to another for each'species.

5. The determination of the mean migration rate will only be achieved by

long term tagging studies in which tag loss is no longer a problem

(see Section II).

6. Tagging studies of wild juvenile populations should be intensive

enough and maintained long enough to determine growth rates and,

thus, age to sexual maturity.

7. Researchers desiring to obtain a measurement of recruitment must be

committed to intensive tagging programs of long duration.

2.1.2 Derived Parameters:

1. Turnover: The rapidity with which a population replaces its members

is the turnover rate. Turnover in the population of adult nesting

females can be derived from remigration rates and remigration inter-

vals. An annual replacement of 16% of total adult females has been

observed in this manner for a population of Georgia loggerheads

(Richardson and Richardson, 1982). Turnover time is the reciprocal of

turnover rate or 6.2 years for Georgia loggerheads. In other words,

the number of adult nesting females currently being replaced in -the

nesting population every 6.2 years is equal to the estimated size of the

entire nesting female population at any one time.

2. Survival rate: Survival rate is another population attribute which

can be derived from remigration rates and remigration intervals. Using

the example of the Georgia loggerheads, a predicted 20% of an initial

cohort of adult females would remain after ten years. Only one out of

20 females would still be active after 17 years of nesting activity.

The acceptability or inacceptability of a derived survival rate, from a

management perspective, is a subjective decision not discussed here.

In conclusion, a word of caution is needed concerning the use of

models and predictions which are derived parameters. Models carry with

themselves an aura of res2ectability and correctness which usually goes

unchallenged by most observers. Models predict population responses

with absolute finality, yet it is possible for the responses simulated

to have no resemblance at all to natural populations in the real world.

An accurate and precise population model is an elegant management tool.

Most models, however, fall somewhere short of this high ideal. They are

created as an intellectual exercise to organize diverse observations and

data into a conceptual framework and to suggest possible population

responses that can later be tested with empirical observations. If an

incomplete or biased model is used to generate certain management deci-

sions, such as sustained yield or harvest quotas, the results could be

disastrous for an endangered species. The development of a population

model is a rewarding and worthy endeavor for any management program,

but the uses to which the model is directed must never exceed the

capabilities of the model itself.

2.1.3 Standardization of Measurements

A serious problem with demographic studies of sea turtles is the

lack of standardized survey methods. The following measurements proce-

dures, and the population parameters derived from them, are particularly

susceptible to misinterpretation caused by sampling errors.

1. Tagging programs with nesting females:

The efficiency of a tagging program on a nesting beach is directly

related to the proportion of nests within the study area which can be

identified with a female turtle of known tag number. Actual saturation

efficiencies of such tagging studies range from 99% of all nests to

below 50%. Low efficiences usually occur when tagging programs start

after the beginning of the nesting season or when the nesting beach being

surveyed is greater in length than can be efficiently surveyed at regular

hourly intervals throughout each night of the nesting season.

A saturation tagging program to evaluate population dynamics and

develop models of nesting females is an intensive, demanding undertaking

which should not be attempted unless a thorough survey is achieved with

continuity over six (6) or more consecutive years of surveys. If done

properly, the results of such an undertaking provide an understanding of

local population dynamics and a means for developing abbreviated

sampling procedures and conversion factors. An abbreviated sampling

procedure might be the assessment of total numbers of nesting females

from selected 2-week sampling periods, and a conversion factor would

permit the assessment of total nesting females from daytime counts of

nests per kilometer of beach. The future of sea turtle monitoring pro-

grams depends on the development of these simplified sampling techniques.

Recommended guidelines for a saturation tagging program sufficient

for population models are as follows:

Survey area: Select a section of beach that can be entirely sur-

veyed on foot and on an hourly basis. Intensive surveys

usually fail when motorized transportation breaks down or

high tides exclude vehicles from the beach, leaving a survey

area that is too extensive to cover by foot in the meantime.

Such an area is acceptable if alternate modes of transportation,

continuous access to the beach, and/or backup personnel are

available to the project as needed. Finally, the survey area

must remain available for replicated beach surveys for at

least six(6) consecutive seasons. If the survey area is

shifted, year-to-year comparisons become invalid.

Survey schedule: The survey schedule must bracket the nesting

season. A survey f rom 15 May to 15 August would cover nearly

all nesting activity of southeastern U.S. loggerheads. Other

species of sea turtle and other geographic areas would require

different survey dates.

Tagging techniques: The best available tags should be employed

(see Section 2.2 - tags and tagging) to reduce the chronic

problem of tag loss. Two or more tags should be applied to

each turtle until loss is reduced to manageable levels. Sim-

ilarly, returning turtles with old tags should receive new tags,

if necessary. All tag numbers on a multiple tagged turtle should

be recorded at every sighting to reduce the frequency with

which records are rejected because of recording errors and

to determine rate of tag loss. The problem of misread tags

occurs with frustrating consistency with nearly all sea turtle

tagging programs.

Essential field data:

-Date for all nests in the study area.

-Location of crawls within the study area.

-Tag numbers of the nesting females for at least 90% of the

nests within the study area.

-A careful inspection of each turtle (first sighting) for old

tags or evidence of previous tagging history (old tag

scars). This information is critical for measuring re-

cruitment to the nesting population.

Desirable field data of less critical importance:

-Tag numbers of females associated with false (non-nesting)

crawls.

-Climatological conditions associated with nesting

activity.

-Reasons for false crawls, if known.

-Carapace measurements. Over-the-curve and straight line

carapace measurements appear to be sufficiently correlated

to permit the derivation of one from the other. One or the

other of the two measurement techniques should be consis-

tently used and indicated on the records.

If nesting activity occurs adjacent to the study area, two or more

years of intensive tag monitoring on either side of the study area are

highly desireable. Such information permits the calculation of nesting

dispersal by individual turtles across study area boundaries and a means

for correcting density estimates for this error.

Primary population parameters: (mean and variance)

-Fecundity (in part): clutches per nesting female per season.

-Density: nesting females per unit of beach.

-Recruitment: addition of adult females to the nesting popu-

lation.

-"Mortality": disappearance of adult females from the

nesting population.

-Remigration intervals: interval in years between consecutive

nesting visits.

Secondary population parameters: (mean and variance)

-Average linear distribution of nesting effort by individual

turtles.

-Dispersal of nesting females away from the nesting beach (tag

returns).

-Relative frequency of various mortality causes (tag returns).

-Growth rates of the adult females.

2. Daytime beach surveys of sea turtle nesting activity:

Agencies responsible for managing sea turtle nesting beaches should

establish a minimurn objective of surveying nesting activity. A properly

designed and replicated beach survey can provide valuable relative popu-

lation data. When compared to tagging studies, beach surveys can be

converted to absolute population data. Daytime beach surveys require

only part-time effort from a single individual, as opposed to tagging

programs which are labor and equipment intensive. Beach surveys provide

the ground truth needed for converting the relative data of aerial sur-

veys to absolute population estimates.

An efficient daytime beach survey of sea turtle nesting activity

should locate all nesting crawls and most false crawls which occurred

since the previous survey. Recommended constraints for such a program

are as follows:

Survey area: Select a section of beach that can be surveyed at

least every other day for its entire length, on foot. if

motorized transportation fails or becomes otherwise unavail-

able, the continuity of the surveys need not be broken if

patrols can continue on foot. If backup transportation is

available, a larger survey area is acceptable. A survey area

must also be permanently located (some beaches migrate from

year to year due to erosion/accretion cycles), so that compar-

ative replicate surveys may be taken from one year to the next.

If the survey area is shifted, year-to-year comparisons become

invalid.

Survey schedule: While daily surveys are best, standardized

sampling at selected days through the season can be used.

Nesting crawls and false crawls above high water should 'be

marked and numbered. Where predators or poachers are present,

care should be taken not to mark the exact site of a nest, but

rather a stake may be placed at a coded distance and direction.

Stakes or flags can be removed from false crawls when tracks

become faded. Surveys should extend for the duration of the

laying season.

Observer bias: It is not always easy to discriminate nesting

crawls from certain false crawls, and individual observers

may tend to overestimate or underestimate nesting crawls.

A statistically adequate sample of nests should be carefully

probed and reconcealed to permit the observer to adjust for

this bias. Questionable false crawls should always be probed

for similpr reasons. Obvious false crawls should be marked

but need not be probed.

There is the continuing concern that probing can destroy

nests, if one or more eggs are punctured, with resulting

contamination of the remaining eggs. This concern must be

weighed against the importance of the information gained.

3. Determination of hatching success:

Hatching success represents one segment of sea turtle life history

which is directly measurable. Nest success can range from near zero on

heavily depredated beaches to near 100% where eggs are fully protected

from predators and climatological damage. The success of nests required

to maintain a population of sea turtles at a stationary level is still

unknown and, at the very least, will vary in response to the effects of

mortality rates on juveniles and adults. The determination of a minimum

acceptable nest success rate should be a top priority of present and

future modeling efforts.

Survey area: Establish limits for the survey area (meters of

beach) and/or sample size (numbers of nests) in the same man-

ner as was done for monitoring beach nesting activity. Exper-

imental nests should be staked for easy reference.

Survey schedule: Monitor fate of the eggs (predation, erosion,

compaction, etc.) for 75 'days following deposition. Nests

should be checked during each survey and daily after the

fiftieth day of incubation. If possible, determine the extent

of predation by counting discarded shells of destroyed eggs.

Technique: Excavate contents of nests 72 hours after the first

major hatch or 75 days after laying, whichever occurs first.

-Count unhatched eggs, dead hatchlings, fetal abnormal-

ities, etc.

-Count egg shells left by normal hatchlings to determine

the number of hatchlings which left the nest.

-Calculate hatching percentage and hatchling emergence rate.

4. Aerial survey of nesting beaches:

A. Optimize the number of flights according to the purpose of the

survey, but at least ten (10) should be completed for statis-

tical analysis and the results averaged. However,-one flight

is sufficient for discovering new nesting grounds.

B. Use experienced observers, at least two observers (if pos-

sible), and a recorder.

C. Fly low, slow, and during the early morning hours in a high

wing aircraft or helicopter aircraft, if possible.

D. Concentrate on fresh (previous night) crawls.

E. Use the aerial survey as a relative index, and calibrate

this against dependable ground truth data to obtain quan-

titative estimates.

F. Record start and finish times, weather for previous 24 hours,

altitude and air speed and numbers of nests, false crawls and

fluncertain" crawls.

G. Aerial surveys should be conducted as specified in Pritchard

et al. (1983).

H. It is preferred that coordinated surveys of an entire state's

or region's nesting beaches be conducted.

2.2 TAGS AND TAGGING

No single factor has plagued the study of sea turtle populations

more than the inability of the profession to develop an identification

tag with staying power. The challenge is not a small one. A turtle

tag must be resistant to salt water corrosion, intense solar radiation,

and acid dissolution associated with encrusting organisms and to physical

abuse from powerful swimming and feeding behavior of the turtles for

periods of many years between consecutive contacts with the tagged animal.

It must also be minimally toxic and cause no physical disturbance to the

tagged animal. Many tag designs have been tested, but the perfect tag

has not been found. The ultimate challenge is a hatchling tag that will

be identifiable at maturity; this has never been achieved.

Flipper Tags: The most commonly used tag for sea turtle studies

is the flipper tag, usually placed on the trailing edge of the fore

flipper. A variety of materials have been tested, but results differ

between species and between geographic areas.

1. Style 4-1005 size 49 monel (T-400 alloy, 35 mil), manufactured

by National Band and Tag Company (NBT), has been extensively

used. The standard bubble bridge locking mechanism proved

adequate for nesting greens (Caribbean, Costa Rica) but falled

for U.S. loggerhead work; the bridge corroded, releasing the

tag within a two year period. A modified thru-the-tag locking

mechanism (size 19) for the size 49 monel tag has had success

on Georgia loggerheads; corrosion persists, but tag life now

exceeds three years, long enough to replace old tags with new

ones. A smaller, size 681 monel tag has a standard thru-the-

tag locking mechanism. This tag, also manufactured by NBT,

has been used on juveniles and headstart yearlings with con-

siderable success; its mean longevity on a wild turtle is not

known, but tag returns of more than 5 years and, in one case,

nearly 7 years have been obtained (Witham, 1980).

2. Nylon "Jumbo" rototags, manufactured by Dalton Supplies, Ltd.

(distributed by Dalton and Nasco Co.), have had limited suc-

cess on southeastern U.S. loggerheads. Corrosion is nonexis-

tent, but the halves of the tag will separate and be lost if

the tag is placed on a thick portion of the flipper, and

breakage is common. Abrasion of the surface, with concomitant

loss of readability, is also commonly encountered unless spec-

_ially deep imprinting is requested from the factory. The

mid-sized "Rototag" and the small. "Mini" are also available.

3. "Riese" size 2 tags, manufactured and distributed by Dalton

Supplies, Ltd., are a relatively new (1977) product cur-

rently being tested in Georgia. The "Riese" is similar in

design to the Jumbo rototag, but the material of-the Riese has

retained its resiliency and not broken after two years at sea

on adult female loggerheads. Readability of the initial tags

was poor, but the problem now appe ars to have been corrected

with deeper imprinting at the factory. The Riese shows con-

siderable promise as a plastic sea turtle tag.

Future des.igns for flipper tags: The best plastic tag now available

would appear to be the Riese, with deep imprinting of the numbers re-

quested. However, Riese and nylon plastic tags do not form a closed

loop when the tag is in place, thus raising the possibility that the

tag will be lost if the tag hole in the flipper enlarges as a result of

irritation. The best metal tag would be a size 681 or 19 Inconel (625

alloy, 45 mil) with a thru-the-tag locking mechanism, manufactured by

NBT. The Inconel has been tested on Hawaiian greens for six years,

with no sign of corrosion. An initial subsidy of at least $50,000

would probably be required for National Band and Tag Company to gear

up for the production of this tag, but its availability would revolu-

tionize the quality of all sea turtle research dependent on flipper

tags. Titanium tags now in use on Australian turtles have shown no

sign of corrosion after several years on the animals and appear very

promising (C. Limpus, pers. comm.). Recommendations for flipper tags:

1. Investigate the possibility of funding the production of the

Inconel "supertag".

2. Position flipper tags carefully during application. Tag hole

will tear if the tag is placed too close to the trailing edge

of the flipper. Halves of tag will be forced apart if the tag

is placed through a thickened portion of the flipper, too

distant from the trailing edge.

3. Always apply a minimum of two tags per turtle, use a variety of

tag types, and replace old (2-3 year) tags with new, whenever

necessary.

4. Consider the rear flipper as a tagging location. Tags on the

rear flipper wear less, but the application of a tag on the

rear flipper appears to be a more painful experience for the

animal. A rear flipper application might be recommended for

any turtle captured onboard a vessel but not for an adult

female in the act of laying her eggs.

Carapace Tags: There have been a number of efforts to develop a cara-

pace tag, with unconfirmed success. Aluminum rivets in the marginal

scutes of captive greens caused extensive necrosis and were lost.

Preliminary efforts to bolt opposing stainless steel washers through the

marginal scutes of South Carolina loggerheads appear promising

(Hopkins, HT Newsletter 1981). Identification number and return address

are stamped on the washers.

Internal Tags: One solution to the continuing loss of extarnal tags

would be the development of an internal tag. Binary or color coded in-

ternal tags have been used successfully for US west coast salmon in-

vestigations (Jefferts et al., 1963) and also for prawns (Prentise and

Rensel, 1977). A similar technique is being developed for hatchling sea

turtles in North Carolina (Schwartz, 1981).

Internal tags are, in theory, superior to external tags if there

is no loss rate. Liabilities of the internal tag are as follows:

1. Possible traumatic manipulation to hatchlings at a time when

dispersal and possible imprinting behavior would be most

sensitive.

2. Difficulty to identify an internally tagged turtle at a later

date.

3. Need to have radiographic equipment available for reading

tags.

The development and use of internal tags for sea turtles is in

its infancy. The internal tag is promising and should receive further

technical development at selected laboratories equipped for the work;

it should not be indiscriminately employed with endangered hatchlings

until more is known about potential harm to the tagged animals.

Mutilation Tagging: Domestic animals are commonly marked (tattooed, ear

clipped, etc.) for permanent identification. The concept has appeal for

sea turtles, but preliminary results have been discouraging. Tattooed

green sea turtles lost their identifying marks within a year (Balazs,

1978). Carapace notching of neonate sea turtles has value for short

term studies of hatchling dispersal but has not yet been proven effective

for long-term studies (Hughes, pers. comm.). Mutilation tagging of

hatchlings is traumatic and potentially lethal during their dispersal

from the natal beach. Mutilation tagging of large numbers of hatchings

should be avoided until trauma inherent in the technique has been elimi-

nated and long-term retention of the scars has been confirmed.

Grafting of shell plugs from pigmented to unpigmented areas and

vice versa appears to have merit and is being tested (Hendrickson and

Hendrickson, 1982; Mrosovsky, 1982). However, a drawback is the uniform

dorsal and ventral pigmentation of hatchlings of several sea turtle

species (Lepidochelys, Caretta, Eretmochelys).

2.3 REMOTE SENSING

Remote sensing techniques have been applied to marine turtle spec-

ies primarily to extend the kn owledge of pelagic movements and activi-

ties of turtles. While conventional tagging has given us much infor-

mation on the nesting behavior of adult females, it has been a long and

difficult process to relate the information gained from these tag returns

to at-sea movements. Remote sensing is a technique "to extend the range

of man's observations" (Craighead and Craighead, 1965). When applied to

marine turtles, these techniques allow the accumulation of data while the

turtle is at sea and cannot be observed and identified by conventional

methods. The success of telemetric monitoring depends on the suitability

of the equipment to answer the question being asked and the resourceful-

ness and perserverance of the researcher. Under the proper circumstances,

an almost continuous flow of information can be made available to the

researcher.

Electronic tags, such as radio and acoustic (sonic) transmitters,

are part of the ontogeny of tags and tagging techniques which have been

employed in the study of marine turtles. Initially, general observations

of marine turtle species as to number, activity and location were under-

taken. This was followed by development of suitable tags which provided

identification of individual turtles (Schmidt, 1916; Harrison, 1956;

Caldwell, Carr, and Hellier, 1956). There is now available a. variety

of electronic (telemetric) tags which greatly expand the ability to

locate marine turtles at sea and provide the opportunity to collect*

rapidly a variety of new data. However, electronic tags will not replace

flipper tags, just as flipper tags have not replaced general observation.

Each is a tool that has its own application to marine turtle recovery.

The use of telemetric equipment to solve problems in the recovery of

marine turtles should be carefully considered and prioritized, as there

are many costly pitfalls. Electronic telemetric techniques provide a

volume of varied data, and the researcher should take care to have the

data collection priorities matched to the goals of the project. It is

easy to lose sight of biological goals in lieu of research and develop-

ment of equipment.

Early studies (Baldwin, 1972; Soma and Ichihara, 1977) demonstrated

the feasibility of using electronic remote sensing equipment on marine

turtles. While the equipment in these studies was constructed from

component parts, there is currently a variety of commercially available

transmitters and receivers which may be tailored for use with turtles.

The selection of the instruments to be used should be based on the

suitability of type, frequency, size, weight, cost, shape, range, color,

life expectancy, harness and placement of the unit. The basic types of

transmitters available are radio and sonic, both single and multiple

channel. Many options are currently available to the researcher, from

activity and mortality sensors to aerospace satellite telemetry. The

selection of type is generally dependant on need and budget.

The type of system selected should be suited to the expected use.

Radio telemetry is largely restricted to air-to-air or fresh water

transmission and is inadequate for transmission through a marine envi-

ronment. Thus, the use of radio transmitters requires a harness and

trailer in order to receive the radio signal when the turtle surfaces or

is in shallow water. Low frequency transmitters have excellent proper-

ties of penetration and low bounce or defraction. They are, however,

limited by antenna size and the ground hugging characteristics of the

signal. Higher frequencies are more easily miniaturized and have the

property of increased range when the antenna is elevated.

Acoustic or sonic transmitters are used for transmission through

water but have the disadvantage of high cost and sensitivity of the

signal to physical barriers. The sonic frequency selected should not be

audible to the instrumented turtle. The weight, range and battery life

expectancy must be considered together, as each affects the other. In

other words, extended range or life expectancy of a unit results in in-

creased size of the unit. Thus, the needs of the researcher must be

matched to a balance of these three elements. This becomes increasingly

more important as the size of the instrumented turtle decreases.

The placement, size, shape and color of transmitters should be

com-Patable with the shape and habits of marine turtles. The hydro-

dynamics of the equipment should be considered. Interference of normal

locomotion or reproduction must be avoided. Abrasion of an animal by.

the transmitter package is sometimes a problem, and the area of instru-

mentation may be used by external parasites or-as a site for infection.

Transmitters should also be attached so as to avoid mechanical stranding

of the animal due to fouling of the instruments or harness with the

substrate. The color of a unit should blend with the environment ac-

cording to the behavioral habits of the instrumented turtle. It is

important that the instrument does not modify behavior, reduce competi-

tive ability or increase mortality.

The cost of telemetric equipment is highly variable depending on

the type used. Costs range from under $100 per unit, for a simple radio

location transmitter, to several thousand dollars per unit for a satel-

lite compatable transmitter. The price of radio receivers begins at $300

and may exceed $10,000, even for land based units. The cost of sonic

equipment is slightly more than double the cost of radio equipment.

Considerable additional expense is also encountered in the collection of

data, such as fees for boats and aircraft and salaries. The use of

computers for data analysis may also be expensive but desirable.

The recent application of remote sensing techniques to the problems

of management of marine turtle species has focused on the activities

around the nesting beach. Ireland et al. (1978) monitored hatchling

green turtles with miniature acoustic transmitters, and Stoneburner

et al. (1982) reported on radio instrumented loggerhead hatchlings.

Hopkins and Murphy (1981) monitored the nesting and internesting activi-

ties of 37 adult female loggerheads by using a combination of sonic and

radio telemetry during three nesting seasons. Mendonca (1981) monitored

immature turtle activity in a Florida lagoon while Ireland (1980) moni-

tored homing and site tenacity of immature green turtles in Bermuda.

Satellite telemetry has been utilized by Stoneburner (1982) to monitor

internesting activity of loggerheads, and a cooperative project by the

National Fisheries Engineering Laboratory and the Denver Wildlife

Research Center monitored long distance, non-nesting movements of

loggerhead turtles in the Gulf of Mexico (Kolz, 1980).

Telemetric field work has also been accomplished by Pritchard- and

co-workers with Kemp's ridley (Pritchard, 1980; Gicca, 1979), Fletemeyer

used satellite telemetry to monitor activities of green turtles near

Ascension Island (Fletemeyer, pers. comm.), and Richard Byles (pers. comm.)

is using radio and sonar tracking in monitoring the sea turtles of Chesapeak

Bay. The National Marine Fisheries Service is also involved in sonic and

radio telemetric monitoring of loggerheads at Port Canaveral, Florida (Kemmerer

et al., 1983) and of head.-started Kemp's ridleys (Timko and DeBlanc, 1981).

Much of the work with telemetric monitoring of marine turtle species is

currently undergoing data analysis and is not yet published

It is clear that remote sensing techniques, when applied to ques-

tions of marine turtle biology, hold the promise of vastly extending our

knowledge and, in many cases, can answer specific questions dealing with

recovery in a short period of time. Research employing remote sensing

techniques is needed:

1. to determine the marine habitat used by turtles in order to

offer protection of these habitats and minimize negative

man-turtle interactions,

2. to quantify periodicity of surface activity of marine turtles

and relate this to aerial survey counts of turtles,

3. to evaluate management actions such as headstarting,

4. to evaluate the impact of human activities such as channel

maintainance on marine turtle use,

5. to evaluate turtle stocks and their management in light of

migration routes documented by satellite telemetry,

6. to monitor at-sea activities associated with nesting in order

to evaluate the effects of beach disturbance and alterations

as well as understand aspects of navigation and nest site

selection and tenacity, and

7. to ultimately monitor hatchlings and their activities during

the "lost years".

2.4 INCIDENTAL CATCH OVERVIEW

Introduction

Incidental catch or take is defined as the capture of species other

than those towards which a particular fishery is directed. Sea turtles

are threatened or endangered with extinction and protected by law; their

incidental capture is of considerable biological and political

importance. The following overview describes the incidental capture of

sea turtles, the species and size classes most frequently taken, and the

fishery(ies) and fishing gear involved. Mortality rate, physiological

implications of drowning, and resuscitation techniques are also

discussed, as well as recent developments proposed to reduce or

eliminate accidental sea turtle mortality.

Primary sources of information regarding the incidental capture of

sea turtles range from fortuitous encounters of tagged turtles by fisher-

men to direct observation by fishery biologist/ observers stationed

on-board commercial fishing vessels. Interview data from vessel captains

provide additional information on capture and mortality rates and on

areal and temporal distribution of captures. Important life history

information can, in this manner, be obtained regarding turtle species,

size, behavior and environmental characteristics associated with time

and place of capture.

Commercial fishermen have been implicated in many, if not most, of

the carcass strandings on southeast U.S. beaches because of the docu-

mented history of incidental capture and mortality by the commercial

fishing industry. Not all beach carcasses, however, are the result of

drowning in fish nets, and more needs to be done to determine the pre-

cise cause of death of these animals.

Turtles wash ashore, buoyed by the gases of decomposition and at

this stage are unfit for postmortem examination to determine cause of

death. Death by drowning, according to pathologists, is difficult to

determine, even under ideal conditions. For some of the carcasses,

natural causes of death are indicated. In a few instances, dead turtles

show signs of severe trauma or mutilation that can best be described as

deliberate acts by man and not caused by predators or collisions with

vessels. For the most part, however, circumstantial evidence points to

drowning in fishing nets as the principal cause of mortality in beach

carcasses.

Species Involved and Marine Habitat

All of the six species of turtles discussed in this recovery plan

have, at one time or another, been captured incidental to fishing ef-

fort. However, the hawksbill sea turtle appears to have the lowest

incidental capture rate of any of the sea turtle species. The paucity

of records of incidental captures of hawksbills may be *attributed to

their preference for tropical reefs and insular habitats for foraging

and nesting and to their absence from areas more frequently fished by

trawlers and other vessels in search of pelagic and demersal fish stocks

(i.e. , not reef fish species). It is apparent that the loggerhead,

followed by Kemp's ridley and the olive ridley, is the most frequently

captured turtle. The loggerhead is the most numerous turtle in U.S.

coastal waters and, therefore, would be encountered more frequently by

fishermen. The coastal bays, sounds and nearshore waters inhabited by

the loggerhead overlap the area within which most of the southeast

region's fishing effort is directed, including the use of drag nets,

trawls, pound nets, beach seines and the gill-net fishery. Within this

narrow range, the loggerhead is further concentrated in areal distri-

bution by its foraging habits and preference for crabs and mollusks.

Feeding areas frequently coincide with the highly productive shrimp

grounds. It appears probable that loggerheads are also being attracted

to areas of intense shrimping because of the quantities of bycatch

discarded during the sorting procedure; bycatch represents an array of

food items desired by the turtles. The same is true for Kemp's ridley

and presumably for the olive ridley, although the latter may be more

pelagic in habits than previously believed. The reported decrease in

incidental captures of adult Kemp's ridleys over the last decade is

probably the result of a declining population, indicated by the well-

documented population decline of the nesting females at Rancho Nuevo,

Mexico, over the last 15 years.

Incidental capture rates for the two remaining species, the green

and leatherback, are low because of their low relative abundance in this

region and because of their preferred habitat. The leatherback is

usually pelagic, while the green is most frequently found in association

with shallow marine grass flats dissected by gulleys, scattered reefs,

and rock outcrops. Juvenile green turtles are more frequently captured

than adults, perhaps because they are more numerous, omnivorous and range

widely. The green turtle, as a primarily herbivorous adult, is less

likely to encounter fishing gear directed towards the capture of

demersal fish and shrimp. The pelagic leatherback rarely encounters

trawlers, except when it ranges onto the continental shelf and inshore,

feeding on concentrations of medusae and ctenophores which. drift shore-

ward. In recent years, it has been reported that leatherbacks are

frequently captured at certain times of the year by longlines set for

tuna and swordfish and are also caught and drowned in squid nets in the

south-central Pacific (Balazs, pers. comm.).

Size Classes

Sea turtles captured by fishing gear vary according to size and age

class. Subadult or immature turtles account for the majority of inci-

dentally captured turtles taken in shrimp trawls. The age class most

frequently captured is the larger, older immatures who have survived the

period of high mortality experienced by neonates and small juveniles.

They are important individuals that must be recruited into the present

breeding population.

The preponderance of captured immatures may simply be a reflection

of the size distribution of the population (if the capture method is

assumed to be random), or it may reflect differences in the habits of

young turtles as compared to adults. The adults may be stronger swim-

mers and avoid capture by outdistancing the trawl. Adult loggerheads,

except when breeding and nesting, apparently frequent deeper offshore

waters where they are found on reefs, wrecks, oil rigs or other bottom

irregularities usually avoided by the trawl fishery.

Neonate or hatchling turtles and small juveniles are considered to

be epipelagic in habits and, thus, should not be vulnerable to demersal

and mid-water trawls. They are apparently not captured by surface nets

such as purse seines, being either absent from fishing areas or too

small to be confined by the larger meshes of the seine. It is generally

believed that neonates swim directly out to sea after emerging from the

nest and remain as a pelagic animal for an undetermined length of time

until they return to coastal waters as midsized juveniles.

Fisheries Involved

In general, two types of fishing gear are involved in the inci-

dental capture of sea turtles. These can be classified as either active

or passive. Active fishing gear is pulled through the water, a water

straining device. Passive fishing gear is stationary, a trap, a set of

hooks or a net. Incidental capture can also be described as occurring

in two types of fisheries, the finfish fishery and the shellfish fish-

ery. The latter includes sedentary as well as nektonic or swimming

forms. Both fisheries use active and passive gear.

Of all the fishery methods currently employed in the southeastern

region, the trawl is believed to capture more turtles incidentally than

any other gear. Not only is the trawl effective in capturing turtles,

but the number of trawlers in the fleet is large. In addition to these

factors, economic constraints recently placed on the shrimp industry

have concentrated the fishing effort along U.S. coastal waters. Rising

fuel costs, large inventories of cheaper imported shrimp, and exclusion

of U.S. fishermen from traditional overseas fishing grounds have exacer-

bated this problem. The trawler is now one of the most common types of

fishing vessel operating in the coastal zone (more than 6000 shrimp

vessels operate in the southeastern U.S. alone). That fact and the pre-

viously mentioned occurrence of the loggerhead and ridley sea turtles in

commercial shrimping grounds probably accounts for the significantly

higher capture rate for this type fishing gear as compared to others.

Other fishing gear employing nets and involved in the incidental

capture of sea turtles are the seine, trammel net, gill net and pound

net. These are utilized primarily in the shallow coastal waters and in

bays and sounds, with the exception of the gill-net fishery for coastal

pelagic f ishes. All of the above nets, except the pound net, can be

either active (straining) or passive (stationary); the pound net is a

stationary gear. The sturgeon net fishery has recently been implicated

in the capture of sea turtles, primarily loggerheads. Other nets,

similarly located and set for shad and sharks, have been, implicated as

well. If the spring sturgeon run is long, the nets may be intercepting

the shoreward movement of sea turtles from their wintering grounds.

Breeding adults begin to congregate in coastal areas prior to the onset

of the nesting season.

The pound net f ishery of the Chesapeake Bay area is believed to be

responsible for mortalities of sea turtles. Deaths from this cause have

been reported more or less regularly for the past decade. Recent in-

formation from biologists studying this problem in Chesapeake Bay have

determined that mortalities occur when the turtles become "gilled" or

entangled in the larger meshed lead nets that guide fish into the trap;

the lead net is not regularly inspected by the fishermen (Lutcavage,

1981). Turtles that manage to enter the pound net are usually not

injured and can be released alive by the fishermen when they remove the

catch.

Turtles -have been captured with baited hook and line, including

sport fishing tackle. In many cases it is apparent that the turtles

were attracted to the bait since they actually were hooked in the mouth.

However, leatherbacks are frequently captured in the longline fishery

for tuna and swordfish, where numerous hooks are suspended from the main

line which may extend for miles. It would seem doubtful that the lea-

therback was primarily attracted to the fish/squid baited hooks, since

this species is thought to subsist almost entirely upon coelenterates

(cnidarians) and ctenophores. Rather, the placement aad extreme length

of these longlines, set at the shelf break in a pelagic habitat shared

by the leatherback, simply entangle or snag them. Leatherbacks are

particularly vulnerable to longline gear because they have the greatest

breadth or flipper span of any sea turtle and their epidermis is very

soft, not armored with thick scutes as in the other sea turtle species.

Trot lines set for seatrout and redfish in the shallow lagoons of

south Texas capture juvenile green turtles, though not necessarily

4 because of baited hooks. Artificial lures have been used in the past,

and many of the turtles were hooked in the body or tangled in the lines.

Pot warps (buoy lines) of crab and lobster traps ensnare several species

of turtle s. Encrusting organisms grow on the submerged portion of the

floats and warps, when'traps and their marker floats are left in the

water for long periods of time. The carnivorous turtle is attracted to

this food source as well as to crabs or lobsters within the trap. The

feeding turtle becomes entangled in the slack warp and. drowns. Large

numbers of pots, with their attendant floats and warps set closely

together, can offer a serious obstacle to turtles swimming through the

area; the potential for entanglement is high in this situation.

Capture and Mortality Rate

Discontinuities in fishing efforts and sea turtle distributions

confound incidental capture and mortality statistics throughout the

southeastern U.S. Furthermore, information collected by interviews is

frequently biased and increasingly difficult to obtain. Widespread

publicity and sanctions against those responsible for killing turtles

are causing this information source to dry up as long as trawlers are

implicated. However, reliable information regarding incidental catch

rates is being collected by onboard observers and scientists aboard

chartered trawlers and government survey vessels. Adequate sampling of

the deepwater trawling fleet (over 6,000 documented vessels in the

southea st), which includes an equal number of smaller "bay" shrimpers,

will require considerable effort and resources distributed over a large

geographic area.

Surveys in the south Atlantic and Gulf states have produced pre-

liminary information that resulted in regional estimates of total cap-

tures and mortalities (Hillestad et al., 1977; Hillestad et al., 1982;

Ulrich, 1978). Information from interviews suggests that the predicted

uneven distribution of sea turtle populations reinforces the observed

uneven catch distribution among trawlers. Some experienced fishermen

risk gear loss by dragging their nets close to underwater obstructions,

where they are rewarded by good catches of shrimp from isolated popu-

lations that have not been depleted. These fishermen report frequent

captures of loggerheads at such sites. The turtles are apparently

attracted to the reef-like habitat and bottom disconformities. Capture

rates of turtles per hour of trawling effort from these early surveys

have been estimated to be less than 0.1 for the Atlantic coast shrimp

vessels and less than 0.01 for the Gulf of Mexico fishery. Estimated

mortality rates for those turtles captured in both fisheries ranged

widely from less than 10% to over 40%. Mortality estimates calculated

from interview data were usually much lower than observed mortalities.

Other factors could bias observed mortalities, such as the recapture of

dead turtles in heavily trawled areas, however.

Seasonal abundances of juvenile turtles also account for differ-

ences in catch rate. The younger age classes are highly migratory,

moving between developmental areas and, seasonally, out of sha-Ilow

(colder) coastal waters in the winter months. For the Atlantic fishery,

encounters with turtles appear more or less evenly distributed along

nearshore waters. An exception would be Cape Canaveral, Florida, an

area where an unusual concentration of loggerheads is found in the Port

Canaveral ship channel. The turtle population of the Gulf of Mexico

consists primarily of immature turtles, now that the large nesting

aggregations of Kemp's ridley have been reduced in size. Concentrations

of adult loggerheads have been seen off Western Florida (Ogren, pers.

comm.).

Continuing efforts by the NMFS observer program provided additional

incidental catch statistics for shrimp trawlers operating off the south-

eastern U.S. The annual catch of sea turtles, primarily loggerheads,

was estimated to be over 45,000. The average mortality rate was esti-

mated to be about 27%, or over 12,000 turtle deaths per year (NMFS,

draft regulations (withdrawn)). Despite the greater number of trawlers

fishing in the northern Gulf of Mexico, capture rate was lower. This

may reflect a lower sea turtle density in the Gulf as compared to the

south Atlantic coastal area. Mortality rates were higher in the Gulf,

however, and may be the result of longer tow times recorded for this

fishery. Study and analysis continues to this date to determine what is

the actual range or numbers for the annual mortality of captured tur-

tles.

Capture and mortality rates for other fishing industries are less

well documented. Several hundred loggerhead deaths are 'attributed to

the pound net fishery of Chesapeake Bay each season. The smaller stur-

geon fishery of South Carolina accounts for some loggerhead mortality,

but the duration of the sturgeon fishery is not as long as other fish-

eries. In the Gulf of Mexico, swordfishermen are accidentally capturing

leatherbacks. Some believe the catch rate is high enough to cause

concern. Some of these captains report an incidental capture rate of

15-20 turtles per trip, but only during winter months, and some of the

turtles are released alive (Hildebrand, 1980).

Physiological Implications of Forced Submergence

Sea turtles tolerate the anoxic effects of prolonged submergence

during normal behavioral activities such as deep diving, resting

(sleeping) and winter refuging (dormancy). In situations involving

forced submergence, such as capture by trawls or set nets, the exertion

to escape may lead to death. The initial reaction of a turtle to a

trawl is to outswim the device. This strenuous effort results in an

increase in oxygen consumption, with no -opportunity to replenish this

debt. Once captured, the turtle will struggle to escape the webbing,

or, in the case of set nets, to free itself from entanglement. If the

exhausted turtle is not released, it will soon drown.

The clinical diagnosis of death by drowning in sea turtles is not

completely understood but probably involves several physiological re-

sponses, including shock, asphyxia and seawater aspiration. A pre-

liminary report investigating the cause of drowning in trawl-captured

turtles reported that the major trauma to these animals was exhaustion

from stress and that the length of the submergence period was secondary

(Lutz and Dunbar-Cooper, 1979). However, a positive correlation -has

been found between trawl duration and mortality rate. Thus, length of

submergence may be critical to the revival of comatose turtles. Addi-

tional research on the physiology of stress in sea turtles will be

required before effective resuscitation techniques can be devised.

Besides directly related drowning deaths, mortalities of sea tur-

tles may involve a complex chain of events. For example, the traumatic

experience of being captured in a trawl could weaken the turtle and

increase its vulnerability to attack by pathogens, parasites or

predators. Reports of periodic occurrence of moribund turtles far

offshore the south Atlantic coast, and, more recently, of weakened and

emaciated individuals washing ashore at Cape Canaveral, may be related

to multiple events, especially if premature arousal of winter dormant

turtles had occurred or trawl stressed turtles were involved (Carr et

al., 1980). Whether or not turtles weakened by disease are more

susceptible to "drowning" in trawls or, conversely, exhausted turtles

released or escaped from trawls are predisposed to disease related

illness and death remains to be determined. Severely traumatized sea

turtles may live for months before they become moribund, accumulating

an epibiota and parasite load uncharacteristic of normal turtles as they

passively drift in tidal and oceanic currents which is uncharacteristic

of normal, more active turtles.

Trawlermen believe that turtles, exhausted from a previous capture,

are more susceptible to drowning if they are recaptured the same day.

Foreign turtle fishermen must remove their catch from tangled nets

shortly after capture to have live animals for market. Apparently,

netted turtles soon become comatose or drown. Up to 50% of all green

turtles caught in tangle nets drown when nets are only checked twice'per

day (Pritchard, pers. comm.).

Other Marine Activities

Unusually dense aggregations of sea turtles occur in certain marine

or coastal localities because of man-made structures or activities.

Aggregations involving natural occurrences of breeding, feeding or

migrating turtles will not be discussed here. Loggerheads and perhaps

Kemp's ridleys and greens congregate near seafood processing plants

where offal is discarded in adjacent tidal creeks. Crab processing

plants sited on the bays and sounds in Georgia are typical examples.

Other man-induced feeding aggregations occur wherever the trawlers cull

their catch, especially in Georgia and South Carolina where specific

inshore sounds are used regularly by shrimpers for this purpose.

Turtles occur in the Port Canaveral, Florida, navigation channel at

densities much higher than natural sounds and channels. The man-made

channel may enhance feeding, but the main attraction is believed to be

the water depth (;;50 feet) and steep-sided profile that affords a reef-

like habitat for winter refuging and escape from cold temperatures, a

loafing area for the turtles during the remainder of the year and an

internesting habitat for reproductively active loggerheads (Ogren and

McVea, 1982). The presence of several seafood processing plants

(both fish and shellfish) in the Canaveral area and the proximity to

shrimping activity with its attendant culling operations may well be an

important additional attraction. In short, the Canaveral bight mayhave

been an area of average importance for feeding and overwintering turtles

in the past, but now the habitat has been altered for these species by

man's activities. The highest incidental catch rates ever reported have

occurred in the Port Canaveral navigation channel.

Solutions to the Problem

Changes in the existing rules and regulations, as pertaining to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, have been proposed in order to reduce or

eliminate the incidental capture of sea turtles in the southeastern

United States. Progress in gear technology has resulted in refining the

existing excluder design(s) and enhancing the efficiency of the trawl.

Results of comparative gear trials were very promising. A 97% reduction

in sea turtle captures was achieved with a 7% increase in shrimp catch in

the trawls equipped with the excluder device (Easley, 1982). In addition,

the TED considerably reduces by-catch.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) has created a paradoxical

situation for both endangered species and people and does not lend

itself to recovery efforts for the species. In some instances, special

regulations permitting "first aid" for threatened sea turtles taken

incidentally have been written and implemented. These regulations do not

apply to endangered species and, therefore, possession of an endangered

species without a permit is a violation of federal law (ESA). Prior to 1982,

regulations could not be written for endangered species, only for threatened

species. Thus, if a fisherman took an endangered species in his trawl, he

legally could not take action to attempt to save the animal, nor could he

report or provide the specimen to an authorized third party. Rather

than leave the endangered species on deck to see if the animal revives,

he must immediately return the turtle to the sea where survival chances

are slim in its weakened condition. Amendments were made to the Endangered

Species Act in 1982 that may correct this problem. Under Section 10(a) 1(A)

of the ESA, if certain conditions are met such as preparation of a specific

conservation plan, it may be possible to legally allow the incidental take

of an endangered species. The Services have 'not yet issued regulations

implementing these amendments. This should be done promptly to allow

for the resuscitation and gathering of biological data on endangered

sea turtles.

Resuscitation Techniques

Regulations originally set forth by NMFS stated that sea turtles

taken incidentally must be handled with care and returned to the water

immediately, whether dead or alive. However, resuscitation must be

attempted on comatose turtles by turning the turtle on its back and

pumping its plastron by hand or foot. Recent regulations now include

the previous instructions, additional actions required to effect a safe

release, and an alternate revival technique. All turtles are to be

released over the stern only after the trawls are out of the water, the

vessel is in neutral gear and the vessel is in an area where recapture

is unlikely. In addition to the plastral-pumping method, comatose turtles

may be placed on their plastrons and posteriorly elevated from one to

twenty-four hours until they revive. All turtles must be returned to

the water before the vessel reaches port. All turtles held on deck should

be shaded from direct sunlight and kept moist.

These instructions, if followed, may save many of the turtles

incidentally captured that appear lifeless when taken from nets or

trawls. Preliminary findings from field and laboratory investigations

on other air-breathing aquatic vertebrates suggest that additional

methods may be applicable in resuscitating "drowned" turtles. For

example, if an acid/base imbalance is involved in drowning deaths,

appropriate measures to buffer this condition could be recommended.

Although it may not be practical for fishermen to apply all methods,

biologists on research vessels, as well as other professional and/or

government personnel associated with the fishing industry, could be

easily trained and equipped to do so.

It is conjectural whether comatose turtles should be held on deck

belly up or belly down or whether one position inhibits normal venti-

lative movements more than the other. Former Florida commercial fish-

ermen routinely revived "lifeless" turtles by placing them belly down in

the bilge of their boat and elevating the posterior end. Once the

turtles became active, they were turned upside down to immobilize them

while being held for market. However, these animals were primarily

small, sub-adult green turtles well below 100 pounds. Historically,

mature green turtles were kept alive for long periods of time, belly up

in the holds of fishing and transport vessels. These were primarily

large specimens immobilized with their flippers tied together. Con-

versely, captured greens in the Baja California region of Mexico were

routinely kept belly down in dry, sandy pens until they were either

shipped to canneries or butchered locally. Research on the physiology

of stress and resuscitation technology should be given high priority if

we are to develop methods to prevent unnecessary mortalities of inci-

dentally captured sea turtles.

Up-to-date instructions to southeastern U.S. fishermen regarding

recommended procedures for resuscitating sea turtles accidentally caught

in an apparent lifeless (comatose) condition have been prepared by NMFS

for distribution. These instructions are temporary and have evolved

empirically rather than from scientific facts.

A. When a Sea Turtle is brought on board a fishing vessel (in a

net or on a line), observe it briefly for activity.

B. If the turtle is actively moving, return it to the water

without harm or damage (away from prop, or with vessel in

neutral) in an area where recapture is unlikely.

C. If the turtle is not moving or is apparently lifeless (comatose),

it must be returned to the water, BUT FIRST follow this pro-

cedure:

1. Place the turtle on its belly (plastron).

2. Prop up the rear end of the turtle (several inches,

higher up with larger turtles).

3. Keep the turtle shaded and wet or moist.

4. If the turtle recovers and begins to move actively, re-

turn it to the water according to instruction B above.

5. If the turtle does not move within several hours (up to

24, if possible), it is presumed dead. Then the turtle

must be returned to the water.

D. Important Information:

1. Sea turtles caught and held under water are physiologi-

cally stressed and often become comatose and apparen-tly

lifeless. These stressed turtles may appear to be dead,

but death cannot usually be determined by the turtle's

appearance or lack of movement. When the turtle has a

chance for the lungs to drain, it often recovers to an

active state. This recovery may require one or two or up

to 24 hours. Throwing a comatose turtle into the water

will drown it.

2. Some sea turtles that are caught in nets or on lines may

have been dead for some time before being brought on

board. These turtles will usually be extremely bloated

and have a strong and bad smell. Return them to the

water immediately.

3. All records of captured or killed sea turtles are impor-

tant. Records of loggerhead sea turtles caught (includ-

ing where, when, and how caught and released) should be

kept and made available to scientists upon request.

4. Do not return to dock or shore with any sea turtle on

board without a Federal or State Permit--this is illegal.

5. The above applies to loggerhead sea turtles, the most

common species in U.S. waters. At present it is illegal

to catch ridley, hawksbill or leatherback sea turtles

and Florida breeding populations of green sea turtles.

2.5 NESTING BEACH MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Introduction

A number of environmental and man-induced influences affect sea

turtle eggs and, thus, the recruitment potential for a given beach.

Factors affecting hatching success -and possible management techniques

for maximizing the reproductive potential of threat ened and endangered

species of sea turtles are reviewed in this section.

Physical Environmental Factors Affecting Hatching Success

Excessive rainfall floods turtle nests and destroys, eggs (Ragotskie

1959, Kraemer and Bell 1980). Ackerman (1975) inferred that heavy rain-

fall, even if it does not result in actual flooding of the nest, can

affect incubation time and decrease hatching rates by interfering with

necessary gas exchange within the nest. Saltwater inundation of nests

by spring or storm driven tides adversely affects egg survival. Salt,

per se, may not be toxic to the eggs; deleterious effects may be caused

by decreased gaseous diffusion to the nest because of beach waterlogging.

Erosion is a serious problem on some high-energy beaches. Large

quantities of partially developed turtle eggs may be washed into the

surf when wave action cuts into the beach platform.

Biotic Factors Affecting Hatching Success

Natural and introduced predators: A variety of predators such as

raccoons, mongooses, feral hogs, peccaries, dogs, coyotes, rats,

vultures, coatimundi and ghost crabs prey on the eggs of sea turtles.

In addition to the destruction of developing eggs, certain predators may

take considerable numbers of hatchlings just prior to or upon emergence

from the sand. In remote sections of the Tortuguero beach, the white-

lipped peccary is particularly devastating to hatchlings just under the

sand's surface prior to emergence (Carr, 1967).

High Density Nesting: On major turtle beaches, the intensity of

nesting on certain stretches of beach may be such that many nests are

destroyed by the digging activities of subsequent laying females. This

is particularly a problem for populations of olive ridley turtles that nest

in arribadas. It is also suggested by Ackerman (1975) that, even when

nests are not physically disturbed, gas exchange within nests may be

.adversely affected if nests are too close together. The build up of

organic materials in the sand, over time, may increase bacteria and

fungi to levels detrimental to embryo survival.

Man's Impact

EU Collection: A widespread and serious impact of man on sea

turtles is the harvesting of eggs for food or profit. On some beaches

this is an illegal activity, but many important turtle beaches are in

remote areas where law enforcement is difficult. In some areas (i.e.

Surinam), the harvesting of eggs is sanctioned and supervised by the

government to provide a needed protein source and traditional

subsistence income for local Indians.

Heavy Equipment and Foot Traffic: The use of mechanized beach

cleaning equipment, off-road vehicles and heavy human foot traffic poses

a significant threat to turtle nests on certain Florida beaches. Mann

(1978) found that nests on fine grained beaches were less susceptible to

damage from pedestrian and heavy equipment traffic because nest

excavations were more resistant to collapse. Cattleand horses walking

on nests may be more deleterious than human foot traffic because of the

smaller foot size relative to body weight of the se animals.

Beach Nourishment Projects: Beach nourishment projects may ad-

versely affect hatching success. If conducted during the nesting

season, excessive sand may be deposited over existing nests, increasing

the difficulty of the hatchling's route to the surface. Furthermore,

gaseous diffusion in the nest is controlled by sand grain size; fine

grained sands have the poorest diffusion rates (Ackerman, 1975). The

applied overburden in a beach nourishment project should match the

existing substrate on nesting beaches so that nests will not be

adversely affected by reduced gas exchange. Additional adverse effects

which may potentially result from beach nourishment projects include:

(1) scarp development at the edge of the beach fill rendering the beach

inaccessible to nesting turtles, (2) entrapment of hatchlings in vehicle

tracks, (3) compaction or cementation of beach sediments, (4) altera-

tions in moisture levels or other aspects of the micro-habitat within

the nest cavity, (5) alteration of unknown beach signature components

which may disrupt nest site fidelity, (6) alteration of the native

physical beach characteristics (slope, dome shape, etc.) such that

nesting attempts are reduced, and (7) the possibility of short repetitive

maintenance intervals which could effectively eliminate all natural

nesting for a given beach.

Management Techniques

It should be the goal of beach management to maximize reproductive

potential of threatened or endangered marine turtles, in a cost-

effective manner. Prior to implementing a management plan, possible

adverse effects, such as interference with beach imprinting mechanisms

of the hatchlings or alteration of sex ratios, should be thoroughly

considered. The following discussion lists activities that might be

used to increase recruitment of hatchlings, with comments on their

advantages and disadvantages.

Protection of Nests in Situ: The use of wire enclosures, chemical

repellents, and aversion conditioning of predators have been suggested

as possible means of preventing predation of turtle nests. Lithium

chloride was not effective in preventing racoon predation in South

Carolina (Hopkins & Murphy, in press). Only the use of wire screening

or enclosures have been demonstrated to be effective for most types of

predators. Minimal disturbance to nests is the major advantage of this

technique. Incubation and hatchling emergence are not affected. It is,

however, quite labor intensive, requiring nightly or daily beach patrol

as it has been shown that loss to predators is extensive for the first

two nights after the eggs are laid. In situ protection is-not effective

in preventing losses to erosion and human poaching; however, moving

nests a few yards has been successful in detering human poaching.

Hatcheries: Hatcheries have been used for a number of years to

prevent predator and erosion losses and provide semi-controlled hatching

conditions for sea turtle eggs. Hatcheries are of two basic types: (1)

those in which eggs are placed in hand-excavated nests in the beach sand

within a fenced enclosure and (2) operations using styrofoam boxes or

plastic buckets as a substitute nest. Such egg containers are kept in a

building, usually at ambient air temperature, although hatching under

controlled temperature and humidity has been done.

When beach hatcheries are used, incubation and emergence conditions

most closely resemble natural nests. However, they are subject to

mortality from excessive rainfall on poorly drained sites. The use of

styrofoam containers, incubated inside of a hatchery building, elim-

inates this problem, and operations of this type are capable of con-

sistently high hatch rates. The recently raised question of the effect

of incubation temperatures on hatchling sex ratios (Mrosovsky, 1982)

should be answered before this method receives wide-spread use. Investi-

gation of the temperature modulated sex ratio question should not rely

solely on laboratory, constant-temperature incubation experiments (Yntema

and Mrosovsky, 1980; Wood & Wood, 1982) but should also include the

temperature regime and sex ratio of natural nests (Mrosovsky & Yntema,

1980; Morreale et al., 1982; Mrosovsky et al., in press). Determination

of in situ hatchling sex ratios and their relationship with environmental

parameters may make it possible to adequately control hatchery incubation

conditions to produce the desired sex ratios. Work is currently in progress

to provide data on natural parameters and resultant sex ratios and should

continue until these unknowns are determined.

Hatchery operations should insure that release of the hatchlings

mimics the natural situation as closely as possible, so as not to in-

terfere with possible beach imprinting and hatchling dispersal mechan-

isms or to attract abnormal numbers of marine predators to the vicinity

of the release point. Hatchlings should be released close to natural

emergence times, usually around midnight. Hatchlings should be allowed

to crawl a moderate distance to the water, and their release point

should be dispersed along the nesting beach.

The operation of hatcheries and the protection of nests in situ

would be most economically feasible if operated in conjunction with a

re search/ tagging project incorporating beach patrols. This would make

optimum use of man-power and insure that the maximum number of nests is

found and protected.

Predator Reduction Programs: In ' terms of cost effectiveness,

predator reductions would seem the most viable approach to increasing

hatchling production on many nesting beaches, particularly if the re-

moval operations could be conducted prior to onset of turtle nesting and

continued throughout the season as needed. This approach would be effect-

ive for animal predators resident to the beach areas and not for opportun-

istic arrivals from inland populations, i.e., coyotes and dogs. Predators

of the latter type would have to be removed throughout the nesting season.

Increased Law Enforcement: In areas where egg poaching occurs,

additional law enforcement activity is needed to reduce illegal egg

loss.

"Head-Starting" Techniques: An additional management technique

that may be used in certain cases is the rearing of hatchlings under

controlled conditions for 6-12 months before 'release, commonly referred

to as "head- starting". The rationale for using this technique is to

reduce first year hatchling predation, i.e., holding the animals until

they are large enough to be less susceptible to most natural predators.

The use of head-starting is a costly program which should only be con-

sidered for clearly endangered species such as a Kemp's ridley.

Potential Problems Associated With Head-Starting: Head-starting

remains an unproven technique for increasing recruitment to the target

population. There is adequate evidence that head-started turtles can

and do survive under natural conditions and become widely dispersed from

the release location (Witham, 1976; Witham and Futch, 1977; Witham,

1980). However, there has been no positive return of a head-start

turtle to a.nesting beach as a breeding adult, but sufficient time has

not elapsed for maturation. This may be due to deficiencies in present

tagging methodology, but head-starting should be considered an experi-

mental technique until recruitment of head-started turtles to the

breeding population has proven to be greater than that of natural

recruitment. Until then, only a limited percentage of a local popu-

lation's annual egg production should be utilized for such experiments.

Pritchard has recommended that this percentage be no more than 10%.

An understanding of hatchling behavior dispersal patterns and

habitat requirements should be known if head-starting is to have a

reasonable chance of success. Head-start turtles should be released in

areas where turtles of that size normally occur. Release of yearling_

turtles from the nesting beach may be asynchronous with their life

cycle, but another choice may not be available if wild stocks of related

size cannot be located. Until the concept of imprinting to the natal

beach is resolved, the potential of "head- starting" to disrupt this

process must be considered. Several currently employed methodologies

which address this problem are as follows:

1. Incubate transferred eggs in sand taken from the natal beach.

2. Allow emerging hatchlings to descend the natal beach and enter

the water before transferring them to headstart facilities.

3. Allow yearling headstart turtles to descend the beach at time

of release.

Rearing head-start turtles under high-density culture conditions

makes these animals susceptible to group contamination and mortality

from a variety of disease organisms, another reason for committing only

a small percentage of annual egg production to head-starting.

Facilities for conducting head-starting should have an adequate supply

of clean sea water, either a high volume flow-through system or a closed

or semi-closed system with treatment and filtration. -A system for

isolating and treating diseased animals should be available, and the

services of a veterinary pathologist are desirable for disease diagnosis

and treatment.

2.6 HYPOTHERMIC STUNNING AND PETROLEUM IMPACTS

2.6.1. Hypothermic Stunning

Marine turtles in the bays, sounds and lagoons of the eastern

U.S. are infrequently stunned by low water temperatures during periods

of extremely harsh winter weather. Kemp's ridleys and occasionally

other species are found in a cold stunned condition in winter in the New

England area. Turtles may drown or die of exposure to the elements when

in this condition. The species perhaps most severely affected by these

conditions in Florida is Chelonia mydas. The loss of relatively few

individuals may be significant because its numbers are so low in

U.S. waters. Although the need will be extremely infrequent, the

small U.S. populations of the species dictate the need for organized

rescue efforts. Procedures set forth below are addressed to Chelonia

mydas but can be applied to other species of cold-stunned marine turtles.

Dealing With One or a Few Individuals

1) Immerse the animal in fresh or salt water to about half shell

depth.

2) Support the head slightly so that it is roughly in alignment

with longitudinal axis of the body (water will bathe the underside of

the head but not cover the mouth).

3) Allow the animal to warm gradually, preferrably to 15-17'C.

Higher temperatures will cause increased activity and create the need

for feeding. Ordinarily, confinement should be of short duration and

feeding should not be necessary.

4) Replace the water daily or when it becomes soiled.

5) Release the turtle to the wild when water temperatures in the

habitat approach 15'C (green turtles have been known to survive and

thrive when released into water at 13*C).

Massive Cold-stunning Episodes

1) Subdivisions of the various state natural resource (conser-

vation) agencies charged with responsibility for sea turtles should be

aware that abnormally harsh winter weather can cause marine turtles to

be stunned and killed by low water temperatures.

2) A procedure for monitoring and reporting water temperatures

during extended cold spells should be established.

3) If water temperature falls to the 9-11*C range or lower on two

successive nights, officers and agents on routine patrol should be

alerted to the possibility that turtles may be stunned and begin to

float at the surface. Additional reconnaissance should be arranged

where personnel and vehicles are available.

4) If stunned turtles are sighted and if overnight temperatures

continue in the 9-11'C range or lower, systematic reconnaissance of the

affected waters should be organized. This can be done by boat and from

shore (the wind drives the immobilized animals against the leeward

shore) but aerial reconnaissance is the most effective method for

.locating turtles where large numbers are involved. Stunned turtles are

generally visible from the air, and locations can be transmitted to

surface vehicles to facilitate retrieval. Stunned turtles may drown or

succumb to exposure if not rescued.

5) Where possible, rescued turtles 'should be taken to local

aquariums or other institutions with facilities for handling marine

vertebrates. In most cases such facilities will be unavailable. In

such cases the turtles can be kept on their backs or upright in open

shade or indoors for two or three days. They should be splashed with

water f requently. If possible, they should be held at temperatures

ranging from 15'C to 17*C, for reasons given above.

6) On about the third day evidence of dehydration (especially

wrinkling of the plastron scutes) appears and, if confinement continues

much beyond that length of time, arrangements should be made to permit

total immersion of the animals in a pond, swimming pool or other water-

filled enclosure. Plans for the recapture and removal of the animals

(feasibility of draining, availability of capture nets, etc.) should be

made prior to their introduction to the enclosure. The water can be

fresh or saline and, again, temperatures in the 150-170C range are

desirable.

7) As above, turtles should be recaptured and released when tem-

peratures in the natural habitat approach 151C.

2.6.2. Petroleum and Petroleum Residue Impacts

Sea turtles of most species have been adversely impacted by

petroleum and its tar residue (Witham, 1978 unpublished data; Fritts and

McGehee, 1982). The affected turtles found on Florida beaches have been

in the 7.5 to 15.0 cm carapace length range. Turtles, being non-selective

feeders, ingest floating tar. While the immediate effect of ingesting tar

appears to be mechanical in that it seals the mouth shut and may clog the

nostrils, the crude oil phase may have a toxic effect.

Most of the petroleum impacted turtles have been found on beaches.

They apparently become comatose, float at the surface and are carried

It-.

ashore by prevailing winds and currents. It is likely that some may die

at sea after being impacted, should winds and currents carry them away

from beaches. Cooperating agencies, organizations and individuals

should be alerted to this type of impact and be ready to rescue turtles

as needed.

Tar impacted turtles, if recovered soon enough, are amenable to

treatment, but it is not known if those impacted by liquid oil can be

treated. 1) Excess tar should be gently scraped off. The residual tar

or oil can be removed from the body and mouth by using vegetable oil,

mineral oil or a mechanic's waterless hand cleaner. 2) A cotton tipped

swab should be used to clean the mouth, and care should be taken to

determine that the nostrils are clear. 3) After cleaning with one or

another of these materials, the turtle(s) should be rinsed with a mild

detergent, followed by a clean water rinse. 4) If the turtle(s) appear

to have swallowed-any of the petroleum, a small dose (1-2 ml) of mineral

oil may be administered. 5) Following cleaning, the turtle(s) should be

kept in an aquarium until they have fully recovered and are actively

feeding and swimming before being released.

2.7 PUBLIC EDUCATION

The wide distribution of the six specie's of marine turtles con-

sidered in the Recovery Plan and the relatively few law enforcement

agents stationed throughout the management area, necessitate a volun-

tary effort on the part of the public to reduce detrimental human/

turtle interactions. Most people will show concern for a threatened or

an endangered species and will take appropriate action not to harm it if

they are given an appropriate action to take. Thus, an aware and en-

lightened public is important to the recovery of marine turtles.

This section addresses the informational needs for recovery and the

various modes by which this information can be transferred to the public

at large and to special interest groups. Terrestrial and pelagi c

aspects of sea turtle management are discussed with regard to these

individual groups, along with suggestions for reaching them through re-

sponsible agencies and private organizations. Some of these needs have

already been met during the course of preparing this plan.

Terrestrial Aspects

A majority of human/turtle interactions occur on the nesting

beaches because turtles nest in temperate regions during the high use

summer season or in tropical regions where beach use can be high all

year. Permanent beach residents could provide a core group to

disseminate information to reduce the negative impacts of turtle/human

interactions on the beach. These adverse impacts may be caused- by the

residents themselves, by transient renters, or indirectly from lights

and sea walls. There is also a need to create an attitude among beach

users which will result in involvement in the prevention or prosecution

of violations.

Modes of implementation: The following are suggested procedures for

public education:

1. Displays at visitor centers in national and sta te parks and

refuges.

2. Signs posted at beach access points and near nesting areas.

3. Posters at shopping centers, real estate offices, and in beach

rental units.

4. Public service announcements on T.V., radio, newspapers, maga-

zines or bumper stickers.

5. Sanctuary signs at town limits.

6. Turtle patrols for the non-technical monitoring of strandings

through organized stranding networks.

7. Speakers bureaus, including movies and slides for school and

civic groups.

8. Brochures for beach users, both permanent residents and

transients. These brochures should contain the following

information:

a) Beach use and its effects on nesting females, nests and

hatchlings.

b) Beach alteration and its effect on nesting females, nests

and hatchlings.

c) The detrimental effect of trade in turtle products.

d) Identification of degree of threat, reasons for threat-

ened or endangered status and value of the species.

e) Prohibited acts and reporting of violations (See section

11321C in loggerhead stepdown plan).

The modes of implementation should be conducted by Fish and Wild-

life Service, National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries Services,

state agencies, non-governmental organizations and schools. Assistance

could be provided by Youth Conservation Corps, Young Adult Conservation

Corps and interested civic groups and private organizations.

Marine Aspects

Incidental catch, boat collisions, and malicious target shooting

are sources of negative human/turtle interactions in the marine environ-

ment. Some may be more serious than others, depending upon the specific

area and species involved. There is a need to inform the commercial

fisheries sector on the causes and significance of incidental take

mortality. Information on gear modifications, resuscitation and

handling techniques, new rules and regulations and reporting i ncidental

catches need to be made available to commerical fishermen (See Section

2.4). There is also a need to educate the boating public to reduce

mortality from collisions and firearms.

Mode of implementation:

1. Posters and brochures provided to all commercial fishermen.

2. Incidental catch logs provided on selected boats in commerc-ial

fleets.

3. Speakers' bureau to explain and/or demonstrate new gear or

regulations.

4. Post signs on speed limits in areas where necessary.

The majority- of implementations would be by NMFS and state

agencies.

General Public

There is a need to raise the awareness of the public at large to

the plight of marine turtles. Broad-based public support by non-user

groups, as well as those with direct contact, is needed to attain the

support necessary for recovery. This same support is needed to reduce

fashion acceptance and provide peer pressure against the commerciali-

zation of turtle products.

Modes of implementation:

1. Full color identification poster of all marine turtlespecies.

2. Displays at state museums and at the Smithsonian Institution.

3. Displays at the new National Aquarium in Baltimore. Displays

at the Miami Seaquarium and Sea World, Orlando are good ex-

amples.

4. Displays at airports and cruise ship terminals to make

tourists aware of illegal turtle products and the penalties

for importation of these products. These displays should be

bilingual (English and Spanish).

5. Brochures provided on airlines and cruise ships with similar

information.

6. A series of marine turtle stamps issued by the U.S. Post

Office.

7. Turtle "awareness" months declared by state governments.

8. Programs by private organizations, such as National Wildlife

Week; TV spots featuring marine turtles; booklets for school

distribution.

9. Other agencies 'within the context of this plan should be

encouraged to develop similar information campaigns. These

modes of implementation could be. conducted by N ational Marine

Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Se rvice, State Depart-

ment, Customs Service, Post Office and private organizations.

The ideas presented here should not be regarded as the only means

to bring about education and public awareness. Each agency or private

group should call upon the talents of its own personnel for developing

materials in its particular area or targeted at a particular interest

group.

2.8 UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW

1. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as ammended (ESA)

Scope and Provisions:

The ESA is federal legislation which provides for acquisition and/or

protection of turtle nesting habitat, for turtle protection and for funding

of sea turtle research and protection through cooperative agreements with

the states. The ESA also protects endangered and threatened species from

import, export, sale, offer for sale, take, transport, etc. The only

exemptions to the above for endangered species are for scientific research

and enhancement of survival of the species. For threatened species

exemptions include scientific research, enhancement of survival of the

species, zoological exhibition, educational purposes, and special

purposes that are consistent with the Act. All species of sea turtles,

except the Australian flatback are protected in the United States under

the ESA.

The ESA is one of the most advanced statutory statements of en-

vironmental ethic in the world. Fully utilized in conjunction with

other USA statutes, state statutes, and international agreements which

the U.S. has ratified, it provides a solid legal basis for U.S. re-

covery activities (See p. 1).

2. Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act

Scope and Provisions:

The importance of this statute is that it provides economic sanc-

tions for the U.S. Government to use in trying to influence other govern-

ments to conduct f ishing operations in a manner which will not decrease

the effectiveness of an international fi shery program. This includes

not only programs for the conservation of fish but also those pertaining

to any "living resource of the sea."

Implementation:

Although this act has not been invoked, the threat of its use has been

an effective tool in support of cetacean conservation.

Actions Required:

The Departments of Commerce and/or Interior should recommend use of

the Pelly Amendment to the President, when appropriate, to insure that

Parties to the international agreements comply with stated or implied

agreement objectives to protect endangered and threatened species of sea

turtles.

3. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Scope and Provisions:

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted to encourage and

assist coastal states and territories in dealing with the increasing and

competing demands for the use of the Nation's coastal resources. The Act

has as its objective "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible,

to restore or enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this

and succeeding generations." To achieve this objective, it provides

federal financial and technical assistance to coastal state and territorial

governments to establish and administer Coastal Zone Mangement (CZM)

programs that meet federal objectives, including protection of natural

resources.

Implementations:

All 35 coastal states and territories have participated in the CZM

program. Of these, 28 have federally-approved management programs and

one, Virginia, is expected to submit a program for approval in FY -1984.

Required Actions:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should encourage

coastal states and territories with f ede ral ly- approved CZM programs to

develop and implement measures to protect sea turtle nesting areas and

foraging water areas within their coastal zones.

4. Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976

Scope and Provisions:

It establishes an exclusive fishery conservation zone 200 miles

wide. The Act asserts exclusive management authority in the zone over

fish and "all other forms of marine life..." The Act permits, on a

discretionary basis, gear restrictions, area closures, and limitations

on incidental catch.

Implementation:

Some fishery Management Plans have been produced for the Plan area.

Actions Required: Department of Commerce

Fishery Management Plans could be amended to incorporate TED use,

area closures, etc.

5. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972

Scope and Provisions:

The objective of the Act is to create marine sanctuaries out of

water areas above the continental shelf, out to the edge of the con-

tinental shelf, for the purpose of preserving or restoring such areas

for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values.

Implementation:

Three sanctuaries have been designated which potentially protect sea

turtle habitat, including the Key Largo and Looe Key Sanctuaries of Florida

and Gray's Reef Sanctuary of Georgia. La Parguera, Puerto Rico is proposed

for designation as a marine sanctuary.

Action Required:

The Department of Commerce should continue to use the sea turtle

habitat protection potential of the Act to establish protection for the

sea turtles in areas of high concentration as well as foraging areas.

6. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Scope and Provisions:

Although originally designed for generating and distributing re-

venues for outdoor recreation purposes, it has funded many projects of

substantial benefit to wildlife. A substantial amount of the funding

for the Fish and Wildlife Services land aquisition program for endan-

gered and threatened species has come from this source.

Actions Required:

The Department of the Interior should make maximum use of this Act

to provide funds to aquire land and water areas needed as protection for

sea turtles. Funds provided to coastal states under this Act should be

similarly used.

7. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and

-the Refuge Recreation Act of 1972

Scope and Provisions:

The Act of 1966 consolidated all of the various federal wildlife

refuges into a single system. It left unchanged the Act of 1962 which

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and protect land for

the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

Actions Required:

The Department of the Interior should utilize the provision of

these Acts, as appropriate to acquire and protect sea turtle nesting

habitat.

8. Statutes of Coastal States in the Plan Area, Puerto Rico and U.S.

Virgin Islands

Scope and Provisions:

It is recommended that legislation be reviewe.d for possible

strengthening to improve habitat protection and management.

Action Required:

Departments of Commerce and Interior, in cooperation with the

states, should make an inventory of states' statutes, to identify gaps

in state legislation.

9. Lacey Act Amendments of 1981

Scope and Provisions:

The Lacey Act is a catchall federal statute which makes it unlaw-

ful to import, export, transport, sell, etc., in interstate or foreign

commerce any unlawfully taken, transported or acquired wildlife. These

prohibitions apply to violations of federal, state or foreign laws. The

statute also makes it unlawful to transport any wildlife taken in violation

of any federal law. In this case, no interstate commerce is required.

Action Required:

U.S. Customs Service and the Departments of Commerce and Interior

should make maximum use of this Act to curtail the unlawful importation

of sea turtle products.

3.1

I LOGGERHEAD TURTLE RECOVERY PLAN

INTRODUCTION

One of the world's largest concentrations of loggerheads (Caretta

caretta) nests on the beaches. of the southeastern U.S.(Ross, 1982).

Major nesting concentrations may be- found on the coastal islands of

North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia and on the Atlantic and

Gulf coasts of southern Florida. In addition, scattered examples of

loggerhead nesting are found north to New Jersey and along most of the

Gulf and Caribbean shoreline.

The life cycle of a loggerhead, like other species of sea turtles,

is easy to conceptualize (Figure 1) but difficult to measure. Adult

females appearing on nesting beaches from May through August can be

counted and tagged. Tagging studies reveal that some females, restrict

their nesting activity to a few kilometers of "home" nesting beach.

They lay from one to seven clutches of eggs per season (average of two

clutches) at approximately 13-day intervals and females usually return

to nest on 2-year and 3-year intervals. However, small percentages nest

either annually or at intervals greater than three years. An average

clutch contains approximately 120 eggs, although individual clutches

will commonly vary from 60 to 180 eggs.

A well drained dune with clean sand and scattered grassy vegetation

provides an ideal nest site. If the eggs escape predation and con-

ditions remain sufficiently stable to allow for a 60-day incubation

period, hatchlings will emerge and crawl to the sea, usually during

Figure 1. Schematic drawing of loggerhead life cycle stages partitioned

according to terrestrial and pelagic phases.

TERRESTRIAL
STAGES

NESTS

HATCHLINGS

NESTING
FEMALES

HATCHLINGS

ADULT
FEMAL S

ADULT EARLY
MALES sue- JUVENILE
ADULTS AND STAGES
IMMATURES

PELAGIC
STAGES

hours of darkness. The majority of hatchlings from a normal nest emerge

as a group from the nest cavity within a period of two to three minutes.

This onset and continuation of frenzied departure activity may be

critical to the timing of life cycle events; hatchlings restrained

during the evening hours and released the following day may suffer a

reduction in fitness and in survival potential. Early morning releases

may increase the predation hazard.

The terrestrial stage of the loggerhead life cycle ends when the

hatchlings enter the sea and contact with them and associated management

options are reduced. Most hatchlings apparently become pelagic, because

loggerheads smaller than 50cm are rarely seen on the U.S. coast. The

occurrence of juveniles smaller than this category in eastern North Atlantic

waters indicates a dispersed, pelagic existence during the "lost years".

Turtles, with a carapace length of 50-90 cm, common in coastal U.S.

waters from April to October and year-round in Florida, are presumed to

be the hatchlings reappearing from their "lost years." However, there

is no measure of the years required for a hatchling to reach this size.

Furthermore, a subadult cannot be identified with its natal beach. For

example, the majority of subadults on the South Carolina coast may

represent recruitment from Florida rookery beaches or -South Carolina

beaches or both. Finally it is not known if hatchlings return as

adults to nest at their natal beach. For these reasons, the loggerhead

life cycle has not been quantified. Our understanding of loggerhead

population dynamics must improve before we can predict population re-

sponses.

The loggerhead recovery plan identifies some possible mortality

factors. At some future date, sustainable losses may become predictable

and manageable, and the loggerhead may be removed from threatened

status. Until then, known mortality factors must be mitigated until

their individual and collective effects on population numbers can be

measured. A series of potential indices of population numbers and

vitality (numbers of nesting females, numbers of hatchlings per kilo-

meter of nesting beach, numbers of subadult carcasses appearing on

beaches, etc.) should be monitored. Taken collectively, they represent

the best available approach to measuring loggerhead population vitality

and response to management efforts.

Introduction to the Loggerhead Stepdown Plan

For the loggerhead, there are four major components in the stepdown

plan, shown on the following page. These components are: terrestrial

limiting factors, monitoring of beaches, marine limiting factors, and

monitoring at sea. Sections of the flow diagram are combined with each

section of the stepdown plan to give a more cohesive presentation of the

loggerhead turtles' problems and their solutions. The final level of

the flow diagram is the "action needed" box. Each of these boxes is

then elaborated in the stepdown plan with specific recommendations

Rj=. While this is not the usual way stepdown plans are shown, the

Team feels this will reduce repetition and be clearer to the reader.

The Implementation Schedule places priorities at the level of the

"action needed" boxes.

1. Primary Objective: To prevent further declines
in green turtle stocks by
reducing limiting factors
and to effect an upward
trend in monitored stocks of
nesting females

Mitigate factors affecting 14. Assess and monitor population
terrestrial mortality and/ levels in estuaries and
or stress marine waters

12. Assess and monitor population 13. Mitigate factors affecting estuarine
levels on beaches and marine mortality and/or stress

11. Mitigate factors affecting
terrestrial mortality an
or stress
F

alterat 112. Predation

F 1121. Natural 1122. Feral
1111. atural 1112. Man-induced

11211. Implement nest protection commensurate
with
F degree of predation
Sand accumulation 11113. Vegetatio

111111. Manage natural beat

Pollution 11122. Deve

111211. Regulate petrochemical industry 111221. Regulate lights, ORV's, foot
and bilge pumping traffic, beach cleaning equip- 113. Human take
ment, sea walls and rip rap,
grains and Jetties, and beach
nourishment projects
F222. Inform and educate beat
users and residen ts 1131 1132. illegal take

lie 11321. Incr&ase active law enforcement
11311. Promote legal protection throughou t t to prevent illegal harves t
range of the species by encouraging
protective management by means of treaties,
conventions, or councils with other nations

Loggerhead - Stepdown Plan

Primary Objective: To maintain the loggerhead population at

current levels by reducing limiting factors until a stable or

upward trend can be determined, based on the quantitative

criteria listed in the plan.

Mitigate factors affecting terrestrial mortality and/or

stress.

Manage natural beaches.

Natural processes on some beaches may prove to be a signi-

ficant source of mortality to nests in the range of the logger-

head.

A. Assess the vulnerability of nests.

B. If nest sites are poor (below the MHW line, on the edge

of scarped dunes, in vegetation or in swales with poor

drainage), then nests may be transferred to a better site

or to a hatchery (see section 2.5).

C. Natural sand accumulation is not considered a significant

factor.

Certain forms of exotic vegetation (e.g., Casuarina) present

problems for nesting beach habitat management. They form

impenetrable root mats which prevent nest cavity excavation.

D. Remove trees from potential nest sites on important

nesting beaches.

E. Prevent further spread by removing seedlings and by dis-

couraging plantings.

F. Maintain all undeveloped beaches, currently used for

nesting, in a natural condition.

111211. Regulate petrochemical industry and bilae pumping.

Nesting beaches are susceptible to oil spills from tankers

and from bilge pumping offshore. This problem could become

more serious if Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil production

is begun on the southeast embayment.

A. Conduct research to determine effects of petrochemical

spills, clean up methods (including detergents) and bilge

effluents on developing eggs.

B. Establish a monitoring program to document spills. (See

green turtle stepdown plan).

C. Incorporate turtle nests into spill contingency planning

by federal and state agencies, including effects of

detergents. (See green turtle stepdown plan).

111221. Regulate lights, ORV's, foot traffic, beach cleaning equip-

ment, sea walls and rip rap, groins and jetties, and beach

nourishment projects.

Lights disorient hatchlings and cause them not to reach the

sea, and lights may discourage adults from nesting.

A. Determine effects of various wavelengths of lights,

screening devices and light intensities on hatchling

behavior.

B. Prohibit lights on undeveloped beaches, and develop means

of screening already installed lights.

C. Restrict use of beach lights during the nesting and

hatching seasons.

100

D. Develop hatchling rescue contingency plans with agencies,

organizations, or individuals in areas where hatchlings

are likely to become disoriented.

ORV's, foot traffic and beach cleaning equipment compact sand,

crush nests and make ruts which can trap hatchlings.

E. Restrict ORV's and beach cleaning equipment on nesting

beaches during the nesting and hatching seasons.

F. Transfer nests to a better site or to a hatchery if

protection of natural nests is impossible (see section

2-5).

Sea walls and rip rap prevent adults from nesting by destroy-

ing the dune system and by eliminating access to nest sites.

G. Prohibit the construction of sea walls and rip rap on

important nesting beaches.

Groins, jetties, and wave attenuation breakwaters, including

spoil areas, divert currents and restrict natural sand move-

ment. This could alter the suitability and accessibility of

nesting beaches. There is also considerable interest in

attempting to control beach erosion by the use of wave

attenuation techniques. These techniques may include

plastic seaweed, or, conceivably, "hard" materials such

as concrete. Each suggested material should be evaluated

for its possible impact upon sea turtles. Impact might

involve eating, attempting to eat, or becoming a physical

barrier to beach access.

101

H. Careful evaluation of these effects should precede the

permitting and construction of such structures.

Beach nourishment is conducted by two means: hydraulic

pumping and mechanical transfer of sand with heavy equipment.

Pumping conducted during the nesting season smothers nests.

Sand removal may be detrimental if its source degrades adja-

cent nesting areas. Hydraulic pumping may create or improve

nesting beaches; however, this activity is not advocated.

Sand-moving equipment used to maintain artifical dunes can

disrupt existing nests or result in an excessive overburden

over others.

1. Prohibit to the extent possible all beach nourishment

projects on nesting beaches during the nesting and hatching

season.

J. Evaluate sites of sand source so as to avoid detrimental

effects on the nourished and adjacent nesting beaches.

K. Determine the suitability of replacement sand for nest-

ing, and modify texture and cohesive nature if necessary.

L. Maintain or enhance all currently used nesting beaches.

M. If prohibition of beach nourishment is impossible, relocate

eggs to a safe area or hatchery.

111222. Inform and educate beach users and residents. (see section 2.7)

102

11211. Implement nest protection commensurate with degree of pre-

dation.

Predation on nests and hatchlings varies in severity through-

out the range of the species. Research or management plans

should address specific predators and intensity of predation.

A. Quantify the nature and extent of predation on major

nesting beaches.

B. Design and implement plans to*mitigate nest losses to

predators. Management might include screening, aversion

conditioning, hatcheries, nest transplants or predator

reduction programs. Utilize approved nest management

techniques (see section 2.5).

11311. Promote legal protection throughout the range of the species

by encouraging protective management by means of treaties,

conventions, or councils with other nations (see 1.2, 2.8

and 4.4).

11321. Increase active law enforcement to prevent illegal harvest.

At this time, Federal law enforcement efforts are strained to

cover needs throughout the'range of the species. More coordi-

nation with state law enforcement agencies could alleviate

this strain.

A. Determine through surveillance and undercover operations

the areas and extent of illegal take of eggs and adult

turtles.

103

B. Schedule basic law enforcement actions (night patrols,

daytime patrols, aerial patrols, cooperative patrols with

other agencies) to curtail illegal activity.

C. Conduct public relations campaigns with other agencies to

publicize the laws and the status of turtles (see section

2.7).

104

12. Assess and monitor population
levels on beaches

121. Beach recruitment 122. Nesting and/
or nests

1211. Determine
productivity

1221. Tag or mark 1222. Count nests by aerial
adult or ground'surveys

105

12. Assess and monitor turtle population levels on beaches.

1211. Determine productivity.

An important segment of loggerhead life history is the two

month incubation period which begins with the laying of the

eggs and ends with the departure of the hatchlings to the

ocean. Unlike most of a sea turtle's life history, incubation

can be monitored easily. The minimum desirable production for

a nesting beach should be: 50% of the nests to hatch, and of

these nests, 70% hatchability overall.

A. Establish reasonably limits for area (km of beach) and/or

size (numbers of nests) of the proposed monitoring program.

B. Mark experimental nests.

C. Evaluate productivity based on above goal.

1221. Tag or mark adult females.

A. Undertake tagging programs for nesting loggerheads

following recommendations in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

B. Establish limits for the sample area and conduct surveys

of nesting females (see section 2.1 - tagging programs of

nesting females).

C. Employ the best available tagging technology (see section

2.2 - tagging technology).

D. Continue replicate surveys for a minimum of six

consecutive years.

1222. Count nests by aerial or ground surveys.

There is no established format at the present moment for an

aerial survey which will produce a statistically quantitative

measure of nesting turtles and/or nests. There is, however,

106

no other reasonable method for obtaining a first approximation of these

data for extended areas of coastline. (See Section 2.1 for

standardization of methodology). Accurate' ground nest counts along

selected portions of beach are probably the best low cost means of

estimating population numbers. Ground counts also provide the essential

ground truth data for quantifying aerial surveys.

A. Select survey area and survey schedule (see section 2.1 -

survey of nesting activity).

B. Monitor nesting activity each season, and replicate sur-

veys for a minimum of six (6) consecutive seasons.

C. Use running 3-year average to determine changes in nest-

ing effort.

Mi7i It. factors affecti ea
131. Habitat alteration d_.9:1i.e mortality and,or sLiess
132. Human take

1311. Physical alteration 1312. Chemical alteratiod

F_
13111. Natural M n-induced 1321. Di ected take

131111. Cold-stunn7lg
13121. Regulate petrochemical industry, bilge
pumping and industrial effluents
[1311-111. Develop contingency plans
to prevent nortality
13211. Promote legal protection throughout the 1322. Incid:ntal and
range of the species by encouraging pro- accidental take
tective management by means of treaties,
131121. Regulate spoil dumping, oil development convention, or councils with other nations
sea floor mining, and trawler tows and
any other activities which would cause Boat c
deterioration of essential habitat 13223.
F_ r 132231.Regulate boat N@sp-ed
F
13221, Fixed gear and lr_p@_ 13222. Towed 9
_

13224. Entrainment in ind nt by
water intakes dragheads
F 322 5. 'Entrapme
F32211. Regulate fishing methods,
T131;2 @Chemi gear, areas and seasons
77
1322111. Educate and info 132241. Investigate and implement
fishermen meanr of mitigating mortality
from dragheads and Industrial
water intazes

108

Mitigate factors affecting estuarine and marine mortality

and/or stress.

1311111. Develop contingency plans to prevent'cold-stunning mortality

(see section 2.6).

131121. Regulate spoil dumping, oil development, sea floor mining,

and trawler tows and any other activities which would cause

deterioration of essential habitat.

Spoil disposal and oil development, if done on live bottom

habitats, may destroy turtle feeding areas by smothering the

benthic organisms with sediments and drilling muds.

A. Evaluate disposal sites of these materials to avoid live

bottom habitats.

Sea floor mining and trawler gear may disrupt the configura-

tion of bottom relief, thus destroying cover, loafing and

feeding areas.

B. Locate areas of high turtle utilization that are vulner-

able to destruction.

C. Regulate or prohibit these activities on essential habi-

tat.

13121. Regulatepetrochemical industry, bilge pumping, and industrial

effluents.

Compounds associated with these sources of pollution could

affect turtles directly or indirectly through the food chain.

These effects can be insidious and difficult to prove, since

they often result in reduced reproductive effort. Mortality

is also difficult to detect in the open ocean and impossible

to quantify.

109

A. Determine the affects of sewage and industrial effluents,

both chronic and acute, on turtles.

B. Regulate effluent dumping in estuarine and pelagic areas

of high turtle utilization.

C. Encourage enforcement of provisions of Laws of the Sea

regarding oceanic pollution and dumping.

13211. Promote legal protection throughout the range of the species

by encouraging protective management by means of treaties,

conventions or councils with other nations (see sections 1.2,

2.8 and 4.4).

132211. Regulate fishing methodsi gear, areas and seasons.

Incidental take of marine turtles during commercial fishing

activities has been identified as a cause of mortality.

Towed gear, Fixed gear and Traps

A. Develop resuscitation, handling and relocation methodology

for incidentally caught turtles and implement by rule and

regulation (see Section 2.4),

B. Investigate and implement fishing methodologies, such as

reduced tow time, or curtailment of night fishing, to

mitigate mortality if TED is not used.

C. Actively promote volunteer use of the TED through a compre-

hensive goverriment-industry-conservation community

educational program.

D. Prioritize areas for critical habitat designation. Re-

strict or prohibit certain types of fishing methods in

above designated areas.

E. Prohibit certain types of fishing during specified seasons.

110

1322111. Educate and Inform Fishing Industry (see sections 2.4 and

2.7).

132231. Regulate boat speed.

Boat collisions are a source of mortality in areas of high

use by both people and turtles.

A. Regulate speed in areas where collisions with turtles are

likely.

132241. Investigate and implement means of mitigating mortality from

dragheads and industrial water intakes.

Turtle entrainments and mortalities have been observed in

water intakes at power plants.

A. Assess the extent of the entrainment and mortality.

B. Develop excluder mechanisms.

C. Investigate turtle behavior modifications to exclude

turtles from areas where they may be drawn to the intake

pipes.

Turtles are entrapped and crushed on the dragheads of com-

mercial and government dredges.

D. Investigate and develop modifications to the draghead to

exclude turtles.

E. Remove turtles from the vicinity of dredging operations.

F. Investigate turtle behavior modifications (see step

132241 C.).

G. Prioritize areas for critical habitat designation, in-

cluding Port Canaveral Ship Channel. Mitigate mortality

from dredging in areas where turtles are likely to be

taken.

14. Assess and monitor population
levels in estuarine and
marine waters

141. Coastal stocks 142. Open shelf stocks

1421. Assess aerial or other methodologies
and implement if feasible

1411. Monitor strandings 1412. Monitor incidental capture 1413. Conduct survey
where feasible

112

14. Assess and monitor population levels in estuarine and marine

waters.

1411. Monitor strandings.

An undetermined proportion of loggerheads die in nearshore

waters and wash onto coastal beaches. Stranded carcasses

represent a complex interaction of nearshore population den-

sities and mortality from disparate causes, such as cold

stunning and drowning in trawl nets. Counts of stranded car-

casses provide indices of local mortality, particularly when

followed from year to year.

A. Determine the relationship between beached carcasses and

total mortality at sea.

B. Determine cause of death, when possible.

C. Continuously monitor the numbers of dead turtles on

beaches by standardized stranding network procedures

which guard against counting individual carcasses more

than once and make data available through publication.

1412. Monitor incidental captures.

On-board monitoring of incidentally caught loggerheads is the

most direct and logical approach to assessing the impact of

specific fisheries on sea turtle populations.

A. Establish a statistical sampling program which considers

the various fishing industries, their localities, and

their seasons of activity.

B. Monitor capture rates of sea turtles.

113

C Consider the possibility and reliability of voluntary

self -monitoring, such as incidental catch logs, as op-

posed to the mandatory placement of observers on-board

fishing vessels.

1413. Conduct aerial survey where feasible.

Concentrations of' nearshore loggerhea ds may be quantifiable

with aerial surveys in areas where turbidity of the water is

low. Other methods such as SCUBA and net capture can be

considered.

A. Investigate the application of various surveys methods

for monitoring nearshore stocks in selected areas.

B. Assess nearshore stocks by aerial survey, where feasible.

1421. Assess aerial and other methodologies and iTplement if feas-

ible.

Loggerheads are distributed across the western North Atlantic,

particularly the area of U.S. jurisdiction which includes the

continental shelf eastward to the Gulf Stream. The distri-

bution of turtles within this area is not uniform, however,

and much work remains to be done before shelf aerial surveys

can provide quantitative data.

A. Continue current investigations into offshore aerial

surveys as a quantitative sampling technique, including

behavioral studies to determine the surface/ submergence

time ratios of sea turtles.

B. Assess offshore stocks by aerial survey, if feasible.

114
Loggerhead Implementation Schedule

Plan Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priorities

111111 Manage beaches FWS SCA, NPS, U, PI, 3
DOD, NASA, CG

111211 Regulate Petro- FWS PWRC, USCG, SCA, 2
.chemical Industry EPA, I, MMS

111221 Regulate Beach FWS SCA, CZM, COE, 1
Disturbance and LG, NPS, EPA
Manipulations

111222 Educate Beach Users FWS SCA, NPS, SG, U, 2
CG, LG

11211 Nest Protection FWS SCA, NPS, U, DOD9 1
PL, NASA, CG, LG

11311 International Agreements FWS DS, CG, NMFS 4

11321 Law Enforcement FWS SCA, USC, NPS 2
NMFS, USCG

1211 Determine Productivity FWS SCA, NPS, U, PL, 1
DOD, NASA, CG

1221 Mark Adult Females FWS/NMFS SCA, NPS, U, PL, 1, 3*
DOD, NASA, CG

1222 Count Nests FWS SCA, NPS, U, PL, 1
DOD, NASA, CG

1311111 Cold-Stunning NMFS SCA, U9 CG, LG, 3
FWS, NPS, NASA

131121 Regulate Sea-Floor NMFS COE, SCA, MMS, 1 3
Disturbance CZM9 CEQ

13121 Regulate Industrial NMFS COE, MMS, CZM, EPA, 2
Dumping USCG, CEQ, U, I, SCA

13211 International NMFS DS, CG, FWS .3
Agreements

132211 Regulate Fishing NMFS FI, SCA, CG, FWS 1
Methodology

1322111 Educate Fishing NMFS SCA, SG, U, FI, CG I
Industry

132231 Regulate Boat NMFS SCA, LG, USCG 4
Speed

*Long-term tagging studies are #1 priority. New tagging programs lower
(0) priority.

115

Plan Section Lead Agenc Cooperators Priorities

132241 Draghead & Water NMFS COE, SCA, I, DOE 3
Intakes

1411 Monitor Standings NMFS & FWS SCA, CG, U, PI, NPS, I
DOD, NASA, LG, USCG

1412 Monitor Incidental NMFS & FWS I, -U 2
Captures

1413 Conduct Surveys NMFS & FWS USCG' MMS, 11 3

1421 Asses Survey NMFS U, MMS, USCG, FWS 3
Methodologies

Priorities: 1=highest, 2=high, 3=moderate, 4=low

116

DEFINITIONS

FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service SG = Sea Grant

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service U = Universities

DOD = Department of Defense CG = Conservation Groups

MMS = Minerals Management Service I = Industry

COE = Army Corps of Engineers LG = Local Governments

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Admin. FI = Fishing Industry

USCG = United States Coast Guard PI = Private Individuals

NPS = National Park Service

CEQ = Council on Environmental Quality

DS = Department of State.

PWRC = Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

USC = United States Customs Service

DOE = Department of Energy

SCA = State Conservation Agencies

CZM = Coastal Zone Management

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

117

Explanatory note for nesting distribution maps and tables:

1. Density symbols on maps are based on data through

1980. Additional years of data were added to tables

where possible.

2. Densities which are defined as nests/km on maps

should be interpreted as nests/km year. Densities

which are defined as Density km in tables should

also be interpreted as nest/km year.

TABLE 1. MARYLAND - VIRGINIA
Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks
Assateague NS, Md. 1977 32 32 1 1 0.03 Chincoteague NWR, Ayles,
Prog. Rpt. #11

1978 32 32 0 1 0.03 Florschutz

1979 32 32 0 1 0.03 If
Chincoteague NWR, Va. 1975 16 16 2 2 0.13 Chincoteague NWR, Appel,
Prog. Rpt. #7 & #11

1976 16 16 0 1 0.06 Florschutz

1977 16 16 0 1 0.06

1978 16 16 0 1 0.06

1979 16 16 0 1 0.06

1980 18 15 0 0 0.00 Chincoteague NWR, Ayles
Wallops Island, Va. 1975 a 8 1 1 0.13 Chincoteague@ NWR, Appel,
Prog. Rpt. #7 & #11

1976 8 8 0 1 0.13 Florschutz

1977 8 8 0 1 0.13 It

1978 8 8 0 1 0.13 is

1979 8 8 1 1 0.13 Chincoteague NWR, Ayles
Prog. Rpt. #11

1980 8 8 0 0 0.00 Chincoteague NWR, Ayles
Paramore Island, Va. 1979 13 13 1 2 0.15 Nature Conservancy, Truitt,
Florschutz, VIMS

1980 13 13 0 0 0.00 Nature Conservancy-
Hennessey, Vims-Byles

Table 1 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Other Va. Banks owned 1979 63 8 0 4 0.06 Florschutz, Nature
by Nature Conservancy Conservancy

1980 63 63 0 0 0.00 Nature Conservancy,
Hennessey, VIMS, Byle5
weekly aerial surveys

Back Bay NWR, Va. 1976 7 7 1 1 0.14 Refuge Files, Holland, Prog.
including Fisherman Rpt. #8,9,10 & 11, Florschut
Island NWR

1977 7 7 0 1 0.14 Refuge Files, Holland, Prog.
Rpt. #9,10 & 11, Florschutz

1978 7 7 0 1 0.14 Refuge Files, Bond, Prog.
Rpt. #10 & 11, Florschutz

1979 7 7 1 1 0.14 Refuge Files, Bond, Prog.
Rpt. #11

1980 9h 8 1 1 0.13 Back Bay NWR, Bond &
Poetter

False Cape St. Park, 1977 9 9 0 1 0.11 Florschutz
Virginia

1978 9 9 0 1 0.11

1979 9 9 1 1 0.11 Prog. Rpt. #11, Bond

1980 9 9 0 0 0.00 Back Bay NWR, Bond &
Poetter, VIMS

TABLE 2. NORTH CAROLINA
Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Currituck Banks, Va. 1979 74 74 1 3 0.04 N.C. WRC Aerial Census,
Line to CHNS Schwartz, Florschutz

1980 74 74 0 1 0.01 FWS, Crouse-WRC aerial
survey *

Cape Hatteras National 1977 99 99 11 11 0.11 Shabica, NPS
Seashore (Whale Bone
Junction to Ocracoke 1978 99 99 12 12 0.12 N.C. WRC Aerial Survey
Inlet excluding Pea Shabica, NPS
Island NWR) 1979 99 99 11 11 0.11 N.C. WRC Aerial Survey
Shabica, NPS

1980 99 99 15 25 0.25 Crouse-WRC,* Florschutz

Pea Island NWR 1971 21 21 1 5 0.05 Refuge Files, N.F. Williamson,
Jr., Turtle Transplant Study
Prog. Rpt. #3

1972 21 21 9 10 0.48 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.#4

1973 21 21 5 7 0.33 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.#5

1974 21 21 2 4 0.19 FWS Pefuge tiles, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.#6

1975 21 21 7 10 0.48 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.#7

1976 21 21 8 10 0.48 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.#8

1977 21 21 5 7 0.33 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.#9

1978 21 21 7 10 0.48 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt. #10

Table 2 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Reference and Remarks

1979 21 21 9 9 0.43 FWS Refuge Files, Turtle
Transplant Study Prog. Rpt.
#11, Mike Elkins

1980 21 21 12 12 0.57 Crouse-WRC,* NWR** Hight

Core Banks North, CLNS 1978 39 0 1 25 0.64 NPS, Hoggard, Florschutz

1979 39 39 24 30 0.77 NPS, Hoggard

1980 39 39 5 7 0.18 Crouse-WRC,* NPS,** Florschutz

Core Banks South, 1978 23 7 4 20 0.87 NPS, Hoggard. Florschutz
excluding Cape Lookout,
CLNS 1979 30 30 19 24 0.80 to

1980 30 30 11 15 0.50 Crouse-WRC,* NPS,** Florschutz

Cape Lookout, CLNS 1978 6k 6h 23 25 3.85 NPS, Hoggard, Stoneburner

1979 10h 10k 23 23 2.19 to

1980 10h 10h 30 30 2.86 NPS,* Crouse-WRC*

Shackleford Banks, 1978 14h 0 0 5 0.34 NPS, Hoggard, Florschutz
CLNS
1979 14h 14h 6 8 0.55 NPS, Hoggard

1980 14k 14h 4 6 0.41 Crouse-WRC,* NPS, Florschutz

Bogue Banks 1975 39 39 6 6 0.15 Schwartz

1976 39 39 12 12 0.31

1977' 39 39 6 6 0.15 .0

1978 39 39 8 8 0.21 N.C. WRC Aerial Survey,
Schwartz

1979 39 39 8 10 0.26 .4

1980 39 39 14 14 0.36 Schwartz

Table 2 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Bear & Brown Islands 1975 11 11 23 30 2.73 Hammocks Beach State Park,
Schwartz, Camp Lejeune

1976 11 11 35 42 3.82 Hammocks Beach State Park,
Schwartz, Camp Lejeune

1977 11 11 43 50 4.55 Hammocks Beach State Park,
Schwartz, CaMD Lejeune

1978 11 11 22 37 3.36 Hammocks Beach State Park,
Schwartz, Camp Lejeune

1979 11 11 62 62 5.64 Hammocks Beach State Park,
Schwartz, Camp Lejeune

1980 11 11 38 60 5.45 State Parks," USMC,**
Crouse-WRC

Onslow Beach 1974 ilk 6h 54 54 8.31 Camp Lejeune, Wooten,
Schwartz

1975 ilk 6h 45 45 6.92 Camp Lejeune, Wooten,
Schwartz

1976 ilk 64 23 23 3.54 Camp Lejeune, Wooten,
Schwartz

1977 Ilk 6h 21 21 3.23 Camp Lejeune, Wooten,
Schwartz

1978 Ilk Ilk 35 40 3.48 Camp Lejeune, Peterson,
Schwartz

1979 Ilk Ilk 52 57 4.96 Camp Lejeune, Peterson,
Schwartz

1980 ilk ilk 64 64 5.57 Camp Lejeune, USMC
Beach Police, Schwartz, USMC

Table 2 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Topsail Island 1975 35 13 2 10 0.77 Surf City & New Topsail
Beach Police, Schwartz, USMC

1976 35 13 6 10 0.77 Surf City & New Topsail

1977 35 35 18 21 0.60 Surf City & New Topsail
Beach Police, Schwartz, USMC

1978 35 35 22 22 0.63

1979 35 35 12 12 0.34 Surf City & New Topsail
Beach Police, Schwartz, USMC

1980 35 35 0 35 1.00 Crouse-WRC,* Florschutz

New Topsail Inlet to 1975 38 A 1 2 1.33 Schwartz, USMC
Carolina Beach Inlet
1976 39 A 0 2 1.33

1977 38 A 0 2 1.33

1978 38 13, 0 2 1.33

1979 38 A 0 2 1.33

1980 38 38 0 35 0.92 Crouse-WRC,* Florschutz

Carolina Beach Inlet 1977 20 3 1 2 0.67 N.C. Marine Resources
to Corncake Inlet Center, Schwartz

1978 20 3 2 0.67 11

1979 20 3 2 0.67 It

1980 20 20 0 6 0.30 Crouse-WRC,* Florschutz

Table 2 continued

- Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference jnd Remarks

Baldhead Island 1977 10 4 9 16 4.00 Baldhead Corp., McPherson,
(Smith Island) Schwartz

1978 10 4 13 20 5.00

1979 10 4 13 20 5.00

1980 13 13 72 86 6.62 Crouse-WRC,*
Cape Fear River to 1977 21 5 4 6 1.20 Long Beach Police Dept.,
Lockwood Folly Inlet Schwartz

1978 21 5 4 6 1.20

1979 21 5 4 6 1.20

1980 21 21 0 28 1.33 Crouse-WRC*, Florschutz
Holden Beach 1977 12 0 0 0 0.00 Kinlaw, Johnson, Schwartz
(Lockwood Folly Inlet
to Shallotte Inlet) 1978 12 0 0 0 0.00

1979 12 0 0 0 0.00

1980 12 12 0 11 0.92 Crouse-WRC*, Florschutz
Shallotte Inlet to 1977 14h 2 3 5 1.43 Ocean Isle Beach Shrimp
Little River House, Schwartz, Worthington
(S. C. Line)

1978 1A A 3 5 1.43

1979 14h A 3 5 1.43

1980 14h 14@ 0 12 1.14 Crouse-WRC*, Florschutz

Aerial surveys by N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm. Flown 2-3 times a week for 25 flights. All crawls were recorded and ground
truth determined approximately one half the crawls resulted in nests (Crouse). This ratio,was used on all beaches in N.C. which were
not ground truthed.

Beaches which had ground truth for aerial surveys.

125

PTZ-,

NESTING
0.25
DENSITIES
lLoggerheadsl

%
T Y R E L L'
R E

0.38

OL15

c- H_

..........

A *0.53

LEGEND
an LESS THAN I NEST/Km.
N -10

0-25
25-30

50-100

100-200

OVER 200

N.C.
@E

'o"L

tell.
ac ille
tier
0
11 ney let
P.dg'Ij n. Creek
.p
NESTING I Let
In/.
DKIVI'SITIES
u 4@ R- I I' MOO- E3
H,11, &Ofll Sw'mP
Loggerheads] St H 8 it,- I\I, h,d,,ck ACIe
% dg
nt.n Edzecombe nd.ng
'C.' ky P.. V. . 4.3
L n 10 S.'f City 44
'ks 21 Woodside I
_CZ Point
C. ; , it-
5.1
lbo, -f
"
st d opsad i3each 0
7
p
he el" d I'll, "lyn
CcIn, A is e.
AL
ay uk 'h Inf.,
c Met,.
aw
Let.
@S 0.69
IN b- to
light"ille Beech
iii-le P
k vl- -nb- In'.'
nboro
y
Wnnabo. 1, G-1

M.11 C ... h
rl.. 0 1.3
A@h K
P-G-@@
3
.lmis 8 ... h
-d
flng Sty,
!t.n Re-h
d KuIe Revc N
al S-Y Alli
0.58
--I e W.,
"I., Ft C.
Ws B-I,
ith I
G 4

0.92 1.2
1.4
5.2

0
SCAL E 1: 500, 000

Table 3. SOUTH CAROLINA
Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Grand Strand 76* 71.0 71.0 - 0.7 Stancyk unpub. aerial
survey

77** 71.0 71.0 - - 0.2

78*** 71.0 71.0 - - 0.3

Debidue Island 76 7.1 7.1 - - 6.1

77 7.1 7.1 - - 3.5

78 7.1 7.1 - - 5.8

North Island 76* 13.5 13.5 - - 21.0

77 13.5 9.0 79 100 11.1 Hopkins et al. 1978

78*** 13.5 13.5 - - 9.5 see Stancyk above

Sand Island 76* 4 4 - - 31.3 includes South Island

77 4 3 163 200 66.7 Hopkins et al. 1978

78 4 3 247 260 86.7 Hopkins et al. 1981

79 4 3 252 275 91.7 of

80 4 3 150 175 58.3 Hopkins unpub. ground survey

81 4 3 272 300 100.0

82 4 3 239 250 83.3

Table 3 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Reference and Remarks

South Island 76* 5 5 - - 31.3 see Stancyk above
includes Sand Island

77 4 3 91 91 30.3 Hopkins et al. 1978

78 4 3 163 163 54.3 Hopkins et al. 1981

79 4 3 123 123 41.0

80 4 3 133 133 44.3 Hopkins unpub. ground survey

81 4 3 162 170 56.7

82 4 3 ill 115 38.3

Cedar Island 76* 4.3 4.3 - - 27.9 Stancyk unpub. aerial
77 4.3 4.3 - - 23.0 11 - ground survey
78 4.3 4.3 - - 25.8 it - ground survey
Murphy Island 76* 9.0 9.0 - - 9.0 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 9.0 9.0 - - 3.9 01

78*** 9.0 9.0 - - 8.6

Cape Island 75 8.0 8.0 1248 2654 331.7 G. Garris, Cape Romain NWR
ground survey

76 8.0 8.0 907 2359 294.9

77 8.0 8.0 352 1329 166.1

78 8.0 8.0 580 1596 198.3

79 8.0 8.0 1093 1093 136.6

80 8.0 8.0 856 856 107.0

81 8.0 8.0 1043 1043 130.4

82 &0 8.0 1087 1087 135.9

Table 3 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Raccoon Key 75 9.0 9.0 20 80 8.9

76 9.0 9.0 25 100 11.1

77 9.0 9.0 22 88 9.8

78 9.0 9.0 36 109 12.1

79 9.0 9.0 23 206 22.9 It

80 9.0 9.0 26 104 11.5 11

81 9.0 9.0 35 140 15.6 it

82 9.0 9.0 24 102 11.3 It

Bulls Island 75 10.5 10.5 28 85 8.1 G. Garris, Cape Romain NWR
ground survey

76 10.5 10.5 30 90 8.6 1.

77 10.5 10.5 20 60 5.7

78 10.5 10.5 28 55 5.3

79 10.5 10.5 7 25 2.4

80 10.5 10.5 15 45 4.3

81 10.5 10.5 30 80 7.6

82 10.5 10.5 27 77 7.3

Capers Island 76* 5.2 5.2 - - 1.2 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 5.2 5.2 - - 1.5

78*** 5.2 5.2 - - 5.6

Oewees Island 76* 4.0 4.0 - - 1.9

77** 4.0 4.0 - - 0.7

78*** 4.0 4.0 - - 2.3

Table 3 continued

- Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Isle of Palms 76* 10.0 10.0 - 0.9

77** 10.0 10.0 - - 0.2

78*** 10.0 10.0 - - 2.1

Sullivan's Island 76* 6.3 6.3 - - 0.0

77** 6.3 6.3 - - 0.0

78*** 6.3 6.3 - - 0.0

Morris Island 76* 5.4 5.4 - - 0.9

77** 5.4 5.4 - - 0.9

78*** 5.4 5.4 - - 0.9

Folly Beach 76* 10.4 10.4 - - 0.2

77** 10.4 10.4 - - 0.0

78*** 10.4 10.4 - - 0.7

Kiawah Island 72 15.8 15.8 - - 12.4 Talbert et al. 1980
ground survey

73 15.8 15.8 - - 12.3

74 15.8 15.8 - - 12.9

75 15.8 15.8 - - 8.5

76 15.8 15.8 - - 2.4

77 15.8 111; 8 39. - 2.4 Kiawah Is. Corp. unpub.

78 15.8 15.8 55 - 3.4

79 16.4 16.4 82 - 5.2

80 16.4 16.4 84 - 5.3

81 16.4 16.4 165 175 10.7

82 16.4 16.4 141 150 9.2

Table 3 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Seabrook 76* 5.6 5.6 - - 1.9 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 5.6 5.6 - - 1.0

78*** 5.6 5.6 - - 5.5

Oeveaux Bank 76* 4.0 4.0 - - 0.8

77** 4.0 4.0 - 0.4

78*** 4.0 4.0 - - 0.7

Botany Bay Island 76* 7.2 7.2 - - 10.5

77** 7.2 7.2 - - 3.5

78*** 7.2 7.2 - - 14.0

81 7.2 4.3 114 127 29.5 Starck & Mundell unpub.
ground sur,.ey

82 7.2 4.3 120 120 27.9 10

Eddingsville Beach 76* 2.9 2.9 - - 10.1 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 2.9 2.9 3.8

78*** 2.9 2.9 - - 15.4

81 2.9 2.4 55 65 27.1 Starck & Mundell unpub.
ground survey

Edisto Beach 76* 8.2 8.2 - - 6.2 Stancyk et al. 1979

77** 8.2 8.2 2.0

78*** 8.2 8.2 - - 4.7

81 8.2 2.1 40 55 26.2 Starck & Mundell unpub.
ground survey

82 8.2 8.2 140 180 22.0

Table 3 continued

- Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks
Pine Island 78*** 4.1 4.1 - - 2.3 Stancyk unpub. aerial

Otter Island 76* 4.3 4.3 - - 14.7

77** 4.3 4.3 - - 10.4

78*** 4.3 4.3 - - 20.6

Harbor/Hunting Island 76* 9.0 9.0 - - 3.9

77** 9.0 9.0 - - 3.1

78*** 9.0 9.0 - - 7.6

81 9.0 6.0 89 100 16.7 Reed unpub. ground survey

82 9.0 6.0 ill 115 19.2
Fripp Island 76* 6.0 6.0 - 7.4 Stancyk unpub. aerial
77** 6.0 6.0 3.4

78*** 6.0 6.0 - - 5.8

81 6.0 4.0 125 130 32.5 Smoak unpub. ground survey

82 6.0 4.0 117 120 30.0
Pritchards Island 76* 4.0 4.0 - - 18.9 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 4.0 4.0 4.0 11

78*** 4.0 4.0 - - 20.0 of

82 4.0 4.0 50 75 18.6 McCullum & Cain unpub.
ground survey
Little Capers Island 76* 4.0 4.0 - - 13.9 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 4.0 4.0 5.3

78*** 4.0 4.0 18.6

Table 3 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

St. Phillips/Bay Point 76* 6.3 6.3 - - 11.5

77** 6.3 6.3 - - 6.7

78*** 6.3 6.3 - - 18.5

Hilton Head Island 76* 29.0 29.0 - - 2.4

77** 29.0 29.0 - - 1.0

78*** 29.0 29.0 - - 2.1

81 29.0 29.0 39 50 1.7 Polk & Rupert unpub
ground survey

82 29.0 29.0 64 80 2.8

Daufuskie Island 76* 8.1 8.1 - - 0.2 Stancyk unpub. aerial

77** 8.1 8.1 - - 0.4

78*** 8.1 8.1 - - 1.7

Turtle Island 76* 4.0 4.0 - - 0.8

77** 4.0 4.0 - 0.1 it

78*** 4.0 4.0 0.2

1976--Flights on 7-8 day intervals, one observer. Ground Truth from Kiawah (daily), Capers and Dewees (weekly), and Cape Island
(Refuge staff). Counted all visible tracks.

Estimated nests tracks with Body Pits) x (% Body Pits that were Nests (1977-1978) x (inverse of % of Ground Truth Nests
spotted from air).

**1977--Flights every 5 days, two observers. First half of season, resumed 1976 methods (counted all visible tracks, distinguish
between Body Pits and False Crawls). Second half of season, counted only fresh tracks, relied oe@-tirely on Cedar and Cape Ground
Truth for N/False crawl ratio.

Estimated nests = (# tracks seen during summer) x (% Ground Truth tracks that were nests) x (inverse of % of total Ground Truth
tracks spotted from the air). Two halves of season computed separately due to change in technique.
***1978--Flight every 4 days, two'observers. Counted fresh tracks only, no separation of N and false crawls. N/False ratios from
daily Cedar/Cape Ground Truth. Equation as noted above.

E
N MA ION
-NESTING @11
NA IONAL, FO E
DENSITIES
fLoggerheadsi

CAPE ROMAIN
BAY W V
ILDLIFE REF 6
W. 8@
C,.k
R M.,th ... t Pt

Pyk. 1.1.9
0 5 10 20mi. Island
C-Pers InW
SCALE =1:500,000 D-s Island
De-es Inlef 5.7
* 2.8

El .... ... a.
S_fO' C"". P 01.6

OHNS
Inhu 1.1 (isle of PaIrT
.-,is IM
IS A
w Is NO oily Isla *o.o (Sullivans is.)
0 0.9
- .,3 Sandy Ist
* 0.3
abmk
Island
0 Is
09.7
RT OYAL o2.8
n Wand ST HELENA
IS AN gOR SOUND 0.6 L
C 0
0170(Botany Bay Isl.)
LESS THAN I
122. 14.1(Eddingsville Bch.)
v "P Island 1-10
Fripp 11, 2.3 (Pine Is.)
10-25
PORT RO@A
Pit 15.2 (Otter Is)
'\SOUVD 1 25-50
Wd. 1.1.1 10. 1
\0 15.8(Fripp Is)
t A,4 I, It TO 50-100
ou
Is
Isla
\0 14.3(Prichards)
,DL,rE PFFU S.C.
10 12.6 (Lit. Capers Is) t 100-200
B -,dv P@ 1.8 12.2 (-St. Phillips/ Bay Pt . Is)
Island 0.8 Woufuskie Is) OVER 200
0.4
J)

135

NESTING
DENSITIES
1 39-
fLoggerheadsi
9

1 13

.38
SPA N

BRITTON
ECK

I)NT_ m

51A

261 ce

0
Carv rs
0.4

a.
LEGEND

51 LESS THAN I
1-10

eto
'20" 10-25
rnpit R
17 Ito *5.1 25-50
701 North Inlet
Quau
CAT - z 013.9 50-100
ISLAA: D
100-200
-075.8
W (Sand Is)
U San ie Pt 042.5 OVER 200
025.6
Cape
Island

SEE
Romain NEXT MAP S,C,

0 5 10
SCALE =1.500,000

TABLE 4. GEORGIA
Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Tybee Island 77 5.7 5.7 1* .5** Hillestad et al. 1977
I aerial survey

Little Tybee Island 77 9.0 9.0 11", 3** it

Wassaw Island 74 10.6 10.6 77 7 FWS unpub.

75 10.6 10.6 56 5

76 10.6 10.6 56 5 It

77 10.6 10.6 76 7 to

78 10.6 10.6 64 6 It

79 10.6 10.6 54 5

80 10.6 10.6 50 5 it

Pine and Little 77 3.8 3.8 7* 5** See Hillestad above
Wassaw Island

Raccoon Key 77 1.8 1.8 36* 55**

Ossabaw Island 74 18.8 14.2 86*** 6 Ossabaw Island Found. unpub.

75 18.8 7.9 29*** 4

76 18.8

77 18.8 14.2 86*** 6

78 18.8 14.2 106*** 7

79 18.8 14.2 124*** 9

80 18.8 7.9 55*** 7
St. Catherine Isla@d 77 21.2 21.2 29* 4** See Hillestad above

Table 4 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Blackbeard Island 68 12.4 12.4 172 14 FWS unpub.

69 12.4 12.4 221 18

70 12.4 12.4 210 17

71 12.4 12.4 226 18

72 12.4 12.4 17.1 14 it

73 12.4 12.4 105 8 is

74 12.4 12.4 162 13 it

75 12.4 12.4 186 15

76 12.4 12.4 149 12

77 12.4 12.4 231 19

78 12.4 12.4 202 16 It

79 12.4 12.4 195 16 11

.Sapelo Island 77 9.8 9.8 16* - 5** Hillestad et ;al. 1977
aerial survey

Wolf Island 77 5.7 5.7 18* - 9**

Little St. Simons 77 11.4 11.4 23* - 6**

Sea Island 77 9.7 9.7 8* - 2**

St. Simons Island 77 6.6 6.6 0* - 0** It

-@j

Table 4 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Jekyll Island 72 14.7 4.2 - 127*** 30 Coastal Audubon Society unpub.

73 14.7 4.2 - 70*** 17

74 14.7 4.2 - 106*** 25

75 14.7 4.2 - 74*** 18

76 14.7 4.2 59*** 14

77 14.7 4.2 53*** 13

78 14.7 . 2 38*** 9

79 14.7 4.2 78*** 19

Little Cumberland 70 5.9 5.9 146*** 25 Little Cumberland Island
Association, unpub.

71 5.9 5.9 192*** 33

72 5.9 5.9 247*** 42

73 5.9 5.9 118*** 20

74 5.9 5.9 120*** 20

75 5.9 5.9 137*** 23

76 5.9 5.9 103*** 18

77 5.9 5.9 106*** 18

78 5.9 5.9 143*** 24

79 5.9 5.9 23

80 5.9 5.9 105*** 18

U.)
00

Table 4 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km MonlLured Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Reference and Remarks

Cumberland Island 74 29.8 8.1 144' 18 National Park Service unpub.

75 29.8 8.1 148*** 19

76 29.8 8.1 120*** 15

77 29.8 8.1 97*** 12

78 29.8 8.1 215*** 27

79 29.8 8.1 173*** 22

so 29.8 8.1 142*** 18

so 29.8 29.8 234 8 Nat. Park Serv. unpub.

*Nest counts are summed over 14 flights, flown on 3 day intervals (26 June - 31 July).

**Density = (aerial density)/.57 The figure of .57 is derived by comparing aerial counts to ground truth on Wassaw, Blackbeard,
and Little Cumberland Islands.

***Estimated nests (turtles observed) (1.9 nests/turtle)

140

61 e. .... .
NESTING
lk @'�rft&
DENSITIES
*0.5 (Tybee Is.)
1:ji 7A
[Loggerheadsl

R.-... "t Wit-. 3 (Little Tybee Is.)
v SkidaWa@
So""'
-0
K
5.7
molh So nd
zz
*z * 5 (Pine Ek Little Wassaw)
T
.5 Do chesw@
Sunbury Is4rid 55 (Raccoon Key)
,W.1 ho-Ile
G or
R. a`b
N 65.5
S1 atherines Sound
.at 14
71.

T
N-,
South 13,
Ne.oort z
4
lima

To-send
@@apeifo Sound
N
\0n /",c .....
C I T" 1
C 15
co
Sivew alan
t Everett
5
OL
R1 V&E NA:.ItL@@GE
R
0 9
hamaha Sound
-arm
I

.-h
r,. Fo 6 Lit. St Simons)
it
v LEGEND
2
t Sinnonit ISland it
LESS THAN I NEST/Krn.
0 1-10
6 10-25
'x
w
hit. Oa
:@h 7,@ %
25-50
LA RIY@ ' 'r@ , -1
St A 18
4 I'd, Sound
W-d
C 50-100
D E-W. 24(Lit.
Cumb.)
100-200
18.7
C'00.d 11-11 - 11
8
K,ng,l,nd OVER 200

ary

Ga.

0 5 10 201ri
SCALE = 1: 500,000

TABLE 5. FLORIDA
Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Little Talbot Island 79 8 8 32 32 4 Fla. DNR 1979

80 8 8 32 32 4 Fla. ONR 1980

Fort Matanzas 80 0.8 0.8 3 3 3.6

Volusia County 80 8.0 8.0 392 392 49 " (D. Stoneburner)

Cape Canaveral 75 50 8.0 - 254 31.8 " (L. Ehrhart)

76 50 34 - 1350 39.7

77 50 34 - 1285 37.8

78 50 34 - 2232 65.8

79 50 34 - 2674 53.5

80 50 50 1261 1624 32.5

Port Canaveral to 80 21 21 265 265 12.6 Fritts pars. comm.*
Patrick AFB
82 27 27 - 459 17 L. Ehrhart pars. comm."

Patrick AFB to 80 19.3 19.3 670 670 34.7 Fritts pars. comm.*
Melbourne Beach
82 13 13 - 1677 129 L.Ehrhart pars. comm."

Melbourne Beach to 80 23 23 2951 2951 128 Fritts pars. comm.*
Sebastian Inlet
82 20 20 4425 8980 449 L. Ehrhart pars. comm.**

Indian River and 80 36.8 36.8 726 - f R. Witham pars. comm.
St. Lucie Counties

Hutchinson Island 75 36.3 11.25 1490 4808 132.5 Applied Biology, 1979

77 36.3 11.25 930 3001 82.7

79 36.3 11.25 1449 4676 128.8

80 36.3 5.0 528 - 105.6 Fla. DNR 1980

Table 5 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks

Hobe Sound NWR 75 6.4 6.4 894 - 139.7 Hobe Sound NWR unpub.

76 6.4 6.4 1058 - 165.3

77 6.4 6.4 962 - 150.3

78 6.4 6.4 1029 - 160.8

79 6.4 6.4 1316 - 205.6

80 6.4 5.6 1104 - 197.1 Fla. DNR, 1980
Jupiter Island 79 12.3 12.3 2086 - 169.6 Lund and White unpub.

80 12.3 12.3 2194 2394 194.6 1.

Juno Beach 79 1.6 1.6 295 184.3 Fla. DNR 1979

80 1.6 1.6 384 - 240.0 Fla. ONR 1980

Lost Tree Village 80 2.8 2.8 189 67.5 It

Highland Beach so 4.5 4.5 511 112.3 It

Boca Raton 77 4.2 4.2 238 56.7 Wagner, 1978
78 4.2 4.2 335 79.9 Wagner, 1979

79 4.2 4.2 452 88.8 Fla. ONR, 1980

80 4.2 3.2 127 39.7

Broward County 78 37 19 352 538 28.3 Fletemeyer, 1979

79 37 36 654 1086 30.0 11

80 37 37 555 888 24.6 Fla. ONR,.1980

Miami Beach 80 16.1 16.1 10 10 0.62

Key Biscayne 80 5.0 2.4 67 67 13.4 Tropical Audubon 1980
Fla. DNR, 1980

Table 5 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density K Reference and Remarks

Everglades National 72 56.5 56.7 1644 29.0 Davis & Whiting, 1977
Park (Cape Sable)

73 56.7 56.7 1068 - 18.8

Cape Romano 75 4.8 4.8 35 35 7.3 Caretta Research, Inc. unpub.

76 4.8 4.8 45 45 9.4 11

Naples Beach 75 6.4 6.4 30 30 4.7 Caretta Research, Inc. unpub.

76 6.4 6.4 35 35 5.5
7@ 6.4 6.4 38 38 5.79

78 6.4 6.4 40 40 6.3

79 6.4 6.4 55 55 8.9

Vanderbilt Beach 75 8 8 35 35 4.4

76 8 8 30 30 3.8

77 8 8 45 45 5.6

78 8 8 38 38 4.8

79 8 8 45 45 5.6

Bonito Beach 75 9.7 9.7 40 40 4.1

76 9.7 9.7 44 44 4.5

77 9.7 9.7 32 32 3.3

78 9.7 9.7 40 40 4.1

79 9.7 9.7 52 52 5.4

Wiggins Pass 80 13.4 13.4 22 22 1.6 Fla. DNR, 1980
Cayo Costa 79 8.0 6.4 12 12 1.9 Fla. DNR, 1979

80 8.0 8.0 19 19 2.4 Fla. DNR, 1980

Table 5 continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Km Reference and Remarks
Sanibel Island 75 18.5 17.7 120 120 6.8 Caretta Research, Inc. unpub.

76 18.5 17.7 100 100 5.7

77 18.5 17.7 90 90 5.1

78 18.5 17.7 115 115 6.5

79 18.5 17.7 86 86 4.9 It

80 18.5 18.5 65 65 3.5 11

Manasota Key 75 16.1 16.1 150 150 9.3 It

76 16.1 16.1 160 160 9.9

77 16.1 16.1 140 140 8.7

78 16.1 16.1 150 150 9.3

79 16.1 16.1 180 180 11.2

80 16.3 11.3 80 80 7.1 Fla. DNR, 1980
Casey Key 75 6.4 6.4 32 32 5.0 Caretta Research, Inc. unpub.

76 6.4 6.4 63 63 9.8

77 6.4 6.4 37 37 5.8

78 6.4 6.4 46 46 7.2

79 6.4 6.4 50 50 7.8 Fla. DNR, 1979
80 6.4 6.4 56 56 8.7 Fla. DNR, 1980
Longboat Key 79 5.8 5.8 15 15 2.6 Fla. DNR, 1979
80 5.8 5.8 17 17 3.0 Fla. DNR, 1980
St. Vincent N.W.R. 79 -11.3 11.3 16 16 1.4 Fla. ONR, 1979
80 11.3 11.3 6 6 0.5 Fla. DNR, 1980

Table 5 continued

Survey every two weeks.

Survey for 28 days only in July.

Estimate for 17 May to 23 August 1982.

146
NESTING
DENSITIES
lLoggerheadsl
4 (Little Talbot is)

Ns' LEGEND
stj
LESS THAN I NEST/Km.
1-10

10-25

25-50

lo 50-100

100-200

OVER 200

R N

d Be"

WCO s 1 0 '0

49 (South Volustio0o.)

Cape
Carmeral
043.5

C- B-h
Fla.
017
Patrick
AFB
0 4491

147

449
Melbourne
Beach NES=G
DENSIMS
I Loggwheads I

NO ESTIMATE

1112-4 Fk.

169B (H*e SwW
(T
A R @T NWR)
182(Jupiter W
I A I
N

212(Juno Bch.)

675 (Lost Tree
Village)

C H

112.3

66.3
(Booo Rolon)

B\ R 0- ._w A R -OZ76 LEGEND
FORT
LAUDEP LE LESS THAN I /km.
1-10

10-25
cam 25-50

50-100

4# CL6
4@0 0 100-200
OVER 200

013.4
4i

A E

Mdo
OfF RT
0
LAU'p

v s ATI AL A
NESTING
DENSITIES
I Loggerhea& I
E=.1jes
N fok 23.90
(Cape Sable)
-.4-T ;
t, *A'T

LEGEND

2 LESS THAN I/ Ion.
1-10 46,,__q . ... . .. J.
.1 %6 , 01
10-25 AATAAA

25-50 "EAT rm

50-100

At ID
100-200 i .-
\77 - --- ----
F
OVER 200

smi Tsmoft

149

.20
FIretl Myers Estero
Beach
Estero Island NESTING

Co onut
0- -DENSITIES
(Bonito 4.3 0 Bo ita Springs_
(Log&ft
6,erheadsl
Beach)

Naples r

. . ....................
0 , N
41 u
(Vanderbi It 4. 8
Beach) 6.30 ap S. E st Naples

Gordo Pass

.5
6 2 8 29 eronne
Mal 27 'N r4AflAA#l 30
Copeland

cho ee

G I N 0 29 v
BAY Evq17fRffa5'!es
Cape Romano
8.4 0 kee

LEGEND

-o
LESS THAN 1/km. Paviliofi,@7,
A
1-10
0
10-25 Cb
25-50 Lostoops
0 50-100 Key
McLau
Highlan\d Pt
100-200 Fla.

OVER 200

0 5 10 20mi.
SCALE 1:500,000

150

McGill Island
PASSAGE KEY E.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Anna Maria Pal @M a , 4,, NESTING
Holmes Beach t n
Bradenton Beach rte 31 -41 -DENSITIES
N Longbeach 0 co 70 Wood airK N [Loggerheadsl
h ii'l Esta Orraine
0
Braden lZ
lie ast
2.8 V3 Beverly rerrace
rasota
'Fr Atville

Sies Lake 116-akka
e i e
Sarasota Beac Coral C 72 37
Siesta Key OSP9 0 0 Fla.
8 1
R A 0
L rel
74 om

enice

th Vmice
41

ock
Harbour
LEGEND Heights
9.30 tte
ii in
LESS THAN Am. r, Englewood V
le
76 h:. A a a
h:.
h
Punta Gorda Beach Be:.
Hog 00
1-10 Island
10-25
19;1
25-50 ida
0
AND BAY
TIONAL
50-100 0asparilla Island WILDLIF'E REFUGE
Boca Grande t,@7-
0r6
100-200 GIA Bokeelie

Norl
Lacoste, Island
OVER 200
xA ptlacha

North Cap i
Islan
PINE ISLAND N R
T ' CHA PAS 5 L
NWII,
3.5 (p Ca
pe oral

C
,pt,va OM
a % Ic
San
Captiva Isan,,
St Ja4s y &atob
say
SANIBEL NArl NAL anil el
Fc rt My
0 5 10 20mi. 5.4 0 WILDLIFE RE LIGE Be@
SCALE 1:500,000 SA IBEL ISLAND Es,

151

3.2
I

GREEN TURTLE RECOVERY PLAN

152

Introduction

The green turtle ha s the unique ability among marine turtles to

digest plant material. However, the species is not strictly herbivorous

because hatchlings and yearlings are primarily carnivorous and mature

specimens eat marine animals, particularly cniderians whenever they are

available.

Atlantic green turtles are characterized by a single pair of pre-

frontal scales on the head and usually four costal scutes on the smooth

carapace. Carapace pigmentation varies among adults from light to dark

olive-brown with superimposed darker streaks, rays, and spots. Normal

carapace color for hatchlings is black. Plastron color is white to

yellowish. The body shape is generally oval, and in adults the head

appears to be somewhat small in comparison to body size. Each paddle-

shaped flipper usually has one claw.

Nesting beaches are distributed widely in tropical and subtropical

regions and as far north as the Cape Canaveral area of Florida. The

eastern limit of the nesting range is Ascension Island, and the southern

limit is apparently French Guiana. Mature turtles appear to remain

within the geographic area from the southeastern United States to

Ascension Island and Brazil. Young turtles are dispersed very widely,

and small green turtles are found from Massachusetts to the eastern

Atlantic and southward to Rio de Janeiro state in Brazil.

Turtles nest in the northernmost part of their range from June

through August (occasionally from late May through early September). In

Costa Rica, turtles nest from July to September, in Surinam from

February to July, at Aves Island from March to December, and at

Ascension Island from February to April. Courtship and mating occur in

153

the vicinity of nesting beaches and possibly enroute to nesting beaches.

As in other species of sea turtles, green turtle nesting is the most

readily observed part of the life cycle. Individuals do not usually

nest annually but on varying cycles of two, three, or four years, with

three years being the predominant cycle. Nesting occurs at night, with

an hour or more being required to complete the nesting process. Within-

season nesting frequency is variable; some individuals lay one clutch

and others lay several. Clutch size ranges from less than 100 to over

200 eggs. High energy beaches are preferred, and nesting requires sand

deep enough for deposition of eggs below one meter. Incubation times

vary greatly depending on temperature and vary from 48 to 70 days.

Mature green turtles demonstrate navigational ability by returning

to their nesting beaches. The longest known migration is from Brazil to

Ascension Island. Establishing nest site specificity may result from

natal beach imprinting or may be learned coincidentally with subadult

migrations or with nesting migrations of experienced adults already

familar with a specific beach.

Hatchling dispersal seems more likely to be a response to wave

forces and ocean currents in their subsequent movements rather than

migration.

Green turtles are considered the most palatable of all sea turtles,

and they became a prime source of meat for mariners and settlers of

colonial America. If we assume correct identification from historical
reports, the @pecies was once so abundant that one of Columbus' early

voyages reported "flotillas" of them near Grand Cayman Island. Nesting

in some areas may have been eliminated by overuse of the resource from

154

commercial harvest by fishermen. Depletion was rapid, and by 1620

Bermuda passed a law against the taking of sea turtles.

Estimates of historic population densities are made more difficult

by misidentification of species. Some early observers may have incor-

rectly associated nests and species and, thus, misidentified nesting

beaches. The most valid evidence of population declines appears from

captures of turtles by fishermen. The first such reported declines were

from Bermuda. Records show drastic declines in the Florida catch during

the late 1800's. Similar declines occurred in other areas. Current

problems for the green turtle include coastal development of nesting

beaches and other human activities, which are harmful to turtles of all

sizes.

Green turtles were listed as Threatened/Endangered under the Endan-

gered Species Act in 1978. The species is also listed in Appendix I of

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and

Fauna (CITES). In the United States the species is also protected by

state laws in coastal states. Other countries protect these turtles,

but enforcement is variable and sometimes ineffective. All of the

Atlantic green turtle populations are Threatened except those turtles

which nest on Florida beaches which are listed as Endangered.

1. Primary Objective: To prevent further declines
in green turtle stocks by
reducing limiting factors
and to effect an upward
trend In monitored stocks of
nesting females

Mitigate factors affecting 14. Assess and monitor population
terrestrial mortality and/ levels in estuaries and
or stress marine waters

12. Assess and monitor population 13. Mitigate factors affecting estuarine
levels on beaches and marine mortality and/or stress

11. Mitigate factors affecting
terrestrial mortality and/
or stress
111. Habitat alteratio] 112. Pie

1121. Natural 112 Feral

1111. Natural 1112. Man-induced

11211. Implement nest protection commensurate
with degree of predation

Sand accumulation 11112. Erosion 11113. vegetat
Toni

F111111. Manage natural beaches

11121. Pollution 11122. Development

1211. Regulate petrochemical industry 111221. Regulate lights, ORV's, foot
and bilge pumping traffic, beach cleaning equip-
ment, sea walls and rip rap, an take
groins and jetties, and beach
nourishment projects
F22. inform and educate beach
users and residents 1131. Legal take Lii-LiLgal take
11311. Promote legal protection throughout the 11321. Increase active law enforcement
range of the species by encouraging to prevent illegal harvest
protective management by means of treaties, L
conventions, or councils with other nations
11 3 1* Lega,
:
t the
g
trea ties
ti a
'h.u@
g in
-f
the na on

157

Green Stepdown Plan

Primary Objective: To prevent further declines in green turtle stocks

by reducing limiting factors and to effect an upward trend in monitored

stocks of nesting females.

11. Mitigate factors affecting terrestrial mortality and/or

stress.

111111. Manage natural beaches

Natural processes may prove to be a significant source of

mortality to nests on some beaches in the range of the green

turtle.

A. Assess the vulnerability of nests.

B. If nests sites are poor (below MHW line, on edge of

scraped dunes, in vegetation, or in swales with poor

drainage), then nests may be transferred to a better site

or a hatchery (see section 2.5).

C. Natural sand accumulation is not considered a significant

factor.

Certain forms of exotic vegetation (e.g., Casuarina) present

problems for nesting beach management. They form impenetrable

root mats which prevent nest cavity excavation.

D. Remove trees from potential nest sites on important

nesting beaches.

E. Prevent further spread by removing seed-lings and by

discouraging plantings.

111211. Regulate petrochemical industry and bilge pumping.

158

Nesting beaches are susceptible to oil spills from offshore

wells, tankers and bilge pumping.

A. Conduct research to determine effects of petrochemical

spills, clean-up methods (including detergents) and bilge

effluents on developing eggs.

B. Establish spill monitoring programs to coordinate with

agencies responsible for sea turtle management. Estab-

lish spill monitoring programs where none exist.

111221. Regulate lights, ORV's, foot traffic, beach cleaning equip-

ment, sea walls and rip rap, groins and jetties, and beach

nourishment projects.

Lights cause hatchlings to become disoriented so that they may

not reach the sea, and such lighting may discourage nesting

females.

A. Determine effects of various wavelengths, light intensi-

ties, and light screening devices on hatchling behavior.

B. Discourage use of lights on nesting beaches during the

nesting season.

C. Develop hatchling rescue contingency plans with agencies,

organizations or individuals in areas where hatchlings

are likely to be disoriented.

ORV's, foot traffic and beach cleaning equipment compact

sand, crush nests and make ruts which can trap hatchlings.

D. Restrict ORV's and beach cleaning equipment on nesting

beaches during the nesting and hatching seasons.

159

E Transfer nest to a better site or to a hatchery if pro-

tection of natural nests is impossible (See section 2.5).

Sea walls and rip rap prevent adults from nesting by destroy-

ing the dune system and eliminating access to nest sites.

F. Prohibit the construction of sea walls and rip rap on

important nesting beaches.

Groins, jetties and wave attenuation breakwaters, includ-

ing spoil areas designed for that purpose, divert cur-

rents and restrict natural sand movement. This could

alter the suitability and accessibility of nesting

beaches.

G. Careful evaluation of these effects should precede the

permitting and construction of such structures.

Beach nourishment is conducted by two means; hydrolic

pumping of sand and mechanical transfer with heavy equip-

ment. If nourishment is conducted during the nesting

season, nests will be smothered. Sand removal may be

detrimental if its source degrades adjacent suitable

nesting areas. Nourishment may create or improve nesting

beaches. However, this activity is not advocated. Sand

moving equipment to maintain artificial dunes can disrupt

existing nests or result in excessive overburden over

others.

160

H. Prohibit to the extent possible all beach nourishment

projects on nesting beaches during the nesting season.

I. Evaluate sites for sand source so to avoid detrimental

effects on the nourished and adjacent nesting beaches.

J. Determine the suitability of replacement sand for nest-

ing, and modify texture and cohesive nature, if neces-

sary.

K. If prohibition of beach nourishment is impossible relocate

eggs to a safe area or hatchery.

111222. Inform and educate beach users and residents.

(See section 2.7).

11211. Implement nest protection comensurate with the degree of pre-

dation.

Predation on nests and hatchlings varies in severity through-

out the range of the species. Research or management plans

should address specific predators and intensity of predation.

A. Quantify the nature and extent of predation on major

nesting beaches.

B. Design and implement plans to mitigate nest losses to

predators. These might include: in situ screening,

aversion conditioning, hatcheries, nest transplants or

predator reduction programs. Utilize approved nest man-

agement techniques. (See section 2.5)

11311. Promote legal protection and research throughout the range

of the species by encouraging protective management by means

of treaties, conventions or councils with other nations. (See

sections 1.2, 2.8 and 4.4).

161

11321. Increase active law enforcement to prevent illegal harvest.

At this time, Federal law enforcement efforts are strained to

cover needs throughout the range of the species. Increased

coordination with state law enforcement agencies could allevi-

ate this deficiency.

A. Determine through surveillance and undercover operations

the areas and extent of illegal eggs and turtles.

B. Schedule basic law enforcement actions (night and day

patrol, aerial patrols, cooperating patrols with other

agencies) to curtail illegal activities.

Conduct public relations campaigns with other agencies to

publicize the laws and status of turtles. (See section

162

12. Assess and monitor population
levels on beaches

121. Beach recruitment 122. Nesting and/
or nests

1211. Determine
productivity

1221. Tag or mark 1222. Count nests by aerial
adult or ground surveys

163

12. Assess and monitor turtle population levels on nesting

beaches.

1211. Determine productivity.

An important segment of the green turtle's life history is the

incubation period which begins with egg laying and ends with

the departure of the hatchlings to the sea. Unlike most of a

sea turtle's life history, the incubation period can be real-

istically monitored.

A. Establish limits for area (km of beach) and/or size

(number of marked nests) of the proposed monitoring

program (see section 2.1 -estimating hatching success).

B. Determine hatching success.

1221. Tag or mark adult females.

A tagging program.for nesting green turtles must be rigorously

defined and implemented, or the results of the program will be

of little statistical value.

A. Establish area limits and conduct survey of nesting

females (see section 2.1 - tagging programs for nesting

females).

B. Use the best available tagging technology (see section

2.2 -tagging technology).

C.@ Continue surveys for a minimum of six years.

1222. Count nests by aerial or ground surveys. (See 2.1 for Stan-

dardization of methodology).

13. Mitigat ' factors affecting estuarine
L
and marine mortality and/or stress

131. Habitat alteration 132. Human take

[131T Physical alteratt on 1312. Chemical alteratiod

F 1321. Di ected take
13111. Natura:1 13112. Man-induced
I .
131111. Cold-s____j
tunning
13121. Regulate petrochemical industry, bilge
pumping and industrial effluents

3111,11. Develop contingency plans
to prevent mortality
F 13211. Promote legal protection throughout the 1322. Incide tal and
range of the species by encouraging pro- accidental take
tective management by means of treaties,
131121. Regulate spoil dumping, oil development convention, or councils with other nations
sea floor mining, and travler-tova and
any other activities which would cause Oil
deterioration of essential habitat

F132231.Regul-te boat speed]
F_
132T]. Fixed gear and 13222. Towed gear
F p .1 F

F3224. Ent inment in ind 13225. Entrapment by J
W.trea intakes dragheads
F
32211. Regulate fishing methods,
gear, areas and seasons

1322111. Educate and inform 241. Investigate and implement
fishermen means of mitigating mortality
from dragheads and industrial
water intakes

165

13. Mitigate factors affecting estuarine and marine mortality

and/or stress.

1311111. Develop contingency plans to prevent cold-stunning mortalities

(See section 2.6).

Where cold-stunning is likely to occur, personnel and facili-

ties should be identified for the rapid rescue and holding of

turtles. Such turtles should be held for release until water

temperatures are appropriate, or they should be delivered to

a suitable area for release.

131121. Regulate spoil dumping, oil development, sea floor mining,

trawler tows and any other activities which would cause

disruption of essential habitat.

Spoil disposal and oil development, if done on grass bed

habitats, may destroy turtle feeding areas by smothering

plants with sediments or drilling muds.

A. Evaluate sites for disposal of these materials and regu-

late to avoid grass bed habitats.

Sea floor mining and trawler gear may disrupt bottom habitat,

thus destroying cover, loafing and feeding areas.

B. Locate areas of high turtle utilization that possess a

potential for alteration.

C. Regulate or prohibit these activities on essential

habitats.

D. Establish priorities for areas to be designated as

critical habitat.

166

13121. Regulate petrochemical industry, bilge pumping, and industrial

effluents.

Compounds associated with these sources of pollution could

directly affect turtles or indirectly affect them through the

food chain. These effects can be insidious and difficult to

prove, since they often result in reduced reproductive effort.

Direct mortality is also difficult to detect in the open

ocean.

A. Determine the effects of sewage and industrial

effluents, both acute and chronic, on turtles.

B. Discourage effluent dumping in estuarine and pelagic

areas of turtle utilization.

C. Encourage enforcement of provisions of Laws of the Sea

regarding oceanic pollution and dumping.

13211. Promote legal protection throughout the range of the species

by encouraging protective management by means of treaties,

conventions or councils with other nations (see Sections

1.2, 2.8 and 4.4).

132211. Regulate methods, gear, areas and seasons.

Incidental take of marine turtles during commercial fishing

activities has been identified as a cause of mortality.

A. Develop resuscitation, handling and relocation metho-

dology for incidentally caught turtles and implement by

rule and regulation (see section 2.4).

B. Investigate and implement fishing methodologies (such as

reduced tow time or curtailment of night fishing) to

mitigate mortality.

167

C Require TED (turtle excluder device) commensurate with

the level of turtle mortality.

D. Establish priorities for designation of critical habitat.

E. Restrict or prohibit certain fishing methods in desig-

nated areas.

F. Prohibit certain types of fishing during specified seasons.

1322111. Educate and inform fishing industry. (see section 2.7)

132231. Regulate boat speed.

Boat collisions are a source of mortality in areas of high use

by people and turtles.

Regulate speed in areas where collisions with turtles are

a factor.

132241. Investigate and implement means of mitigating mortality from

dragheads and industrial water intake.

A. Assess the extent of entrainment. and mortality.

B. Develop excluder methods.

C. Investigate turtle behavior modifications to exclude

turtles from areas where they may be drawn into intake

pipes.

Turtles are entrapped and crushed by the dragheads of com-

mercial and government dredges.

D. Investigate and develop modifications to the draghead to

exclude turtles.

E. Remove turtles from the vicinity of dredging operations.

F. Investigate turtle behavior modification (see step C.

above).

1 168

G. Prohibit dredging in areas where turtles are likely to be

taken, and establish priorities for areas to be desig-

nated as critical habitat.

-N

14. Assess and monitor population
levels in estuarine and
marine waters

141. Coastal stocks 142. Open shelf stocks

1421. Assess aerial or other methodologies
and implement if feasible

1411. Monitor stran7di@ne@s 1412. Monitor incidental capture 1413. Conduct survey
where feasible

170

14. Assess and monitor population levels in estuarine and pelagic

waters.

1411. Monitor strandings

An undetermined proportion of green turtles which die in

nearshore waters wash ashore as bloated carcasses. Carcass

stranding numbers represent a complex interaction of nearshore

population densities and mortality from such disparate causes

as cold stunning and drowning in trawl nets. Counts of car-

cass strandings provide indices of local mortality, particu-

larly when followed from year to year.

A. Determine the relationship between beached carcasses and

various causes of death, particularly the proportion of

carcasses resulting from each cause of death.

B. Monitor continuously the numbers of dead turtles on

beaches, using stranding network procedures which guard

against counting individual carcasses more than once.

C. Develop a model for total mortalities at sea from strand-

ings.

1412. Monitor on-board captures,

On-board monitoring of incidental captures of green turtles is

the most effective and logical approach to assessing the

impacts of specific fisheries on sea turtle populations. This

will require a solution to the "self incrimination" problem.

A. Establish a statistical sampling program which

considers the various fishing industries, their

localities and their seasons of activity.

B. Monitor capture rates of sea turtles.

171

C Consider the possible, use and reliability of voluntary

self-monitoring, such as incidental take logs, as opposed

to the mandatory placement of observers on-board fishing

vessels.

1413. Conduct aerial surveys where feasible.

Concentrations of estuarine and pelagic green turtles may be

quantifiable with aerial surveys in areas where turbidity of

the water is low.

Investigate the application of aerial surveys for monitor-

ing estuarine and pelagic populations.

1421. Assess aerial or other methodologies, and implement if feas-

ible.

Green turtles are widely distributed in the North Atlantic.

The distribution of turtles within their range is not uniform,
however, and various methods of estuarine and pelagic survey-

ing need to be considered.

A. Continue investigations into aerial surveys as a quanti-

tative off-shore sampling technique.

B. Investigate other methodologies such as SCUBA, submersi-

bles, and underwater cameras for estuarine' and pelagic

sampling.

Green Turtle Implementation Schedule 172

Plan Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priorities

111111 Manage Beaches FWS SCA, NPS, U@ PI) 3
DOD, NASA, CG

111211 Regulate Petro- FWS PWRC, USCG, SCA, 2
chemical Industry MMS) I, EPA

111221 Regulate Beach FWS SCA, CZM, COE, 1
Disturbance and LG, NPS, EPA
Manipulations

111222 Educate Beach Users FWS SCA, NPS, SG, U, 2
CG, LG

11211 Nest Protection FWS SCA, NPS, U, DOD, 1
PL, NASA, CG, LG

11311 International Agreements FWS DS, CG, NMFS 4

11321 Law Enforcement FWS SCA, USC, NPS 2
NMFS, USCG

1211 Determine Productivity FWS SCA, NPS, U, PL, 1
DOD) NASA, CG

1221 Mark Adult Females FWS/NMFS SCA, NPS, U, PL, 1, 3*
DOD, NASA, CG

1222 Count Nests FWS SCA, NPS, U, PL, 1
DOD, NASA, CG

1311111 Cold-Stunning NMFS SCA, U, CG, LG, 3
FWS, NPS, NASA

131121 Regulate Sea-Floor NMFS COE), SCA, MMS, 1) 3
Disturbance CZM) CEQ

13121 Regulate Industrial NMFS COE, MMS, CZM, EPA, 2
Dumping USCG) CEQ, U, I, SCA

13211 International NMFS DS, CG, FWS 3
Agreements

132211 Regulate Fishing NMFS FI, SCA, CG, FWS 1
Methodology

1322111 Educate Fishing NMFS SCA, SG, U, FI, CG 1
Industry

132231 Regulate Boat NMFS SCA, LG, USCG 4
Speed

*Long-term tagging studies are #1 priority. New tagging programs lower
(0) priority.

173

Plan Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priorities

132241 Draghead & Water NMFS COE@ SCA, I, DOE 3
Intakes

1411 Monitor Standings NMFS & FWS SCA, CG, U, PI, NPS, 1
DOD, NASA, LG, USCG

1412 Monitor Incidental NMFS & FWS I)- U 2
Captures

1413 Conduct Surveys NMFS & FWS USCG, MMS, U 3

1421 Asses Survey N11FS U, MMS, USCG, FWS 3
Methodologies

Priorities: 1=highest, 2=high, 3=moderate, 4=low

174

DEFINITIONS

FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service SG = Sea Grant

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service U = Universities

DOD = Department of Defense CG = Conservation Groups

MMS = Minerals Management Service I = Industry

COE = Army Corps of Engineers LG = Local Governments

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Admin. FI = Fishing Industry

USCG = United States Coast Guard PI = Private Individuals

NPS = National Park Service

CEQ = Council on Environmental Quality

DS = Department of State

PWRC = Patuxent Wildlife Research Center

USC = United States Customs

DOE = Department of Energy

SCA = State Conservation Agencies

CZM = Coastal Zone Management

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

175

Explanatory note for nesting distribution maps and tables:

1. Density symbols on maps are based on data through

1980. Additional years of data were added to tables

where possible.

2. Densities which are defined as nests/km on maps

should be interpreted as nests/km year. Densities

which are defined as Density km in tables should

also be interpreted as nest/km year.

TABLE 6. FLORIDA
Green Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Density Reference and Remarks

South Volusia Co., 1980 8 8 4 4 0.5 FDNR 1980
Canaveral National
Seashore 1975 50 8 2 2 0.3 Ehrhart, 1976

1976 50 34 4 4 0.1 Ehrhart, 1990

1977 50 34 2 2 0.1

1978 50 34 23 23 0.7

1979 50 50 18 18 0.4 Ehrhart, 1979

1980 50 50 33 33 0.7 FDNR, 1980

Port Canaveral to 1980 21 21 2 - 0.1 Fritts piers. comm.t
Patrick AFB

Patrick AFB to 1980 19.3 19.3 15 0.8 Fritts pers. comm.t
Melbourne Beach

Melbourne Beach to 1980 23 23 107 4.7 Fritts pers. comm.t
Sebastian Inlet
1982 20 20 38 1.9 L. Ehrhart pers. comm.ft

Indian River and 1980 36.8 36.8 65(*) 1.8 Witham pers. comm.
St. Lucie counties.

Hutchinson Island 1975 36 36 37 37 1.0 Applied Biology, 1979

1976 36 36 10 10 0.3 FDNR unpubl.

1977 36 36 5 5 0.1 Applied Biology, 1979

1978 36 36 61 61 1.7 FDNR unpubl.

1979 36 36 15 15 0.4 Applied Biology, 1979

1980 36 11 14 1.3 FDNR, 1980

Table 6. continued

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Densit Km Reference and Remarks
Hobe Sound NWR 1975 6.4 6.4 20 20 3.1 Hobe Sound NWR unpubl.

1976 6.4 6.4 0 0 0

1977 6.4 6.4 3 3 0.5

1978 6.4 6.4 16 16 2.5

1979 6.4 6.4 9 9 1.4

1980 5.6 5.6 23 23 4.1
Jupiter Island 1979 12.3 12.3 13 13 1.1 F. Lund unpubl.

1980 12.3 12.3 39 39 3.2
Juno Beach 1979 1.6 1.6 7 7 4.3 FDNR unpubl.

1980 1.6 1.6 2 2 1.2 11
Lost Tree Village 1980 2.8 2.8 16 16 5.7 FDNR, 1980
Highland Beach 1980 4.5 4.5 34 34 7.6 11
Boca Raton 1977 4.2 4.2 0 0 0 Wagner, 1978
1978 4.2 4.2 17 17 4.1 Wagner, 1979
1979 4.2 4.2 6 6 1.4 FOR, 1979
1980 4.2 4.2 2 2 0.7 FDNR, 1980
Broward Co. 1978 19 19 1 1 <0.1 Fletemeyer, 1979
1979 36 36 6 6 0.2 Fletemeyer, 1980
1980 37 37. 21 21 1.8 FDNR, 1980

July only; maihly south end of section.
Ot) Estimate for 17 May to 23 August 1982.
Survey every two weeks; total nests not estimated.
@j

178
0.5 (South Volusia Co. to NESTING
119
Canaveral N.S.S)
I Its I" DENSITIES
lGreens]

%,
itusvill"e@-@
0.4(Cape Canaveral
I ND N.S.S.)
C% AND NATIONAL
DE PINE E FIR
wIL LIFE FUGE
Be @d
M

D.
F, CAPE KENNEDY
wn.. P.P

Po
j/C. C.ne-w
tt Isl
,\,-R ledge LEG-END
Cocoa Beach
oinset
LESS THAN I NEST/Krn.

1-3
d

Satellne B-h
2.0
,gfw@, Eau Can- 8 ... In
Gallie, OVER 3

Dee, P., mail, urne Indislanbc
VIla"
M.IW.,ne Beach
urn

P.1,rna
II nommonsommoom ------------------- n
m
0 5 10 2OmL
SCALE 1-500,000

an' occ N
8n-11. Un
30
\4- PELICAN ISLA14D NATIONAL
-T- WILDLIFE REFUGE
C.RANT@
U, F.Illinnitr

B14. C*,e55
L&ke 1.80ndian R. Co.)
YP A-- I VI 1
I V1
j-, I-

.. 3!L 36 3 7@,
38; 39
-V;rO B, ch
3

ViWn
.3@ F- D,1 irdr
d
st L.i

o I
35 Fla.
E@C H@ 0 JE E
L Loi
J.
ItV 0.8
36

37 Quart;,V I
OkQfthctbte Be-

A1% 11

179

1.9(Hobe Sd.NWR.to
A R
Jupiter Is.)
So,rd
Data not avail.
,d T_
(Jupiter Is.

J
JU J.P.t.r I.hit Cal-,
U

uro 8 sch 2.8
Bqy*nt

E
L HATCHE" rth alM Beach 057
ke rk
SLOUGH
(Lost
vie a Beach
Tree
Village)
WESY -@A
Belle Gletile- Pa+ Beach
a-

Lake
_k C H
NESTING
Gn m ike Worth
Piilhh@ftach
DENSITIES
yp ma"amn
LOXAHATCHEE NA 0!@L S..h P.. W.,th
Ocean!Ridge
WILDWSC- nt e [Gmensl

Iray:Beach
N
Highland each
076
Fla. a a .n 0 1. 6 (Bocci
R.. Re.. .4t Raton)
rfielcl,Beach

Pom n a
Margate Hilistmio 8.#h

dahdal@
0a 1; nd r by-tha-2lkh,
on Manors
Pl! Itatio FORT 0.7
LAUDERUALE (Broward
I c_ Co.)

West I lollyw
LYWOOD
Pernto o a Pi n ae

39 4Ct_ to.- Bfth
Carol Cit
Monti Beach
P..n.. a- It Sus id. LEGEND
6o4res
jH1 L LESS THAN I NEST/krn.
M@ami spr
1@ MI BEACH
I di -11V
Fishik@ lillam
dlar Virgiri, K@
twood La s Mia MR 3
a ----A
4 111 *y Bi-"
eight s V, I
E Pe he - - - - - - !
S.1di., K

Lill r Ridge
Goulds LutI
South

Naraiii.
Sinid, K*, 10 20ml.
L.i- 0 SCALE 1-500,000
0 5

57 st ad
Florida ty Fl@,"
@T

Little HOM UNION Wheed

Ines, then Lallik blood

ISLA DE CULEBRA sell C"
punto do Mollnae@V Wto AMALIE CR
let. colowlt. SAJNT Pat
THOMAS Lend al
Ll"m
jamen, 1. SAINT JO
Punto dal Soldedo

SANTA MARIA, P.Mor
SA IADA
M T1,sANq Pande, ["a

ISLAND OF VIEQUES N

The
VIRGIN ISLANDS
NESTING LOCATIONS for
GREENS

SAINT CROIX

Sandy pl.
0 10 i,

181

3.3

LEATHERBACK TURTLE RECOVERY PLAN

182

Introduction

The leatherback is the largest living turtle and is so distinctive

that it is placed in a separate family, Dermochelyidae. All other

living sea turtles are in the Ch.eloniidae. The median carapace length

in the western Atlantic is approximately 155 cm long, though lengths of

close to 183 cm have been recorded. Unconfirmed records of 240-270 cm

leatherbacks are undoubtedly incorrect. The average adult weight is

approximately 360 kgs, and the maximum is about 590 kgs.

Whereas other sea turtles have bony plates covered with horny

scutes on the carapace, the carapace of the leatherback, distinguished

by a rubber-like texture, is somewhat flexible but has seven hard

longitudinal ridges. No sharp angle is formed between the carapace and

the much softer plastron, resulting in the animal being somewhat barrel-

shaped. The front flippers are very long and may span 270 cm in an

adult specimen. Both front and hind flippers lack claws. The dominant

color of this turtle is black, with varying degrees of white spotting.

The undersurface is mostly pinkish-white.

Internal anatomy of the leatherback sea turtle is also distinctive.

The skeleton of an adult retains many embryonic characteristics found

only in hatchlings of other species. For example, the limb bones retain

extensive cartilaginous ends, and the skull and pelvis contain so much

cartilage that these parts fall apart when the skeleton is dried. The

"shell" of the leatherback is about 4 cm thick, and is made primarily of

tough, greasy cartilage. Immediately beneath the carapace skin of an

adult leatherback is a continuous layer of mosaic bones a few

millimeters thick; these bones are enlarged and thickened along the

longitudinal ridges.

183

Although sometimes seen in nearshore waters, leatherbacks show

several pelagic adaptations. Leatherbacks have anatomical adaptations

that could enable them to dive into the cold depths of the ocean or live

in near polar latitudes. Other soft-skinned turtles can exchange gases

through their skin. Leatherbacks probably have the same ability, since

they have sphincter muscles in the pulmonary arteries capable of

diverting blood from the lungs to the skin. This species has such an

extensive network of superficial capillaries on the underside that the

unpigmented areas often ap .pear pink. Some evidence indicates the

leatherback can maintain its body temperatures considerably above

ambient temperature. In one instance, the deep body temperature of a

leatherback was 18*C (32.4'F) above that of the water from which it was

taken (Frair et al. 1972). The barrel-shaped body, small surface/volume

ratio relative to other sea turtles, and thick cartilaginous shell

(which functions as insulation) favor heat retention from muscular

activity and minimize heat loss.

The oil found within both the skeleton and flesh of the animal is

another interesting feature, and several theories about the purpose of

this oil have been formulated., A likely explanation is that, as in

certain whales, the oil lessens decompression problems during rapid

diving and resurfacing.

The diet of the leatherback consists primarily of soft-bodied

animals such as jellyfish and tunicates, together with associated juve-

nile fishes, amphipods and other organism s. Attempts to raise hatch-

lings artificially and to keep adults in captivity have been largely

unsuccessful. Feeding captive animals is a major problem - starved

captives often survive longer than those which are fed. If given fish

184

to eat, these turtles may become fatally packed with undigested food.

In the early 1970s, the Miami Seaquarium maintained leatherback hatch-

lings for several months (Witham, 107). Their diet consisted entirely

of jellyfish (Cassiopea), and the turtles ate about twice their weight

in jellyfish daily. Phillips (1976) maintained three leatherbacks for

eight months on a diet of minced chicken livers. The Seaquarium turtles

died, but Phillips released his into the Gulf of Mexico.

Another problem with captive leatherbacks is their proclivity for

swimming into the walls of the pool or tank in which they are kept.

Hendrickson (1980) successfully raised hatchlings to weights of over 9

kgm and stipulates that the turtles be kept in a soft-walled tank to

prevent serious injury and that all skin injuries be treated with gen-

tian violet. He also specified feeding the young turtles soft food; he

suggested chopped squid. Hendrickson also suggested keeping the tem-

perature at a constant 801F (26.7*C), saying that lower temperatures

also can lead to death due to intestinal impaction. However, Phillips

kept his specimens at 73.4*F (23'C), saying that it prevented injuries

from too much activity.

The life history of the leatherback is poorly known since juvenile

turtles are rarely observed.

Courtship and mating are believed to occur in water adjacent to the

nesting beaches just prior to the time of egg laying, but no systematic

search for mating pairs during the nesting season has been conducted.

Nesting habits of the leatherback turtle are very well known since

nesting is the only part of the life cycle easily observed by

researchers. In the northern Atlantic, nesting begins in March and

continues into July. Renesting occurs about every ten days and commonly

185

occurs six or seven times a season. Certain females have nested nine

times per season (Eckert & Eckert, 1983). Data on the intervals between

nesting seasons is less abundant, but evidence points to alternate year

nesting as the norm.

Female leatherbacks nest. at night, even in rainy weather, and are

not easily perturbed, and they can sometimes be tagged as they first

come up out of the sea. Usually the time on shore is lk to 2 hours. In

Surinam and French Guiana, an average of 86 normal eggs is laid, plus an

average of about 30 smaller yolkless eggs. The incubation period is

about 60 days, and the hatchlings emerge "explosively," usually shortly

after dark.

Within the Region, leatherbacks nest on St. Croix, Vieques, Culebra

Islands and the mid-Atlantic coast of Florida, and there are recent

isolated nestings reported from Georgia to North Carolina. Because

leatherback sea turtles are rarely seen away from the nesting beaches,

very little is known of their movements. They occur with sufficient

frequency off the Maritime Provinces of Canada, that there may be some

migration to these areas. There have been very few long-distance re-

coveries, from tagged individuals. However, five females, tagged while

nesting in Surinam and French Guiana, were recovered later, four near

the coasts of New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas and Mexico and one off

the coast of Ghana, West Africa, 6,800 kilometers away (Pritchard, 1976).

A female tagged on St. Croix was recovered on the coast of New

Jersey, 80 days later (R. Boulon, pers. comm.).

The deliberate taking of adults constitutes a threat to the spe-

cies. Although their flesh is considered less palatable than that of

other turtle species, leatherbacks are eaten in some areas, and a large

186

percentage of nesting turtles are killed for food in the Dominican

Republic. Killing leatherbacks for food was a problem in Trinidad until

very recently. Leatherbacks are killed and rendered for oil to treat

boat timbers in Arabia and India and for oil to treat respiratory

ailments in the British Virgin Islands. The oil is still bottled and

sold by the interisland trading vessels at their ports of call.

Wanton slaughter of leatherback sea turtles apparently occurs in

Guyana, where the nesting turtles are killed simply because they are

believed to be "useless."

The greatest threat to this species is egg collecting. In Mexico,

egg collecting is illegal but commonly occurs. Eggs are harvested in

Trinidad, and subsistence take of eggs is high in the Dominican

Republic. The large French Guiana nesting population is thought to be

relatively safe because the beach is inaccessible and few people subsist

off the land. Populations in Surinam, which have adequate protection,

have increased in recent years though for the most part are following

erosion of the adjacent French Guiana beaches. Other causes of

mortality for leatherbacks are longlines (Hildebrand, 1980) (see

section on Incidental Catch) and ingestion of indigestible materials

such as plastics (Mrosovsky, 1981).

The leatherback turtle was listed as an endangered species by the

U.S. Department of Interior in 1970. It is also listed on Appendix I of

the Convention on. International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). This species is protected by law in most of

the countries where nesting occurs; however, enforcement of these laws

varies with the country.

187

1. Primary Objective: To maintain the leatherback population
at current levels by reducing limiting
factors until a stable or upward trend
can be demonstrated for the St. Croix
population.

11. Mitigate factors affecting 12. Assess and monitor population
terrestrial mortality and/ levels on beaches
or stress

13. Mitigate factors affecting 14. Assess and monitor population
estuarine and marine levels in estuarine and marine
mortality and/or stress waters

11. Mitigating factors affecting
terrestrial mortality and/or
stress

111. Habitat alteration 112. Predation

F_ F121- Protect hatchlings
1111. Natural] 1112. Man-induced during eme
F_ --I T I -
Entra 11112. Erosion 11122. Developmentl F
11131. Legall 1 1132. Illegal
F11121. Exotic vegetation

1321. Provide active law enforcement
T F to protect eggs and adultR'
111111. Manage nesting beaThe,

111221. Inform and educate 111222. Control lighting 11311. Promote legal p;otection throughout the
tourists and other nesting beaches range of the species by encouraging
potential buye a protective management by means of treaties,
conventions, or councils with other nations

00
00

189

Leatherback Stepdown Plan

Primary Objective: To maintain the leatherback population at

current levels by reducing limiting factors until a stable or

upward trend can be demonstrated for the U.S. nesting beaches.

Mitigate factors affecting terrestrial mortality and/or

stress.

Manage nesting beaches.

Natural processes sometimes are deleterious to turtle nesting

beaches. An accumulation of storm tossed sand on high energy

beaches may bury nests or, conversely, storm waves may expose

nests. South American nesting leatherbacks are sometimes

trapped by soft expanses of mud and/or mangrove roots.

A. Assess the vulnerability of nests on St. Croix.

B. Transfer nests on St. Croix to a better site or to a

hatchery if these nests are endangered.

C. The Fish and Wildlife Service should purchase as soon

as possible Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands,

as a refuge for nesting leatherbacks.

A great many species of tropical plants are now circumtropical

because of the actions of man. Some of these provide dense

masses of roots -or deep shade. Either of these factors-can

interfere with nesting.

D. Monitor for future problems on St. Croix, and control

invasion by such plants.

E. Monitor conservation program established for Vieques

Island as stated in the 1981 Sec. 7 Consultation

Proceedings between the Department of Defense, U.S. Navy

190

and the FWS and NMFS with regard to potential adverse

impacts on the bombing-gunnery range.

111222. Control lighting on nesting beaches.

Development is often detrimental to nesting beaches and pro-

bably poses the greatest threat to the St. Croix and other

populations of leatherbacks.

D. Develop a plan for handling disoriented hatchlings on St.

Croix beaches.

E. Control lights and development which affect turtle

nesting beaches.

111221. Inform and educate beach users and residents

(See section 2.7).

1121. Protect hatchlings during emergences.

Predation varies greatly from one geographic region to an-

other. Populations which nest on oceanic islands have fewer

natural predators than those which nest on mainland beaches or

islands close to the mainland. The particular problem should

be analyzed and handled by any appropriate means.

Protect hatchlings, as they emerge on the St. Croix

nesting beaches, with beach patrols.

11311. Promote legal protection throughout range of the species

by encouraging protective management by means of treaties,

conventions, or councils with other nations.

See Loggerhead step 11311. The Virgin Islands Code should

be amended to conform with federal law.

191

11321. Provide active law enforcement to protect eggs and adults.

In the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, efforts of FWS

agents and NMFS agents can be greatly enhanced by cooperating

with the local environmental enforcement staffs. See 11311

above for the need for legislative change.

12. Assess and monitor nesting beaches
and their population levels

F121. Beach recruitment 122. Nesting and/
or nests

F
1211, Determine hatching success

1221. Tag and/or mark 1222. Count nests by aerial or
adult ground surveys

1223. Estimate nesting habitat
by analyzing available data
and initiating new data gathering
methodologies

193

12. Assess and monitor population levels on beaches.

The beach at Sandy Point, St. Croix, offers the best

opportunity for an intensive population study because of

its location and the resources that are available to do the

work. It is recommended that the population using this beach

be used as an "index" for the success of such efforts. Other

beaches in the U.S. Caribbean must be surveyed.

1211. Determine hatching success.

Implement a long term project on Sandy Point:

1221. Tag and/or mark adult females.

A. Tag or mark all nesting females on St. Croix.

B. Compile tagging and recapture data.

C. Tag turtles, if possible, that are in the marine Critical

Habitat area.

1222. Count nests by aerial or ground surveys.

Aerial counts may be the most cost ef fective way to count

nests in some other geographic areas. The technique has been

tried on the Virgin Islands, and an analysis of its

effectiveness should be carried out.

A. Survey remote beaches in U.S. jurisdictional area for

presence of nesting.

B. Survey Vieques Island to document all leatherback nests

and to evaluate Naval activities upon nesting success.

1223. Estimate available nesting habitat by analyzing available

data and initiating new data gathering devices.

13. Mitigate factors affecting
--j estuarine and marine mortality
and/or stress

132. Human take

1321. DIrect7,d 7tk,-]

13211. Promote legal protection throughout
131. Habitat alteration the range of the species by
encouraging protective management
by mans of treaties. conventions
or council* with other nations
(Section 11311)

1311. Physical alteration 1322. Incidental and
accidental take

13111. Natural
13221. Towed ge-j 113222. Fixed gear & traps
13223. Boa collisions

131111. Storm damage 13112.
1311111. No Itor coastal 131121. Regulate spoil dumping, a floor 1.132231. Regulate boat peedl
n! mining. harmful fishing p
pr.-esses and oil spills ;.actlcts 132211. Regulate methods, gear.
areas and seasons
F-
13224. Entrainment In 13225- Ear.pZt
She.]
Industrial by dra d.
water Intakes

F132241. Icnvestigate and monitor the
I
a currence of mortality from
132251 these factors

195

13. Mitigate factors affecting estuarine and marine mortality

and/or stress.

1311111. Monitor coastal processes of critical habitat area.

Determine the beach dynamics (lateral sand transport,

source of beach renourishment, etc.) of critical habitat

areas to allow prediction of time necessary for beach

rebuilding after destructive effects of sand mining and

hurricanes.

131121. Regulate spoil dumping, dredging, seafloor mining, harmful

fishing practices and oil spills.

The large industrial complexes upstream from critical habitat

require channel dredging, maintenance dredging, and spoil

disposal. They also produce large amounts of hot water

effluents and occasional oil spills.

A. Prepare a contingency plan between sea turtle pro-

grams and existing plans which have been prepared by the

industries.

B. Enforce the Virgin Islands Code prohibiting the use of

explosives for fishing.

C. Monitor the use of explosives which might occur in the

industrial areas.

13211. Promote legal protection throu&hout the range of the species

by means of treaties and conventions or councils shared with

other nations

(See section 1.2, and section 4).

132211. Regulate methods, gear, areas and seasons.

196

There are no known interactions between leatherbacks and

fishing gear in the American Caribbean since there is

virtually no fixed gear and no towed gear used in the local

fisheries. However, interaction with fixed gear such as long

lines, pot warps and fish traps have been demonstrated in many

other area-s, such as New England.

Address the problems on an international scale (see

Sec. 13211).

132231. Regulate boat speed.

It is known that boats sometimes kill marine turtles, although

incidents involving leatherbacks in the American Caribbean are

not documented.

Control the speed of boats within the critical habitat

area during the main nesting period.

132241. Investigate and monitor the occurrence of mortality from

& entrainment and entra2ment.

132251. Although both industrial water intakes and the use of drag

heads exist near the critical habitat, no turtle mortalities

from them are documented, but monitoring should take place, as

entrainment of live leatherbacks has been reported in Florida.

14. Assess and monitor population
levels in estuarine and marine
waters

141. Coastal stocks 142. Offshore stocks from
10 to the 100
fathom isobath

1421. Assess feasibility and
implement or continue
aerial surveys
1411. Monitor strandings 1413. Conduct aerial survey
where feasible

1412. Monitor inci
captures

198

14. Assess and monitor population levels in estuarine and

marine waters.

No true estuaries occur in the American Virgin Islands, but

some do exist in Puerto Rico. The clarity of the oceanic

waters in the region makes the possibility of such monitoring

more feasible than in some regions.

1411. Monitor strandings.

Few strandings are observed, but the efforts in sea turtle

conservation by FWS/NMFS and local governments should include

a system for recording these.

1412. Monitor incidental captures.

There is very little chance that a turtle on-board any boat in

the American Caribbean would be there "accidentally."

Enforce laws.

1413.' Conduct aerial survey.where feasible.

Over much of the region the 10 fathom isobath occurs within a

few yards of shore.

A. Evaluate the effectiveness of aerial surveys.

B. Combine all available data sources to quantify and map

available feeding areas.

1421. Assess feasibility and continue (or complement) aerial

surveys.

The entire shelf area within the 100 fathom isobath occurs

within a few miles of shore in the American Caribbean, and it

might well be feasible to utilize such means.

Evaluate the data from previous aerial surveys conducted

by the government of the Virgin Islands.

199

Leatherback Implementation Schedule

Section Lead Agenc Cooperators Priorities

111111 Manage nesting FWS DCCA, NMFS, HOVIC, 2
beaches M/M, DNR

111221 Inform and DCCA DCCA, NMFS, HOVIC, 2
educate beach M/M, DNR
users and
residents

111222 Control lighting DCCA FWS, NMFS, HOVIC, 3
on nesting beaches M/M, DNR

1121 Protect during. DCCA FWS, NMFS 1
emergences

11311 Promote legal pro- USDOS FWS, NMFS 1
tection throughout
range of the species
by encouraging pro-
tective management
by means of conventions,
treaties, or other
councils with other
nations.

11321 Provide active law FWS NMFS, DNR, USDOS, 1
enforcement to DCCA
protect eggs and
adults

1211 Determine hatching DCCA FWS, NMFS I
success

1221 Tag and/or mark DCCA FWS, NMFS, DOS 1
adult females

1222 Count nests by DCCA, DNR FWS, NMFS, DOS .1
aerial or ground
surveys

1223 Estimate available DCCA, DNR FWS, NMFS, DOS 1
nesting habitat by
analyzing available
data and initiating
new data gathering
methodologies

200

Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priorities

1311111 Coastal processes DCCA, DNR FWS, NMFS 3
of critical habitat

area

131121 Regulate spoil DCCA, DNR FWS, NMFS, HOVIC, 2
dumping, dredging M/M, ACE, EPA
seafloor mining
harmful fishing
practices and oil
spills

13211 Promote legal pro- USDOS NMFS, FWS 1
tection throughout
the range of the
species by means of
treaties and conven-
tions or councils
shared with other
nations

132211 Regulate methods, DCCA, DNR NMFS, USCG, 4
gear areas and
seasons

132231 Regulate boat speed DCCA, DNR NMFS, USCG, 4

132241 Investigate and DCCA, EPA, ACE) 1 2
+ monitor the occurance DNR
132251 of mortality from
entrainment and
entrapment

1411 Monitor strandings FWS, NMFS DCCA, DNR 4

1412 Monitor incidental DCCA, DNR, USCG 3
captures NMFS

1413 Conduct aerial DCCA, DNR NMFS, FWS, USCG 2
survey where feasible

1421 Assess feasibility DCCA, DNR TJSCG 4
and continue (or
complement) aerial
surveys

201

DEFINITIONS

PRIORITIES ranked 1-4 with 1 being the highest

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service

USCG = U.S. Coast Guard

DCCA = Department Conservation & Cultural Affairs
Virgin Islands Government

DNR = Department of Natural Resources
Government of Puerto Rico

HOVIC= Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation

M/M = Martin Marietta

USDOS= U.S. Department of State

ACE = Army Corps of Engineers

USN = U.S. Navy

EPA = Environmental Protection Agency

202

Explanatory note for nesting distribution maps and tables:

1. Density symbols on maps are based on data through

1980. Additional years of data were added to tables,

where possible.

2. Densities which are defined as nests/km on maps

should be interpreted as nests/km year. Densities

which are defined as Density km in tables should

also be interpreted as nest/km year.

TABLE 7. FLORIDA
Leatherback Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Xm Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Reference and Remarks
Indian River- 1980 36.8 36.8 2
St. Lucie Co. Witham
Sebastian Inlet S.P. 1975 13.7 13.7 1 1 Caretta Research, Inc.
Hutchinson Island 1975 36.3 36.3 .1 1 Applied Biology, 1979
1977 36.3 36.3 2 2
1979 36.3 36.3 7 7
19,90 11.3 11.3 4 4 Florida ONR, 1980
Hobe Sound NWR 1977 6.4 6.4 4 4 Hobe Sound NWR
1978 6.4 6.4 2 2 ff
Jupiter Island 1979 12.3 12.3 3 3 F. Lund, unpub.
1980 12.3 12.3 1 1
Juno Beach 1979 1.6 1.6 2 2 Florida DNR, 1980
1980 1.6 1.6 1 1
Boca Raton 1977 4.2 4.2 1 1 Wagner, 1978
1979 4.2 4.2 7 7 Florida ONR, 1980
Lost Tree Village 1980 2.8 2.8 3 3

R. Witham, pers. comm. Nest counts every two weeks; not estimated.

204

NESTING
FREQUENCIES
@2 -Ew- PELICAN ISLAND NA110MAl
@N WILDLIFE REI(M (Leatherbacksl
ki.
a 4rOS
- GdCh 0 2 Indian River to St Lucie Co.)
I V
L Gill,
317 --38 39
I @e re 10 ie@i c h
LEGEND
Del

Vi 0-2 NESTS/YR.
Luca Pierce I'dw 0 2.1-3 NESTS/YR.
or
c
A 3.1-4 NESTS/YR.

103.5
C y -t

all

3 (Hobe Sound N W R)
-K-R T Gom. q,
RAP, T
Sound

Ind fine
rA

May-.
Jupiter Ink I coldiry
Ju
OBEE

Canal Posn,' u 1.5
Paholiev, 3(Lost Tree
L HArCHEE IN Im Beach
SLOUCH ke ark Village Beach)
-7 vie Beach
k

WE AC
Pat I Beach
Bel G CA N
Lake I
H
1. ity ked orth
in"An'. G. ree I III
P.1- 8-h

Maine intent
NA 0 AL Seea, L- WI
[.Art
Ocian Fhda.

ulf Stn am

Iray Beach
0 5 10 20MI.
Fla. Highland Beach SCALE= 1: 500,000
4 (Boca
oca atcn
18?- Raton)
17-117- rfield-Peac
in
k.01. as
RDT.n Ua

TABLE B. PUERTO RICO AND U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Leatherback Turtle Nesting Activity

Area Years Km of Beach Km Monitored Nest Observed Nest Est. Reference and Remarks

Sandy Point, 1981 2.4 2.4 31 129 Eckert, S.A., et al. 1983
St. Croix, USVI

1982 2.4 2.4 86 86

1983 2.4 2.4 113 113 Eckert, S.A., and
K.L. Eckert pers. comm.

Playa Brava 1983 1.6 1.6 37 - Caribbean Islands NWR
Culebra NWR memorandum of 5 Dec. 1983

Playa Resaca 1983 1.6 1.6 22
Culebra NWR

Isla Mona --- --- -- Pritchard, P.C.H., pers. comm.
Puerto Rico***

Isle Vieques*** ---- --- --- Pritchard, P.C.H., pers. comm.
Puerto Rico

continuous nightly patrols

22 daytime patrols distributed from 31 March to 10 July

detailed information on nesting is unavailable

0
Ln

01118 Hooo Loft klood

ISLA DE CULEBRA S.If C.1
P..ft do M.11".V%. Marto C""Lo
CR6 BAY
10 0 Co.". SAINT
THOMAS L-9 I, pl.
LIM SWM
J- I.. SAINT JO
Pwto diN Soldodo

p ato

pooft too

r ISLAND OF VIEQUES N

The
VIRGIN ISLANDS
NESTING LOCATIONS for
LEATHERBACKS

SAINT CROIX

FREOERIKSTKO
- @01
C G"
:,. ` zp`

Ile,

S..d, Pf pf,

207

3.4

HAWKSBILL TURTLE RECOVERY PLAN

208

Introduction

The hawksbill has a circumglobal distribution, with separate though

inadequately defined subspecies occurring in the tropical waters of the

Atlantic and Indo-Pacific Oceans, mostly on coral reefs. Within the

region, it is extremely rare north of southern Florida.

This small turtle averages about 45 kg when mature and uses its

strong, narrow beak to feed on both plant and animal material. Like

other marine turtles, it sometimes feeds on jellyfish and often on

sponges and other sessile organisms.

The hawksbill, more than any other species, has been implicated in

poisonings of people who eat turtle flesh both in the Atlantic and

Indo-Pacific regions. The clinical symptoms as well as the temporal and

geographic distribution of such outbreaks are very similar to the fish

poisoning known as ciguatera. Most researchers hypothesize that some

item (algae or sponges) in the diet of the turtle produces the toxin.

Hawksbill migrations are poorly known. Carr and Stancyk (1975)

suggest that at Tortuguero beach in Costa Rica the female hawksbill

"probably nests at least twice during a given season and then returns

to foraging grounds." The scarce data do not permit estimation of the

internesting period but do suggest that the period may be more than two

weeks, longer than the internesting period of any other sea turtle.

Carr's tag recoveries indicate female hawksbills move long distances,

but recoveries are too few to answer questions about migrations.

209

Hawksbills throughout most of their range (at least in the Atlantic

subspecies) nest on small islets and on isolated mainland shores.

Females may clamber over reefs, rocks or rubble to nest among the roots

of trees and bushes on the chosen beach. This isolated nesting offers

some degree of protection from predation. Few large, easily discernible

nesting colonies are known. Somewhat heightened nesting density, amount-

ing to incipient aggregation, occurs in a few places, such as the San

Blas Islands and Bastimento region of Panama (Carr et al., 1982 and Tovar,

1971), islets off the Coast of Nicaragua (Nietschmann and others, pers.

comm.), Isla de Pinos, Cuba (Ubeda, 1973), perhaps Mona Island off Puerto

Rico (T. Carr, 1974; Jean Thurston, pers. comm.) and the Grenadines

(Melvin Goodman and others, pers. comm.). At Tortuguero, Costa Rica,

nests are somewhat less frequent than they are to the south between

Puerto Limon and the Panamanian border, but the Tortuguero nesting ground

is fairly typical of the Caribbean shore as a whole.

The demand for the highly attractive shell is the most serious

threat to the hawksbill. The most intensive threat to the hawksbill

comes from the harvest of adult hawksbills for the Japanese tortoise

shell trade, (T.Carr, 1974). Since 1965, the Japanese imported a

minimum of 370,000 kg of hawksbill shell from wider Caribbean countries.

Between 1981 and 1983, over 45,000 kg were imported from 21 different

countries (see Table 9). Prices paid for preferred shell in Japan have

been as high as $225 per kilogram. The shell of one adult hawksbill

weighs between 1.5 and 205 kg. A more recent threat comes from the

growing curio trade in stuffed juvenile hawksbills.

210

The meat and eggs of hawksbill are eaten almost everywhere, but it

is the international demand for the shell and whole, stuffed specimens

that threatens the existence of this species.

211

Table 9

Japanese and West German Imports of Raw Hawksbill Shell
from Wider Caribbean Countries*

Quantity (kilograms)

Country of Export 1981 1982 1983 Total

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

Antigua and Barbuda 0 0 49 49
Bahamas 29 728 0 757
Barbados 0 11 0 11
Belize 0 702 538 1,240
Cayman Islands 3,022 2,258 0 5,280
Dominica 60 39 40 139
Costa Rica 234 79 5 318
Cuba 2,650 6,933 5,017 14,600
Dominican Republic 357 872 248 1,477
Fr. West Indies 231 215 0 446
Grenada 7 0 0 7
Haiti 892 1,188 1,788 3,868
Honduras 481 636 1,886 3,003
Jamaica 487 1,652 709 2,848
Mexico 0 0 36 36
Nicaragua 475 417 0 892
Panama 3,011 2,243 3,889 9,143
St. Lucia 267 270 362 899
St. Vincent 4 85 108 197
Trinidad 0 0 329 329
United States 0 0 22 22

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 12,207 18,328 15,026 45,561

*Sources: Boeki Geppyo, Ministry of Finance, Japan
1981 and 1982 West German CITES Annual Report**

1981 West German CITES Annual Report listed imports of 4 kg. from
St. Vincent and 68 kg. from Jamaica.
1982 West German CITES Annual Report listed imports of 49 Kg. from
St. Vincent and 153 kg. from West Germany.

212

1. Primary Objective: To restore and maintain Hawksbill
populations commensurate with
existing habitat

11. Mitigate factors affecting
terrestrial mortality and/or 12. Assess and monitor population
stress levels on beaches

13. Mitigate factors affecting 14. Assess and monitor population
estuarine and marine levels in estuarine and marine
mortality and/or stress waters

11. Mitigating factorT,;ffecting
terrestrial morta y and/or
stress

11. Habitat 112. Predation

1121. Protect hatch
1112. Man-induced during emerge
F113.

11111. Entrapment 11112. Erosion 11122. D velopment

1131. Legal 1132. Illegal
11121. Exotic vegetation

to protect eggs and adultil'
F 321. Provide active law enforcement
1111. Manage nesting beache
F-11

111221. Inform and educate 111222. Control lighting on 311. Promote legal protection throughout the
tourists and other
potential buyers nesting beaches range of the species by encouraging
protective management by means of treaties,
conventions, or councils with other nations
La t_r. I

214

HAWKSBILL STEPDOWN PLAN

1. Primary Objective: To restore and maintain hawksbill popu-

lations commensurate with existing habitat.

The attainment of this objective requires the following in-

formation: 1) The amount of existing habitat in terms of

feeding areas and/or nesting areas, 2) the carrying capacity

of the habitat and 3) population estimates that indicate the

relationship of populations to the habitat.

11. Mitigate factors affecting terrestrial mortality and/or

stress.

111111. Manage nesting beaches.

Hawksbills probably are naturally resilient to entrapment,

erosion and other natural habitat alterative factors.

Monitor the extent to which entrapment and erosion occur

in a manner that affects the hawksbill.

111221. Inform and educate tourists and other potential buyers.

(See section 2.7).

111222. Control lighting on nesting beaches.

(See leatherback step 111222).

1121. Protect hatchlings with beach patrols during emergences.

(See leatherback step 1121).

215

11311. International Efforts.

Human take is the single most devastating factor in the

decimation of hawksbills. The economic value of its shell is

such that controlling its commercialization in foreign

countries will be even more difficult than controlling the

poaching of ivory (see sections 1.2, 2.7, 2.8 and 4).

11321. Provide active law enforcement to protect eggs and adults.

In Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the

continental U.S., local enforcement officers are well equipped

to cooperate with Fish and Wildlife Service and National

Marine Fisheries Service special agents in the field. The most

important and cost effective protection can be provided by

U.S. Customs Agents. In areas which are not under the U.S.

jurisdiction, the problems are much more complex and must be

solved through regular diplomatic channels.

12. Assess and monitor nesting beaches
and their population levels
r I I.
E121- Beach recruitmen7]t 122. Nesting and/
or nests

1211. Determine hatching success

1221. Tag and/or ma. 1222. Count nests by aerial or
adult ground surveys

11223. Estimate nesting habitat
by analyzing available data
and initiating new data gathering
methodologies
-T

Ila

217

12. Assess and Monitor Nesting Beaches and Their Population Levels.

1211. Determine hatching success.

A. Select certain "indicator" sites where resources exist

to carry out long range monitoring programs in the

American Caribbean and at Tortuguero (Costa Rica).

B. Incorporate monitoring efforts with research programs

in the American Caribbean and at Tortuguero and Panama.

1221. Tag and/or mark adult females.

(See 1211 above).

1222. Count nests by aerial or ground surveys.

1223. Estimate available nesting habitat by analyzing available data

and initiating new datagathering methodologies.

A. Gather statistical information through international

conferences.

B. Investigate remote sensing techniques (satellite and

aircraft) to inventory habitat.

13. Mitigate factors affecting
estuarine at, d Mari...
and/or stress

132. Human take

13211. promote legal protection throughout
131. Habitat alteration the range of the species by
encouraging protective management
by mans of treaties, conventions
or councils with other nations
(Section 11311)

1311. Physical alteration 1322. Incidental and
accidental take

113111. Natural 113221. owed ge 13222. Fixed gear & trapal
I :j 13223. Boat collisions
[131111. Storm da 13112. Man-I ducaJ I I I
I I FL 32231. Regulate7@7t 7,pedl
1311111. Monitor coastal 131121. Regulate spoil dumping. a ;a floor
p
-esses mining. harmful fishing p
ro, and oil spills rac'tib. 132211. Regulate methods. ge
areas and sea

24. Entrainment in Entr;apment
Industrial by d gbea
water Intakes F@

132241. Inve tigate and monitor the
& occu:rence of mortal Ity from
132251. these factors
[email protected]
I . ci
cc
113223* a at

219

13. Mitigate factors affecting estuarine and marine mortality

and/or stress.

1311111. Monitor coastal processes affecting critical habitat areas.

See leatherback section 1311111.

131121. Regulate spoil dumping, seafloor mining, harmful fishing

practices and oil spills.

(See leatherback step 131121).

13211. Enhance local law enforcement efforts and promote legal pro-

tection throughout the range of the species by means of

treaties and conventions or councils with other nations.

Taking of hawksbill for shell products is the most serious

factor in the depletion of this species. In much of its range,

its economic value is a major component of fishing efforts.

In the American Caribbean, the high value of the shell encourages

poaching and smuggling. The nearby non-U.S. islands offer easy

markets for illegal shell (see sections 1.2, 2.8 and 4).

132211. Regulate methods, gear, areas and seasons.

A. Investigate incidental catch and other. potential losses.

13. Take appropriate actions at local and international

levels, as needed.

132231. Regulate boat speed.

Sea turtles are sometimes killed in nearshore waters.

Enforce harbour and inland water regulations on boat

speeds..

220

132241. Investigate and monitor the occurrence of mortality from

+ entrainment and entrapment.

132251. All states with approved Coastal Zone Management Plans should

investigate entrainment and entrapment.

Modify structural designs and initiate control measures,

as needed.

14. Assess and monitor population
levels in estuarine and marine
waters

142. Offshore stocks from
141. Coastal stocks 10 to the 100
fathom isobath

1421. Assess feasibility and
implement or continue
aerial surveys
1411. Monitor str=andings Conduct aerial survey,
where feasible

1412. Monitor incide6tal
captures 14131. Estimate the feeding
& areas by analyzing available
14211. information and initiating new
data gathering methodologies

22.2

14. Assess and monitor population levels in estuarine and marine

waters.

1411. Determine the need to monitor strandings.

1412. Determine the need to monitor incidental captures.

1413. Conduct surveys if feasible.

Of all marine turtle species this one offers the best chance

for such assessment and monitoring. The shallow reef habitat

and unusual clarity of reef waters, coupled with narrow in-

sular shelves, lend themselves to the possibility of assess-

ment from the air and in estuarine and marine waters, particu-

larly the reefs off West Palm Beach, Florida, the waters off

Mona Island, Puerto Rico, and the Magens Bay area off Saint

Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands (see step 1223 and leather-

back plan).

1421. Assess feasibility and implement or continue aerial surveys

(see leatherback steps 1413 and 1421).

14131 Estimate the feeding areas by analyzing available information

+ and initiating new data gathering methodologies.

14211.

223

Hawksbill Implementation Schedule

Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priorities

111111 Manage nesting FWS DCCA, DNR, HOVIC, M/M 4
beaches

111221 Inform and FWS NMFS, DCCA, DNR, HOVIC/ 1
educate tourists DOSY M/M
and other
potential buyers

111222 Control light- FWS NMFS, DCCA, DNR, HOVIC 3
ing on nesting DOS, M/M
beaches

1121 Protect hatch- FWS NMFS, DCCA, DNR, I
lings with beach DOS
patrols during
emergencies

11311 International DOS NMFS-FWS I
efforts

11321 Provide active FWS NMFS-DCCA, DNR, 1
law enforcement DOS
to protect eggs
and adults

1211 Determine FWS NMFS-DCCA, DNR-DOS 1
hatching success

1221 Tag and/or FWS NMFS-DCCA, DNR-DOS I
mark adult
females

1222 Count nests NMFS FWS-DCCA, DNR-DOS 1
by aerial or
ground surveys

1223 Estimate NNFS FWS-DCCA, DNR-DOS I
available nesting
habitat by analyzing
available data and
initiating new data
gathering methodologies

1311111 Monitor coastal NMFS FWS-DCCA, DNR 3
processes affecting
critical habitat

areas.

224

131121 Regulate spoil DCCA-DNR NMFS-ACE 2
dumping, seafloor
mining, harmful
fishing practices
and oil spills

13211 Enhance local DOS NMFS-FWS I
law enforcement
efforts and promote
legal protection

132211 Regulate NMFS DCCA-FWS 4
methods, gear,
areas and seasons

132231 Regulate boat NMFS DCCA-FWS 4
speed

132241 Investigate and NMFS DCCA, DNR, ACE 4
monitor the occur-
rence of mortality
from entrainment
& entrapment

1411 Determine NMFS DCCA-DNR 4
the need to
monitor strand-
ings

1412 Determine the NMFS DCCA-DNR, DOS 4
need to monitor
incidental captures

1413 Conduct surveys NMFS DCCA-DNR, DOS 1
if feasible

1421 Assess feasi- NMFS DCCA-DNR,DOS 1
bility and
implement or
continue aerial
surveys

14131 Estimate NMFS DCCA-DNR, DOS 3
+ Feeding Areas
14211

225
Acronyms

PRIORITIES ranked 1-4 with I being the highest.

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

FWS = Fish and Wildlife Service

USCG = U.S. Coast Guard

DCCA = Department Conservation & Cultural Affairs
Virgin Islands Government .

DNR = Department of Natural Resources
Government of Puerto Rico

HOVIC = Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation

M/M = Martin Marietta

DOS = U.S. Department of State

ACE = Army Corps Engineers

Little HM LONI folvell
4"- Loll bill"

ISLA DE CULEBRA Sao Cal
Pete; d. 11.1.V AIWAUE
c say
Colovelt, SAINT Will
THOMAS Pt.
L 1. seem
SAINT J(
P.ft did 9.101.410,

P.". fooll.e.

P.04 Eve

ISLAND OF VIEQUES N

The
VIRGIN ISLANDS
NESTING LOCATIONS for
HAWKSBILLS

SAINT CROIX

FRIEDERIKSTE11

V
@oey

\@OF VIEQUEPS
ISL@ND

Mon ------- ------I S.edo Po L.4 Pl.
to..

227

3.5

KEMP'S RIDLEY TURTLE RECOVERY PLAN

228

Introduction

Nesting Kemp's ridleys concentrate at a single beach. This beach

is adjacent to Barra Coma, a sandbar on the coast of the Mexican State

of Tamaulipas near the village of Rancho Nuevo, Municipio de Aldama.

Almost the entire reproductive effort of Kemp's ridley occurs within

four miles north and one mile south of Barra Coma. The location of the

nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo is 23*10'00" to 23*18'10" north,

97*45'30" to 97045'45" west.

Records of nesting away from this area are rare. However, a few

individuals have nested on Padre Island, Texas (e.g. Werler 1951), and

Carr (1961) reported sporadic nesting in the vicinity of Alvarado,

Nautla, Anton Lizardo, and Montepio, Veracruz, Mexico. Even though an

individual, tagged while nesting at Rancho Nuevo on 28 May 1966, atypi-

cally nested again on 16 June 1971 at Playa de Guachaca, Colombia

(Chavez and Kaufmann, 1974), there is considerable doubt about this

record and the nesting range of Kemp's ridley undoubtedly is effectively

limited to the immediate vicinity of Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico as

described above. No concrete data indicate that Kemp's ridleys ever

nested except rarely at Padre Island; however, Hildebrand (pers. comm.)

reported unsubstantiated rumors of aggregated nesting at -that location

around the turn of the century. In exceptional years, when the

population of this species numbered at least in the tens of thousands,

sections of the main nesting aggregation--or even the entire

aggregation- -possibly responded to unusual current or climatic condi-

tions or simply missed the usual cues and beached on Padre Island.

However, Padre Island probably never harbored a discrete nesting colony

genetically isolated from the group that nests near Rancho Nuevo.

229

The abiotic environment of the nesting beach appears conducive to

nesting success. In a few areas, turtles probably encounter and have

difficulty ascending low cliffs. Some parts of the beach are scattered

with small rocks and boulders, but these are minor factors and probably

never prevent eventual egg laying. Similarly, the offshore environment

appears satisfactory. The beach is generally stable, and loss of eggs

by erosion is not known.

The vegetation of the berm of the nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo

consists of railroad vine (Ipomoea) and other primary succession

specie3. The dune itself is well vegetated with a climax community of

shrubs, scrub and some small trees. However, neither berm nor dune

vegetation appears to hinder nesting turtles.

No data are available on destruction of Lepidochelys nests by

excessive rainfall or saltwater inundation at Rancho Nuevo, but

hurricane generated tides flooded the hatcheries in 1982 and 1983.

Mexican conservation crews have at times felt that eggs in the

kempi hatchery were liable to suffer from dehydration when surface

sand became exceedingly desiccated during drought conditions, and in

some cases applied fresh water to the sand surface to remedy this.

But both the problem and the solution were intuitive rather than

demonstrable.

The two primary biotic factors affecting the nesting success of

turtles on the beach are: 1) egg predation, especially by coyotes

(Canis latrans) and 2) egg predation by humans. Efforts to mitigate

both of these factors began about 1965. Since 1978 U.S. personnel and

equipment havr@ assisted with these efforts. If a nest is not

translocated to the protected hatchery area, one of these predators is

230

likely to destroy the nest. However, under appropriate wind conditions,

some natural nests survive at Rancho Nuevo. For example, in 1979, 23

nests could not be located for transplant and apparently were not

destroyed by predators.

Rancho Nuevo is a wilderness beach, so there are no problems with

beach clean-up equipment, beach nourishment or human foot traffic.

Under the present management policies of moving eggs, problems with

roots of plants encroaching on nest cavities, or nest destruction by

later nesting turtles, do not arise. Presently there are no buildings

on the beachfront except the turtle conservation camp at Barra Coma,

situated behind a high sand dune. Agricultural practices, grazing and

charcoal burning near the beach have not affected the suitability of the

beach for turtle nesting. Cattle walking on the beach, however, may

represent a sporadic or localized effect to nests still in situ.

The present management technique of moving eggs to a protected

hatchery and maintaining beach patrols every day of the season appears

to be adequate, but such measures cannot be relaxed in the foreseeable

future. For example, when observers were late getting to the beach

in 1983, poaching again became a problem until the patrols were set up

and aerial flights were again used to monitor the beach. I

Juveniles of Kemp's ridley are more often seen in U.S. waters

than the adults. Indeed, for many years only subadults were known to

the scientific world. Young Kemp's ridleys are sometimes lost when

231

they fail to remain in or close to the Gulf Stream and drift across

the Atlantic, where they may be washed up on the shore of Ireland,

Great Britain, and northern Europe (Brongersma, 1972). Such individuals

probably never return to the breeding population, and although live

specimens are sometimes found, the majority are feeble or dying, particu-

larly in the winter months. Some areas of regular occurrence of juvenile

Kemp's ridley in U.S. waters are known, but this phase of the life history

requires extensive further investigation.

Juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridleys may die during cold spells,

though quantitative information on natural cold-stunning on this is not

currently available. However, Ehrhart (in press) documents the

hypothermic stunning of two Kemp's Ridleys, in Banana River and Mosquito

Lagoon, Florida, in 1977 and 1981. Lazell (1976) attributes mortality of

several juvenile ridleys in New England waters to trawler drownings, and

Carr (1957) mentions a virtual hegira of subadult ridleys from Vineyard

Sound in the 1930s, dozens of which died on Woods Hole beaches.

Juvenile ridleys probably are caught regularly by shrimpers, but

recent data on this are hard to quantify since shrimpers stand in viola-

tion of the law even if they catch a ridley accidentally. Offshore

essential habitat--a "no-trawling zone"--is vitally important. Such a

zone was declared off of Rancho Nuevo in 1978, but its limits were

arbitrary and violated frequently. Fewer trawlers have been seen in

recent years, a probable reflection of economic conditions.

232

Lepidochelys kempi enjoys complete legal protection in both coun-

tries in which it occurs (Mexico and the United States). Stray indi-

viduals may be found in other countries. However, these are never

adult, are few in number, and probably are irrelevant to the overall

species and its survival.

Since the sole nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo is patrolled, poaching

of nesting turtles is rare. However, a few individuals, possibly total-

ing less than ten altogether, were taken by poachers on the beach during

the 1978-1979 seasons. Adults of @@ also may be sold in very small

numbers in markets of cities along the Gulf Coast, e.g. , Ciudad del

Carmen, Campeche. Nevertheless, the directed catch of adult kempi

appears extremely low. Few individuals have been found dead of natural

causes on the beach at Rancho Nuevo. Natural but undocumented predation

on the adult turtles doubtlessly occurs. Probably the greatest

documented loss of adults in recent years has been accidental drowning

in shrimp trawls. Recent trawl captures of tagged ridleys have not been
published, but data as of 1973 are summarized by Pritchard and Ma'rquez

(1973) and Marquez (pers. comm.).

The Mexican equivalent of Critical Habitat Designation would be

important for future protection of both the Rancho Nuevo -nesting beach

and offshore waters. A proposal of this kind was made by Rene Marquez,

head of the Mexican turtle conservation program, in 1976. Its current

status and enforceability need clarification.

233

Tag returns have shown that the coast of Campeche, Mexico, is an

important destination for post-nesting Kemp's ridleys. The catastrophic

blow-out of the offshore oilwell IXTOC I in 1979 may have caused serious

negative impact upon adult Kemp's ridleys, either returning from Rancho

Nuevo or resident there throughout a nonbreeding year. However,

documentation of this is lacking.

Since the present document will not be updated annually, the Kemp's

ridley recovery plan described on pages 226, et. seg., describes

recovery actions in relatively general terms. It is included primarily

to describe actions already started under binational agreements between

U.S. and Mexican agencies, and to establish a policy framework under

whose aegis a binational committee will prepare detailed work plans

each year for restoration of this critically endangered species.

1. Primary Objective: To restore the Kemp's ridley population
to a level comparable to that of the
1940's

11. Mitigate factors affecting 15. Assess populations at
terrestrial mortality and/ sea if feasible
or stress

12. Assess and monitor popu- 14. Mitigate factors affecting
lation levels on beaches marine mortality and/or
stress

13. Prevent extinction

11. Mitigate factors affecting
terrestrial morta ity and/
or stress

F
111. Man-induced habitat 112. Predation 113. Human take
_ alterations
T_

1121. Natural 1122. Feral 1131. Illegal 1132. Legal

1111. Pollution 1112. Development

11211. Use hatcheries
and head-starting

11121. Maintain the integrity of
the preserve by regulation
of cattle, wood gathering, 11311. Maintain and augment
road construction etc. beach patrols

T F_
Regulate 11112. Develop oil F321 11322. Maintain highly conservative
petrochemi spill contin- P'.vide active law enforcement take for scientific purposes
industry gency plan protect eggs and adults
to

L,n

236

Kemp's Ridley - Stepdown Plan

Recognizing that Kemp's Ridley nests entirely within the Mexican

jurisdictional area, the following recommendations are made in hopes of

furthering the on-going Mexican-American cooperative activities.

1. Primary Objective: To restore the Kemp's ridley populations

to a level comparable to that of the 1940s.

The decline of Kemp's ridley, from an estimated 40,000 turtles

in one nesting arribada in 1947 to approximately 1000 nests

per season at present, is more clearly defined than that of

any other sea turtle species. The objective is therefore to

restore the population to a level comparable with that ob-

served in the photographically documented nesting group of

June 18, 1947.

11. Mitigate factors affecting terrestrial mortality and/or stress,

11111. Regulate petrochemical industry (see loggerhead step 111211).

11112. Develop oil spill contingency plan.

The IXTOC I oil spill in 1979 demonstrated the susceptibility

of the Rancho Nuevo nesting beach to oil pollution. Measures

to prevent recurrence of such an event, plus -maintenance of

clean-up and "turtle rescue," are vital.

A. Develop contingency plan for transferring nests to clean

sand areas or artificial incubation in the event of a

major oil spill at Rancho Nuevo.

B. Develop contingency plans for protected captive main-

tenance or air-lifting of @atchlings to clean release

areas.

237

11121. Encourage the regulation of cattle, wood gathering and road

construction, and maintain the integrity of the preserve.

The Rancho Nuevo nesting site is 'free of any form of beach-

front development, a nd none is foreseen in the immediate

future since the beach and its vicinity currently have reserve

status.

A. Recommend posting the reserve area.

B. Eliminate habitat destruction of the dunes and adjacent

land areas by prohibiting herding cattle on the beach

during the nesting season.

C. Discourage access to the beach by eliminating road

improvements.

11211. Use hatcheries and head-starting.

There is intensive predatory pressure on ridley eggs at Rancho

Nuevo from coyotes, other animal predators, and local people.

A. Continue egg transfers to safe nesting sites (either a

beach hatchery or to incubation boxes) until natural

nests can be protected in situ.

B. Determine sex ratios to evaluate hatchery techniques by

minimizing destructive sampling and/or rearing captive

animals.

C. Continue headstarting program with a percentage of the

annual production from Rancho Nuevo (5% or less).

11311. Maintain and augment beach patrols.

Poaching pressures are such that a single season's laxity in

patrols would be a serious setback to the restoration effort.

238

A. Maintain a thorough patrol of the beach through

binational efforts.

B. Utilize aircraft to spot single or grouped nesting

turtles well away from the main beach.

11321. Maintain total ban on commercial, recreational or subsistence

take.

Both the United States and Mexico currently offer total legal

protection to Kemp's ridley.

Continue ban on all types of take.

11322. Maintain highly conservative take for scientific purposes.

While certain experiments on Kemp's ridley that have relevance

to the development of restoration techniques should be per-

mitted, issue of such permits should be extremely conserva-

tive.

A. Maintain tight control of numbers of hatchlings submitted

to "head-starting".

B. Restrict biochemical studies on adult turtles to the

careful extraction of fluid samples from live animals by

highly skilled personnel.

C. Prohibit experiments on this species that -do not have a

direct or indirect relevance to development of recovery

techniques.

12. Assess and monitor popu- 13. Prevent extinction
lation levels on beaches

121. Beach recruitment 122. Nesting and/ 131. Establish captive
or nests breeding colonies

1211. Determine hatching
success

1221. Tag or mark 1222. Count nests by aerial
adult or ground surveys

240

12. Assess and monitor population levels on beaches.

Monitoring of all aspects of the terrestrial activities of

Kemp's ridley on the nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo,

Tamaulipas, Mexico, must be continued.

1211. Determine hatching success.

Monitor nests annually as an index to the population and

to quantify productivity by hatching success.

1221. Tag or mark adult females.

Monitor the number of different females tagged each

season as an index to the population.

1222. Count nests by aerial or ground surveys.

A. Record nestings away from the Rancho Nuevo environs.

B. Conduct interviews regularly with residents of western

Gulf shores from Padre Island, Texas, south to southern

Veracruz.

C. Survey by aircraft during the nesting season (mid-April

to late June) to document additional nesting or

strandings.

241

13. Prevent extinction.

131. Establish captive breeding colonies.

Kemp's ridley is the one sea turtle species that is now

so rare and so localized in its breeding habits, that the

possibility of total extinction of the wild population cannot

be discounted.

The closed-cycle captive -breeding project for the Kemp's

ridley is considered to be a priority 1 activity in view of

the extremely depleted status of this species and the

impossibility of offering the wild stock adequate protection

except while the adults are actually on the nesting beach.

Despite full legal protection by both the United States and

Mexico, factors such as incidental catch, the IXTOC oil spill,

and other stresses make the future of the species questionable

even if the beach patrols result in good protection of both

nesting turtles and their eggs.

Because of the prolific nature of sea turtles, initial

stock for captive breeding can be obtained with minimal impact

upon wild populations by taking hatchlings rather than adults,

and perfecting captive culture techniques as these hatchlings

mature. Various options are available once the colony starts

to produce fertile eggs. These can be hatched and the young

raised in captivity; they can be hatched and the young

released either immediately or head-started before release; or

the eggs can be taken to the natural nesting beach at Rancho

Nuevo before they hatch so the young turtles can enter their

natural post-hatching ecosystem immediately, and presumably

242

follow normal developmental movements and habitat changes

subsequently. Even with relatively few captive-produced nests

annually, it may be possible to pursue each of these different

options simultaneously.

A. Establish captive breeding colonies at suitable

facilities provided with aquatic and artificial nesting

beach facilities, expert curatorial personnel, and pros-

pects of long-term existence.

B. Utilize existing captive animals or modest numbers of

wild hatchlings or head-started animals for initial

stock.

15. Assess populations at
14. Mitigate factors affecting sea If feasible
marine mortality and/or
stress

151. Determine feasibility of
aerial and other means of
141. Habitat alterations 142. Human take 143. Unknown mortality at-sea population monitoring
factors

1431. Determine these factors,
if any, and take appropriate
1421. Directed 1422, Tncidental action
F

1411. Physical @1412. Chemical 14211. Maintain and enforce 14221. Regulate methods, gear,
ban on take through- area and seasons in U.s.
I I out the range waters
F
14111. Natural F14112. Han-induced- 14222. Recommend adjustments to
Mexican no trawling zone
as needed
T
14111. Cold 141121. Regulate spoil dumping,
stunning sea floor mining and 14223. Recommend regulations for
trawl tows method, area, gear and
season in Mexican waters

41111. Develop contingency
[email protected]

plans to prevent
mortality 14121. Regulate petrochemical industry,
F, bilge pumping, and industrial
dumping

244

14. Mitigate factors affecting marine mortality and/or stress.

1411111. Develop contingency plans to prevent mortality.

Winter behavior of ridleys is poorly known, but juveniles of

the species are regularly found as far north as New England

waters.

Implement procedures for enhancing survival of cold-

stunned sea turtles (see section 2.6).

141121. Regulate spoil dumping, sea floor mining and trawl tows.

The effects of these activities on Kemp's ridley habitat have

not been documented, but common sense precautionary measures

should be taken before any such activities are permitted in

the known habitat of Kemp's ridley. See loggerhead account

for details (step 121121).

14121. Regulate petrochemical industry, bilge pumping and industrial

dumping.

This is an international problem which should be addressed

within the context of the Protocol Concerning Cooperation in

Combating Oil Spills in the Wider Caribbean of the Convention

for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment

of the Wider Caribbean Region. The primary feeding areas of

adult ridleys (in the Louisiana coast in the USA and the

Campeche coast in Mexico) are areas of intensive offshore oil

drilling, with regular and occasionally massive spills having

unknown effects on the turtles (See Loggerhead Section 13121).

A. Undertake spill control technology exchange between oil

companies in the US and Mexico.

245

B Enforce safety inspections to avoid oil spills in the

Gulf of Mexico.

14211. Maintain and enforce ban on take throughout the range.

See step 11321.

14221. Regulate methods, gear, area and seasons in U.S. waters.

Documentation of the degree and location of incidental capture

of Kemp's ridleys by the U.S. fishing industry (especially

shrimp trawlers) is lacking. Such data are essential if

appropriate protective measures for the species are to be

prepared.

A. Provide a legal solution to the incidental take problem

as soon as possible (see section 2.4).

B. Obtain anonymous reports from- fishermen as to location

and times of incidental catch of ridleys.

14222. Recommend adjustment to Mexican "no-trawling" zone as needed.

It is possible that the present "no-trawling" zone is

adequate, since dead ridleys have not been recorded stranded

at Rancho Nuevo in recent years, though the possibility of

incidentally caught turtles being retained for food cannot be

discounted.'

A. Continue radio-tracking experiments at Rancho Nuevo to

define the area frequented by turtles between their

nesting emergences.

B. Recommend adjustments to the "no-trawling" zone to

include as much of this zone as possible.

246

14223. Recommend regulations for methods, area, gear and season in

Mexican waters.

Those regulations will be of the type described in loggerhead

section 122211, but their development and implementation in

Mexico will depend upon political and economic factors in

Mexico entirely beyond the control of the United States.

Recommendations can only be made.

1431. Determine unknown mortality factors, if any, and take appro-

priate action.

Obviously, no specifics can be recommended in this area.

However, the decline of Kemp's ridley during the last thirty

years has been so massive that it remains possible that other

factors than the known causes of decline have been at work.

151. Determine feasibility of aerial and other means of at-sea

monitoring.

Based on two seasons of aerial surveys, aerial monitoring of

Kemp's ridley populations is unlikely to be very productive

since this species does not appear to spend significant

amounts of time at the surface at any stage of its life cycle

(Pritchard, 1980).

A. Gather information from shrimp trawlers, recreational

fishermen, and others who may catch ridleys incidentally

to fishing efforts for other species.

B. Monitor both population trends and magnitude of overall

mortality by incidental capture.

247

Lepidochelys kempi

Implementation Schedule

Plan Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priority

11111 Regulate petrochemi- NMFS, FWS MMS, DOE, SCA, 3
cal industry ;G, PE, USCG

.11112 Develop oil spill NMFS 2
contingency plan

11121 Maintain integrity DP FWS, SCA, CG I
of the preserve

11211 Use hatcheries and NMFS FWS, CEM, CG, 1
head-starting TPWD, KPS

11311 Maintain and augment FWS, INP, SEDUE I
beach patrols

11321 Maintain.total ban NMFS, DP, FWS, SCA 1
on commercial, recre-
ational or subsistence
take

11322 Maintain highly FWS, INP, SEDUE NMFS 2
conservative take for
.sckentific purposes,

1211 Determine hatching INP FWS, CG 2
success

1221 Tag or mark adult INP FWS, CG 2
females

1222 Count nests by FWS, INP, SEDUE CG 2
aerial or ground
surveys

131 Establish captive NMFS CEM
breeding colonies

141111 Develop contingency FWS, INP, SEDUE NMFS, U, SCA, CG, PI 2
plans-to prevent
mortality

248

Plan Section Lead Agency Cooperators Priority

141121 Regulate spoil NMFS, EPA DP, FI, MMS, USCG I
dumping, sea floor
mining and trawl
tows

14121 Regulate petro- USCG MMS, FWS, NMFS, CZM, 1 2
chemical industry,
bilge pumping and
industrial dumping

14211 Maintain and enforce NMFS DP, FWS, SCA I
ban on take through-
out the range

14221 Regulate methods, NMFS 2
gear, area and
seasons in U.S.
waters

14222 Recommend adjust- FWS DP, NMFS, CG 2
ment to Mexican
11no-trawling" zone
as needed

14223 Recommend regula- NMFS DP, DS 2
tions for methods,
area, gear and season
in Mexican waters

1431 De'termine unknown NMFS FWS, U, FI, PI, SCA 3
mortality factors,
if any, and take
appropriate action

151 Determine feasibil- NMFS U, CG, USCG 2
ity of aerial and
other means of at-sea
monitoring

249

DEFINITIONS

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service

MMS = Minerals Management Service

SCA = State Conservation Agencies

LG = Local Governments

INP = Instituto Nacional de Pesca

DP = Departmento de Pesca (Mexico)

TPWD = Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

U = Universities

F1 = Fishing Industry

I = Industry

FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

DOE = Department of Energy

PE = PEMEX (Mexican Oil Industry)

TJSCG = United States Coast Guard

CG = Conservation Groups

CEM = Commercial Exhibit and Mariculture

NPS = National Park Service

PI = Private Individuals

CZM = Coastal Zone Management

DS = Department of State

SEDUE = (Mexico's) Secretary,for Ecology and Urban Development

250

WESTERN
GULF of MEXICO-
NESTING of
ISOLATED NESTINGS YCEMPS RIDLEY
(WERLER, 1951)

ISOLATED NESTINGS

'N
*----SINGLE OBSERVATION OF
SMALL GROUP NESTING IN SCALE IS APPROXIMATELY
1979 (MARQUEZ, PERS. COMM.) 1:4,000,000
I%-64mi. (approx.)

0 64 128ml.

SPORADIC NESTING (AERIAL SURVEY)

ZONE OF CONCENTRATED NESTING

TAMAUUPAS

ZONE OF OCCASIONAL SINGLE NESTINGS
(CARR and CALDWELL, 1958)

SOLATED NESTINGS
(MARQUEZ MS)

251

4. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Sea turtles are migratory, occupying national and.international

waters; therefore, a comprehensive recovery plan including many nations

throughout the western Atlantic area is desirable. The range.of each

population needs to be cooperatively treated as a geographic management

unit by countries within the range.

All conservation actions which have been identified in this plan

are consistent with the intergovernmental and international documents

listed below:

1. World Conservation Strategy.

2. IUCN Strategy for the Conservation of Living Marine

Resources and Processes in the Caribbean and the IUCN

Program Document.

3. The Caribbean Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment

Program. UNEP Regional Seas Program.

4. Action Plan, World Sea Turtle Conservation Meeting.

Effective international planning and cooperation requires a foun-

dation of international and. related national law. The existing legal

foundation to support national and international sea turtle survival

actions is inadequate. Insufficient use has been made by nations of

existing relevant international conventions to develop national and

international agreements, statutes, and regulations. National legisla-

tion is frequently nonexistant or insufficient to cope with the problem.

Where it does exist, mechanisms for international cooperation have not

been adequately developed. Enforcement is part icularly difficult due to

252

turtle exploitation taking place at sea or on remote beaches, and trade

in turtle products under The Convention of International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is inadequately con-

trolled.

The purpose of this section is to identify recovery actions designed

to fill lacunae in the existing legal structure as well as to strengthen

existing law. The objective of this plan section is to outline what is

needed to bring into existence the legal foundation for recovery of sea

turtles in the Western North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean

Sea which includes many political entities.

As appropriate, this section discusses each international agreement

as it relates to legal mechanisms for sea turtle protection and recovery.

Needed actions and responsible entities are identified.

253

4.2 INTERNATIONAL LAW

An important element of the U.S. "Caribbean Initiative" should be

support of a Wider Caribbean environmental protection program. This

should include: (1) U.S. active participation (as a Party) in the

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment

of the Wider Caribbean Region and (2) U.S. support for the negotiation

of a Wildlife Conservation Protocol (with a Marine Turtle Annex) to the

Convention.

Twenty countries in the Plan Region signed. This Plan, the scienti-

fic proceedings of the International Oceanographic Commission Association

for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (IOCARIBE) , intergovernmental

Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium (July, 1983) and other relevant Wider

Caribbean marine turtle documents, can provide an informational and con-

ceptual base for the development of a draft Wider Caribbean Marine Turtle

Conservation Annex to a Wider Caribbean Wildlife Conservation Protocol.

In addition there are in force two global conventions and a regional

convention which are directly relevant to conservation of sea turtles in

the Plan area: (1) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), (2) the Convention on the Conser-

vation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and (3) the Convention on

Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere.

The U.S. is a party to the first and third but not the second. Other

existing international agreements relevant to marine turtle conservation

are discussed in this Section.

254

1 Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the

Western Hemisphere.

Scope and Provisions: This regional Convention'has as its purpose

the protection and preservation in their natural habitat of representa-

tives of all species and genera of the native flora and fauna of the

American Republics in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough

to assure them from becoming extinct. It is designed to be applicable

to the conservation of species identified in the Annex to the Convention.

This Annex lists species whose protection is declared to be of "special

urgency and importance." "Species included therein shall be protected

as completely as possible, and their hunting, killing, capturing, or

taking shall be allowed only with the permission of the appropriate

government authorities." The Convention also provides for the establish-

ment of necessary measures, such as the issuing of permits "to,control

and regulate the importation, exportation and transit of protected fauna

of flora or any part thereof." The only turtle species currently on the

Species Annex by the U.S. is the green turtle. Other countries such as

Mexico have listed other species.

Implementation: This Convention has been in force since 1940, and

ten countries in the Plan region are party members of the Convention.

During its 40 years of existence, little has been done until recently to

implement the Convention; however, there have been developments since

1976. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 directed the President to take

appropriate U.S. initiative to begin to implement the Convention of

Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere.

255

Subsequent amendments have provided further emphasis to implement the

convention. During the period 1977-1979 the Organization of American

States (OAS) convened five technical meeting's designed to activate the

Convention. At one of these meetings it was stated:

"The chief causes of the continued decline of sea turtle populations
are (1) over-exploitation generated by inadequate laws and regulations;
(2) defective enforcement of existing laws and regulations; and (3) the
incidental taking of turtles in trawls by the expanding shrimping
industry." I/

This regional Convention has a great potential for furthering marine

turtle survival and recovery, and every effort should be made to resume

the momentum developed since 1976 by the five Organization of American

State (OAS) Technical Meetings.

In summary, this Convention, along with the new Convention for the

Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Carib-

bean Region, seems to have the potential for providing the best inter-
national law foundation to undergird sea turtle conservati@n in the Plan

area.

Actions Required: State Department

Explore with Parties to the Convention and other states in the area

the feasibility of negotiating bilateral and/or multilateral agreements

on survival and recovery of sea turtles under the umbrella of the Conven-

tion. The agreements should seek to be consistent with this Recovery Plan

and the Sea Turtle Conservation Strategy Action Plan, World Conferedce on

Sea Turtle Conservation held at State Department, Nov. 26-30, 1979,

Washington, D.C. 2/

1/ P. 49 OAS, Technical Meeting on Conservation of Migratory Animals of
the Western Hemisphere and their Ecosystems, Panama, Republic of
Panama, June 4-8, 1979.
2/ Sea Turtle Conservation Strategy, World Conference on Sea Turtle Conser-
vation, Nov. 26-30, 1979, Washington, D.C. -

256

Encourage Organization of American States (OAS) Parties to implement

the recommendation of the five OAS Technical meetings utilizing the Inter-

national Union for the Conservation of Native and Natural Resources and

other international entities as appropriate.

U.S. Embassies should work to increase perception among Caribbean

countries of the biological, economic and social realities of declining,

threatened and endangered stocks of sea turtles and the consequent dis-

appearance of remaining turtle resources.

Actions Required: Department of the Interior

Establish National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service

cooperative sea turtle scientific research, management, training and

informational exchange programs with other countries in the Plan area.

Actions Required: Department of Commerce

Seek to add all sea turtle species in the Plan area to the Annex to the

Convention.

As a top priority, work cooperatively with the International Union

for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to insure rapid technology trans-

fer through United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) on National Marine Fish Service trawling

efficiency device modifications to all countries with trawl, net fisheries

in the Plan area.

257

2. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES)

Scope and Provisions:

The Convention is not a comprehensive wildlife conservation convention

but is limited to controlling international trade in species threatened

with extinction or species potentially threatened with extinction. With-

in this important functional area of controlling international trade

in sea turtles and international agreement. However, unlike the previous

convention, it has nothing to say about protection within national

territories and waters and protection of habitat.

Species protected by CITES trade controls are placed on one of three

appendices, only two of which are commonly used. Appendix I species

are those species threatened with extinction, which may or may not be

affected by trade. Accordingly, Appendix I species are provided with

the strongest protection; with very limited exemptions, commercial and

tourist trade is prohibited. All sea turtle species are on Appendix I.

Species on Appendix II are those species which are, not necessarily now

threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade in such species

is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible

with their survival. International trade in Appendix II species is

allowed provided that the country of export grants approval for such

trade. Species not fitting the above criteria may also be included in

the Appendices in order to ensure that trade in more vulnerable species

is brought under effective control (e.g., look-alike-species).

258

Implementation:

CITES came into force in 1975 and has become an effective mechanism

for controlling international trade in most endangered species. However,

trade in products derived from hawksbill and olive ridley, and to a much

lesser extent, green sea turtles still continues in the wider Caribbean

region because of three major factors:

1. Only 18 of the 32 geopolitical units in the region are members

of CITES. Some of the non-member geopolitical units trade internationally

in sea turtle products.

CITES Members Non-members

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

Brazil Antigua
British Virgin Islands Barbados
Cayman Islands Belize
Colombia Dominica
Bahamas Dominican Republic
Bermuda Cuba
Guyana Grenada
Costa Rica Honduras
French Guiana Jamaica
Guadeloupe Mexico
Martinique Haiti
Montserrat St. Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla
Nicaragua St. Vincent
Panama Turks and Caicos
St. Lucia
Surinam
Venezuela
United States

2. Some member countries have taken "reservations" on sea turtles.

Surinam has a reservation on green and leatherback sea turtles. Until

January 1984, France, and France's overseas departments (French Guiana,

Martinique, Guadeloupe) had reservations on hawksbill and green sea

turtles.

259

3. Some member countries have not effectively enforced CITES trade

controls.

Actions Required: State Department

Encourage all sea turtle trading countries in the plan area, not

yet party to CITES, to join without reservation (e.g., Mexico, Dominican

Republic, Cuba, Haiti).

Encourage Surinam to withdraw its CITES reservations for sea

turtles.

Encourage all Parties to CITES to fully implement and enforce

CITES import and export controls (e.g., Panama, Cayman Islands).

Actions Required: Departments of Commerce and Interior

Determine major markets and sources of turtle products, and dis-

courage nations conducting this trade with trade tariffs, quotas, stiff

penalties for violations, etc.

3. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

Scope and Provisions:

The Migratory Species Convention was negotiated and signed by 22

nations in Bonn, Germany, in June, 1979. The U.S. did not sign The

only countries with territories in the Plan area who signed are the

United Kingdom and France.

This convention makes all migratory species and regions of the world

eligible for consideration and is designed to stimulate the negotiation

of further migratory species conservation agreements, as well as obli-

gating member states to unilaterally protect endangered migratory species.

260

Appendix I lists endangered species. Parties that are range states

agree to prohibit the taking of endangered animals (with some exceptions)

within their national jurisdictions. Appendix II lists migratory species

which have an unfavorable conservation status and which require inter-

national agreements for their conservation and management. Parties

which are range states of Appendix II species agree to endeavor to con-

clude agreements covering these species. Appendix I currently lists

Kemps ridley and leatherback and Appendix II includes all Cheloniidae

and Dermochelyidae. Thus, all Parties within the actual range of these

species are obligated to participate in their conservation.

Because there is no immediate prospect that most of the countries

in the Plan area will ratify this Convention, and only three are Parties,

its potential value lies in providing principles and concepts which can

be used in developing bilateral and multilateral agreements for the Plan

area under the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation

in the Western Hemisphere and the Convention for the Protection and

Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region.

During the negotiations, the U.S. agreed to the inclusion of sea

turtles on Appendix I and II and expressed a desire to cooperate

with the Convention Parties.

Actions Required:

Same as for previous convention.

4. Draft Law of the Sea Treaty

Scope and,Provisions:

The draft Law of the Sea has already changed concepts of interna-

tional law relating to the sea, and coasta 1 states are now claiming

261

jurisdiction for two hundred miles out from their coasts to include

marine species. Conservation of marine species has not been a major

objective of the Law of the Sea negotiations; however, a coastal state

now has the option of unilaterally putting into effect conservation

measures within its exclusive economic zone.

Implementation:

The U.S. has not signed the Convention.

5. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage

Scope and Provisions:

The objective of the Convention is to preserve natural areas having

Ifuniversal value" and the preservation of cultural monuments. One

category of natural area included in a "precisely delineated area which

constitutes the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of

outstanding universal value from the point of-view of science or conser-

vation." It is the responsibility of a Party to unilaterally designate

such areas and to issue regulations.

A World Heritage Committee is established by the Convention which

has the power to provide assistance to Parties which designate natural

areas. This ability to provide financial aid to less developed countries

is an important provision of the Convention. Otherwise, it is of minor

value for sea turtle protection because of the lack of protective

standards.

262

Implementation:

Brazil, Guyana, Costa Rica, Panama and the U.S. have ratified the

Convention.

Actions Required: State Department

Encourage other states in the Plan area to ratify the Convention.

Actions Required: State, Commerce and Interior Departments

Identify sea turtle nesting beaches and water habitat areas that are

candidates for being designated as "natural areas" under the convention,

and encourage the World Heritage Committee to enter into discussions with

Parties to achieve such designation and provide financial support as

appropriate.

6. International Fisheries Agreements

Scope and Provisions:

Existing international fisheries agreements do not address the prob-

lem of incidental take or the need to conserve sea turtles as a natural

resource.

The following organizations have the potential for supporting sea

turtle recovery: The Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission

(WECAFC), International Oceanographic Commission Activities in the Cari-

bbean (IOCARIBE), Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI), Man and

the Biosphere Program (UNESCOMAB) and the National Marine Fisheries

Service International Fisheries Program in the Western Central Atlantic,

the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico have the potential for supporting

sea turtle recovery.

263

Actions Required:

These programs need to focus on and expand their activities

directly or indirectly toward sea turtle 'conservation. Negotiations

should be entered into as necessary to amend terms of reference or

agreements to permit these actions to be taken.

265

INTRODUCTION

This Recovery Plan deals only with populations of Olive Ridley in

the Western Atlantic. Since this population is of recent discovery

(Schulz, 1964; Pritchard, 1966), it is not possible to assess the former

breeding range of the species in the area.

Almost all Western Atlantic olive ridleys nest at Eilanti Beach,

Surinam, 5' 50'N, 540 3'W, near the mouth of the Marowijne River. This

beach is only about one km in length and is bordered by mangroves at the

eastern end and by a lagoon at the western end. The topography and

outline of the beach vary greatly from year to year (Schulz, 1975).

Some olive ridleys nest in other parts of Surinam, including larger

beaches towards and in the mouth of the Marowijne River, east of

Eilanti. These beaches are Pruimenboom, Galibi and Baboensanti. Other

olive ridleys nest on Bigisanti, 6*00'N, 54'50'W. Bigisanti is one of

the most mobile beaches known, and its sandy areas move toward the west

at a rate of several kilometers per year. Nesting has also been re-

ported from Shell Beach, Guyana (Pritchard 1969), and from the beaches

in western French Guiana (Point IseYe, Sil@bache).

To the casual eye, Eilanti appears to be an extremely marginal sea

turtle nesting beach. The sand stretch is so short that egg destruction

by later-nesting turtles is potentially a serious problem. Beach ero-

sion is so severe that many nests are likely to be lost, and the beach

is fronted at low tide by at least a kilometer of exposed soft mud.

Thus, turtles are forced to nest by high tide, and those that linger too

long on the beach face a seaward trek of hundreds of meters over the

mudflat.

266

Agencies in Surinam (Landsbosbeheer and Stinasu) maintain beach

patrols, and eggs laid too close to the sea are moved to more protected

locations. Turtles found nesting so late that they will have to return

to the sea over the mud flat are kept in the shade until rising tide.

The real threats to this population appear to lie in the marine phase of

the turtles' existence rather than on the nesting beach.

Eggs of the olive ridley at Eilanti, when allowed to hatch in situ,

are subject to the usual tropical beach predators - ghost crabs, crab-

eating raccoons, etc. However, these are probably not a serious factor.

Until 1967, predation on the eggs by local Carib Indians, who gathered

them for sale primarily to Indonesians in Albina and Paramaribo, was

virtually 100%. However, this devastating loss has now been curtailed,

and the beach is fully protected by the Surinam Forest Service.

Existing beach protection and patrols in Surinam appear adequate,

and it is essential that they continue. The TED (turtle excluder de-

vice) should be demonstrated to government fishery departments in the

countries of northern South America, especially Surinam and Guyana, so

that recommendations can be considered for trawlers operating in those

waters.

Live juvenile olive ridleys are virtually unknown, in spite of the

vast populations of this species in parts of the East Pacific. As long

as this phase of the life cycle remains cryptic, no data can be given on

mortality of subadult olive ridleys.

Lepidochelys olivacea has been legally protected in Surinam since

1967. Adults are not known to suffer anthropogenic or natural mortality

on or close to the nesting beaches. However, in neighboring Guyana,

ridleys nesting on Shell Beach are regularly killed by people from the

267

Pomeroon and Waini areas for food.

Adult olive ridleys are also caught in the French West Indies

(especially Guadeloupe) where the shells are sold as souvenirs. How-

ever, the magnitude of this catch is not known.

The greatest source of loss to adult individuals is incidental

catch by trawlers. Of the 3359 'olive ridleys tagged in Surinam by

Pritchard (1976), nearly all of the 72 tag returns were made by trawler-

men, and in most such cases the turtle was dead. Capture of Surinam

ridleys at sea by both commercial and research trawlers is further

documented by Caldwell e -t al. (1969). It is probably this loss,

combined with recruitment failure following years of almost total egg

collection, that caused the population at Eilanti to decline

precipitously even following complete protection since 1967.

1. Primary Objective: To reverse declines in nesting on Surinam beaches
and to restore the population to a level commensurate
vith existing habitat

Mitigate factors affecting 12. Assess and monitor population 13. Mitigate factors affecting 14. Assess population at sea
terrestrial mortality and/ levels on beaches marine mortality and/or If feasible
or others T stress

121. Bea@_h TecTuitment 122. Nesting
and/or nests 141. Determine feasibility of
erial and other means of
t-sea population monitoring

111. Promote continuation of
the Surinam beach pro-
tection program 31, Quantify I
catch
F,

1211. Determine hatching 132. Promote the use
success of the TED
throughout the range
of the species
F
221. Tag or ma@@ 1222- Count nests by aerial
F, or ground survey

269

Olive Ridley - Stepdown Plan

The team recognizes the efforts that are already underway

in Surinam to protect the Olive Ridley. The following

recommendations may be redundant to those efforts, but they

are included here for information and because this species

appears on the U.S. Lists of Endangered and Threatened Flora

and Fauna.

1. Primary Objective: To reverse declines in nesting on Surinam

beaches and to restore the population to a level commensurate

with existing habitat.

11. Mitigate factors affecting terrestial mortality and/or stress.

III. Promote continuation of the beach protection program. The

beach protection efforts at Eilanti and Bigisanti, Surinam,

are considered adequate but must be continued since the

protection of eggs for the last thirteen years has not

resulted in measurable increase in recruitment to the nesting

population.

A. Protect nesting females and their eggs on the beaches in

Guyana.

B. Continued good protection of the Surinam colony.

12. Assessment of population status by terrestrial monitoring.

1211. Determine hatching success.

A. Continue to monitor Eilanti Beach, Surinam.

B. Monitor and make estimates of numbers of nesting ridleys

on other beaches including Shell Beach (Guyana),

Silebache Beach (French Guiana), and Bigisanti (Surinam).

270

C. Investigate additional beaches in Surinam which are

rumored to have nesting olive ridleys.

D. Evaluate hatching success at Eilanti and elsewhere in the

South Atlantic.

1221. Tag or mark adult females.

1222. Count nests by aerial survey.

13. Mitigate factors affecting pelagic mortality and/or stress.

131. Quantify incidental catch.

Most of the tag returns from Surinam have been obtained by

shrimp trawlers operating in the area between Trinidad and the

Oyapoque River. It is possible that incidental catch has been

a significant factor in the decline of the species from 1967

to the present.

Quantify and document, by interviews with shrimp captains

and other techniques, the capture and fate of olive rid-

leys in trawls.

132. Promote the use of proven excluder trawl technology throughout

the range of the species.

The need for this is obvious if step 131 (above) reveals

ongoing significant levels of incidential catch mortality.

14. Assess populations at sea if possible.

141. Determine feasibility of aerial and other means of at-sea

monitoring.

Routine monitoring of olive ridleys at sea in the Western

Atlantic may prove infeasible because they are only caught

sporadically and usually incidentaily to other fishery opera-

tions (e.g., by shrimp trawlers). The olive ridley in the East

271

Pacific spends a great deal of time floating on the surface in

a potentially countable fashion, although there is no evidence

that olive ridleys in Surinam and adjacent waters do this.

A. Conduct exploratory surveys to confirm pelagic basking

behavior.

B. Record and assess data from observations and catches of

olive ridleys at sea.

NORTHERN SOUTH AMEELILICA
NESTING of the OLIVE RIDLEY
in WESTERN ATLANTIC

Single nesting record
(Matura Beach)

VENEZUELA Low density nesting (Shell Beach)
Occasional nesting (Dauntless Pt, Leguan Island)
Regular nesting (Bigisanti,etc.)
/-High density nesting (Ellanti Beach)
GUYANA $---Low density nesting (Silebache/Organabo)

SURINAM
I.FRENCH
GUYANA

BRAZIL

4.4 STATUATORY AND REGULATORY PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO SEA TURTLES

HARVESTING OR TAKING EXPORT IMPORTATION

Exclusive
Political Turtles Eggs Territorial Economic from Other International Notes on Nesting,
Entity on Beach on Beach Sea Zone Countries Waters Foraging, Density, etc.

Antigua Partially Partially Partially Some Hawksbill nesting
prohibited prohibited prohibited A few Greens ocassionally
nesting.
Barbados Some Hawksbill nesting.
A few Greens occasionally
nesting.

Belize Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Belizeans take eggs assiduously
(Br.) for aphrodisiacs. Belizean
Government has no eftective
patroliar, capability. Turtle
jaws sold to tourists -
Loggerhead, Hawksbill and
Greens nest at low densities.

Bermuda Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Nesting beaches restocked
with Costa Rican eggs since
late 1960s. Caribbean Conser-
vation Corp assisting gov't
of Bermuda. Major problem:
dwindling stretches undeveloped
coastline. Intermittent
poaching. Green foraging in
area. Hawksbill foraging,
no nesting.
Brazil Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Green foraging; nests on
Trinidad. Loggerhead nests
in southern Brazil (Espirito
Santos); otherwise sporadic
nesting only. Hawksbill and
Olive Ridley are rare.

4.4 STATUATORY AND REGULATORY PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO SEA TURTLES

HARVESTING OR TAKING EXPORT IMPORTATION

Exclusive
Political Turtles Eggs Territorial Economic from Other International Notes on Nesting,
Entity on Beach on Beach Sea Zone Countries Waters Foraging, Density, etc.

British Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Hawksbill nests
Virgin
Islands Or.)

Canada Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Leatherback - regular, no
nesting.
Other species - accidental
Cayman Partially Partially Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Possession of' eggs, taking or
Islands Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited molesting a female in any way
(Br.) (May through Sept.) prohibited.
Licensee may have eggs of tur-
tle bred in captivity or eggs
taken in accordance with li-
cense or female turtle bred
in captivity under license.
Subsistence taking in terri-
toFial sea permitted. Little
enforcement of taking of nest-
ing turtles and eggs.

Colony of Prohibited Prohibited Probably Green and Hawksbill.
the Turks No high density nesting.
and Caicos U.K. excluded Turks and
Islands (Br.) Caicos in ratifying CITES.

Colombia Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Loggerhead nests Santa Marta.
Hawksbill nests on San Andres.
Leatherback nests.
Green foraging in area.

Common- Prohibited Prohibited Partially Partially Prohibited Low density nesting of
wealth Prohibited Prohibited to U.S. green, hawksbill, logger-
of Bahamas head, extensive foraging.

N.)

41-

4.4 STATUATORY AND REGULATORY PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO SEA TURTLES

HARVESTING OR TAKING EXPORT IMPORTATION

Exclusive
Political Turtles Eggs Territorial Economic from Other International Notes on Nesting,
Entity on Beach on Beach Sea Zone Countries Waters Foraging, Density, etc.

Commonwealth - Some nc--ting of Hawksbill
of Dominica

Dominican* - Prohibited Partially Special Leatherback, possibly Green
Republic Prohibited Certificate in area. Hawksbill, some
Required nesting.

Cooperative - Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Green nests. Leatherback
Republic of nests., Hawksbill nests.
Guyana Olive Ridley nests.

Costa Rica--* Prohibited Prohibited Partially Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Green nests. Hawksbill nests.
Prohibited Prohibited Leatherback nests.

Cuba Hawksbill nests. Olive
Ridley nests. Loggerhead
nests.

Dept. of Prohibited Prohibited Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Leatherback nests. Green
French Prohibited nests. Hawksbill nests,
Guiana Taking leather- very rare. Olive Ridley
backs prohibited nests.

Guadeloupe Prohibited Prohibited Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Olive Ridley foraging.
Prohibited Hawksbill, Green nests
Taking leather- occasionally.
backs prohibited

Size limit of 5; 50 cm shell length. Closed seasons May-July; Sept-Oct.
-*All types protected by international treaties except green.

_j
Un

4.4 STATUATORY AND REGULATORY PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO SEA TURTLES

HARVESTING OR TAKING EXPORT IMPORTATION

Exclusive
Political Turtles Eggs Territorial Economic from Other International Notes on Nesting,
Entity on Beach on Beach Sea Zone Countries Waters Foraging, Density, etc.

Martinique Prohibited Prohibited Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Hawksbill, Green nest
Prohibited occasionally
Taking leather-
backs prohibited

Guatemala Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Very short Caribbean Coast

Grenada Grenada one of Grenadines.
Hawksbill throughout.
Grenadines. Green less
common.

Guyana Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Nesting reported by hawks-
for CITES bill, olive ridley, leather-
Appendix I back and green sea turtles.
species

Honduras Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Hawksbill, leatherback nests.

Jamaica Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Hawksbill nests. Leatherback
nests rarely. Populations
concentrated on west and
south coast.

Mexico Olive nests (possibly).
Green nests - Quintana Roo
Hawksbill nests - Yucatan
peninsula. Leatherback
nests - extremely rare.
Loggerhead nests Yucutan,
Campeche.

Montserrat (Br.)

4.4 STATUATORY AND REGULATORY PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO SEA TURTLES

HARVESTING OR TAKING EXPORT IMPORTATION

Exclusive
Political Turtles Eggs Territorial Economic from Other International Notes on Nesting
Entity on Beach on Beach Sea Zone Countries Waters Foraging, Density, etc.

Nicaragua No harvest - Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Leatherback nests commonly.
Green-feeding grounds.
Hawksbill nests. Loggerhead
nests rarely on Pacific coast.

Panama Restricted Prohibted Restricted Restricted Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Hawksbill nests on San Blas
May 11-Sept Islands. Turtles nest in
Colon, Veraguas, and Bocas
del Toro provinces.

Portugal- Leatherback and some Green
Azores, foraging.
Madeira

Republic Prohibited Partially Partially Green foraging. Hawksbill
of Haiti Prohibited Prohibited foraging. Sea turtle popu-
lation very low due to pre-
vious nonapplication of
conservation laws.

Republic of All harvesting prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Leather6ack nests. Green
Trinidad & Mar. I - Sept. 15. nests rarely. Loggerhead
Tobago Ridley-occasionally at sea.
Hawksbill nests occasionally.

St. Kitts Prohibited Prohibited Partially Partially Partially Partially Hawksbill nests. Green nests
Nevis Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited rarely. Leatherback nests
Anguilla very rarely.

St. Lucia Partially Prohibited Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Some Hawksbill, fewer Green
Prohibited Prohibited in area.

4.4 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO SEA TURTLES

HARVESTING OR TAKING EXPORT IMPORTATION

Exclusive
Political Turtles Eggs Territorial Economic from Other International Notes on Nesting
Entity on Beach on Beach Sea Zone Countries Waters Foraging, Density, etc.

State of Probably some Hawksbill in
St. Vincent area.
and the
Grenadines

Surinam Prohibited Partially Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Olive nests. Green nests.
Prohibited Leatherback nests. Hawksbill
nests very rarely.

Venezuela
Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Leatherback in area. Logger-
head nests. Hawksbill nests
on islands off shore. Green
nests on Aves Island; abundant
foraging near mainland, especially
in west. Olive Ridley foraging
in east, Isla Margarita and
Trinidad area.

4.4 continued

POLITICAL STATUTES AND/OR INTERNATIONAL
ENTITY REGULATIONS AGREEM ENT S NOTES

Antigua The Turtle Ordinance, 1927; No. 17 of 1927 NPWPWH Prohibits taking or selling of turtles
or eggs I June-30 Sept. No taking of
turtles under 20 lbs. at any time.

Barbados

Belize Fisheries Regulations 1967
(Br.)

Bermuda 1972 Fisheries Act 1972 Fisheries Act prohibits taking or
molesting turtles on nesting beaches.
1978 order extends prohibition to
200 mile exclusive fishing zone.

Brazil Law N,-). 5197 1967 - Protection of the Fauna NPWPWH
Portario, No. 3 481 -DN Lists Oficial De Especies CITES
Animals PWCNH

British Marine Parks and Protected Areas Ordinance, 1979. CITES Makes provisions for establishment of
Virgin Endangered Animals and Plants Ordinance, 1975 CCMA Marine parks which may afford turtle
Islands protection. Has potential value for
(Br.) future.

TPGST = Tripartite Agreement to Protect Green Sea Turtles. (Not in force)
CITES = Convention on International Trade in Threatened and Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora.
NPWPWH = Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere.
PWCNH = Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
CCHA = Convention On the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Signed - Convention not in force)

4.4 continued

POLITICAL STATUTES AND/OR INTERNATIONAL
ENTITY REGULATIONS AGREEMENTS NOTES

Canada CITES As party to CITES, Canada denies all
nonscientific turtle permit applications.

Cayman The Marine Conservation Law, 1978 (Law 19 of 1978) CCMA Possession of eggs, taking or molesting
Islands The Marine Conservation (Turtle Protection) Regula- CITES a female in any way (May through Sept.)
(Br.) tions, 1978. prohibited. Licensee may have eggs of
The Marine Conservation Regulations, 1979 turtle bred in captivity or eggs taken
The Endangered Species Protection Law, 1978 (Law 21 in accordance with license or female turtle
of 1978) bred in captivity under license. Sub-
sistence taking in territorial sea per-
mitted. Little enforcement of taking
of nesting turtles and eggs.

Colony of Fisheries Protection Ordinance, 1949. CCHA Prohibited from taking Hawksbill under
the Turks Fisheries Protection Regulations, 1976. 17" a.l., Green under 15"c.l.
and Caicos Taking of any marine life requires li-
Islands (Br.) cense. Ordinance provides authority
for establishing a closed season.

Colombia CITES

Commonwealth Chapter 25, Subsidiary Legislation, Revised Edition CITES GCOB states implemntation should stop
of Bahamas 1965 - The Marine Fisheries Products (Fisheries) Rules importation and exploitation of sea tur-
tles and products. Proposed regulations
will establish from April I to end July
closed season for all sea turtles, coin-
ciding with closed crawfish season.

Commonwealth
of Dominica

Dominican Executive Degree No. 600 NPWPWH Prohibited from taking turtles less
Republic than 50cm in territorial waters.

4.4 continued

POLITICAL STATUTES AND/OR INTERNATIONAL
ENTITY REGULATIONS AGREEMENTS NOTES

Cooperative Fisheries (Aquatic Wildlife Control) Regulations, CITES Informal cooperation with Surinam on
Republic of 1966, 1973, issued under Section 33, Chapter 71.08 PWCNH research and conservation. License
Guyana of the Fisheries Act. Maritime Boundaries Act, 1977 required under Fisheries Act to take
any "prescribed aquatic wildlife"
which includes sea turtles

Costa Rica Ley De Pescay Caza Maritimas 1949 CITES Massive poaching has been reported.
NPW`PWH President taking security measures.
Reportedly, turtles are taken under
guise of allowed taking for domestic
consumption and illegally exported to
Panama. Hunting beyond 12 mile limit
permitted for domestic consumption.
Cuba

Dept. of CITES
French Guiana CCHA

Guadeloupe Arrete Portant Rqglementation De L'Exercise De La CITES
Peche Marine Cotiere Dana Les Eaux CCMA
Du Departement De La Guadeloupe (1979) No 79-6 AO/3/3

Martinique CITES
CCMA

Guatemala CITES
Grenada Birds and Other Wildlife (Protection of) Ordinance NPWPWH
(1957) (As amended)

4.4 continued

POLITICAL STATUTES AND/OR INTERNATIONAL
ENTITY REGULATIONS AGREEMENTS NOTES

Honduras Decree Law 154 Honduras 1959 Fishing Law. Resolution Honduran Fishing law bars taking sea
No. 007-78 of Honduran Directorate General of Renewable turtles 112 days each year. Bans commer-
Natural Resources, March 7, 1978. cial taking of eggs and offspring.
Resolution No. 007-78, bans capture,
industrialization, trade of sea turtles
for indefinite period of time. Enforce-
ment capabilities of Honduran authorities
at best limited. Not party to inter-
governmental agreements. Permission to
export required from Direccion General
de Recursos Renovables, Min. Nat. Res.

Jamaica Wildlife Protection Law, 1960 Ban on taking, selling, possessing
turtle eggs. Jamaica may ban taking of
all turtles throughout year. Apparent
decline in turtle catches.

Mexico NPWPWH

Montserrat Decreto Regiemento La Explotacion Y Prohibe La CITES
(Br.) Destruccion De La Tortugas (1958)

Nicaragua Fishing Laws, Chap. V Pages 16, 51 Closed Season, NPWPWH Closed season
P. 66 CITES Licensing required during open season.
TPGST

Panama Decreto Ejecutivo No. 104 Por El Cual Se Adiciona; 1974 NPWPWH
El Decreto Ejecutivo No. 23; Jan. 30, 1967,-Resolution CITES
Dir. 002-80;Law 14 of Oct. 29, 1977 PWCNH
TPGST

Portugal-
Azores,
Madeira

4.4 continued

POLITICAL STATUTES AND/OR INTERNATIONAL
ENTITY REGULATIONS AGREEMENTS NOTES

Republic of Comprehensive GOH Fishing Law, Oct. 27, 1978 NPWPWH Enforcement lax. HawksbI1 taking pro-
Haiti hibited May to Oct. (egg laying season)
Gathering of Green eggs within terri-
torial waters. Taking Hawksbill and
Green on shore.

Republic of Fisheries Ordinance (1916 as Amended to 1975) CITES
Trinidad and NPWPWH
Tobago
St. Kitts Nevis Turtle Ordinance, 1948 Ban on taking turtles or eggs June
Anguilla through Sept. Total ban on taking tur-
tles under 20 lbs. Ban June through
Sept. on killing, selling, possessing
turtles, meat or eggs.

St. Lucia Turtle, Lobster and Fish Protection Act 1971 CITES Enforcement not possible due to budgetary
constraints.

State of Birds and Fish Protection Ordinance (1901) Ban on taking turtles and turtle eggs
St. Vincent and May through Aug. Ban on turtle nets
the Grenadines within 100 yds. of shore. Ban, same
same period, on sale, disposal, buying
or possessing turtles, meat or eggs.
Surinam Hunting Act (1954) CITES Taking of turtle on beach prohibited
(Reservations and enforced within beach preserve.
on greens & Controlled taking of eggs is permitted
leatherbacks) in some areas.

Venezuela NPWPWH
CITES

[,a
00

284

5. LITERATURE CITED

ACKERMAN, R. A. 1975. Diffusion and the gas exchange of sea turtle
eggs. Dissertation. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

ANNON. 1976. Incidental capture of sea turtles by shrimp fishermen in
Florida. Preliminary report Florida West Coast Survey. Univ. Fla.
Marine Advisory Program. Mimeo, 3pp.

ANNON. 1977. Alabama shrimp fishermen interviews for 1977-78. Marine
Resources Office. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Mimeo,
lp.

BACON, P. R. 1981. The status of sea turtle stocks management in the
Western Central Atlantic. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commis-
sion, UNDP, WECAF Studies No. 7. 38pp.

BACON, P., F. BERRY, K BJORNDAL, H. HIRTH, L. OGREN, and M. WEBER
[Editors] 1984. Proceedings of the Western Atlantic turtle
symposium. San Jose, Costa Rica, 17-22, July 1983. RSMAS
Printing, Miami, Florida.

BALAZS, G. H. 1978. Tatooing green turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter
8:3.

1979. Growth, food sources and migrations of immature
Hawaiian Chelonia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 10:1-3.

BALDWIN, H.A. 1972. Long-range radio tracking of sea turtles and polar
bear: instrumentation and preliminary results. In: Animal Orien-
tation and Navigation. S.R. Galler et al. (ed@_-). NASA, Wash.,
D.C. p.19-37.

BJORNDAL, K.A. 1980. Demography of the breeding population of the
green turtle, Chelonia mydas, at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Copeia
1980(3):525-530

BLEAKNEY, J. S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles f rom New England and
Eastern Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 19(2):120-128.

BRONGERSMA, L. D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Uitgegeven Rijks-
museum van Nat. Hist. Leiden No. 212:1-318.

BYLES, R.A. Personal Communication. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

CALDWELL, D.K. 1963. The sea turtle fishery of Baja California, Mexico.
Calif. Fish Game 49:140-151.

1969. Sea turtles of the United States. U.S. Fish Wildl.
Serv. Fish. Leafl. 492, 20pp.

285

CALDWELL, D.K., A.F. CARR and T.R. HELLIER. 1955. A nest of the Atlan-
tic leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea coriacea (Linnaeus),
on the Atlantic coast of Florida, with a summary of American nest-
ing records. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci. 18(4):279-284.

CALDWELL, D.K., A.F. CARR and L.H. OGREN. 1959. 1. Nesting and migra-
tion of the Atlantic loggerhead turtle. In: The Atlantic logger-
head sea turtle, Caretta caretta caretta (L.), in America. Bull.
Fla. State Mus., Biol. Sci 4(lo):295-308.

CALDWELL, D.K., W.F. RATHGEN and B.C.C. HSU. 1969. Surinam ridleys at
sea. J. Int. Turtle Tort. Soc. 3(l):4-5.

CARR, A.F. 1957. Notes on the zoogeography of the Atlantic sea turtles
of the genus Lepidochelys. Revista Biol. Trop. 5(l):45-61.

1961. The ridley mystery today. Animal Kingdom 64(l):
7-12.

1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys
kempi. Ergebn. Biol. 26:298-303.

1967. So Excellent a Fishe. The Natural History Press,
Garden City, NY. 247pp.

1975. The Ascension Island green turtle colony. Copeia
1975(3):547-555.

CARR, A.F. and D.K. CALDWELL. 1958. The problem of the Atlantic ridley
turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) in 1958. Rev. Biol. Trop. 6(2):245-262.

CARR, A. F. and L. OGREN. 1959. The ecology and migrations of sea
turtles: 3. Dermochelys in Costa Rica. Amer. Mus. Novitates
1958:1-29.

CARR, A. F. and S. STANCYK. 1975. Observations on the ecology and
survival outlook of the hawksbill turtle. Biol. Conserv. 9:161-172.

CARR, A.F. , P. ROSS and S. CARR. 1974. Internesting behavior of the
green turtle, Chelonia mydas, at a mid-ocean island breeding ground.
Copeia 1974(3):703-706.

CARR, A.F., M.H. CARR and A.B. MEYLAN. 1978. The ecology and migra-
tions of sea turtles: 7. The West Caribbean Green Turtle Colony.
Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 162(l):1-46.

CARR, A.F., L. OGREN and C. McVEA. 1980. Apparent hibernation by the
Atlantic loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta off Cape Canaveral,
Florida. Biol. Conserv. 19:7-14.

-286

CARR, A.F., A. MEYLAN, J. MORTIMER, K. BJORNDAL and T. CARR. 1982.
Surveys of sea turtle populations and habitats in the western
Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-91. 81pp.

CARR, T. 1974. Marine turtles of Culebra Island. A report to the
Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
p. 1-44.

CARR, T. 1981. A survey of marine turtles at Vieques Island. A report
to the Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. 15pp.

CATO, J.C., F.J. PROCHASKA and P.C.H. PRITCHARD. 1978. An analysis of
the capture, marketing and utilization of marine turtles. Mimeo
report to National Marine Fisheries Service. Cont. No. 01-7-
42-11283. 119pp.

CHAVEZ, H. 1969. Tagging and recapture of the lora turtle (Lepidochelys
@@). J. Int. Turtle Tortoise Soc. 3(4):14-19, 32-36.

CHAVEZ, H. and R. KAUFMANN. 1974. Informacion sobre la tortuga marina
Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), con referencia a un exemplar marcado
en Mexico y observado en Colombia. Bull. Marine Sci. 24(2):372-377.

CORNELIUS, S.E. and D. C. ROBINSON. 1983. Abundance, distribution and
movements of olive ridley sea turtles in Costa Rica, III. U.S. Fish
and Widl. Serv. Endang. Spec. Rept. No. 13.

COSTON- CLEMENTS, L. and D. E. HOSS. 1983. Synopsis of data on the
impact of habitat alteration on sea turtles around the south-
eastern United States. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFC-117. 57pp.

COX, B.A. and R.G. MAUERMAN. 1976. Incidental catch and disposition by
the Brownsville-Port Isabel gulf shrimp fleet. Cameron Co. Ext.
Serv. , San Benito, TX, and Texas Shrimp Assoc. , Brownsville, TX.
5pp. Mimeo.

CRAIGHEAD, F.C. and J.J. CRAIGHEAD. 1965. Tracking grizzly bears.
Bioscience 15(2):88-92.

DAVIS, G.E. and M.C. WHITING. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in
Everglades National Park, Florida, U.S.A. Herpetologica 33:18-28.

DOBIE, J.L., L.H. OGREN and J.F. FITZPATRICK, JR. 1961. Food notes and
records of the Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) from
Louisiana. Copeia 1961(l):109-110.

DODD, C.K., Jr. 1982 [1981]. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus), in Florida: Historic review and present trends.
Brimleyana 7:39-54.

287

EASELEY, J. E. 1982. A preliminary estimate of the payoff to investing
in a turtle excluder device for shrimp trawls. Report to Monitor
International and Center for Environmental Education. 16pp.

ECKERT, K.L. Personal Communication. institute of Ecology, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

ECKERT, K. and S. A. ECKERT. 1984. Tagging and nesting research of
leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coricea) on Sandy Point,
St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands, 1983. Report to U.S. Fish and
Widl. Serv. 22pp.

ECKERT, S.A. AND K.L. ECKERT. 1983. U.S. Virgin Islands: leatherback
project. Mar. Turtle Newsletter 24:4.

ECKERT, S.A., K.L. ECKERT and R.H. BOULON, Jr. 1983. Tagging and
nesting research of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea),
Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1981/82. Final report
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

EHRHART, L.M. 1976. Studies on marine turtles at Kennedy Space Center
and an annotated list of amphibians and reptiles of Merritt Island.
Final Report NASA/KSC Grant NGR10-019-004. p. 1-119.

1977. Threatened and endangered species of the Kennedy
Space Center. Annual Report to NASA, Contract No. NAS 10-8986,
Section VI. p. 408-542.

1979. A survey of marine turtle nesting at the Kennedy
Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, North Brevard
County, Florida. Submitted to Florida Department of Natural Re-
sources. 1 November 1979. 122pp.

1979. Threatened and endangered species of the Kennedy
Space Center. Semi-Annual Report to NASA, John F. Kennedy Space
Center, Contract No. NAS 16-8986. Vol. V, p. 1-214.

1980. A survey of marine turtle nesting at the Kennedy
Space Center, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, North Brevard
County, Florida. Report to Division of Marine Resources, Florida
Dept. of Natural Resources. p. 1-126.

1980. Threatened and endangered species of the' Kennedy
Space Center: Marine Turtle Studies. NASA Contract Report 163122,
KSC TR 51-2, Vol. IV, Part 1.

FLETEMEYER, J. 1979. Sea turtle monitoring project. Report to Broward
County Environmental Quality Control Board, Fort Lauderdale, FL,
Nov. 1979. 64pp.

288

FRAIR, W. , R. G. ACKMAN and N. MROSOVSKY. 1972. Body temperature of
Dermochelys coriacea: warm turtle from cold water. Science 177:
791-793.

FRAZERI N.B. 1982. Growth and age at maturity of loggerhead sea tur-
tles: review and prospectus. Marine Turtle Newsletter 22:5-8.

FRAZER, N.B. 1983. Demography and life history evolution of the Atlan-
tic loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta. Dissertation. Univer-
sity of Georgia, Athens, GA. 233pp.

FRITTS, T.H. and M. A. McGEHEE. 1982. Effects of petroleum on the
development and survival of marine turtle embryos. U.S. Fish and
Widl. Serv., Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C
FWS/OBS-82/37. 41pp.

GICCA, D.F. 1979. Telemetry studies of Kemp's ridley sea turtles
during the 1978 nesting season at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico.
Presented as a component of the report on USFWS Contract No.
14-16-0002-80-216. P.C.H Pritchard, Principal Investigator.

HARRISON, T. 1956. The edible turtle in Borneo (4). Growing turtles
and growing problems. J. Sarawak Mus. 7(7):233-239.

HENDRICKSON, J.R. 1980. The ecological strategies of sea turtles. In:
Behavioral and reproductive biology of sea turtles. American
Zoologist 20(3):597-608.

HENDRICKSON, L.P. and J.R. HENDRICKSON. 1982. A new method for marking
sea turtles? Marine Turtle Newsletter 19:6-7.

HILDEBRAND, H.H. 1980. Report on the incidental capture, harassment
and mortality of sea turtles in Texas. NOAAINMFS P.O. No.
NA80-GG-A-00160. Pascagoula, MS. 33pp.

1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle
populations in the western Gulf of Mexico. In: Karen A Bjorndal
(ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proc. World Conf.
Sea Turtle Conserv. 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C. 'Smithsonian Inst.
Press. 583pp.

HILLESTAD, H.O., J.I. RICHARDSON and G.K. WILLIAMSON. 1977. Incidental
capture of sea turtles by shrimp trawlermen in Georgia, 1976-77.
Report to NMFS, Contract No. 03-7-042-35129. St. Petersburg, FL.

. 1978. Incidental capture of sea turtles by shrimp trawler-
men in Georgia. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish and Wildl.
@Agencies 23:167-178.

289

HILLESTAD, H.O., J.I. RICHARDSON, C. McVEA and J.M. WATSON. 1982.
Worldwide incidental capture of sea turtles. In: Karen A.
Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea furtles. Proc.
World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C.
Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

HOPKINS, S.R. 1979. Experimental carapace tag. Marine Turtle News-
letter 13:9-10.

HOPKINS, S.R. and T.M. MURPHY, Jr. 1980. Reproductive ecology of
Caretta caretta in South Carolina. Study Completion Report 1
October 1976 through 30 September 1980, E-1, Study No. VI-A-I.
S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of Wildlife
and Freshwater Fisheries. p. 1-97.

HOPKINS, S.R., T.M. MURPHY, Jr., K.B. STANSELL, and P.M. WILKINSON.
1978. Biotic and abiotic factors affecting nest mortality in the
Atlantic loggerhead turtle. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish &
Wildl. Agencies 32:213-223.

HUGHES, G.R. 1975. The marine turtles of Tongaland, 8. Lammergeyer
22:9-18.

1976. Irregular reproductive cycles in the. Tongaland
loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta L. (Cryptodira, Cheloniidae).
Zoologica Africana 11(2):285-291.

IRELAND, L.C. 1979. Homing behavior of juvenile green turtles,
Chelonia mydas. In: Handbook on biotelemetry and radio tracking,
C.J. Amlaner Jr. and D.W. McDonald (eds.). Pergamon Press, Oxford
and New York. p. 761-764.

IRELAND, L.C., J.A. FRICK and D.B. WINGATE. 1978. Nighttime orienta-
tion of hatchling green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in open ocean.
In: Animal Migration, Navigation and Homing, K. Schmidt-Koenig and
W.T. Keeton (eds.) Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg. p.'420-429.

IUCN. 1978. Sad year for Mexico's Turtles. IUCN Bulletin 9(1/2):10-11.

JEFFERTS, K.B., P.K. BERGMAN and H.F. FISCUS. 1963. A coded wire
tagging system for macro-organisms. Nature 198:460-462.

KAUFMAN, R. 1975. Studies on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta
caretta L. in Columbia, South America. Herpetologica 31:323-326.

KEMMERER, A.J., R.E. TIMKO and BURKETT. 1983. Movement and surfacing
patterns [of loggerhead sea turtles in Canaveral ship channel] .
NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFC-12.

290

KOLZ, L. A. 1980. Satellite tracking a sea turtle. Research Informa-
tion Bull. No. 80. p.24. August 1980.

KRAEMER, J.E. and R. BELL. 1980. Rain-induced mortality of eggs and
hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) on the
Georgia coast. Herpetologica 36:72-77.

LAZELL, J.D., Jr.. 1976. This Broken Archipelago. Dermeter Press, New
York. 260pp.

LIMPUS, C.J. 1973. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in Australia:
food sources while nesting. Herpetologica 29:42-45.

1975. The Pacific ridley, Lepidochelys olivacea
(Eschscholtz) and other sea turtles in Northeastern Australia.
Herpetologica 31:444-445.

1978. The reef: uncertain land of plenty. In: Explora-
tion North, H.J. Lavery (ed.). Richmond Hill Press, Victoria Aust.
p. 187-222.

1979. Notes on growth rates of wild turtles. Marine
Turtle Newsletter 10:3-5.

LINER, E.A. 1954. The herpetofauna of Lafayette, Terrebonne and
Vermilion Parishes, Louisiana. Proc. La. Acad. Sci. 17:65-85.

LUTCAVAGE, M. 1981. The status of marine turtles in Chesapeake Bay and
Virginia coastal waters. Thesis. College of William and
Mary, VIMS, Gloucester Pt., VA 23062. 126pp.

LUTZ, P.L. and A. DUNBAR-COOPER. 1979. Physiological studies on logger-
head sea turtles caught on shrimp trawl surveys in the Cape Canav-
eral ship channel, Florida, December 1978-April 1979. Report to
the NMFS, FSE43-9-12-40. 21pp.

MANN, T.M. 1977. Impact of a developed coastline on nesting and hatch-
ling sea turtles in southeastern Florida. Thesis. Florida Atlan-
tic University, Boca Raton, FL.

1978. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatch-
ling sea turtles in southeastern Florida. Proc. Fla. Interreg.
Conf. on Sea Turtles. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 33:53-55.

MacFARLANE, R.W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by
artificial road lighting. Copeia 1963:153.
MARQUEZ M. , R. and T. DOI. 1973. Ensayo teo'rico sobre el anatlisis de
la poblacion de tortuga prieta, Chelonia mydas carrinegra Caldwell,
en aguas del Golfo de California, MeNico. Bull. Tokai Reg. Fish.
Res. Lab. 73:1-22.

291
MARQUEZ M., R., C. PE INAFLORES S., A. VILLANUEVA 0. and J. DIAZ F. 1981.
A model for diagnosis of populations of olive ridleys and green
turtles of West Pacific tropical coasts. In: Karen A. Bjorndal
(ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proc. World Conf.
Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C. . Smithsonian
Inst. Press. 583pp.

MARQUEZ M., R., A. VILLANUEVA 0. and M. SANCHEZ P. 1981. The popula-
tion of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico.
In: Karen A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea
Turtles. Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov.
1979, Wash., D.C. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

MENDONCA, M. T. 1981. Movements and feeding ecology of immature green
turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida. Thesis.
Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 114pp.

1981. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia
mydas and Caretta caretta in Florida. J. Herpetology 15(4):
447-450.

MEYLAN, A. 1981. Estimation of population size in sea turtles. In:
Karen A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C.
Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

MORREALE, S.J., G.J. RUIZ, J.R. SPOTILA and E.A. STANDORA. 1982.
Temperature-dependent sex determination: current practices threat-
en conservation of sea turtles. Science 216:1245-1247.

MROSOVSKY, N. 1982. Editorial. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 22:1-2

. 1982. Sex ratio bias in hatchling sea turtles from
artifically incubated eggs. Biol. Conserv. 23, 309-314.

1981. Plastic jellyfish. Marine Turtle Newsletter.
17:5-7.

MROSOVSKY, N., S.R. HOPKINS-MURPHY and J.1. RICHARDSON. (in press).
Sex ratio of sea turtles: seasonal changes. Science.

MURPHY, T.M., Jr. 1979. Sonic and radio tracking of loggerhead tur-
tles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 11:5.

MURPHY, T.M., Jr. and S.R. HOPKINS. 1980. Pelagic activities of trawl
captured Caretta caretta from the Port Canaveral ship channel.
Report to NMFS, P.O. No. NA80-GG-A-00111. 9pp.

OGREN, L, and C. McVEA, Jr. 1982. Apparent hibernation by sea turtles
in North American waters. In: Karen A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and
Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv.,
26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash. , D.C. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

292

OGREN, L.H., J.W. WATSON, Jr. and D.A. WICKHAM. 1977. Loggerhead sea
turtles, Caretta caretta, encountering shrimp trawls. Marine
Fisheries Review Paper 1270:15-17.

PADILLA, R.R. 1974. Generalidades sobre la pesqueria de tortugas
marinas en Isla Mujeres, Quintana Roo. INP. Serie Divulgacion.
Mexico 7, D.F.

PARSONS, J.J. 1962. The Green Turtle and Man. Univ. of Florida Press,
Gainesville, FL. 126pp.

PHILLIPS,. E.J. 1976. Raising hatchlings of the leatherback turtle,
Dermochelys coriacea. Brit. J. Herpetology 5:677-678.

PRENTISE, E.F. and J.E. RENSEL. 1977. Tag retention in the spot prawn,
Pandalus platyceros, injected with coded wire tag. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Can. 34(11):2199-2203.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1966. Sea turtles of Shell Beach, Guyana. Copeia
1966(l):123-125.

1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Florida State
Mus. 13(2):85-140.

1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea. IUCN Monog. No. 1. 39pp.

1973. International migrations of South American sea
turtles (Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae). Animal Behav. 21(l):13-27.

1976. Post-nesting movements of marine turtles (Cheloniidae
and Dermochelyidae) tagged in the Guianas. Copeia 1976(4):749-754.

1976. Endangered Species: Kemp's ridley turtle. The
Florida Naturalist 49(3):15-19.

. 1979a. Encyclopedia of Turtles. T.F.H. Publications Inc.,
New Jersey. p 1-895.

1979b. Head starting and other conservation techniques for
marine turtles, Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae. Int. Zoo Yearbook
19:38-42.

1979c. Report on conservation of Kemp's ridley sea turtle
at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, 1978. Final Report, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Contract No. 14-16-022-78-055.

1980a. The conservation of sea turtles: practices and
problems. Amer. Zool. 20:609-617.

1980b. Report on United States/Mexico conservation of
Kemp's ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, 1980.
Preliminary report on USFWS Contract No. 14-16-002-80-216. 42pp.

293

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. and D. GICCA. 1978. Report on United States/Mexico
conservation of Kemp's ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamauli-
pas, Mexico, 1978. Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Contract No. 14-16-022-78-055. p. 1-72.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H., P.R. BACON, F.H. BERRY, A. F. CARR, J. FLETEMEYER,
R.M. GALLAGHER, S.K. HOPKINS, R.R. LANKFORD, R. MARQUEZ,
L.H. OGREN, W.G. PRINGLE, JR., H. M. REICHART, AND R. WITHAM.
1983. Sea turtle manual of research and conservation techniques.
Prepared for Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium, Center for Environ-
mental Education, Washington, D.C. 126pp.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. and R. MARQUEZ M. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or
Atlantic ridley, Lepidochelys IUCN Monog. No. 2, Marine
Turtle Series. 30pp.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. and T.H. STUBBS. 1982. An evaluation of sea turtle
populations and survival status on Vieques Island. Final Report,
Contract No. 66001-80-C-0560, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San
Diego, CA. p. 1-102.

RAGOTSKIE, R.A. 1959. Mortality of loggerhead turtle eggs from exces-
sive rainfall. Ecology 40:303-305.

RAINEY, W.E. 1971. Reconnaissance of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas,
nesting aggregation at Aves Island, Lesser Antilles. Caribbean
Research Institute, St. Thomas, V.I. ms p. 1-20.

RICHARDSON, J.I. 1982. A population model for adult female loggerhead
sea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia. Dissertation.
i-
University of Georgia, thens, GA. 204pp.

RICHARDSON, J.I. and T.H. RICHARDSON. 1982. An experimental population
model for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). In: Karen
A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Proc.
World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C.
Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

ROSS, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley and leather-
back sea turtles. In: Karen A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conser-
vation of Sea Turtles. Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv.,
26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

SCHMIDT, J. 1916. Marking experiments with turtles in the Danish West
Indies. Meddelelser Kommissionen Havundersogelser, Ser: Fiskeri
5:1-26.

SCHULZ, J.P. 1964. -Zeeschildpadden, deel II: Zeeschildpadden in
Surinam. Dienst Landsbosbeheer Surinam. Mimeo. p. 1-44.

294

1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Nederl. Commissie
voor Internat. Natuurbescherming. Mededel No. 23. Leiden p. 1-143.

1982. Status of sea turtle populations nesting in Surinam
with notes on sea turtles nesting in Guyana and French Guiana. In:
Karen A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv., 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash., D.C.
Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583pp.

SCHWARTZ, A. 1954. A record of the Atlantic leatherback turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) in South Carolina. Herpetologica 10:7.

SCHWARTZ, F.J. 1981. A long term internal tag for sea turtles. North-
east Gulf Science 5(l):87-93.

SCHWARTZ, F.J. , C. PETERSON, H. PASSINGHAM, J. FRIDELL and J. WOOTEN.
1981. First successful nesting of the green sea turtle, Chelonia
mydas in North Carolina and north of Georgia. ASB Bulletin
28(2):96.

SEIDEL, W.R. and C. McVEA. 1979. Development of a sea turtle excluder
shrimp trawl for the southeast U.S. penaeid shrimp fishery. In:
Karen A Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv. 26-30 Nov. 1979, Wash. , D.C.
Smithsonian Inst. Press. 583p.

SOMA, M. and T. ICHIHARA. 1977. The study on swimming behavior of
loggerhead turtles by using radio telemetry system. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Wildl. Biotelemetry.

STONEBURNER, D.L. 1981. Summary of the loggerhead sea turtle research
project conducted at Canaveral National Seashore, Cumberland Island
National Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore: A Final Report.
1980. Research/Resources Management Report No. 39, USDI-NPS p.
i-ii, 1-27.

1982. Satellite telemetry of loggerhead sea turtle move-
ments in the Georgia Bight. Copeia 1982(2):400-408.

STONEBURNER, D.L-., J.I. RICHARDSON and G.K. WILLIAMSON. 1982. Obser-
vations on the movement of hatchling sea turtles. Copeia 1982(4):
963-965.

SWEAT, D.E. 1968. (1969). Capture of a tagged ridley turtle. Quart.
Jour. Florida Acad. Sci. 31(l):47-48.

TALBERT, D.R., S.E. STANCYK, J.M. DEAN and J.M. WILL. - 1980. Nesting
activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Caro-
lina. I: a rookery in transition. Copeia 1980(4):709-718.

THIJRSTON, J. and T. WIEWANDT. 1976. Management of sea turtles at Mona
Island. Unpubl. report to Dept. of Nat. Res., Puerto Rico.

295

TIMKO, R.E. and D. DeBLANC. 1981. Radio tracking juvenile marine
turtles. Mar. Fish. Review 43(3):20-24.

TIMKO, R.E. and A.L. KOLZ. 1982. Satellite sea turtle tracking.
Marine Fisheries Review 44(4):19-24.

TOVAR, D. 1971. La situacion de las tortugas marinas en la costa
Atlantica de Panama. Report to Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre,
Recursos Naturales Renovables. Mimeo. lOpp.

TOWLE, E. L. 1978. Report on sea turtle nesting, sighting, eggs and
hatchlings for 1978 in the U.S. Virgin Islands and a recommended
research methodology for dealing with hatchling disorientation on
the beach (with special reference to leatherback nests at Sandy
Point, St. Croix). Island Resources Foundation Report to NOAA/NMFS.
Mimeo. 29pp.

UBEDA, L. 1973. Algo sobre Caleta Grande: quelonios y caimaneros.
Mar Pesca 93:28-31.

ULRICH, G.F. 1978. Incidental catch of loggerhead turtles by South
Carolina commercial fisheries. Report to NMFS, Contract Nos.
03-7-042-35151 and 03-042-35121, St. Petersburg, FL. 36pp.

1979. Marine turtle trawl surveys of South Carolina nest-
ing beaches, 1979. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries
Service, P.O. NO. NA79-GA-A-00128. St. Petersburg, FL.

WERLER, J.E. 1951. Miscellaneous notes on the eggs and young of Texas
and Mexican reptiles. Zoologica 36:37-38.

WITHAM, R. 1976. Evidence for ocean-current mediated dispersal in
young green sea turtles, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus). Thesis.
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. 48pp.

1977. Dermochelys coriacea in captivity. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 3:6.

1978. Does a problem exist relative to small sea turtles
and oil spills? Orig. Conf. on Assessment of Ecological Impacts of
Oil Spills, 14-17 June 1978, Keystone, CO. p. 629-632.

1980. The "lost year" question in young sea turtles.
Amer. Zool. 20:525-530.

WITHAM, R. and C.R. FUTCH. 1977. Early growth and oceanic survival of
pen-reared sea turtles. Herpetologica 33(4):404-409.

WITZELL, W.N. 1983. Synopsis of biological data on the h awksbill
turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1776). FAO Fish.
Synop. 137:78.

296

WOOD, F.E. and J.R. WOOD, Jr. 1980. Skewed sex ratios in artificially
incubated sea turtle populations. Presented at 60th Ann. Meeting
Am. Soc. Ichthy. Herpeto. June 1980.

. 1982. Sex ratios in captive reared green turtles, Chelonia
mydas. Copeia 1982:482-485.

WOOD, J.R. and F.E. WOOD. 1980. Reproductive biology of captive green
sea turtles Chelonia mydas. Amer. Zool. 20:499-505.

YERGER, R.W. 1965. The leatherback turtle on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Copeia 1965(3):365-366.

YNTEMA, C.L. and N. MROSOVSKY. 1980. Sexual differentiation in hatch-
ling loggerheads (Caretta caretta) incubated at different control-
led temperatures. Herpetologica 36(l):33-36.

ZUG, G.R., C. RUCKDESCHEL and A. WYNN. 1983. Age estimates of Cumber-
land Island loggerhead sea turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter
25:9-11.

297

APPENDIX

Agency review comments were received from:

The Fish and Wildlife Service

Minerals Management Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Washington)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Kennedy Space Center)

National Ocean Service

Environmental Protection Agency

National Science Foundation

Florida Department of Natural Resources

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

South Carolina Coastal Council

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Musick & Byles)

NOVA Oceanographic Center (Menzies & Kochinsky)

University of Toronto (Mrosovsky)

The Center for Environmental Education, Sea Turtle Rescue Fund

Environmental & Chemical Sciences, Inc.

Kenneth Dodd, Jr.

Orren Merren

Fred Berry

Edward F. Klima

Most of the comments were incorporated into the plan. Those that were not
would have required substantial rewriting of the plan or were considered
not to be substantive enough to require a plan revision. Comments are
included here so that readers will have the benefit of any divergent
views.

298

%,41 Of
ISO OKMY "Crat TO:
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

POST WFICE 0= 1306
AIJLQSCRWC* NEW NOICO W103

APR 2 0 1984

Mr. Charles Oravetz
National Marine Fishery Service
9490 Koger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Chuck:

Subject plan has been reviewed by a wide spectrum of Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) offices and individuals. I have attempted to assemble these
comments in a logical manner to assist the National Marine Fishery Service
(NMFS) and the Recovery Team in reviewing and deliberating FWS comments.

I believe I'm correct in assuming this current draft is in the "Agency
Review" stage, the technical review having-already occurred. However, you
will find that a number of our comments are of a technical nature and hope
you will give these full consideration and, whenever possible, incorporation
into the appropriate sections of the draft.

The plans organization is quite different than that used by the FWS for the
past 9 or 10 years and, frankly", we believe that certain reorganizations of
the plan would help considerably to focus more attention on recovery tasks
rather then general type information-or details of implementation. The plan
should state what needs to be done, not how. Today's methodology will not
necessarily be tommorrowls. It will save time and effort on future plan
revisions if we stay away from the "how." We suggest the following oraniza-
tional changes which we believe will help to better focus the plan on the
primary purpose of identifying and justifying recovery tasks.
k
1. Section 1.5, "Population Estimates of Relevant Stocks" should be deleted
and the information incorporated into the appropriate species section.

2. Sections 2.1 - 2.6 and 2.8 provide excellent information but should be
included in the plan as appendices and referenced in the appropriate
species sections. Section 2.7 should be deleted and some of the narra-
tive used irr the Step-down Outline to justify various public education/
information tasks.

3. The Step-down Outlines are complex and difficult to use. Attached is a
Step-down Outline for'the loggerhead which we prepared.and feel more
logically displays needed recovery actions. This same format could be
used for all the other sea turtles with minor modifications. Each task
should have a narrative explanation which briefly justifies the need and
importance of the task.

299

We still have a major concern with the scope of the plan in that it covers
populations outside of the U.S. While it is logical and helpful to a
population throughout its range, we feel it is presumptuous and perhaps
counterproductive to specify recovery actions in other countries that have
had no input into the plan. It would be more.appropriate for the plan to
identify a recovery task to develop agreements or encourage cooperation with
particular countries to address populations which have life stages in other
countries. Actually, recovery efforts in these instances should, perhaps,
be identifed and contained in the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Recovery Plan.

It is also for these reasons that werecommend the plan not include sections
for the olive and Kemp's ridley. We believe a recovery plan for the Kemp's
ridley should be developed jointly with the FWS, NMFS, and Mexican partici-
pation. Since olive ridleys do not occur in U.S. waters in any abundance,
there is no reason to include it in the plan; in any case it will likely be
addressed by the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Recovery Team.

We also note that the recovery plan priority system for recovery actions is
different from the one employed by the FWS. It cannot be used for comparing
priorities between sea turtle species or any other species, which is a
distinct shortcoming. Therefore, we suggest that this plan utilize the FWS
recovery action priority system to enhance its usefulness for budgetary or
other planning purposes (FWS Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery
Planning Guidelines).

Section 3 should incorporate the population data from Section 1.3 for the
respective species. The species accounts need to clearly address specific
threats to the U.S. populations. We also feel that the Step-down Outline
does not adequately address some spec:Lfic habitat protection and research
needs of some species (see attachment).

Certain management practices and needs, including R&D, are common to all sea
turtle species. Many of these needs are touched on prior to getting into
the individual species plans, but no where are these needs pulled together,
prioritized, and assigned, nor do they appear in species plans. This is a
shortcoming and we would suggest that this common factor be addressed,
probably as an addendum and referenced in the appropriate species sections.
As an example, we have no way to age any wild population of sea turtles.
Until this question is solved, we have little or no basis upon which to
intelligently understand or manage most species, much less rationally judge
impacts of commercial harvest or analyze recruitment and turnover. Any
population models remain little more than conjecture.

The discussion on tags and associated marking problem is a similar universal
need. The plan discusses plastics, monel, inconel, etc., but none of these
have really proven satisfactory except in very short term instances (we note
that the draft discussion on tags does not mention titanium tags). R&D
needs in this aspect are not really identified, yet thousands of hours and
dollars are spent annually with too often questionable results-due to the
lack of a reliable marking technique.

_7_

300

Following are a number of items, by page number, which we submit for
consideration:

P.1 The definitions of endangered and threatened given here are not pre-
cise in terms of the Endangered Species Act. For.instance, the word
.. race" should not be used, as the Act uses "subspecies." This should
be rewritten to reflect the legal definitions.

P.1 The secretaries must review the status of listed species every 5
years, but recommendations for reclassification or delisting are made
only if the biological data warrant such. This should be clarified in
the next to last paragraph.

P.12 The references to Dodd (1981) are incorrect both on this page and in
the literature cited. The date should be 1982 (the reprints had the
incorrect date).

P.13, paragraph 4, line 2 - Typographical error - "Surinan should be
"Surinam."

P.14 The population data needs to be updated on the number of leatherbacks
nesting-..,in the USVI. Scott Eckert gave slightly different figures at
the Widecast meeting in Puerto Rico. Culebra Island was omitted,
sentence should read: "Nesting on Vieques and Culebra is
less ...........

P.16 Add coatis to the list of predators. Vertebrate predators also in-
clude foxes in North Carolina;

P.19 (Top) Add the numbers of adult 'males as an elusive parameter*

P.19 Both Marquez and Van Dissel (1982, Netherlands J. Zool. 32:419-425)
and Steve Cornelius (various reports to USFWS) have also described
their methods to estimate the number of females nesting on the beach,
although with olive ridleys. These should also be referenced.

P.34 Aerial survey of nesting beaches: While some states have well orga-
nized, comprehensive aerial surveys, others participate only sporadi-
cally and do not obtain complete coverage; for instance, in some area
aerial surveys are done by several different agencies without coordi-
nation of efforts. The resulting inconsistency of results could be
avoided if efforts were aimed at coordinated surveys of an entire
State or region's nesting beaches.

P. 64-65 We believe that the discussion under the heading, Man's Impact,
in section 2.5 (Nesting Beach Management Techniques) should be
strengthened to include (1) a broader list of potential adverse

301

impacts resulting from beach nourishment projects, and (2)
address the basic issue of reserving valuable undeveloped nesting
beaches in a natural state. We suggest the following language:

Add to the paragraph heading Beach Nourishment Projects:

"Additional adverse effects which may potentially result
from beach nourishment projects include: (1) near shore
turbidity resulting in disorientation or interference with
nesting attempts, (2) scarp development at the edge of the
beach fill rendering the beach inaccessable to nesting tur-
tles, (3) entrapment of hatchlings in vehicle tracts, (4)
compaction or cementation of beach sediments, (5) altera-
tions in moisture levels or other aspects of the micro-
habitat within the nest cavity, (6) alteration of unknown
.beach signature components which may disrupt nest site
fidelity, (7) alteration of the native physical beach char-
acteristics (slope, dome shape, etc.) such that nesting
attempts are reduced, and (8) the possibility of short
repetitive maintenance intervals which could effectively
eleminate all natural nesting for a given beach."

Add a paragraph to the section, Man's Impact, which begins on
page 64:

"Beach Development; Intensive development of ocean front
property on high density nesting beaches results in an
eventual "need" for erosion control measures such as beach
nourishment, construc@_tion of groin fields, riprap, etc., and
in manifestation of intensive human beach uses such as
mechanized beach cleaning. Impacts resulting from these
types of activities could be controlled or eliminated if
ocean front development can be directed in such a way as to
be compatible with the physical dynamics of barrier islands
and their natural erosion and accretion processes."

This will then support paragraphs 111111 (F) and 111221 (E,F,G,H) in the
loggerhead step-down outline and similar sections for other species.

P.68 Increased Law Enforcement, should address not only egg poaching, but
the unlawful taking and sale of meat, shells and skulls, the impor-
tation of sea turtle products from foreign countries, the taking of
marine turtles by trawlers and other commercial means and the har-
assment of egg-laying turtles on the beaches.

P. 68 line 26 - Typographical error - "is" should be deleted.

-4-

P. 79 82 It is advisable to include the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act is a
catchall federal statute which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, etc., in interstate or foreign commerce
any unlawfully taken, transported or acquired wildlife. These
prohibitions apply to violations of Federal, State or foreign
laws. The statute also makes it unlawful to transport any wild-
life taken in violation of any Federal law. In this case, no
interstate commerce is required.

In recognizing the importance of enforcing the international
trade laws, import and exports, Customs is referred in the plan
as having the greatest impact on unlawful trade in turtle prod-
ucts. It should be recognized that the wildlife inspection
program of the FWS with the cooperation of the U.S. Customs
Service, has been instrumental in curtailing the unlawful impor-
tation of turtle products and continues to seize illegal ship-
ments at the designated parts for the importation of wildlife.
Prosecutions of such cases are handled by the FWS.

In addition to the above, we are enclosing approximately 50 pages from the
draft where we are recommending changes, corrections, or additions. We ask
that you carefully consider these in the revisions. We note that a number
of comments submitted in the technial review stage have not been incorpo-
rated or addressed in this agency review draft. Many of these comments we
deemed appropriate to both technically strengthen and clarify the plan.

We note that sections of the plan appear dated-it does not incorporate more
recent management efforts, research, and problems. This and certain other
oversights are more a problem of the plan being somewhat "dated" due to the
5 years or so it has been in preparation. It's not deemed necessary to
include many of the latest developments unless NMFS decides to maintain
those general informational sections which we have suggested are more appro-
,priate as appendices.

A major concern of the FWS is that, other then Kemp's ridley, no measure of
recovery is given. Even in the Kemp's plan we don't agree that recovery
will not have occurred until we again have single arribadas of 40,000
females. If we could ever reach 5,000 nesting Kemp's in a.season, we would
certainly consider a down listing, other factors being equal. Those agen-
cies and others involved in recovery efforts must have an idea of what they
are shooting for-population/habitat objectives must be established to
cle-arly state when a species/population has recovered to the point of down
listing to threatened or delisted entirely, depending on the current listing
status. Certainy Kemp's does not have to reach numbers projected for the
mid 1940's to biologically be eligible for down listing to threatened sta-
tus. This holds true for all the populations under the team's purview. As
an agency, FWS must know what numerical or other definable objectives are
for each species or population. Recovery must be defined and measurable.

303

We do appreciate this opportunity to again review and comment on the draft.
The team has put a tremendous amount of work into preparation of the docu-
ment and certainly deserve all our thanks for this monumental effort.
Please convey our compliments to all the team members for a basically very
good document.

S ncere y yours,,

ja Woody
N tional Sea Turtle Coordinator

Enclosures:
1. Suggested Step-down
2. Recovery Plan Mark-up
incerely

W
J@a

304
LST Op
United States Department of the Interior

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
RESTON, VA. 22091

In Reply Refer To:
LMS-Mail Stop 644

MAY 2 1 1984

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Regional Director, Southeast Region
U.S. Department of Commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

We appreciate the opportunity @o comment on the draft Marine Turtle
Recovery Plan. The document represents a serious attempt by the Marine
Turtle Recovery Team at examining the many Possibilities for rehabilitating
the populations of the various endangered and threatened marine turtle
species. We offer the following to aid in improving the.Plan.

In general, the Table of Contents and information discussed under most of
the subheadings adequately cover the relevant topics and the steps needed
to allow for recovery of these species. In particular, the Stepdown
Plans and Implementation Schedules g1ve more detailed guidance on Agency
responsibilities than we have seen in most documents of this kind. On
the other hand, the responsibilities or support functions indicated for
the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and presumably other Agencies'
require clarification before a fair'evaluation can be made and
concurrence obtained. We do concur with the basic concepts and major
objectives, but headings in the Implementation Schedules such as
"Regulate Petrochemical Industry" are not well-defined, nor are Agency
responsibilities indicated in the text of the plan.

On a more specific level, all references to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) should be changed to MMS. In May 1982, components of
BLM with Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) responsibilities were transferred
to a new Agency, MMS, which now has all OCS responsibilities within the
Department of the Interior. We also note a lack of Agency
responsibilities in the Implementation Schedules for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). It is the responsibility of the Federal
Government under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, the
Ocean Dumping Act Amendments of 1972, and the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977 to preserve, protect, and restore ocean water quality and to
regulate dumping of all materials into the ocean. The EPA is the lead
Agency in these mandates and should have some role in the Recovery Plan.

305

Mr. Jack T. Brawner 2

The Implementation Schedules are actually Agency responsibility
assignments and do not indicate timing of actions. The Plan would be
enhanced by infusing some type of temporal perspective on the various
objectives and tasks. An Implementation Schedule was not included for
the Olive Ridley Turtle.

Our final point relates to the research and regulatory role that MMS
currently performs. We feel that MMS is currently meeting, in whole or
part, the first five objectives on page 3 of the draft Plan through its
Environmental Studies Program and through the development of lease
sale-specific mitigating measures. We have conducted aerial surveys and
methodology assessments in the North Atlantic in'the Cetacean and Turtle
Assessment Program conducted by the University of Rhode Island. Field
population estimation has its drawbacks, and we have-decided to invest
our research money in studies that can give us specific technical
answers. For instance, it is alleged on pages 72 and 73 of the Plan that
turtles ingest floating tar. The extent and effect of such activity is
poorly understood, and we are.currently conducting a study with the
University of Florida to examine this possibility. We intend to continue
to direct research funds at specific issues helpful to our regulatory
decisionmaking requirements. Conducting field surveys is a low priority
for MMS right now, and we note that the Plan also assigns lower priority
to surveys and methodology assessment.

We hope these comments provide some help in revising thedraft Recovery
Plan and look forward to reviewing the next version. If we can be of
further help, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Direc or
tor

306

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 4970
JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32232

June 7, 1984
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Environmental Resources Branch
Planning Division

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

We have examined the Agency Review, Draft of the Recovery Plan
for Marine Turtles and offer the-following comments:

1. The recovery plans for loggerhead turtles and green turtles
are inconsistent. For the former, a recommendation is made (page
96) to "Prohibit all beach nourishment projects on nesting beaches
during the nesting and hatching season." The green turtle plan
(page 154) includes the same recommendation, but also allows an
agency to "Relocate eggs to a safe area or hatchery if beach
nourishment during (the) nesting season cannot be prevented."

2. A rationale and statutory authority should be provided for
recommending prohibition, since State and Federal wildlife agencies
have been accepting nest relocation as adequate mitigation for
some time. If nest relocation is fraught with hazards, should not
"head-start" programs also be circumscribed?

3. The Corps attempts to schedule beach nourishment outside
the turtle'nesting and hatching season. However, it should be
recognized that, for many beaches in Florida, nourishment would be
excessively expensive and perhaps not economically feasible except
during summer months, when seas are calm enough for a pipeline
dredge to work. A prohibition during this period could eventually
result in a severely eroded beach incapable of supporting. any
turtle nesting. "Prohibit" and "prevent", therefore, seem unneces-
sarily dogmatic choices of words. Nothing in the Endangered Species
Act or other legislation cited in the document authorizes such a
general rohibition. In fact, the governing regulation (50 CFR
402.04M) specifically makes it the "responsibility of the Federal
agency to determine whether to proceed with the activity or program
as planned."

307

-2-

4. The recovery plan (pages 96 and 153) recognizes that
"Hydraulic pumping may create or improve nesting beaches", but
then goes on to state that "however, this activity is not
advocated." Without conditioning this-statement, the plan pre-
sents the position that no efforts should be made to maintain,
restore or manage beaches for increased turtle nesting. By
ignoring this opportunity to create, maintain, restore or manage
nesting habitat the recovery plan is much less than it could have
been.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

A. J. Salem
Chief, Planning Division

308

June 7, 1984

Environmental Resources Branch
Planning Division

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

We have examined the Agency Review Draft of the Recovery Plan
for Marine Turtles and offer the following comments:

2. A rationale and statutory authority should be provided for
recommending prohibition, since State and Federal wildlife agencies
have been accepting nest relocation as adequate mitigation for
some time. If nest relocation is fraucht with hazards, should not
"head-start" programs also be circumscribed?

3. The Corps attempts to schedule beach nourishment outside
the turtle nesting and hatching season. However, it should be
recognized that, for many beaches in Florida, nourishment would be
excessively expensive and perhaps not economically feasible except
during summer months, when seas are calm enough for a pipeline
dredge to work. A prohibition during this period couiTd eventuall-v
result in a severely eroded beach incapable of supporting any
turtle nesting. "Prohibit" and "prevent", therefore, seem unneces-
sarily dogmatic choices of words. Nothing In the Endangered Species
Act or other legislation cited in the document authorizes such a
generalzrohibition. In fact, the governing regulation (50-CFR
402.04( ) specifically makes it the "responsibility of the Federal
agency to determine whether to proceed with the activity or program
as planned."

309

4. The recovery plan (pages 96 and 153) recognizes that
"Hydraulic pumping may create or improve nesting beaches", but
then goes on to state that "howeverv this activity is not
advocated." Without conditioning this statement, the plan pre-
sents the position that no efforts should be made to maintain,
restore or manage beaches for increased turtle nesting. By
ignoring this opportunity to create, maintain, restore or manage
nesting habitat the recovery plan is much less than it could have
been.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

A. J.2"Salem
Chief, Planning Division

NASA 310

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Washington, D.C.
20546

:Zeoly to Attn of: EBT(84-38)

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Regional Director, Southeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
9450 Kroger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

In response to your request of February 22, 1984, the following
comments are provided concerning the proposed Marine Turtle
Recovery Plan and NASA's participation in the Plan. The need to
take action to promote the survival and recovery of these turtles
is clearr and I applaud the efforts of those involved in
initiating the program described in the proposal.

I agree with the feasibility and suitability of the outlined
proposal in terms of the goal ofaiding the survival of these
animals, and assume a more compl-ete management plan and schedule
of activities will be developed.@once you have identified the
participants' roles.

In your proposal, you have identified NASA as a "cooperative"
agency in the protection of two turtle speciest Caretta caretta
and Chelonia mydas, that nest on beaches that include those in
the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) area. KSC has been involved in
marine turtle survey efforts to a limited degree for the'past
several years as an element of the ongoing NASA environmental
impact assessment of Shuttle launches at KSC. The NASA-sponsored
activities consist of monitoring two to three miles of KSC beach
during the summer to assess any adverse effect of Shuttle
launches on turtle nesting habits or numbers. This information
has been,and will continue to be, provided to interested
groups--the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service and others--for integration into their overall
tracking data and turtle protection plans. Other activities
proposed in the draft plan for possible NASA suppo rt, including
protecting nests, managing beaches, tagging animals, etc., are
neither within NASA's scope nor capability.

311

I, therefore, offer the continued use of the KSC beaches, as well
as the data we continue to collect, as part of Shuttle
environmental impact assessment activities to any of the
participants in your "Recovery Plann when it is implemented.

Sincerely,

Edelson
Associate Administrator for
Space Science and Applications
@A s

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
John F Kennedy Sows Center
Kennedy Space Center. Roncla 32899 312

APR 17 1984

R@* w Ann at DF-EMS

.National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn: Mr. Jack Brawner, Regional Director,
Southeast Region
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Subject: The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan

This office concurs with the basic plan as outlined in the document, and
has had the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (FWS) under a land manage-
ment agreement, review the draft. The USFWS comments that are enclosed
represenY the concerns of Kennedy Space Center (KIJC) on this matter.
Currently, portions of KSC are managed as a wildlife refuge by the
USFWS. Any recovery activities that may take place on KSC-Tand must be
reviewed by both this office and the USFWS. If we can be of further
assistance in this matter, please contact Mr. Kirby K. Key at AC 305
867-4049.
A twe /A4
<P@ Director of Engineering Development
Enclosure

CAM March 22, 1984
Nam' If ra 313
A*"" Opp: Refuge Manager, Merritt.Island NWR Complex

$Umjg:c,r 3Review of the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan

'Too Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, GA (SE)

With the understanding that marine turtle ecology is in its infancy,
overall the recovery plan provides a very good understanding of the
problem, and some broad strategies on accomplishin g recovery. One
obvious weakness throughout is a non-standardization of methods and
non-coordination of activities. Interest in sea turtle management
has significantly increased in the past eight years. With this interest
has been the implementation of many research and management projects
most of which are site specific. Coordination of these projects into
a systematic approach would be very valuable. This recovery plan may
help in the coordination effort, however it is only a strategic plan
of the overall recovery effort.

Following approval of the recovery plan it may be beneficial to
develop some action plans dealing with each section of the implementation
schedule. These action plans could standardize management and research
projects, coordinate activities, and organize section recovery efforts.
The lead agency responsible -for each plan section would develop these
action plans.

The implementation schedules correctly identifies lead agency respon-
sibility as related to jurisdiction. Past experience has shown however,
that the agency which is most ccincerned about a problem or which is
geographically closest to the problem takes the lead (f.e. 1977 and
1981 cold-stunning episodes on MINWR). The above mentioned action
plans may help. The priority levels established conform to those
mentioned in the Regional Resource Plan and being implemented on the
MINWR with respect to the loggerhead and green sea turtle. -

Although most recovery plans provide cost estimates, none were provided
in this draft. It may be beneficial for these cost estimates to be
developed. The Regional Resource Plan does provide some annual cost
estimates for each preferred strategy. Time schedules for accomplish-
ments would also be helpful.

Marine turtle ecology is a complex problem.. The recovery plan is a good
initial step in that it recognizes basic problems and assigns responsibilities.
Perhaps more complex than the marine turtle ecology is the systematic organ-
ization and coordination of all federal , state and private organizations
to carry out the plan.

Stephen R. Vehrs

KSC - M

"41 Of co 314
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
P479S ot OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Waihington, D.C. 20235

N/ORM4: VA

March 26, 1984

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Southeast Regionil Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger BI vd.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Re: Marine Turtle Recovery Plan

Dear Mr. Brawner:

The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) appreciates the
opportunity to review this Plan. Our comments are limited to Part 2.8.3,
page SO- on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. This section
is badl; outdated. We cannot require state CZM programs to designate
sea turtle nesting areas as areas of particular concern (APCs). All we
have ever required is that states develop an approvable process and criteria
for designating APCs. The use of this process to designate specific areas
is up to each state CZM program.

With these points in mind, we suggest the following rewording of this
section:

3. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Scope and Provisions:

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted to
encourage and assist coastal states and territories in
dealing with the increasing and competing demands for
the use of the Nation's coastal resources. The Act.has
as its objective "to preserve, protect, develop, and
where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of
the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding
generations." To achieve this objective, it provides
Federal financial and technical assistance to coastal
state and territorial governments to establish and
administer Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs that
meet Federal objectives, including protection of natural
resources.

315

Implementation:

All 35 coastal states and territories have participated in the
CZM program. Of these, 28 have Federally-approved management
programs and one, Virginia, is expected to submit a program
for approval in FY 1984.

Required Action:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should
encourage coastal states and territories with Federally-
approved CZM programs to develop and implement measures to
protect sea turtle nesting areas and foraging water areas
within their coastal zones.

If you have any questions concerning these comments, please do not hesitate
to contact us agai n.

Sincerely,

Peter L. Tweedt
Director

316

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IV

345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA.GEORGIA30365

MAR 0 6 1984

4 PM- EA/RG

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV has reviewed
the subject report titled "Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles."
Most of the programs over.which we have immediate purview
should not negatively impact.populations of the involved
species. However, certain industrial and domestic discharges
over which EPA has either direct or indirect permitting
authority could impact turtles-in the coastal portion of
their range. From a practical standpoint the utilization of
specific estuaries and bays by turtles should be determined
before modifications to discharde permits are considered. If
it is or becomes known that certain coastal waters exhibit
significant utilization by marine turtles, the effects of the
permitted discharges there on these species should be examined.

we appreciate the oppotunity to review and comment on this
important issue.

Sincerely yours,

4ep rd N. Moore, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch
d4epolrd t

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 317

WASHINGTON D C _'O' 50

March 20, 1984

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Southeast Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

In response to your request of 22 February 1984 for comments on
the implementation aspects of the draft Recovery Plan for Marine
Turtles,-I have had the draft reviewed in our Division of Biotic
Systems and Resources, which handles endangered species matters
for the Foundation.

Our review finds that the distinguished co-leaders of the Recovery
Team (Ms. Sally Hopkins and Dr. Peter Pritchard) and the other
equally knowledgeable members-and consultants of the team have
done a commendable job. They established a reasonable-and
realistic implementation plan for protecting and enhancing the
populations of the six threatened and endangered species of sea
turtles occurring within U.S. boundaries. The plan fully
summarizes all of the relevant da-ta on sea turtle stocks and
the probable causes for the declines thereof, while offering
feasible plans for protection and recovery of the stocks with
the least disturbance to legitimate commercial marine activities.
Both the implementation and step down schedules are well considered
and based on the best available information and analyses.

We congratulate the Recovery Team and its consultants on a job
well done.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Rabin
Acting Assistant Director
Biological, Behavioral,
and Social Sciences

318
State of Florida

Department of Natural Resources Interoffice Memorandum

16 March 1984

TO: Jack Brawner

FROM: Ed Joyce

RE: Attached comments on Turtle Recovery Plan.

I thought you might like to see Ross Witham's comments.
Thanks for letting us review the plan.

Best regards.

EJ/hj

Attachment

12 March 1984 319

MEMORANDUM

To: Ed Joyce

From: Ross Witham

Subject: Recovery Plan Comments.

Having read the plan several times, including the attached version, I
think that it is generally a good work. My,- suggestions for modification are
as follow.

1. With the development of Seascape and other such beach erosion
control techniques, there is a need to include a new part in the
2. GENERAL TOPICS section. This should probably replace the present
2.6 section and be entitled Nearshore Installations Designed for
Beach Erosion Control. The present nos. 2.6, 2,7 a 2.8would then
become 2.7, 2.8 & 2.9.

Wording suggested for the new 2.6 is: There is considerabAe interest
in attempting to control beach erosion by the use of wave attenuation
techniques. These techniques may inelude.plastic seaweed, or, conceiv-
ably, "hard" materials such as concrete.-Each.suggested material should
be evaluated for its possible impact upon sea turtles. Impact might
involve eating, attempting-to eat, or becoming a physical barrier to
beach access.

2. The 3.5 Kemp's Ridley Turtle-Recovery Plan is viewed by some as an
intrusion into the Mexican government's aria of concern. While Kemp's
ridleys'ibL U. S. waters shouldIe provided as much protection as possible,
discussion of.@matters pertaining to nesting beach management in Mexico
might better be-avoided.

320
@Beyartmrnt af Natural @Resaurces
COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION
1200 GLYNr4 AVENUE-
AII BRUNSWICK. GEORGIA 31523-9990
(912) 264-7218
ice 13. Zwntr
COMMISSIONER
amt 31arrw
DIRECTOR
20 April 1984

Mr. Charles A. Oravetz
Chief, Protected Species Management Branch
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg,,Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Oravetz:

I have reviewed the "Recovery Plan for Marine Turtle s" and wish to
congratulate the writers for their thorough job. As the loggerhead,
leatherback and green are known to occur in my local, I've restricted
my coments to these species.

Page Number Comment

94 Item 111211. Probably helpful; however, why
not develop-clean-up methods that are effective
yet don't harm developing eggs?

94 Item 111221. Good item, but idealistic. Would
require a very strong, active lobby to go up
against the developers and a lot of public edu-
cation for support.

102 Items 131121 and 13121. Lobby for a stronger,
more potent EPA.

103 Item 132211. Stress use of TEDs;.doubtful on
success of prohibiting fishing due to incidental
turtle catch.

As the recovery plans for the other species are so similar, these com-
ments pertain to the appropriate sections of their plans too. If you have
any questions or further requests, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Nick Nichol son
Sanctuary Coordinator

NN11w

321
South Carolina Coastal Council

James M. Waddell, Jr. H. Wayne Beam, Ph.D
Chairman Executive Director

May 16, 1984

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Regional Director
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Dear Mr. Brawner:

The South Carolina Coastal Council appreciates the opportunity to review
the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles and will support the management plan for
nesting areas on the beaches of South Carolina. The staff of.the Council will
work closely with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
to utilize the best management practices to protect critical nesting habitat
in South Carolina. However, the Council has the responsibility to weigh the
public benefits and all aspects of a project and consequently, must retain
final authority in permit action.

Sincerely,

Duncan . Newkir
Permit Administrator

DCN:0032J
cc: Senator James M. Waddell, Jr,
Dr. H. Wayne Beam
Duncan C. @Newkir

322

TEXAS
COMMISSIONERS PARKS AND WILDLIFE OEPARTMENT
EDWIN L. COX@ JR 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 CHARLES 0. TRAVIS
Chairman, Athens Executive Director

GEORGE R BOLIN
Vice-Chairman, Houston

WM. 0. BRAECXLEIN May 18, 1984
Dallas

WM. L. GRAHAM
Amarillo Mr. Jack T. Brawner
RICHARD R. MORRISON, III Regional Director
Clear Lake City United States Department of Commerce
W, a. OSBORN. JR, Southeast Region
Santa Elena 9450 Koger Boulevard
PERKINS 0. SAMS St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Midland
Dear Mr. Brawner:
DR. RAY E. SANTOS
Lubbock This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1984
WM. M. WHELESS, III regarding the agency review draft "Recovery Plan for
Houston
Marine Turtles."

The recovery plan appears to be a well-conceived por-
trayal of the strategies needed to ensure-marine turtle
survival and hopefully return these species to their
former numbers. An elucidation of the authors' defi-
nition of State Conservation Agency (SCA) would help.
Many of the actions assigned to SCA on implementation
schedules for the loggerhead, green, and ridley
segments are under the jurisdiction of other agencies
or are not authorized under current State legislation.
Moreover, several of the actions would seem appropriate
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but it
is not listed either as a lead agency or a cooperator.

Reference to this agency on pages 239 and 241 should be
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department or TPWD as appro-
priate. Also on pages 239 and 240, the column heading
"Assisting Agency" should read "Lead Agency" so as to
be consistent with other segments of the recovery plan.

Finally, we were disappointed to learn that National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was terminating its
ridley-rearinq activities at the Galveston Laboratory.
Some clarification of the lead role assigned NMFS in
the Priority 1, Step 11211, page 239, is needed
concerning this project.

323

Mr. Jack T. Brawner
Page 2
May 18, 1984

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
"Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles." Let us know if
we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Charle D. Travis
Executive Director

CDT:FEP:aeh
hCharlke /I

324

CHARTERED 1693 V F. Op Ir
COLLEGE OF WILLIANIAND MARY

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 8 May 1984 Phone (804) 642-2111

Andy Majors
NOAA
NMFS Regional Office
9450 Kroger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Dear Andy:

Sorry we became so late with the response to the Draft Recover-y Plan.
We hope our comments will still be useful.

General comments have been made by others and we will not echo them
now. A few specific comaents by page number follow and we are enclosing
a copy of our recent suwaary report and recommendations to NMFS Northeast
Region. for your perusal. I

We would appreciate any publication of the comments and copies of'the
Final Plan.

Comments:

PP. 48 Leatherback, Incidental Catch Overview

It is stated that capture rates are low because of "low relative
abundance in this region and because of their preferred habitat... usually
pelagic." Recent reports (CETAP) have shown leatherbacks to be much more
coastally oriented than thought before and no one knows the relative abundance
of leatherbacks migrating or foraging along the Atlantic Coast of'North
America.

PP. 103, Section 13221.of the Loggerhead Stepdown Plan

This section addresses fishing methods, gear, areas and seasons yet
completely ignores the problems and potential solutions for fixed gear.
Poundnets and gill nets have been implicated in turtle mortalities,
especially in the Chesapeake Bay, yet only towed gear is mentioned.
The habitat section is too 3eneral. No problem areas have@,been specifically
identified except Canaveral Channel.

PP. 107, Section 1421, Loggerhead Aerial Survey Assessment

There is a need to stress the importance of behavioral studies to
determine the surface/submergence time ratios of turtles. These data are
invaluable in providing better population estimates from aerial surveys by
estimating the numbers of unseen, diving turtles along the flight path.

325

Andy Majors
8 May 1984
Page 2

PP. 190, Section 132211, Leatherback Stepdown

This section ignores incidental captures along the Mew England coast.
In fact, the entire Section 14 ignores the New England seasonal foraging
stocks of leatherbacks and limits areal comments to the American Caribbean.

PP. 221-240 Kemp's Ridley Stepdown

There are no recommendations that studies be supported on life history,
and immature stages and habitats are largely ignored. No mention is made
regarding developmental habitats, nursery areas or the migratory behavior
patterns of juveniles.

For all the species covered in the plan, crucial data concerning the life
histories, migratory behavior patterns and preferred habitat is lacking
for i-ature life stages. How effective can any.management be if you don't
4-
know where or how the species live for major por@ions of their lives?

Sincerely,

John A. Musick
Professor of Marine Science

Richard A. Byles
Graduate Research Assistant

RAB/gbr

Enclosure

326

Dr. Jack Brawner
Regional Director- Southeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
9450 Koger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, Fl. 33704

Dear Dr. Brawner,

We have received the "Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles" and

find it thorough but not without some omissions. The most import-

ant in our eyes is described below.

Commentary on "The Recovery Plan For Marine Turtles".-

The plan is basically comprehensive considering most of

the known facts on sea turtle biology. In some cases however

there is a tendency to lean on anecdotal and circumstantial

information. An important case is consideration of the

colonization potential of various sea turtle species. Consider

the following; although it is known that migration distances

are great and turtles tagged at diverse locations share common

foraging grounds, it is also known that females are repeat

nesters on the same beach year after year. The latter information

is given more weight in the Recovery Plans' reccomendations for

handling and brooding clutches as well as handling hatchlings.

That is, "repeat nesting" behavior is taken as a reflection of

natal beach homing of both sexes. This is clearly the more

conservative approach. However, since the colonization question

may be one of the most important to restocking activities it

should have been given greater attention in the plan. While

activities such as headstarting, temperature determination of

sex and various monitoring activities such as aerial surveys

327

are clearly important, there is a clear need to know,whether

natal beach imprinting occurs in both sexes and if it is possible

to subdivide turtles into discrete management units. Thus

far tagging approaches have not provided this information.

Therefore at least one item of high priority should be the

need to develop alternative methodologies to answer this key

question to both an understanding *of turtle biology and to the

design of management and recovery plans.

We would like to suggest genetic approaches as a

possibility. These could include protein electrophoresis,

immunological methodologies or DNA sequence or fingerprinting

techniques. The first has been in use in our laboratory for a

number of years and has been successful in distinguishing-between

populations of spiny lobsters, alligators and crocodiles.

Preliminary studies aimed at the asFsessment of gene flow between

green turtle populations has suggested differences between

animals from Atlantic Costa Rica and Florida (see enclosed

abstract). These results are consistant with the observations of

Smith et. al. (Trans 41st North Amer. Wildlife Nat. Res.

Conf.,(1976)pll9).

The study with green turtles has been ongoing in our

laboratory since 1979 along with similar studies with

Pacific olive ridley and Atlantic loggerhead turtles. In the

former case we have collections from both Mexico and Costa Rica.

For loggerheads we are completing collections from various U.S.

populations from South Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico.

We would be most happy to cooperate with the Recovery Team

328

in the pursuance of this and related questions.

Sincerely yours,

Robert A. Menzies
Professor of Biochemistry
and Oceanography

Lyle Kochinsky
Research Associate

329
luiurrstIg Lit

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY

4AMSAY WRIGHT ZOOLOGICAL LAeORATORIES
.5 HARBORO STREET
M5S 1AI. ONTARIO. CANADA

March 13, 1984

Dr. Jack T. Brawner
United States Department of Commerce
Southeast Region -
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Brawner:

With respect to your letter of February 22, 1984, p. 66-67 of
the recovery plan for turtles discusses effects of hatcheries on
sex ratio. There are now actual data on this point (repri 'nt en-
closed), as opposed to speculations, and you may wish to refer to
them.

It is always a problem-keeping-abreast of recent work., I do
feel that some reference to the existence my book (Converving Sea
Turtles, see enclosed notice) should be in'cluded for the sake of
completeness. It is one of the few attempts to look critically
at some of our conservation techniques, whether one agrees with
it not.

Yours sincerely,

77":

Nicholas Mrosovsky

P.S. Methods (i.e. formulae) for estimating tag loss in double
tagging,,,5tudies might be given somewhere.

NM/wl

Encl.

330

Sea Turde
Rescue
Ftmd

May 8. 1984

Chuck Oravetz
NMFS-SE
9450 Koger Blvd., Durval Bldg.
St. Petersburgl,-.Plorida 33702

Dear Chuck:

RE: Review camients for A Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles

Page 1. Perhaps Plants should be included in the definitions of endangered and
threatened species.

page 2. (para 2 line 9) Perhaps "foster" should replace "assure".

page 20. (para 2., last sentence) This sentence can be (zaitted as it is not
relevant at this time.

page 50. (para 3#, line 4) should include the number of trawls in the fleet.

page-58. (para 1, line 8) Easley, 1982 not included in biblio.

page 58. Perhaps include a discussion an Section 10A of the ESA. (see
attachment)

page 79. (para 1)

Correction: (line 2) ESA does not provide for the establishment of
marine sanctuaries.

Add: ESA also protects endangered and threatened species from
irVort, export, sale, offer for sale, take, transport, etc. The
only eximpiions to the above for endangered species are for
scientific research and enhancement of survival of the species.
For threatened species exempticns include scientific research,
t of survival of the speciesl, zoological exhibition,,
ucational purposes, and special purposes that are consistent
with the Act.

Add- All species of sea turtles, except the Australian flatback are
pro@e@ in the united States Luider the EsA.

page 80. (para 3) Not all 30 coastal states have begun planning for the
developwnt of their management programs.

Center for Environmental Educadon
624 9th SUeet NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 737-3600

331

page 81. (para 3, line 2) delete "as required by the ESA".

(para 5) Four marine santuaries :add La Parguera, Puerto Rico, to be
designated.

page 86. Add: The loggerhead sea turlte was listed as a threatened species by
the U.S. Department of Interior in 1979. It is also on Appendix I
of the Convention on International Trade In-Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

page 97. 11311 add sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
change to "Pranote and maintain legal protection and ...

page 103. 13211 add sections 4.1,, 4e2j 4*3
change to "Promote and maintain legal protection and ...

page 108. 113U change priority from 4 to 2.

13211 change priority from 3 to 2.

page 147 (last para) This paragraph should be expanded. (see enclosure).

page 154. 11311 add sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
change to "Promote and maintain legal protection and..."

page 160. 13211 add sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
change to "Promote and maintain legal..."

page 166. 113U change priority from 4 to 1*.

13211 change priority from 3 to 1*.

Historical evidence attributes the@tremendous decline in green sea
turtle populations in this region to international trade.
Maintaining and prowting international protection (such as CITES)
for the green turtle should be a number one priority for this
species.

page 183. leatherback stepdown plan should mention the plastic bag problem.

page 184. 113U change "See loggerhead step 1131111 to "See section 1.2, 2.8,
4.1, 4.21 4.3, 4.4")

change to "Promote and maintain legal..."

page 189. 13211. change to "Promote and maintain legal..."
add section 2.8

page 203. (Para 3)

Correction: The most intensive threat to the hawksbill canes from
the harvest of adult hawksbills for the Japanese tortoiseshell
trade-.

332

Cmit: "Turtles and tortoiseshell have traditional ceremonial value
in Japan,, and the rise in prosperity has increased the demand for
the shell." This statement is misleading; while some tortoiseshell
artifacts do have traditional value in Japan, the majority of crafts
produced today in Japan are modern day articles void of traditional
value (eyeglass frames, western wear jewelry, etc.).

Add: Since 1965, the Japanese imported a minimum of 370,000 kg. of
hawksbill- shell from wider Caribbean countries. Between 1981 and
1983, over 45,000 kg. was imported from 21 different countries (see
table 9).

Correction: Prices paid for preferred shell in Japan have been as
.high as $225 per kilogram. The shell of one adult
hawksbill turtle weighs between 1.5 to 2.5 kilograms.

Omit: Reference to Table 8 here, incorrect.

Add: A more recent threat comes from the growing curio trade in
stuffed juvenile hawksbills.

Enclosed is an updated table 9.

page 207. 11311 Add section 2.8.

page 212. 13211 Add section 2.8.

page 216. 111221 Priority 1 ???

page 233. (para 3) This paragraph needs clarification. The wording in this
paragraph gives no indication that it may be impossible to captive breed the
Kemp's ridley altogether or in large numbers. The Cayman Turtle Farm, for
example has not been able to breed any F2 hatchlings of green sea turtles and
F1 production has been much lower than wild eggs hatched under the same
conditions. In addition, F1 production from eggs that were originally taken
from the wild (Captive-reared animals) has been extremelv low; most of the
Farm's productivity comes from adults taken from the wild. This evidence does
not support the statement "initial stock for captive breeding can be
obtained.... by taking hatchlings rather than adults." A better title for this
section way be "Establish the Feasibility of Maintaining Viable Captive
Breeding Colonies."

page 239. 131. Change to Establish the Feasibility of maintaining Viable
Captive Breeding Colonies.

page 240. 14221 and 14223 should be changed from Priority 2 to Priority 1.

333

page 248. many errors. Below I have rewritten this section using the same
format.

2. Convention ..... Flora (CITES) (also known as the Washington Convention, or
the Convention)

Scope and Provisions:

The Convention is not a comprehensive wildlife conservation convention but
is limited to controlling international trade in species threatened with
extinction or species potentially threatened with extinction. Within this
important functional area of controlling international trade in sea turtles and
their products, this Convention currently is the strongest and most detailed
international agreement. However, unlike the previous convention, it has
nothing to say about protection within national territories and waters and
protection of habitat.

Species protected by CITES trade controls are placed on one of three
appendices, only two of which are acmmonly used. Appendix I species are those
species threatened with extinction, which may or may not be affected by trade.
Accordingly, Appendix I species are provided with the strongest protection;
with very limited exemptions ccmmercial and tourist trade is prohibited. All
sea turtle species are on Appendix I. Species on Appendix II are those species
which are not necessarily now threatened with extinction but may become so
unless trade in such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid
utlization inccmpatible with their survival. International trade in Appendix
II species is allowed provided that the country of export grants approval for
such trade. Species not fitting the above criteria may also be included in the
Appendices in order to ensure that trade in more vulnerable spi?cies is brought
under effective control (e.g. look-alike-species).

Implementation:

CITES came into force in 1975 and has become an effective mechanism for
controlling international trade in most endangered species. However,, trade in
products derived from hawksbill and olive ridley, and to a much lesser extent,,
green sea turtles still continues in the wider Caribbean region because of
three major factors:

1. only _ a 'f the 26 countries in the region are members of CITES.
Scime of the non-member countries trade internationally in sea turtle
products.

Chuck I think you should change countries to geopolitical
units, as not all British territories and colonies are,
members of CITES. I = waiting for verification on Montserrat
and the British Virgin islands and will call you next week with
this information.

334

CITES Members Non-members Unsure

Brazil Antigua British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands Barbados Montserrat
Colombia Belize
Bahamas Bermuda
Guyana Dominica
Costa Rica Dominican Republic
French Guiana Cuba
Guadeloupe Grenada
Martinique Honduras
Nicaragua Jamaica
Panama Mexico
St. Lucia Haiti
Suriname St. Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla
Venezuela St. Vincent
Canada Turks and Caicos

2. Some member countries have taken "reservations" on sea turtles.
Suriname has a reservation on green and leatherback sea turtles.
Until Janaury 1984, France, and France's overseas departments (French
Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe) had reservations on hawksbill and green
sea turtles.

3. Some member countries have not effectively enforced CITES trade
controls.

Actions Required: State Department

Encourage all sea turtle trading countries in the plan area,, not yet party
to CITES, to join without reservation (eg. Mexico, Dominican Republic,
Cuba, Haiti).

Encourage Suriname to withdraw its CITES reservations for sea turtles.

Encourage all Parties to CITES to fully implement and enforce CITES import
and export controls (e.g. Panama,, Cayman Islands).

Actions Required: Departments of Commerce and Interior (leave as is)

page 261-269. (see attachment).

I hope you find these comments useful.

Best r S,

Emi ociatet Director
4gar

335

@AL S IENCES 9IN
E NvRoN@ENTAuL & cHE2mc
CS@(X @Bo @13 Ad e @So am 80 .(803)C652-7450 , (803) 65C2-2206@
P k 2
x 93 n' th c ina 9

March 26j 1984

Charles A. Oravetz, Chief
Protected Species Management Branch
National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Region
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Dear Chuck:

I have reviewed the recovery plan prepared by the marine
Turtle Recove@/Team, I would like to compliment the recovery
team and particularly Sally Hopkins and Peter Pritchard for an
excellent and comprehensive document. This effort should be
followed by sufficient agency commitment to establish funding for
the recommended programs..

I was.delighted to see, on page 58, a statement regarding the
paradox created by the Endangered Species Act which purports to
protect the species but prohibits individuals from taking life-
saving actions. This paradox has existed for years and the NMFS1
FWS has been negligent in not r-esolving the problem.

Section 2.7 of the recovery plan deals with public education
about the life history and protection of sea turtles. There is
obvious advantage to having a public awareness of the adverse
affects that humans can have on the sea turtle populations. How-
ever, too often public awareness leads to increased beach traffic
which can influence nesting behavior of the turtles. For
example, beach parks, such as Edisto Park in South Carolina, have
tours, led by knowledgeable staff, taking large groups along the
beach to find nesting turtles. The benefit of this educational
process is obvious. The cost, in terms of nesting disturbance,
is unknown. Another example: I understand there is a town in
Florida that advertises itself as a sea turtle capital and has
radio announcements directing people to the nesting beaches. In
this instance, the educational benefit is quite low compared to
the potential influence of numerous people wandering the beaches.

On page 88 of the recovery plan, the statement is made that
during egg-laying and incubation, eggs may be examined. I think
it is misleading to imply that examination and disturbance during
egg incubation is not harmful. I recommend deleting reference to
disturbing nests during the incubation period.

336

Charles A. Oravetz
March 26, 1984
page 2

The loggerhead implementation schedule is a good one.
However, I think some priorities should be changed to better
reflect our pre-sent knowledge. The present beach surveys which
mark adult females is a labor intensive effort conducted by
numerous organizations which yields volumes of data of
questionable value. The marking and mutilation of adult female
turtles with tags that may last anywhere between I day 4nd 7
years cannot yield reliable data. While the survey methodologies
referenced in section 1421 are aerial surveys, it is all beach
surveys being conducted in many ways by many people that need to
be standardized and evaluated. I agree that long-term marking
programs should be maintained, if only for data continuity. The
plan section 1421 should be moved to the highest priority and
implemented in connection with a program to develop both adult
tags and a hatchling tagging method.

Sincerely,

LiamdIs O'Hara, Ph.D.
Vice President

JOH:mg

337

February 9, 1984

Dr. C. Kenneth Dodd Jr.
1530 Northgate Square, Apt. 22B
Reston, VA. 22090

Mr. Charles Oravetz
National Marine Fisheries Service
9490 Koger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL. 33702

Dear Chuck:

I have finally had the opportunity to review the Sea Turtle Agency
Review draft that you gave me in Puerto Rico. I appreciate the opportunity
to look it over since I really wasn't involved in the-technical review. I
would have to state that the following comments are solely mine and do not
represent any Fish and Wildlife Service positions; I assume that FWS will
submit comments through the Regional office.
'In general, I was rather impressed with the first section of the plan,
although it is somewhat uneven in the depth into which topics are covered.
Given the scope of the plan, perhaps this is not too serious a problem.
The discussion involving the use and limitations of models (p. 27), popu-
lation estimates (p. 18), and the uniquenessof individual populations (p.
15) are important points that should be retained, and even could serve as
references for other recovery plans.
I was less than enthusiastic about the individual species recovery
plan sections as they are often far tocL vague about necessary recovery
actions, including land acquistion, crt-tical habitat designation, research,
and management. Again the scope of the plan may inhibit the type of de-
tailed recommendations that we often see in our FWS recovery plans; however,
there are other instances where specific actions could be recommended with-
out seriously lengthening the plan. In the long run, in my opinion, it may
indeed be necessary to rewrite the individual species accounts to reflect
priorities for various conservation activities. That is, we may have to re-
commend that Kemp's ridley be headstarted X amount of years, that critical
habitat should be designated for the loggerhead on the east coast of
Florida, that FWS and NMFS increase their law enforcement personnel in
the Caribbean, and that trawling be restricted in certain areas during cer-
tain times of the year. I realize that we don't have all the answers as
yet; but we do have some and these should be incorporated.
To begin with, I make two recommendations. The first is that the Recovery
Team review the sea turtle action plan developed by the World Conference on
Sea Turtle Conservation in Washington to determine if any of these actions
should be incorporated into the plan. The second is to recommend that the
WATS Manual of Sea Turtle Research and Conservation Techniques be adopted
by US, State, Territorial, and private researchers to lend some degree of
standarization to sea turtle research. I might also add a strong recommen-
dation be included in the plan that people who have endangered species
permits be required to make their data available, either through publica-
tion in an appropriate medium, or in reports submitted to a central sea

338

turtle coordinating center (Univ. of Florida, NMFS, or ?) so that we are not
faced with the situation where data- are taken for many years, yet no one
sees any results, and hears only rumors. We need not point to names to know
that this has been a chronic problem, and continues to be so in certain
areas.
I was very glad to see the Plan call for the development of critical
habitat for sea turtles, both in marine and on beach areas. There has been
a strong pitch within FWS to do away with critical habitat, and while I
readily agree that it is not advantageous in all circumstances to have it
formally declared, I still think it works well for species like sea turtles
which may be present in a particular habitat on a seasonal basis. In 1978
I published what I think was the first attempt to tell where the various
species nested (not referenced in the Plan I might add); I think this needs
to be updated since we now have much better information, and I definitely
think that certain areas need to be recommended for critical habitat designa-
tion: the marine areas around Culebra, Isla Mona, and certain areas around
the US Virgin Islands; the lagoonal system on the Florida east coast; and
nesting beaches at Cape Romain, Cape Canaveral, Hutchinson Island, Hobe
Sound, between Melbourne Beach and Sebastian Inlet, Cape Sable, and I'm sure
a few others that I've left off in this brief list. I would like the Plan
to give specific recommendations in this area.
As to specific comments on the Plan, there are a few typos that need to
be corrected, but I'm sure that you will find them in the course of your
review. I will make comments by page number as indicated below.

P. 1. The definitions of endangered and threatened given here'are not precise
in terms of the Endangered Species Act. For instance, the word "race" should
not be used, as the Act uses "subspecies." This should be rewritten to re-
flect the legal definitions.

P. 1. The Secretaries must review the status.of listed species every five
years, but recommendations for reclassification or delisting are made only
if the biological data warrant such. This should be clarified in the next to
last paragraph.

P. 12. The references to Dodd (1981) are incorrect both on this page and in
the literature cited. The date should be 1982 (the reprints had the incorrect
date).

P. 14. The population data needs to be updated on the number of leatherbacks
nesting in the USVI. Scott Eckert gave slightly different figures at the
Widecast meeting in Puerto Rico.

P. 16. Add coatis to the list of predators.

P. 19.(Top) Add the numbers of adult males as an elusive parameter.

P. 19. Both Marquez and Van Dissel (1982, Netherlands J. Zool. 32:419-425)
and Steve Cornelius (various reports to USFWS) Pave also described their
methods to estimate the numbers of females nesting on the beach, although
with olive ridleys. These should also be referenced.

339

P. 22. 1 might question the statement that most reptifes reproduce
on an annual cycle, as many factors may influence reproduction, including
temperature regimes and food quantity and quality. Certainly not all the
female crocodiles in a population reproduce annually, and I doubt that
many turtles do either. Lizards and snakes-may be another matter however.
Is there really any data to substantiate the "most" in this statement?

P. 28. 1 understand the desire to have programs continue a minimum
of six years- the females in at least one Georgia population "turn over"
at this rate. However, six should be a minimum figure, and it could per-
haps differ in other populations or with other species (as in greens
discussed later). Useful data would only begin to be available at the
end of six years, and it would be hoped that tagging programs really have
a longer period in mind, say 10 years at least, as a target for operation.
Six is thus only a minimum baseline figure, and may actually be too few
years in some circdm-stances.

P. 45. The Plan should note that Richard Byles of VIMS is also using radio
and sonar tracking in monitoring the sea turtles of the Chesapeake Bay.
(As long as all the others are mentioned.)

P. 59. The problem of incidental catch and endangened species is not a
question that can be addressed by FWS/NMFS through regulation. By law, you
cannot have special regulations for species listed as endangered, even for
conservation or research purposes. Therefore, to resolve the.question, there
would have to be a change in the Act to accommodate incidenta-1 catch, and
that has serious implications both fo-r sea turtles and other species. Jack
Woody came up with an idea concerning incidental catch and how to handle it,
but even with OES support, it got nowhere. Perhaps you should let Jack tell
you about it. Otherwise, perhaps the T6am should address the question of
amending the Act to address the incidental catch question. It is indeed a
bit thorny and volatile issue.

P. 64. 1 note that the increase in organic content of the nesting beach not
only increases the number of microbes but also increases the potential for
fungal contamination.

P. 65. ORVs should be mentioned specifically as a growing threat to nesting
beaches. Cite paper by Hosier et al. (1981, Environ. Conserv. 8(2): 158-161)
and note the papers cited by that paper.

P. 68. Suggest this wording " ... costly program which should be used for only
clearly..."

P. 72. Should cite the paper by Fritts and McGehee (1981, Contract 14-16-
0009-80-946 [FWS/OBS_ 81/37]) when discussing potential threats of oil.

P. 79. The Endangered Species Act does not per se provide for the establish-
ment of marine sanctuaries. Perhaps the marine sanctuaries program of NMFS
is more what they mean. We can declare marine critical habitats however.

340

P. 81 . At one time, NMFS had several areas in Puerto Rico proposed as marine
sanctuaries. What ever happened to them? Are they still pending? As I recall,
..OES supported the designation of these areas as sanctuaries because of their
potential importance-to the hawksbill sea turtle.

P. 102. Petroleum products may result in reduced reproductive effort; I know
of no data yet that conclus-T-vely proves this in sea turtles.
P. 104. Modifications concerning intake*pipes (high pitched sounds) have been
used with some degree of suc'cess by the Florida Power and Light Company. I
think Jim O'Hara has data on this but I have not been able to get a hold of
his report. It might be worth referencing depending on the results.

P. 106. Section 1411. A. may be realistically impossible for the near future.
I would add in section 1411.C.: Publish or otherwise make such data generally
available to those with an interest in sea turtle conservation.

P. 108. 1 like and endorse these priorities.

P. 147. "... from as low as one to over two hundred eggs." could be interpreted
as 1-200 or 100-200. Clarify.

P. 157. As I stated earlier, green turtles may have a different turnover rate
than Georgia loggerheads. Therefore, what is the biological basis for this
minimum rate? I think (without good data, just intuition) that this is too
conservative and recommend at least 10- years for greens.

P. 164. 1 agree with the statements on monitoring green turtle populations on
board fishing trawlers. But again, how-do we deal with the Endangered Species
Act and its restrictive provisions?

P. 183. The Plan should come right out and say: We recommend that the FWS
purchase Sandy Point as a refuge for nesting leatherbacks as soon as possible.
As Sean Furness noted, there could be some hitches that need to be resolved
in the immediate future if we are indeed going to pick up this important
nesting beach.

P. 199. Nesting of leatherbacks does occasionally occur on Isla Mona as well.
Tom Wiewandt reported this to me, and Peter Pritchard claimed to have seen
leatherback tracks on Mona this January. The beach certainly seems a likely
place for occasional nesting.

P. 202. The notion that hawksbills form demes in the Torres Straits has indeed
been mentioned in the literature primarily by Bustard (not cited in Plan) and
Carr and Stancyk (1975). However, this is probably not correc 't as Limpus et
al. (1983, Australian Wildl. Res. 10:185-197 and pers. comm.) have pointed
out. When an adequate sample size from a variety of locations throughout the
year is available, the deme notion based on variations in scute colors breaks
down.

P. 204. 1 don't understand why these old data are included. Emily Roet has
much more up to date information which should have been available to the
authors of the Plan; these current data should be incorporated.

341

P. 215. This is an example of where the Plan could have been made stronger
by the inclusion of specific recommendations, such as " .... in estuarine
and marine waters, particularly the reefs off West Palm Beach, Florida,
the waters off Mona Island, Puerto Rico, and the Magens Bay area. off Saint
Thomas in the US Virgin Islands."

P. 223. Kemp's ridleys are more familiar? To whom? Each other? Purely a
semantic observation. Juveniles are most often observed by people.

P. 224. Poaching can still be a serious problem at Rancho Nuevo, despite
the optimistic prose of the Plan. The Plan. cites data'from the late 7ns,
but when US observers were late getting on the beach in 1983, poaching
again became a serious problem until the patrols were set up and aerial
flights were again used to monitor the beach. This underscores the still
great importance of timely access to the beach immediately prior and
during the nesting season.

P. 246. 1 note that the only sea turtle listed by the US on the Western
Hemisphere Convention is the green turtle. However, otT-er Latin countries,
particularly Mexico, have listed other species. See Dodd (1978, Herpetol.
Rev. 9:52-53). Also worth noting is that the 1982 amendments to the En-
dangered Species Act gave further impetus to the US impl@menting the Con-
vention, although I am not aware of any particular action.

P. 248. Suggest "...of the biological, economic, and social realities..."

P. 248. 1 am not aware of the NPS-FWS-Cooperative Program. What I would
like to see is a cooperative program that brings latinos to the US to be
trained in sea turtle biology and conse-rvation techniques, similar to the
program underway to train Latin Americans in crocodilian biology.

P. 249. France, as part of the EEC, has now to my knowledge dropped its
sea turtle reservations under CITES. Check with Emily Roet for update, but
this section should be brought-up to date.

P. 267. Add Kemp's ridley to the Mexican section.

P. 269. Venezuela section. Sea turtles forage near the mainland, not on it.

Literature Cited. I recommend referencing the extensive bibliography pre-
pared by Peter Bacon for WATS as a source of many additional references to
the published and unpublished literature on the sea turtles of the Western
Caribbean. You might also mention my two bibliographies published by the
Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service as sources of information,
.and definitely include the WATS symposium and manual. Finally, I'll show
my bias by saying please include my critical habitat paper on sea turtles
in the US areas of jurisdiction (Bull. MD. Herp. Soc. 14: 233-240, 1978);
for a first try at delineating sea turtle nesting, it wasn't a bad little
paper (personal bias not perhaps shared by others!).

342

Well, I guess that those are my major points on specific matters. The
plan can serve as a basis for meaningful action, especially more so if it
centers on certain items that should be accomplished as soon as possible.
I wish I would have had more imput into the plan, but that is the way it
goes.
In any case, if I can be of further help, or if you need clarification
of any of my comments, please let me know. Glad I could be of assistance.,

Sincerely

C. Kenneth Dodd Jr. Ph.D.

ORREN MERREN 343
arm Mom III Bardster & Attorney Of Council
I M M W truman Bodden & Company
pf Ban of 701 Washington Building P.O. Box 866
& Wahm at 15th Street and Now York Avenue NW Grow cay"0M
m WI and Washington DC 20005 USA ca Islands BWI
natw Dc phone (202) 34724910 phone (809)94-92138
cable "CAYLAW" Yelfax 2438TRULAW CP

1 June 1984

Ms. Patricia Carter
.N8O4A8A
National Marine Fisheries Service
Page Building #2
3300 White2h0ave0n Stre0et N.We
Was6hi8ngt0o4ng D.C. 20235

Dear Pat:

Enclosed please find a copy of some suggested text for your
consideration to be added to the draft Having Turtle Recovery
plan for sea turtles that I understand you mail be finalizing
shortly.

As counsel for the Cayman Islands Government I was given a
copy of the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan as guide to the
development of a U.S. - U.K.A (Cayman Islands) cooperative
agreement an sea turtle conservation.

The suggested text should be treated in light of that
objective and should be treated an addressing the obvious
omission in the draft Plan to deal with sea turtle culture
in a balanced way. Once the finalixed Plan is open for public
co0mentv the Cayman IsLands-Government-as-well as the Cayman
Turtle Farm (1983) Ltd. -,may wish to submit Documments at that time

Very truly yours

barrister & Attorney

Enc:
cc:
Mr. James Winchester
Mr. 32G. Ray Arnett
Mr. Robert Jansen
Han. John B. McLean

344

Suggested Text to Add to Draft U.S.
Recovenlan for Marine Turtles

1) At the bottom of page 148 add the following

Green, turtles, because they are very desirable fair their
m8eat shell and other products and because they are herbiferous
and relatively sonagressive toward one & Gathers are considered t8o
be the beat sea turtle species for cuturing. A areas turtle
ranch, which collects fertilized eggs from the wild fair hatching
and rearing in captivity, is located In Surinam. The pioneer of
son turtle cultures the Cayman Turtle Faem is located an Grand
Cayman Island; since 1978, aLL of its green stock has been
produce,d through the captivo propagation of its brooding hard
without any further augmentation of turtles or eggs from the
wild, Both operations release a portion of their hatchlings to
the wild with the balance of their production being used for
research or fair commercial purposes.

The potential for commercial trade from these facilities
sithew-to replace wild turtles In trade or to stimulate demand
for wild tortles and under what coudtlans needs to be explored
further, Potential onforcoment-problems stemming from commercial
trade In cultured green turtle products also need to be examined
furthere & Long with proposed safeguards and solutions. However.
the very significant potential for research wild and captive
hatchliag releasest training as well as all other aspects of
recovery efforts for green turtles 4at sea turtle culture
facilities such as these should not be overlooked or Ignored*

2) Just above the word "Impemenstion" on page 249 add the
following

Appendix I species bred In captivity foe commercial purposes
are deimsed to be Appendix It species. Populations of Appendix I
species which are deemed by the Parties to CITES to be so Long,@*
endangered and to benefit by ranching (i.e. rearing in
captivity specimens taken from the wild) my be moved to
Appendix It, Green turtles In Surinami and an Grand Caym Island
are the populations met likely to be affected by .. these
provisions that allow regulated trade under the Convention,

3) Replace the text immediately under the heading "Actions.
Required: Departments of Commerce and the Interior's on page 250
with the followings

Determine major markets and sources of turtle products and
discourage with trade tariffs, quotas, stiff penalties for
violations etc. nations not conducting this trade in accordance
with the Convention.

."I Or 345
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Southeast Fisheries Center
75 Virginia Beach Drive
Miami, FL 33149-1099

June 22, 1984

TO: F/SER64 Chuck Oravetz

FROM: F/SECA Fred Berr

SUBJECT: Sea Turtle Recovery an, Agency Review Draft of February 1984
Suggestion

Three Attached pages show discrepancies in data on sea turtle nests for
Florida (only state so far compared) betwen subject plan and the U.S.A.
Natioml Report to WATS.

These should be fixed, or amelioratedo or explained, or excused.

Attachments

cc: Sally Hopkins, w/Attms.
F/SEC5 - Larry Ogren, w/Attms.
F/SECll - Nancy Thompson, w/Attms.
Ross Witham

346

FLORIDA: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SEA TURTLE NESTS PER SEASON, BY EACH, BY SPECIES-
COMPARING WATS USA NATIONAL REPORT (Ist number in block) AND "MARINE" TURTLE
RECOVERY PLAN DRAFT (2nd number in block, in parentheses).

NAME OF BEACH LENGTH (km) LOGGERHEAD GREEN LEATHERBACK

FLORIDA:

Ft. Walton Beach
1. (incl. Eglin AFB) 6

T.H. Stone Memorial
2. St. Joseph State Pk. 19.2 11

St. George Island
3. Recreation Area 17

St. Vincent Island
4. National Wildlife 11.3 10

Northern
5. Longboat Key 8.0 (5.8) 20 (16)

6. Casey Key _ 7.6 (6.4) 50 (48)

7. Manasota Key 12.9 (16.1) 170 (150)

Cayo Costa State
8. Preserve 8.0 6

9. Sanibel Island 18.5 100 (100)

Wiggens Pass State
10. Recreation Area 13.4 22

11. Vanderbilt Beach 8.0 39 (38)

12. Bonito Beach 9.7 42 (42)

Naples
13. Area Beaches 8.0 (6.4) 50 (40)

14. Cape Romano 4.8 40 (40)

Fort Jefferson
15. National Monument 4.8 65

Everglades Nat'l
16. Park Beaches 56.6 (56.5) 1200 (1350)

347

NAME OF BEACH LENGTH (km) LOGGERHEAD GREEN LEATHERBACK

FLORIDA:

Bahia Honda State
17. Recreation Area 0.8 1

18. Soldier Key Not Recorded

Bill Baggs Cape FL
19. State Rec. Area 2.4 57 2

Northern
20. Key Biscayne 9.6 39 (67.) 2

Miami Bch. Surfside
21. Bar Harbour Haulovei 16.1 30 1

Broward
22. County Beaches 36.6 (37) 1193 (1021) 18 (32.9) 6

Boca Raton
23. Public Beach 4.2 370 8 (6-9) 1 (4)

24. Highland Beach 4.5 507 7 (34.2) 6

25. Palm Beach Shores 0.9 54

26. 1,6st Tree Village 2.8 215 7 (17.) 3 (3)

27. Juno Beach 1.6 340 (339.2) 3 (4.5) 1 (1.5)

28. Jupiter Beach 12.3 2108 (2238.6) 10 (25.8) 7

Hobe Sound Nat'l
29. Wildlife Refuge 5.6 (6.4) 1108 (1086.7) 8 (13.2) 3 (3)

St. Lucie Inlet
30. State Rec. Area 3.4

31. Hutchinson Island 36.0 (36.3) 3115 (4080.1) 10 (28.8) 11 (3.5)

Ft. Pierce Inlet
32. State-Rec. Area 3.2 26

Sebastian Inlet
33. State Rec. Area 5.0 297 2

348

NAME OF BEACH LENGTH (km) LOGGERHEAD GREEN LEATHERBACK

FLORIDA:

St. Lucie & Indian
34. River Counties 28.6 (36.8) 726 (1012) 65 (66.2) 2 (2)

South
35. Brevard County 50.2 7000 60 (126.6) 3

Indialantic &
36. Melbourne Beach 9.3 2000

North Brevard Co.
37. (Cape Canaveral) 50.0 2367 (2175) 10 (20.)

South
38. Volusia County 8.o 392 (392) (4.)

Flager Beach
39. State Rec. Area 0.7 9 1

St. Johns
40. County Beaches 66.0 50

Ft. Matanzas 1
41. National Monument 1.2 (0.8) 2 (13)

Anastasia State
42. Recreation Area 4.0 2

43. Big Talbot Island 3.2 9

Little
44. Talbot Island 8 32

.,01 <@W 349
V UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
SEFC Galveston Laboratory
4700 Avenue U, Galveston, TX 77550

June 19, 1984

To: F/SEC - Mr. Fred Berry

From: F/SEC6 - Edward F. Klima, Ph.D.

Subject: Sea Turtle Recovery Plan

Per your verbal request, the following comments are submitted and
focus on Section 3.5 (Kemp's Ridley Turtle Recovery Plan), p. 220-242:

1. p. 221 - There is a great deal of speculation in the second
paragraph concerning past importance of Padre island as a
nesting site. To down-play the past, albeit poorly docu-
mented, nesting activity of Kemp's ridleys on Padre Island,
using speculations about'unusual currents, unusual climatic
conditions, or failure of turtle guidance mechanisms, is
counter-productive and could seriously misguide the unin-
formed reader. This is a plan for recovery of a seriously
endangered species, and no clues to former nesting areas
should be down-played. In fact, much of the current head-
start project is focused on re-establishment of a nesting
population on Padre island. Such focus does not preclude
consideration of other possible locations. The paragraph
should be reworded.

2. page 222 - The abiotic environment may be seriously
threatened by petroleum pollution (see items 1111, 11111 and
11112 on page 227). Contamination of the western Gulf of
Mexico and its beaches with oil and tar is documented.
Because of concerns about possible impacts of such polluti'on
on endangered species, MMS has initiated a series of studies
on effects of petroleum,on sea turtles. The Coast Guard at
Corpus Christi, Texas, claims that the tar coming onto the
beaches near Corpus Christi in spring and early summer each
year originates from the Ixtoc blowout (mentioned on page
225). Reports of oiled turtle strandings are increasing.
The effects of chronic petroleum pollution of the nesting
beaches is not known, nor are the effects of oiling of hatch-
lings, yearlings and adults. It is documented that Kemp's
ridleys die with tar in the esophagus. This has been
observed in turtles from two releases off Padre Island so-
far. One release (1982 year-class) was made about 4 miles
off the coast of Mustang and Padre Islands, and the other
(1983 year-class) about 20 miles off Mustang island.

350

The plan also'should mention concern about the impacts of
petroleum pollution (from whatever sources) on the Rancho
Nuevo nesting beach (as well as future nesting beaches) and
on the turtles themselves. For example, apart from the acute
effect@ of such pollution, it is well documented that hydro-
carbons can interfere with sensory mechanisms in marine
fauna. Chronic pollution of the gulf by petroleum could
interfere with chemical sensory mechanisms that the Kemp's
ridleys may use to locate the nesting beach. The paragraph
should be changed to reflect such concerns and considera-
tions.

3. page 223 - Last paragraph - Archie Carr believes that Kemp's
ridleys that leave the gulf are lost from the population,
whether or not they cross the Atlantic to Europe. Yet, the
question is still open to debate, pro and con. Head-started,
tagged, and released Kemp's ridleys have shown.a recovery
pattern along the Atlantic coasts of North America and Europe
not unlike that in the published literature. It is probably
premature to conclude that none that escape the gulf return
to the gulf. The question should remain open, and the
paragraph should be changed to reflect this.

4. page 224 - Second paragraph - Because of legal deterrents to
capture of sea turtles, the estimates of rates of capture of
Kemp's ridleys by shrimp trawlers probably are biased down-
ward. In other words, they are "best case" estimates, both
for turtles and for the industry. There may be need for
declaring "no trawling zones" in U.S. waters too, especially
where Kemp's ridleys are known to congregate.

5. Page 225 - First paragraph - Watson & Seidel (1980) provide
some relevant data on mortality rates of trawl caught sea
turtles that might be wdrth mentioning, even though they do
not refer exclusively to Kemp's ridleys.

6. Page 231 item 11322 - This section appears too restrictive.
I propose to inject tetracycline, and perhaps o'ther chemi-
cals, into head-started Kemp's ridleys to study their age and
growth. Such study would be prohibited under the current
wording of this section. The section needs to be less
restrictive.

7, Page 233 - The recently reported (by Jim Woods) successful
nesting of two 5-year-old, head-started Kemp's ridleys at the
Cayman Turtle Farm should be emphasized. This major break
through in captive breeding adds significance and importance

351

to establishment of breeding colonies of Kemp's ridleys, and
it can probably be done over a much shorter time period than
was earlier supposed. Such breeding colonies could provide a
"safety-net" for the species, because they could provide a
continuous supply of hatchlings to be released into.the wild.
Head-starting is an ideal source of such brood stock-on a
continuing basis, because it provides for natural genetic
variability (because the source of head-started hatchlings is
wild stock). Captive breeding colonies should be established
in many suitable locations and their sizes increased. The
program to coordinate exchange of animals among breeding
colonies should be expanded. These comments should be incor-
porated into the'plan.

a. page 237 - It seems incongruous that the plan calls for
studyin the incidental take in U.S. waters while recom-
mending more stringent measures (adjustments in the "no
trawling zone" and fishing regulations) for Mexican waters.
We know that Kemp's ridleys congregate in certain locales
within U.S. waters; e.g., Sea Rim State Park, Texas, and
Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida. It is not premature to focus
on such areas as possible candidates for "no trawling zones."
our willingness to consider such actions would go a long way
in enhancing the interactions between the U.S. and Mexico in
the Kemp's ridley recovery program.

9. page 238 - item 151 - I agree that broad-based aerial surveys
are not productive. However, aerial surveys of turtles and
shrimp trawling activities should be conducted at carefully
selected sites where Kemp's ridleys and shrimpers are known
to congregate (e.g., Rancho Nuevo, Sea Rim State park, Ponce
de Leon Inlet, and perhaps others). A "rifle" approach, not
a "shotgun" approach, is needed. Coupled with ship-board
observer surveys, site-dpecific surveys would be very produc-
tive in assessing Kemp's ridley abundance and catch rates
where ridleys congregate.

10. p. 239 - Lead agencies should be corrected and priority
rankings added to the implementation schedule (from recovery
plan) as follows:

352

Priority
Activity Ranking Lead Agency
Regulate spoil dumping, sea
floor mining and trawl tows 1 NMFS

Maintain and enforce ban on
take throughout the range I NMFS

-Use hatcheries and
head-starting 1 NMFS

Maintain total ban on com-
mercial, recreational or
subsistence take I NMFS

Establish captive breeding
colonies 1 NMFS

Develop oil spill contingency
plan 2 NMFS

Regulate methods, gear, areas
and seasons in U.S. waters 2 NMFS

Recommend regulations for
methods, areas, gear and
seasons in Mexican waters 2 NMFS

Determine feasibility of NMFS (was
aerial and other means of at- incorrectly
sea monitoring 2 listed as FWS)

Regulate petrochemical FWS (was incor-
industry 3 rectly listed
as NMFS)

Determine unknown mortality
factors, if any, and take
appropriate action 3 NMFS

General - Overall, I suggest a major shift in your Kemp's
Ridley Turtle Recovery Plan from a passive approach to an
active one. I suggest the following:

a. Cooperative planning with major partners Conduct a
planning meeting and workshop in July or August 1984, in

353

Galveston, Albuquerque or Santa Fe, New Mexico, or El
Paso, Laredo or Brownsville, Texas, to permit Mexican
scientists to engage actively in the planning workshop.
It is important that such a cooperative effort be ini-
tiated at the onset of planning*of this recovery
program. Your draft fails to recognize the important
contributions made by the Instituto Nacional de la
Pesca, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park
Service, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the
Gladys Porter Zoo and the Florida Department of Natural
Resources in the recovery of the Kemp's ridley sea
turtle. These organizations play major roles. Without
their contributing significantly to the planning effort,
it will simply be planning in a vacuum. Participants
should include appropriate representatives of the NMFS
Southeast Fisheries Center, the Southeast Regional
Office and the agencies already mentioned, as well as
invited outside turtle biologists such as Drs. Archie
Carr, Peter Pritchard, Jim Wood, Dave Owens and John
Hendrickson. The product of the workshop would be an
agreed upon Kemp's ridley sea turtle action plan.

b. The Kemp's ridley recovery plan should focus on efforts
to step-up restoration of the Kemp's ridley population,
through cooperative actions between Mexico and the
United States. These efforts should include the
following:

(1) on-site research and restoration activities at
Rancho Nuevo (FWS and INP)

- protecting and tagging adult nesting female
turtles.
- protectifig nests and eggs.
- protectingand tagging hatchling turtles.
- analysis of Kemp's ridley stock trends.

(2) on-site observations of behavior and distribution
of Kemp's ridleys off Rancho Nuevo (NMFS)

- detailed observations using satellite- and
radio-tracking devices on adult sea turtles
during the nesting season.

- observations on distribution and survival of
hatchling sea turtles off Rancho Nuevo.

354

- on-site collection of data on sea turtles
using observers on-board vessels.

- aerial surveys and observations of sea turtles
from Tampico to Brownsville during nesting
season.

(3) on-site observations of behavior and distribution
of Kemp's ridleys at selected sites (e.g., Sea Rim
State Park, Ponce de Leon Inlet) (NMFS)

- atrial surveys and observations of sea
turtles.
- on-site collection of data on sea turtles
using observers on-board vessels and directed
fishing activities for collection
- tagging and release of captured sea turtles
using flipper tags and radio-transmitters.
- detailed observations using satellite- and
radio-tracking.

(4) Head-starting of Kemp's ridley sea turtles (NMFS)

- head-starting of Kemp's ridley sea turtles
at Galveston.
- expansion of captive breeding colonies.
- expansion of research on hatchling turtles to
determine growth, nutrition, fitness, and
health. -
- research on proper diets for brood stock
turtles.
- develop and test new tagging/marking methods.

(5) Mitigate factors affecting marine mortality and
stress (NMFS)

increase TED technology transfer to Gulf of
Mexico waters.

(6) At-sea Kemp's ridley population movements (NMFS)
- coordin@te area-wide tagging effort.
- develop tags that have longer longevity and
better recognition for both yearlings and
adults.
- test tags for hatchlings.
- use satellite- and radio-tracking.

355

(7) Collect information on incidental take of sea
turtles

amend permits to shrimp fishermen to allow
collection and transfer of incidental capture
data to NMFS.

I feel that it is important that we initiate the cooperative phase
of action planning for the Kemp's ridley recovery program as soon as
possible. The workshop with the other agencies and individuals should
be held in either mid-July or mid-August to develop the action plan for
the Kemp's ridley recovery program, identifying our partners and what
roles they and we will play.

The major thrust of the expanded Kemp's ridley recovery program
should be to identify the factors that affect survival and distribu-
tion of adults as well as hatchlings at the Rancho Nuevo nesting site.
This can be done through a series of experiments that need to be
planned cooperatively with the Mexican government and FWS. Further, a
major effort needs to be initiated in areas where Kemp's ridleys
congregate, such as Sea Rim State Park, Texas, and Ponce de Leon
Inlet, Florida. There may be otfier such sites and these need to be
identified. The idea would be to obtain (from strandings, etc.) and
to capture turtles, and to hold, tag and release them with radio
transmitters and satellite tags, so as to provide additional infor-
mation on distribution of these animals. The next major effort would
be head-starting research, to continue this effort at Galveston and to
expand the captive breeding populations and cooperative exchange acti-
vities. And finally, and very importantly, transfer of the TED tech-
nology to the fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico should be facilitated.
Work also should be carefully outlined with the Mexican government to
place TED's on-board selected vessel in Mexico.

cc:
F/SECx4 Dr. Richard Berry
(Attn: Brad Brown)
F/SER chuck oravetz
F/SEC6 Charles Caillbuet
Clark Fontaine
Jorge Leong

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 - 544-923

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
@
3 6668 14110054 7