[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58868-58952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23960]
[[Page 58867]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 184
September 22, 2011
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of Nine Distinct
Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or
Threatened; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 58868]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 100104003-1068-02]
RIN 0648-AY49
Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of Nine Distinct
Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or
Threatened
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS and USFWS; also collectively referred to as the
Services) have determined that the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta) is composed of nine distinct population segments (DPSs) that
constitute ``species'' that may be listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In this final rule, we are
listing four DPSs as threatened and five as endangered under the ESA.
We will propose to designate critical habitat for the two loggerhead
sea turtle DPSs occurring within the United States in a future
rulemaking. We encourage interested parties to provide any information
related to the identification of critical habitat and essential
physical or biological features for this species, as well as economic
or other relevant impacts of designation of critical habitat, to assist
us with this effort.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and comments and materials received, as well
as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Room 13657, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
You may submit information related to the identification of critical
habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle by either of the following
methods:
Mail: NMFS National Sea Turtle Coordinator, Attn:
Loggerhead Critical Habitat Information, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13657,
Silver Spring, MD 20910 or USFWS National Sea Turtle Coordinator, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256.
Fax: To the attention of NMFS National Sea Turtle
Coordinator at 301-427-2522 or USFWS National Sea Turtle Coordinator at
904-731-3045.
Instructions: All information received will be a part of the public
record. All personal identifying information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the public may be publicly
accessible.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Schroeder, NMFS, at 301-427-
8402; Sandy MacPherson, USFWS, at 904-731-3336; Marta Nammack, NMFS, at
301-427-8403 or Lorna Patrick, USFWS, at 850-769-0552 ext. 229. Persons
who use a Telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We issued a final rule listing the loggerhead sea turtle as
threatened throughout its worldwide range on July 28, 1978 (43 FR
32800). On July 12, 2007, we received a petition to list the ``North
Pacific populations of loggerhead sea turtle'' as an endangered species
under the ESA. NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register on
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64585), concluding that the petitioners
(Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network)
presented substantial scientific information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Also, on November 15, 2007, we
received a petition to list the ``Western North Atlantic populations of
loggerhead sea turtle'' as an endangered species under the ESA. NMFS
published a notice in the Federal Register on March 5, 2008 (73 FR
11849), concluding that the petitioners (Center for Biological
Diversity and Oceana) presented substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
In early 2008, NMFS assembled a Loggerhead Biological Review Team
(BRT) to complete a status review of the loggerhead sea turtle. The BRT
was composed of biologists from NMFS, USFWS, the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. The BRT was charged with reviewing and evaluating
all relevant scientific information relating to loggerhead population
structure globally to determine if any population met the criteria to
qualify as a DPS and, if so, to assess the extinction risk of each DPS.
The findings of the BRT, which are detailed in the ``Loggerhead Sea
Turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 Status Review under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act'' (Conant et al., 2009; hereinafter referred to as the
Status Review), addressed DPS delineations, extinction risks to the
species, and threats to the species. The Status Review underwent
independent peer review by nine scientists with expertise in loggerhead
sea turtle biology, genetics, and modeling. The Status Review is
available electronically at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/statusreviews.htm.
On March 12, 2009, the petitioners (Center for Biological
Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, and Oceana) sent a 60-day
notice of intent to sue to the Services for failure to make 12-month
findings on the petitions by the statutory deadlines (July 16, 2008,
for the North Pacific petition and November 16, 2008, for the Northwest
Atlantic petition). On May 28, 2009, the petitioners filed a Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to compel the Services to
complete the 12-month findings. On October 8, 2009, the petitioners and
the Services reached a settlement in which the Services agreed to
submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding on the two petitions
on or before February 19, 2010. On February 16, 2010, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California modified the
February 19, 2010, deadline to March 8, 2010.
On March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12598), the Services published in the
Federal Register combined 12-month findings on the petitions to list
the North Pacific populations and the Northwest Atlantic populations of
the loggerhead sea turtle as DPSs with endangered status, along with a
proposed rule to designate nine loggerhead sea turtle DPSs worldwide
and to list two of the DPSs as threatened and seven as endangered. The
Federal Register notice also announced the opening of a 90-day public
comment period on the proposed listing determination.
The Services subsequently received a request from the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources for a public hearing to be held in
Maryland. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30769), the Services published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing our plans to hold
[[Page 58869]]
a public hearing on the proposed actions on June 16, 2010. The Federal
Register notice also announced a re-opening of the public comment
period for an additional 90 days. The June 16, 2010, public hearing was
held at the Ocean Pines Public Library in Berlin, Maryland.
On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15932), the Services published in the
Federal Register a notice announcing a 6-month extension of the
deadline for a final listing decision to address substantial
disagreement on the interpretation of data related to the status and
trends for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea
turtle and its relevance to the assessment of risk of extinction. At
this time, we solicited new information or analyses from the public
that would help clarify this issue. The public comment period was open
for 20 days, and closed on April 11, 2011.
Policies for Delineating Species Under the ESA
Section 3 of the ESA defines ``species'' as including ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' is not
recognized in the scientific literature, nor clarified in the ESA or
its implementing regulations. Therefore, the Services adopted a joint
policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722) on
February 7, 1996. Congress has instructed the Secretary of the Interior
or of Commerce to exercise this authority with regard to DPSs ``* * *
sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates such action
is warranted.'' The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two
elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment
qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the remainder of the species or
subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species or subspecies to which it belongs.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon (an
organism or group of organisms) as a consequence of physical,
ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or
(2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (i.e., inadequate
regulatory mechanisms).
If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both
of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance to
the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may
include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the
taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that
the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence
that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other
population segments of the species in its genetic characteristics.
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). The statute requires us to
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened because of
any of the following five factors: (1) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A-E)). We are to
make this determination based solely on the best available scientific
and commercial data after conducting a review of the status of the
species and taking into account any efforts being made by States or
foreign governments to protect the species.
Biology and Life History of Loggerhead Sea Turtles
A thorough account of loggerhead sea turtle biology and life
history may be found in the Status Review, which is incorporated here
by reference. The following is a summary of that information.
The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions
of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Dodd, 1988). However, the
majority of loggerhead nesting is at the western rims of the Atlantic
and Indian Oceans. The most recent reviews show that only two
loggerhead nesting aggregations have greater than 10,000 females
nesting per year: Peninsular Florida, United States, and Masirah
Island, Oman (Baldwin et al., 2003; Ehrhart et al., 2003; Kamezaki et
al., 2003; Limpus and Limpus, 2003a; Margaritoulis et al., 2003).
Nesting aggregations with 1,000 to 9,999 females nesting annually are
Georgia through North Carolina (United States), Quintana Roo and
Yucatan (Mexico), Brazil, Cape Verde Islands (Cape Verde), Western
Australia (Australia), and Japan. Smaller nesting aggregations with 100
to 999 nesting females annually occur in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
(United States), Dry Tortugas (United States), Cay Sal Bank (The
Bahamas), Tongaland (South Africa), Mozambique, Arabian Sea Coast
(Oman), Halaniyat Islands (Oman), Cyprus, Peloponnesus (Greece),
Zakynthos (Greece), Crete (Greece), Turkey, and Queensland (Australia).
In contrast to determining population size on nesting beaches,
determining population size in the marine environment has been very
localized. A summary of information on distribution and habitat by
ocean basin follows.
Pacific Ocean
Loggerheads can be found throughout tropical to temperate waters in
the Pacific; however, their breeding grounds include a restricted
number of sites in the North Pacific and South Pacific. Within the
North Pacific, loggerhead nesting has been documented only in Japan
(Kamezaki et al., 2003), although low level nesting may occur outside
of Japan in areas surrounding the South China Sea (Chan et al., 2007).
In the South Pacific, nesting beaches are restricted to eastern
Australia and New Caledonia and, to a much lesser extent, Vanuatu and
Tokelau (Limpus and Limpus, 2003a).
Based on tag-recapture studies from Japan, the East China Sea has
been identified as the major habitat for post-nesting adult females
(Iwamoto et al., 1985; Kamezaki et al., 1997; Balazs, 2006), while
satellite tracking indicates the Kuroshio Extension Bifurcation Region
to be an important pelagic foraging area for juvenile loggerheads
(Polovina et al., 2006). Other important juvenile turtle foraging areas
have been identified off the coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico
(Pitman, 1990; Peckham and Nichols, 2006; Peckham et al., 2007).
Nesting females tagged on the coast of eastern Australia have been
recorded
[[Page 58870]]
foraging in New Caledonia; Queensland, northern New South Wales, and
Northern Territory, Australia; Solomon Islands; Papua New Guinea; and
Indonesia (Limpus and Limpus, 2003a; Limpus, 2009). Foraging Pacific
loggerheads originating from nesting beaches in Australia are known to
migrate to Chile and Peru (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2004, 2008a; Donoso
and Dutton, 2006; Boyle et al., 2009).
Indian Ocean
In the North Indian Ocean, Oman hosts the vast majority of
loggerhead nesting. The majority of the nesting in Oman occurs on
Masirah Island, on the Al Halaniyat Islands, and on mainland beaches
south of Masirah Island all the way to the Oman-Yemen border (IUCN--The
World Conservation Union, 1989a, 1989b; Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm,
1991). In addition, nesting probably occurs on the mainland of Yemen on
the Arabian Sea coast, and nesting has been confirmed on Socotra, an
island off the coast of Yemen (Pilcher and Saad, 2000). Limited
information exists on the foraging habitats of North Indian Ocean
loggerheads; however, foraging individuals have been reported off the
southern coastline of Oman (Salm et al., 1993). Satellite telemetry
studies of post-nesting migrations of loggerheads nesting on Masirah
Island, Oman, have revealed extensive use of the waters off the Arabian
Peninsula, with the majority of telemetered turtles traveling
southwest, following the shoreline of southern Oman and Yemen, and
circling well offshore in nearby oceanic waters (Environment Society of
Oman and Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Oman, unpublished
data). A minority traveled north as far as the western Persian Gulf or
followed the shoreline of southern Oman and Yemen as far west as the
Gulf of Aden and the Bab-el-Mandab.
The only verified nesting beaches for loggerheads on the Indian
subcontinent are found in Sri Lanka. A small number of nesting females
use the beaches of Sri Lanka every year (Deraniyagala, 1939; Kar and
Bhaskar, 1982; Dodd, 1988); however, there are no records indicating
that Sri Lanka has ever been a major nesting area for loggerheads
(Kapurusinghe, 2006). No confirmed nesting occurs on the mainland of
India (Tripathy, 2005; Kapurusinghe, 2006). The Gulf of Mannar provides
foraging habitat for juvenile and post-nesting adult turtles (Tripathy,
2005; Kapurusinghe, 2006).
In the East Indian Ocean, Western Australia hosts all known
loggerhead nesting (Dodd, 1988). Nesting distributions in Western
Australia span from the Shark Bay World Heritage Area, including Dirk
Hartog Island, and northward through the Ningaloo Marine Park coast to
the North West Cape, including the Muiron Islands (Baldwin et al.,
2003). Nesting individuals from Dirk Hartog Island have been recorded
foraging within Shark Bay and Exmouth Gulf (Baldwin et al., 2003), and
satellite tracking of individuals from Ningaloo has demonstrated that
female turtles can disperse as far east as Torres Strait in Queensland.
In the Southwest Indian Ocean, loggerhead nesting occurs on the
southeastern coast of Africa, from the Paradise Islands in Mozambique
southward to St. Lucia in South Africa, and on the south and
southwestern coasts of Madagascar (Baldwin et al., 2003). Foraging
habitats are only known for post-nesting females from Tongaland, South
Africa; tagging data show these loggerheads migrating eastward to
Madagascar, northward to Mozambique, Tanzania, and Kenya, and southward
to Cape Agulhas at the southernmost point of Africa (Baldwin et al.,
2003; Luschi et al., 2006).
Atlantic Ocean
In the Northwest Atlantic, the majority of loggerhead nesting is
concentrated along the coasts of the United States from southern
Virginia through Alabama. Additional nesting beaches are found along
the northern and western Gulf of Mexico, eastern Yucatan Peninsula, at
Cay Sal Bank in the eastern Bahamas (Addison and Morford, 1996;
Addison, 1997), on the southwestern coast of Cuba (F. Moncada-Gavilan,
personal communication, cited in Ehrhart et al., 2003), and along the
coasts of Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, and the eastern
Caribbean Islands. In the Southwest Atlantic, loggerheads nest in
significant numbers only in Brazil. In the eastern Atlantic, the
largest nesting population of loggerheads is in the Cape Verde Islands
(L.F. L[oacute]pez-Jurado, personal communication, cited in Ehrhart et
al., 2003), and some nesting occurs along the West African coast
(Fretey, 2001).
As post-hatchlings, Northwest Atlantic loggerheads use the North
Atlantic Gyre and enter Northeast Atlantic waters (Carr, 1987). They
are also found in the Mediterranean Sea (Carreras et al., 2006; Eckert
et al., 2008). In these areas, they overlap with animals originating
from the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (Laurent et al.,
1993, 1998; Bolten et al., 1998; LaCasella et al., 2005; Carreras et
al., 2006; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2006, 2010; Revelles et
al., 2007; Eckert et al., 2008). The oceanic juvenile stage in the
North Atlantic has been primarily studied in the waters around the
Azores and Madeira (Bolten, 2003). In Azorean waters, satellite
telemetry data and flipper tag returns suggest a long period of
residency (Bolten, 2003), whereas turtles appear to be moving through
Madeiran waters (Dellinger and Freitas, 2000). Preliminary genetic
analyses indicate that juvenile loggerheads found in Moroccan waters
are of western Atlantic origin (M. Tiwari, NMFS, and A. Bolten,
University of Florida, unpublished data). Other concentrations of
oceanic juvenile turtles exist in the Atlantic (e.g., in the region of
the Grand Banks off Newfoundland; Witzell, 2002). Genetic information
indicates the Grand Banks are foraging grounds for a mixture of
loggerheads from all the North Atlantic rookeries (Bowen et al., 2005;
LaCasella et al., 2005), and a large size range is represented (Watson
et al., 2004, 2005).
After departing the oceanic zone, neritic juvenile loggerheads in
the Northwest Atlantic inhabit continental shelf waters from Cape Cod
Bay, Massachusetts, south through Florida, The Bahamas, Cuba, and the
Gulf of Mexico (Musick and Limpus, 1997; Spotila et al., 1997; Hopkins-
Murphy et al., 2003) (neritic refers to the inshore marine environment
from the surface to the sea floor where water depths do not exceed 200
meters).
Habitat preferences of Northwest Atlantic non-nesting adult
loggerheads in the neritic zone differ from the juvenile stage in that
relatively enclosed, shallow water estuarine habitats with limited
ocean access are less frequently used. Areas such as Pamlico Sound,
North Carolina, and the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, in the United
States, regularly used by juvenile loggerheads, are only rarely
frequented by adults (Ehrhart and Redfoot, 1995; Epperly et al., 2007).
In comparison, estuarine areas with more open ocean access, such as the
Chesapeake Bay in the U.S. mid-Atlantic, are also regularly used by
juvenile loggerheads, as well as by adults primarily during warmer
seasons (J. Musick, The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, personal
communication, 2008). Shallow water habitats with large expanses of
open ocean access, such as Florida Bay, provide year-round resident
foraging areas for significant numbers of male and female adult
loggerheads (Schroeder et al., 1998; Witherington et al., 2006a).
Offshore, adults inhabit continental shelf waters, from New York south
through Florida, The Bahamas, Cuba, and the Gulf of Mexico (Schroeder
et al., 2003; Hawkes et al.,
[[Page 58871]]
2007; Foley et al., 2008). The southern edge of the Grand Bahama Bank
is important habitat for loggerheads nesting on the Cay Sal Bank in The
Bahamas, but nesting females are also resident in the bights of
Eleuthera, Long Island, and Ragged Islands as well as Florida Bay in
the United States, and the north coast of Cuba (A. Bolten and K.
Bjorndal, University of Florida, unpublished data). Moncada et al.
(2010) reported the recapture in Cuban waters of five adult female
loggerheads originally flipper tagged in Quintana Roo, Mexico,
indicating that Cuban shelf waters likely also provide foraging habitat
for adult females that nest in Mexico.
In the Northeast Atlantic, satellite telemetry studies of post-
nesting females from Cape Verde identified two distinct dispersal
patterns; larger individuals migrated to benthic foraging areas off the
northwest Africa coast and smaller individuals foraged primarily
oceanically off the northwest Africa coast (Hawkes et al., 2006).
Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al. (2009) conducted a mixed stock
analysis of juvenile loggerheads sampled from foraging areas in the
Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores, and Andalusia and concluded that while
juvenile loggerheads from the Cape Verde population were distributed
among these four sites, a large proportion of Cape Verde juvenile
turtles appear to inhabit as yet unidentified foraging areas.
In the South Atlantic, recaptures of tagged juvenile turtles and
nesting females have shown movement of animals up and down the coast of
South America (Almeida et al., 2000, 2007; Marcovaldi et al., 2000;
Laporta and Lopez, 2003). Juvenile loggerheads, presumably of Brazilian
origin, have also been captured on the high seas of the South Atlantic
(Kotas et al., 2004; Pinedo and Polacheck, 2004) and off the coast of
Atlantic Africa (Petersen, 2005; Bal et al., 2007; Petersen et al.,
2007) suggesting that loggerheads of the South Atlantic may undertake
transoceanic developmental migrations (Bolten et al., 1998; Peckham et
al., 2007). Marcovaldi et al. (2010) identified the northeastern coast
of Brazil as important foraging habitat for post-nesting females from
Bahia, Brazil.
Mediterranean Sea
Loggerhead sea turtles are widely distributed in the Mediterranean
Sea. However, nesting is almost entirely confined to the eastern
Mediterranean basin, with the main nesting concentrations in Cyprus,
Greece, and Turkey (Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Casale and
Margaritoulis, 2010). Preliminary surveys in Libya suggested nesting
activity comparable to Greece and Turkey, although a better
quantification is needed (Laurent et al., 1999). Minimal to moderate
nesting also occurs in other countries throughout the Mediterranean
including Egypt, Israel, Italy (southern coasts and islands), Lebanon,
Syria, and Tunisia (Margaritoulis et al., 2003). Recently, isolated
nesting events have been recorded in the western Mediterranean basin,
namely in Spain, Corsica (France), and in the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy)
(Tom[aacute]s et al., 2002; Delaugerre and Cesarini, 2004; Bentivegna
et al., 2005).
Important neritic habitats have been suggested for the large
continental shelves of: (1) Tunisia-Libya, (2) northern Adriatic Sea,
(3) Egypt, and (4) Spain (Margaritoulis, 1988; Argano et al., 1992;
Laurent and Lescure, 1994; Lazar et al., 2000; Gomez de Segura et al.,
2006; Broderick et al., 2007; Casale et al., 2007a; Nada and Casale,
2008). At least the first three constitute shallow benthic habitats for
adults (including post-nesting females). Some other neritic foraging
areas include Amvrakikos Bay in western Greece, Lakonikos Bay in
southern Greece, and southern Turkey. Oceanic foraging areas for small
juvenile loggerheads have been identified in the south Adriatic Sea
(Casale et al., 2005a), Ionian Sea (Deflorio et al., 2005), Sicily
Strait (Casale et al., 2007a), and western Mediterranean (Spain) (e.g.,
Cami[ntilde]as et al., 2006). In addition, tagged juvenile loggerheads
have been recorded crossing the Mediterranean from the eastern to the
western basin and vice versa, as well as in the Eastern Atlantic
(Argano et al., 1992; Casale et al., 2007a).
Reproductive migrations have been confirmed by flipper tagging and
satellite telemetry. Female loggerheads, after nesting in Greece,
migrate primarily to the Gulf of Gab[egrave]s and the northern Adriatic
(Margaritoulis, 1988; Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Lazar et al., 2004;
Zbinden et al., 2008). Loggerheads nesting in Cyprus migrate to Egypt
and Libya, exhibiting fidelity in following the same migration route
during subsequent nesting seasons (Broderick et al., 2007). In
addition, directed movements of juvenile loggerheads have been
confirmed through flipper tagging (Argano et al., 1992; Casale et al.,
2007a) and satellite tracking (Rees and Margaritoulis, 2009).
Overview of Information Used To Identify DPSs
In the Status Review, the BRT considered a vast array of
information to assess whether there were any loggerhead population
segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of both discreteness and
significance. First, the BRT examined whether there were any loggerhead
population segments that were discrete. Data relevant to the
discreteness question included physical, ecological, behavioral, and
genetic data. Given the physical separation of ocean basins by
continents, the BRT evaluated these data by ocean basin (Pacific Ocean,
Indian Ocean, and Atlantic Ocean). This was not to preclude any larger
or smaller DPS delineation, but to aid in data organization and
assessment. The BRT then evaluated genetic information by ocean basin.
The genetic data consisted of results from studies using maternally
inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and biparentally inherited nuclear
DNA microsatellite markers. Next, tagging data (both flipper and
Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags) and telemetry data were
reviewed. Additional information, such as potential differences in
morphology, was also evaluated. Finally, the BRT considered whether the
available information on loggerhead population segments was bounded by
any oceanographic features (e.g., current systems) or geographic
features (e.g., land masses).
In accordance with the DPS policy, the BRT also reviewed whether
the population segments identified in the discreteness analysis were
significant. If a population segment is considered discrete, its
biological and ecological significance relative to the species or
subspecies must then be considered. NMFS and USFWS must consider
available scientific evidence of the discrete segment's importance to
the taxon to which it belongs. Data relevant to the significance
question include morphological, ecological, behavioral, and genetic
data, as described above. The BRT considered the following factors,
listed in the DPS policy, in determining whether the discrete
population segments were significant: (a) Persistence of the discrete
segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (b)
evidence that loss of the discrete segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (c) evidence that the
discrete segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a
taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historical range; and (d) evidence that the discrete
segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics. A discrete population segment needs to satisfy
only one of
[[Page 58872]]
these criteria to be considered significant. As described below, the
BRT evaluated the available information and considered items (a), (b),
and (d), as noted above, to be most applicable to loggerheads.
Discreteness Determination
As described in the Status Review, the loggerhead sea turtle is
present in all tropical and temperate ocean basins, and has a life
history that involves nesting on coastal beaches and foraging in
neritic and oceanic habitats, as well as long-distance migrations
between and within these areas. As with other globally distributed
marine species, today's global loggerhead distribution has been shaped
by a sequence of isolation events created by tectonic and oceanographic
shifts over geologic time scales, the result of which is population
substructuring in many areas (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003).
Globally, loggerhead sea turtles comprise a mosaic of populations, each
with unique nesting sites and in many cases possessing disparate
demographic features (e.g., mean body size, age at first reproduction)
(Dodd, 1988). However, despite these differences, loggerheads from
different nesting populations often mix in common foraging areas during
certain life stages (Bolten and Witherington, 2003; Bowen and Karl,
2007), thus creating unique challenges when attempting to delineate
distinct population segments for management or listing purposes.
Bowen et al. (1994) examined the mtDNA sequence diversity of
loggerheads across their global distribution and found a separation of
loggerheads in the Atlantic-Mediterranean basins from those in the
Indo-Pacific basins since the Pleistocene period. The divergence
between these two primary lineages corresponds to approximately three
million years (2 percent divergence per million years; Dutton et al.,
1996; Encalada et al., 1996). Geography and climate appear to have
shaped the evolution of these two matriarchal lineages with the onset
of glacial cycles, the appearance of the Panama Isthmus creating a land
barrier between the Atlantic and eastern Pacific, and upwelling of cold
water off southern Africa creating an oceanographic barrier between the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Bowen, 2003). Recent warm temperatures
during interglacial periods allowed bi-directional invasion by the
temperate-adapted loggerheads into the respective basins (Bowen et al.,
1994; J.S. Reece, Washington University, personal communication, 2008).
Today, it appears that loggerheads within a basin are effectively
isolated from populations in the other basin, but some dispersal from
the Tongaland rookery in the Indian Ocean into feeding and
developmental habitat in the South Atlantic is possible via the Agulhas
Current (G.R. Hughes, unpublished data, cited in Bowen et al., 1994).
In the Pacific, extensive mtDNA studies show that the northern
loggerhead populations are isolated from the southern Pacific
populations, and that juvenile loggerheads from these distinct genetic
populations do not disperse across the equator (Bowen et al., 1994,
1995; Hatase et al., 2002a; Dutton, 2007, unpublished data; Boyle et
al., 2009).
Mitochondrial DNA data indicate that regional turtle rookeries
within an ocean basin have been strongly isolated from one another over
ecological timescales (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen and Karl, 2007). These
same data indicate strong female natal homing and suggest that each
regional nesting population is an independent demographic unit (Bowen
et al., 2004, 2005; Bowen and Karl, 2007). It is difficult to determine
the precise boundaries of these demographically independent populations
in regions, such as the eastern U.S. coast, where rookeries are close
to each other and range along large areas of a continental coastline.
There appear to be varying levels of connectivity between proximate
rookeries facilitated by imprecise natal homing and male mediated gene
flow (Pearce, 2001; Bowen, 2003; Bowen et al., 2005). Regional genetic
populations often are characterized by allelic frequency differences
rather than fixed genetic differences (Bowen and Karl, 2007).
Through the evaluation of genetic data, tagging data, telemetry,
and demography, the BRT determined that there are at least nine
discrete population segments of loggerhead sea turtles globally. These
discrete population segments are markedly separated from each other as
a consequence of physical, ecological, behavioral, and oceanographic
factors and, given the genetic evidence, the BRT concluded that each
regional population identified is discrete from other populations of
loggerheads. Information considered by the BRT in its delineation of
discrete population segments is presented below by ocean basin.
Pacific Ocean
In the North Pacific Ocean, the primary loggerhead nesting areas
are found along the southern Japanese coastline and Ryukyu Archipelago
(Kamezaki et al., 2003), although low level nesting may occur outside
Japan in areas surrounding the South China Sea (Chan et al., 2007).
Loggerhead sea turtles hatching on Japanese beaches undertake extensive
developmental migrations using the Kuroshio and North Pacific Currents
(Balazs, 2006; Kobayashi et al., 2008), and some turtles reach the
vicinity of Baja California in the eastern Pacific (Uchida and Teruya,
1988; Bowen et al., 1995; Peckham et al., 2007). After spending years
foraging in the central and eastern Pacific, loggerheads return to
their natal beaches for reproduction (Resendiz et al., 1998; Nichols et
al., 2000) and remain in the western Pacific for the remainder of their
life cycle (Iwamoto et al., 1985; Kamezaki et al., 1997; Sakamoto et
al., 1997; Hatase et al., 2002c).
Despite these long-distance developmental movements of juvenile
loggerheads in the North Pacific, current scientific evidence, based on
genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry,
indicates that individuals originating from Japan remain in the North
Pacific for their entire life cycle, never crossing the equator or
mixing with individuals from the South Pacific (Bowen et al., 1995;
Hatase et al., 2002a; LeRoux and Dutton, 2006; Dutton, 2007,
unpublished data; Boyle et al., 2009). This apparent, almost complete
separation of two adjacent populations most likely results from: (1)
The presence of two distinct Northern and Southern Gyre (current flow)
systems in the Pacific (Briggs, 1974), (2) near-passive movements of
post-hatchlings in these gyres that initially move them farther away
from areas of potential mixing among the two populations along the
equator, and (3) the nest-site fidelity of adult turtles that prevents
turtles from returning to non-natal nesting areas.
Pacific loggerheads are further partitioned evolutionarily from
other loggerheads throughout the world based on additional analyses of
mtDNA. The haplotypes (a haplotype refers to the genetic signature,
coded in mtDNA, of an individual) from both North and South Pacific
loggerheads are distinguished by a minimum genetic distance (d) equal
to 0.017 from other conspecifics, which indicates isolation of
approximately one million years (Bowen, 2003).
Within the Pacific, Bowen et al. (1995) used mtDNA to identify two
genetically distinct nesting populations in the Pacific--a northern
hemisphere population nesting in Japan and a southern hemisphere
population nesting primarily in Australia. This study also suggested
that some loggerheads sampled as bycatch in the North Pacific
[[Page 58873]]
might be from the Australian nesting population (Bowen et al., 1995).
However, more extensive mtDNA data from rookeries in Japan (Hatase et
al., 2002a) taken together with preliminary results from microsatellite
(nuclear) analysis confirms that loggerheads inhabiting the North
Pacific actually originate from nesting beaches in Japan (Watanabe et
al., 2011; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpublished data).
Although these studies indicate genetic distinctness between
loggerheads nesting in Japan versus those nesting in Australia, Bowen
et al. (1995) did identify individuals with the common Australian
haplotype at foraging areas in the North Pacific, based on a few
individuals sampled as bycatch in the North Pacific. Bowen et al.
(1995) indicated that this finding could be an artifact of sampling
variance or that the Australian haplotype exists at low frequency in
Japanese nesting aggregates but escaped detection in their study. More
recently, Hatase et al. (2002a) and Watanabe et al. (2011) detected
this common Australian haplotype at very low frequency at Japanese
nesting beaches. However, the presence of the common Australian
haplotype does not preclude the genetic distinctiveness of Japanese and
Australian nesting populations, and is likely the result of rare gene
flow events occurring over geologic time scales. Watanabe et al. (2011)
found sub-structuring among the Japanese nesting sites based on mtDNA
results, but homogeneity of nuclear DNA variation among the same
Japanese nesting sites, indicating connectivity through male-mediated
gene flow. These results taken together are consistent with the
previous evidence supporting the genetic distinctiveness of the
northern (Japanese) stocks from the southern Pacific nesting stocks.
The discrete status of loggerheads in the North Pacific is further
supported by results from flipper tagging in the North Pacific. Flipper
tagging of loggerheads has been widespread throughout this region,
occurring on adults nesting in Japan and bycaught in the coastal pound
net fishery (Y. Matsuzawa, Sea Turtle Association of Japan, personal
communication, 2006), juvenile turtles reared and released in Japan
(Uchida and Teruya, 1988; Hatase et al., 2002a), juvenile turtles
foraging near Baja California, Mexico (Nichols, 2003; Seminoff et al.,
2004), and juvenile and adult loggerheads captured in and tagged from
commercial fisheries platforms in the North Pacific high seas (NMFS,
unpublished data). To date, there have been at least three trans-
Pacific tag recoveries showing east-west and west-east movements
(Uchida and Teruya, 1988; Resendiz et al., 1998; W.J. Nichols,
California Academy of Sciences, and H. Peckham, Pro Peninsula,
unpublished data) and several recoveries of adults in the western
Pacific (Iwamoto et al., 1985; Kamezaki et al., 1997). Tag returns show
post-nesting females migrating into the East China Sea off South Korea,
China, and the Philippines, and the nearby coastal waters of Japan
(Iwamoto et al., 1985; Kamezaki et al., 1997, 2003). However, despite
the more than 30,000 marked individuals, not a single tag recovery has
been reported outside the North Pacific.
A lack of movements by loggerheads south across the equator has
also been supported by extensive satellite telemetry. As with flipper
tagging, satellite telemetry has been conducted widely in the North
Pacific, with satellite transmitters being placed on adult turtles
departing nesting beaches (Sakamoto et al., 1997; Japan Fisheries
Resource Conservation Association, 1999; Hatase et al., 2002b, 2002c),
on adult and juvenile turtles bycaught in pound nets off the coast of
Japan (Sea Turtle Association of Japan, unpublished data), on captive-
reared juvenile turtles released in Japan (Balazs, 2006), on juvenile
and adult turtles bycaught in the eastern and central North Pacific
(e.g., Kobayashi et al., 2008; Peckham, 2008), and on juvenile turtles
foraging in the eastern Pacific (Nichols et al., 2000; Nichols, 2003;
Peckham et al., 2007; Peckham, 2008; J. Seminoff, NMFS, unpublished
data). Aerial surveys and satellite telemetry studies, which have
documented juvenile foraging areas in the eastern Pacific, near Baja
California, Mexico (Nichols, 2003; Seminoff et al., 2006; Peckham et
al., 2007; H. Peckham, Pro Peninsula, unpublished data) and Peru
(Mangel et al., in press), similarly showed a complete lack of long
distance north or south movements. Of the nearly 200 loggerheads
tracked using satellite telemetry in the North Pacific, none have moved
south of the equator.
Studies have demonstrated the strong association loggerheads show
with oceanographic mesoscale features such as the Kuroshio Current
Bifurcation Region and the Transition Zone Chlorophyll Front (Polovina
et al., 2000, 2001, 2004, 2006; Etnoyer et al., 2006; Kobayashi et al.,
2008). The Kuroshio Extension Current, lying west of the international
date line, serves as the dominant physical and biological habitat in
the North Pacific and is highly productive, likely due to unique
features such as eddies and meanders that concentrate prey and support
food webs. Juvenile loggerheads originating from nesting beaches in
Japan exhibit high site fidelity to this area referred to as the
Kuroshio Extension Bifurcation Region (Polovina et al., 2006). Juvenile
turtles also were found to correlate strongly with the Transition Zone
Chlorophyll Front, an area of surface chlorophyll a levels that also
concentrates surface prey for loggerheads (Polovina et al., 2001;
Parker et al., 2005; Kobayashi et al., 2008). Kobayashi et al. (2008)
demonstrated that loggerheads strongly track these zones even as they
shift in location, suggesting that strong habitat specificity during
the oceanic stage also contributes to the lack of mixing. In summary,
loggerheads inhabiting the North Pacific Ocean are derived primarily,
if not entirely, from Japanese beaches, with the possible exception of
rare waifs over evolutionary time scales. Further, nesting colonies of
Japanese loggerheads are found to be genetically distinct based on
mtDNA analyses, and when compared to much larger and more genetically
diverse loggerhead populations in the Atlantic and Mediterranean,
Pacific loggerheads have likely experienced critical bottlenecks (in
Hatase et al., 2002a). This is the only known population of loggerheads
to be found north of the equator in the Pacific Ocean, foraging in the
eastern Pacific as far south as Baja California Sur, Mexico (Seminoff
et al., 2004; Peckham et al., 2007) and in the western Pacific as far
south as the Philippines (Limpus, 2009) and the mouth of Mekong River,
Vietnam (Sadoyama et al., 1996; Hamann et al., 2006).
In the South Pacific Ocean, loggerhead sea turtles nest primarily
in Queensland, Australia, and, to a lesser extent, New Caledonia and
Vanuatu (Limpus and Limpus, 2003a; Limpus et al., 2006; Limpus, 2009).
Loggerheads from these rookeries undertake an oceanic developmental
migration, traveling to habitats in the central and southeastern
Pacific Ocean where they may reside for several years prior to
returning to the western Pacific for reproduction. Loggerheads in this
early life history stage differ markedly from those originating from
Western Australia beaches in that they undertake long west-to-east
migrations, likely using specific areas of the pelagic environment of
the South Pacific Ocean. An unknown portion of these loggerheads forage
off Chile and Peru, and genetic information from foraging areas in the
southeastern Pacific confirms that the haplotype frequencies among
juvenile turtles in these areas closely match those found at nesting
[[Page 58874]]
beaches in eastern Australia (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2004; Donoso and
Dutton, 2006, 2007; Boyle et al., 2009). Large juvenile and adult
loggerheads generally remain in the western South Pacific, inhabiting
neritic and oceanic foraging sites during non-nesting periods (Limpus
et al., 1994; Limpus, 2009).
Loggerheads from Australia and New Caledonia apparently do not
travel north of the equator. Flipper tag recoveries from nesting
females have been found throughout the western Pacific, including the
southern Great Barrier Reef and Moreton Bay off the coast of
Queensland, Australia, Indonesia (Irian Jaya), Papua New Guinea,
Solomon Islands, the Torres Strait, and the Gulf of Carpentaria
(Limpus, 2009). Of approximately 1,000 (adult and juvenile; male and
female) loggerheads that have been tagged in eastern Australian feeding
areas over approximately 25 years, only two have been recorded nesting
outside of Australia; both traveled to New Caledonia (Limpus and
Limpus, 2003b; Limpus, 2009). Flipper tagging programs in Peru and
Chile tagged approximately 500 loggerheads from 1999 to 2006, none of
which have been reported from outside of the southeastern Pacific
(Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2008a; S. Kelez, Duke University Marine
Laboratory, unpublished data; M. Donoso, ONG Pacifico Laud--Chile,
unpublished data). Limited satellite telemetry data from 12 turtles in
the southeastern Pacific area show a similar trend (Mangel et al., in
press).
The spatial separation between the North Pacific and South Pacific
loggerhead populations has contributed to substantial differences in
the genetic profiles of the nesting populations in these two regions.
Whereas the dominant mtDNA haplotypes among loggerheads nesting in
Japan are CCP2 and CCP3 (equivalent to B and C respectively in Bowen et
al., 1995 and Hatase et al., 2002a; LeRoux et al., 2008; P. Dutton,
NMFS, unpublished data), loggerheads nesting in eastern Australia have
a third haplotype (CCP1, previously A) which is dominant (98 percent of
nesting females) (Bowen et al., 1994; FitzSimmons et al., 1996; Boyle
et al., 2009). Further, preliminary genetic analysis using
microsatellite markers (nuclear DNA) indicates genetic distinctiveness
between nesting populations in the North versus South Pacific (P.
Dutton, NMFS, personal communication, 2008).
The separateness between nesting populations in eastern Australia
(in the South Pacific Ocean) and western Australia (in the East Indian
Ocean) is less clear, although these too are considered to be
genetically distinct from one another (Limpus, 2009). For example,
mtDNA haplotype CCP1, which is the overwhelmingly dominant haplotype
among eastern Australia nesting females (98 percent), is also found in
western Australia, although at much lower frequency (33 percent)
(FitzSimmons et al., 1996, 2003). The remaining haplotype for both
regions was the CCP5 haplotype. Further, FitzSimmons (University of
Canberra, unpublished data) found significant differences in nuclear
DNA microsatellite loci from females nesting in these two regions.
Estimates of gene flow between eastern and western Australian
populations were an order of magnitude less than gene flow within
regions. These preliminary results based on nuclear DNA indicate that
male-mediated gene flow between eastern and western Australia may be
insignificant, which, when considered in light of the substantial
disparity in mtDNA haplotype frequencies between these two regions,
provides further evidence of population separation. It is also
important to note that there is no nesting by loggerheads recorded by
either scientists or indigenous peoples for the thousands of kilometers
of sandy beaches between the rookeries of Queensland and Western
Australia (Chatto and Baker, 2008).
At present, there is no indication from genetic studies that the
loggerhead sea turtles nesting in eastern Australia are distinct from
those nesting in New Caledonia. Of 27 turtles sequenced from New
Caledonia, 93 percent carried the CCP1 haplotype and the remaining had
the CCP5 haplotype; similar to eastern Australia (Boyle et al., 2009).
The South Pacific population of loggerheads occupies an ecological
setting distinct from other loggerheads, including the North Pacific
population; however, less is known about the ecosystem on which South
Pacific oceanic juvenile and adult loggerheads depend. Sea surface
temperature and chlorophyll frontal zones in the South Pacific have
been shown to dramatically affect the movements of green turtles,
Chelonia mydas (Seminoff et al., 2008) and leatherback turtles,
Dermochelys coriacea (Shillinger et al., 2008), and it is likely that
loggerhead distributions are also affected by these mesoscale
oceanographic features. However, unlike the North Pacific, there are no
records of oceanic aggregations of loggerhead sea turtles.
Loggerheads in the South Pacific are substantially impacted by
periodic environmental perturbations such as the El Ni[ntilde]o
Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This 3- to 6-year cycle within the coupled
ocean-atmosphere system of the tropical Pacific brings increased
surface water temperatures and lower primary productivity, both of
which have profound biological consequences (Chavez et al., 1999; Saba
et al., 2008). Loggerheads are presumably adversely impacted by the
reduced food availability that often results from ENSO events, although
data on this subject are lacking. Although ENSO may last for only short
periods and thus not have a long-term effect on loggerheads in the
region, recent studies by Chaloupka et al. (2008) suggested that long-
term increases in sea surface temperature within the South Pacific may
influence the ability of the Australian nesting population to recover
from historical population declines.
Loggerheads originating from nesting beaches in the western South
Pacific are the only population of loggerheads to be found south of the
equator in the Pacific Ocean. As post-hatchlings, they are generally
swept south by the East Australian Current (Limpus et al., 1994), spend
a large portion of time foraging in the oceanic South Pacific Ocean,
and some migrate to the southeastern Pacific Ocean off the coasts of
Peru and Chile as juvenile turtles (Donoso et al., 2000; Alfaro-
Shigueto et al., 2004, 2008a; Boyle et al., 2009). As large juveniles
and adults, the foraging range of these loggerheads encompasses the
eastern Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, Torres Strait, Gulf of Papua,
Coral Sea, and throughout the eastern coastline of Australia from north
Queensland south to southern New South Wales, including the Great
Barrier Reef, Hervey Bay, and Moreton Bay. The outer extent of this
range includes the coastal waters off eastern Indonesia, northeastern
Papua New Guinea, northeastern Solomon Islands, and New Caledonia
(Limpus, 2009).
In summary, all loggerheads inhabiting the South Pacific Ocean are
derived from beaches in eastern Australia and a lesser known number of
beaches in southern New Caledonia, Vanuatu, and Tokelau (Limpus and
Limpus, 2003a; Limpus, 2009). Furthermore, nesting colonies of the
South Pacific population of loggerheads are found to be genetically
distinct from loggerheads in the North Pacific and Indian Ocean.
Given the information presented above, the BRT concluded, and we
concur, that two discrete population segments exist in the Pacific
Ocean: (1) North Pacific Ocean and (2) South Pacific Ocean. These two
population segments are markedly separated from each other and from
population
[[Page 58875]]
segments within the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean basins as a
consequence of physical, ecological, behavioral, and oceanographic
factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic
analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry, which
indicate that individuals originating from Japan remain in the North
Pacific for their entire life cycle, likely never crossing the equator
or mixing with individuals from the South Pacific (Bowen et al., 1995;
Hatase et al., 2002a; LeRoux and Dutton, 2006; Dutton, 2007,
unpublished data; Boyle et al., 2009). This apparent, almost complete
separation most likely results from: (1) The presence of two distinct
Northern and Southern Gyre (current flow) systems in the Pacific
(Briggs, 1974), (2) near-passive movements of post-hatchlings in these
gyres that initially move them farther away from areas of potential
mixing along the equator, and (3) the nest-site fidelity of adult
turtles that prevents turtles from returning to non-natal nesting
areas. The separation of the Pacific Ocean population segments from
population segments within the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean basins
is believed to be the result of land barriers and oceanographic
barriers. Based on mtDNA analysis, Bowen et al. (1994) found a
separation of loggerheads in the Atlantic-Mediterranean basins from
those in the Indo-Pacific basins since the Pleistocene period.
Geography and climate appear to have shaped the evolution of these two
matriarchal lineages with the onset of glacial cycles, the appearance
of the Panama Isthmus creating a land barrier between the Atlantic and
eastern Pacific, and upwelling of cold water off southern Africa
creating an oceanographic barrier between the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans (Bowen, 2003).
Indian Ocean
Similar to loggerheads in the Pacific and Atlantic, loggerheads in
the Indian Ocean nest on coastal beaches, forage in neritic and oceanic
habitats, and undertake long-distance migrations between and within
these areas. The distribution of loggerheads in the Indian Ocean is
limited by the Asian landmass to the north (approximately 30[deg] N.
lat.); distributions east and west are not restricted by landmasses
south of approximately 38[deg] S. latitude.
In the North Indian Ocean, Oman hosts the vast majority of
loggerhead nesting. The largest nesting assemblage is at Masirah
Island, Oman, in the northern tropics at 21[deg] N. lat. (Baldwin et
al., 2003). Other key nesting assemblages occur on the Al Halaniyat
Islands, Oman (17[deg] S. lat.) and on Oman's Persian Gulf mainland
beaches south of Masirah Island to the Oman-Yemen border (17-20[deg] S.
lat.) (IUCN--The World Conservation Union, 1989a, 1989b; Salm, 1991;
Salm and Salm, 1991; Baldwin et al., 2003). In addition, nesting
probably occurs on the mainland of Yemen on the Arabian Sea coast, and
nesting has been confirmed on Socotra, an island off the coast of Yemen
(Pilcher and Saad, 2000).
Outside of Oman, loggerhead nesting is rare in the North Indian
Ocean. The only verified nesting beaches for loggerheads on the Indian
subcontinent are found in Sri Lanka (Deraniyagala, 1939; Kar and
Bhaskar, 1982; Dodd, 1988; Kapurusinghe, 2006). Reports of regular
loggerhead nesting on the Indian mainland are likely misidentifications
of olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea) (Tripathy, 2005; Kapurusinghe,
2006). Although loggerheads have been reported nesting in low numbers
in Myanmar, these data may not be reliable because of misidentification
of species (Thorbjarnarson et al., 2000).
Limited information exists on foraging locations of North Indian
Ocean loggerheads. Foraging individuals have been reported off the
southern coastline of Oman (Salm et al., 1993) and in the Gulf of
Mannar, between Sri Lanka and India (Tripathy, 2005; Kapurusinghe,
2006). Satellite telemetry studies of post-nesting migrations of
loggerheads nesting on Masirah Island, Oman, have revealed extensive
use of the waters off the Arabian Peninsula, with the majority of
telemetered turtles (15 of 20) traveling southwest, following the
shoreline of southern Oman and Yemen, and circling well offshore in
nearby oceanic waters (Environment Society of Oman and Ministry of
Environment and Climate Change, Oman, unpublished data). A minority
traveled north as far as the western Persian Gulf (3 of 20) or followed
the shoreline of southern Oman and Yemen as far west as the Gulf of
Aden and the Bab-el-Mandab (2 of 20). These preliminary data from Oman
suggest that post-nesting migrations and adult female foraging areas
are restricted to the Northwest Indian Ocean (Environment Society of
Oman and Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Oman, unpublished
data). No tag returns or satellite tracks indicated that loggerheads
nesting in Oman traveled south of the equator.
In the East Indian Ocean, Western Australia hosts all known
loggerhead nesting (Dodd, 1988). Nesting distributions in Western
Australia span from the Shark Bay World Heritage Area northward through
the Ningaloo Marine Park coast to the North West Cape and to the nearby
Muiron Islands (Baldwin et al., 2003). Nesting individuals from Dirk
Hartog Island have been recorded foraging within Shark Bay and Exmouth
Gulf, while other adults range into the Gulf of Carpentaria (Baldwin et
al., 2003) as far east as Torres Strait. At the eastern extent of this
apparent range, there is likely overlap with loggerheads that nest on
Australia's Pacific coast (Limpus, 2009). However, despite extensive
tagging and beach monitoring at principal nesting beaches on
Australia's Indian Ocean and Pacific coasts, no exchange of females
between nesting beaches has been observed (Limpus, 2009).
Loggerhead nesting in the Southwest Indian Ocean includes the
southeastern coast of Africa from the Paradise Islands in Mozambique
southward to St. Lucia in South Africa, and on the south and
southwestern coasts of Madagascar (Baldwin et al., 2003). Foraging
habitats are only known for the Tongaland, South Africa, adult female
loggerheads. Returns of flipper tags describe a range that extends
eastward to Madagascar, northward to Mozambique, Tanzania, and Kenya,
and southward to Cape Agulhas at the southernmost point of Africa
(Baldwin et al., 2003). Four post-nesting loggerheads satellite tracked
by Luschi et al. (2006) migrated northward, hugging the Mozambique
coast and remained in shallow shelf waters off Mozambique for more than
2 months. Only one post-nesting female from the Southwest Indian Ocean
population (South Africa) has been documented migrating north of the
equator (to southern Somalia) (Hughes and Bartholomew, 1996).
The available genetic information relates to connectivity and broad
evolutionary relationships between ocean basins. There is a lack of
genetic information on population structure among rookeries within the
Indian Ocean. Bowen et al. (1994) described mtDNA sequence diversity
among eight loggerhead nesting assemblages and found one of two
principal branches in the Indo-Pacific basins. Using additional
published and unpublished data, Bowen (2003) estimated divergence
between these two lineages to be approximately three million years.
Bowen pointed out evidence for more recent colonizations (12,000-
250,000 years ago) between the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic-
Mediterranean. For example, the sole mtDNA haplotype (among eight
samples) identified by Bowen et al. (1994) at Masirah Island, Oman, is
known from the Atlantic and suggests some exchange between oceans some
250,000 years ago. The other principal Indian Ocean haplotype reported
by
[[Page 58876]]
Bowen et al. (1994) was seen in all loggerheads sampled (n = 15) from
Natal, South Africa. Encalada et al. (1998) reported that this
haplotype was common throughout the North Atlantic and Mediterranean,
thus suggesting a similar exchange between the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans as recently as 12,000 years ago (Bowen et al., 1994). Bowen
(2003) speculated that Indian-Atlantic Ocean exchanges took place via
the temperate waters south of South Africa and became rare as the ocean
shifted to cold temperate conditions in this region.
To estimate loggerhead gene flow in and out of the Indian Ocean,
J.S. Reece (Washington University, personal communication, 2008)
examined 100 samples from Masirah Island, 249 from Atlantic rookeries
(from Encalada et al., 1998), and 311 from Pacific rookeries (from
Bowen et al., 1995 and Hatase et al., 2002a). Reece estimated that gene
flow, expressed as number of effective migrants, or exchanges of
breeding females between Indian Ocean rookeries and those from the
Atlantic or Pacific occurred at the rate of less than 0.1 migrant per
generation. Reece estimated gene flow based on coalescence of combined
mtDNA and nuclear DNA data to be approximately 0.5 migrants per
generation. These unpublished results, while somewhat theoretical, may
indicate that there is restricted gene flow into and out of the Indian
Ocean. The low level of gene flow most likely reflects the historical
connectivity over geological timescales rather than any contemporary
migration, and is consistent with Bowen et al.'s (1994) hypothesis that
exchange occurred most recently over 12,000-3,000,000 years ago during
the Pleistocene, and has been restricted over recent ecological
timescales.
The discrete status of three loggerhead populations in the Indian
Ocean is primarily supported by observations of tag returns and
satellite telemetry. The genetic information currently available based
on mtDNA sequences does not allow for a comprehensive analysis of
genetic population structure analysis for Indian Ocean rookeries,
although Bowen et al. (1994) indicated the Oman and South African
rookeries are genetically distinct, and, based on preliminary results,
once sequencing studies are completed for these rookeries, it is likely
that they will also be genetically distinct from the rookeries in
Western Australia (P. Dutton, NMFS, unpublished data; N. FitzSimmons,
University of Canberra, unpublished data; J. Reece, University of
California at Santa Cruz, unpublished data). Based on multiple lines of
evidence, discrete status is supported for the North Indian Ocean,
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, and Southwest Indian Ocean loggerhead
populations. Although there is not a sufficiently clear picture of gene
flow between these regions, significant vicariant barriers likely exist
between these three Indian Ocean populations that would prevent
migration of individuals on a time scale relative to management and
conservation efforts. These biogeographical barriers are the
oceanographic phenomena associated with Indian Ocean equatorial waters,
and the large expanse between continents in the South Indian Ocean
without suitable benthic foraging habitat.
Given the information presented above, the BRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete population segments exist in the Indian
Ocean: (1) North Indian Ocean, (2) Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, and
(3) Southwest Indian Ocean. These three population segments are
markedly separated from each other and from population segments within
the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean basins as a consequence of
physical, ecological, behavioral, and oceanographic factors.
Information supporting this conclusion is primarily based on
observations of tag returns and satellite telemetry. The genetic
information currently available based on mtDNA sequences does not allow
for a comprehensive analysis of genetic population structure for Indian
Ocean rookeries; however, the Oman and South African rookeries are
genetically distinct (Bowen et al., 1994), and, based on preliminary
results, once sequencing studies are completed for these rookeries, it
is likely that they will also be determined genetically distinct from
the rookeries in Western Australia (P. Dutton, NMFS, unpublished data;
N. FitzSimmons, University of Canberra, unpublished data; J. Reece,
University of California at Santa Cruz, unpublished data). Furthermore,
significant biogeographical barriers (i.e., oceanographic phenomena
associated with Indian Ocean equatorial waters, and the large expanse
between continents in the South Indian Ocean without suitable benthic
foraging habitat) likely exist between these three Indian Ocean
populations that would prevent migration of individuals on a time scale
relative to management and conservation efforts. The separation of the
Indian Ocean population segments from population segments within the
Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean basins is believed to be the result of
land barriers and oceanographic barriers. Based on mtDNA analysis,
Bowen et al. (1994) found a separation of loggerheads in the Atlantic-
Mediterranean basins from those in the Indo-Pacific basins since the
Pleistocene period. Geography and climate appear to have shaped the
evolution of these two matriarchal lineages with the onset of glacial
cycles, the appearance of the Panama Isthmus creating a land barrier
between the Atlantic and eastern Pacific, and upwelling of cold water
off southern Africa creating an oceanographic barrier between the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Bowen, 2003). In the East Indian Ocean,
although there is possible overlap with loggerheads that nest on
Australia's Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean coasts, extensive tagging at
the principal nesting beaches on both coasts has revealed no exchange
of females between these nesting beaches (Limpus, 2009).
Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea
Within the Atlantic Ocean, loss and re-colonization of nesting
beaches over evolutionary time scales has been influenced by climate,
natal homing, and rare dispersal events (Encalada et al., 1998; Bowen
and Karl, 2007). At times, temperate beaches were too cool to incubate
eggs and embryonic development could have succeeded only on tropical
beaches. Thus, the contemporary distribution of nesting is the product
of colonization events from the tropical refugia during the last 12,000
years. Apparently, turtles from the Northwest Atlantic colonized the
Mediterranean and at least two matrilines were involved (Schroth et
al., 1996); however, Mediterranean rookeries became isolated from the
Atlantic populations in the last 10,000 years following the end of the
Wisconsin glacial period (Encalada et al., 1998). A similar
colonization event appears to have populated the Northeast Atlantic
(Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010).
Nesting in the western South Atlantic occurs primarily along the
mainland coast of Brazil from Sergipe south to Rio de Janeiro, with
peak concentrations in northern Bahia, Esp[iacute]rito Santo, and
northern Rio de Janeiro (Marcovaldi and Chaloupka, 2007). In the
eastern South Atlantic, diffuse nesting may occur along the mainland
coast of Africa (Fretey, 2001), with more than 200 loggerhead nests
reported for Rio Longa beach in central Angola in 2005 (Brian, 2007).
However, other researchers have been unable to confirm nesting by
loggerheads in the last decade anywhere along the south Atlantic coast
of Africa, including Angola (Fretey, 2001; Weir et al., 2007). There is
the possibility that reports of nesting loggerheads from Angola and
Namibia (M[aacute]rquez M., 1990;
[[Page 58877]]
Brian, 2007) may have arisen from misidentified olive ridley turtles
(Brongersma, 1982; Fretey, 2001). At the current time, it is not
possible to confirm that regular, if any, nesting of loggerheads occurs
along the Atlantic coast of Africa, south of the equator.
Genetic surveys of loggerheads have revealed that the Brazilian
rookeries have a unique mtDNA haplotype (Encalada et al., 1998; Pearce,
2001). The Brazilian mtDNA haplotype, relative to North Atlantic
haplotypes, indicates isolation of South Atlantic loggerheads from
North Atlantic loggerheads on a scale of 250,000-500,000 years ago, and
microsatellite DNA results show divergence on the same time scale
(Bowen, 2003). Brazil's unique haplotype has been found only in low
numbers in foraging populations of juvenile loggerheads of the North
Atlantic (Bass et al., 2004). Other lines of evidence support a deep
division between loggerheads from the South Atlantic and from the North
Atlantic, including: (1) A nesting season in Brazil that peaks in the
austral summer around December-January (Marcovaldi and Laurent, 1996),
as opposed to the April-September nesting season in the southeastern
United States in the northern hemisphere (Witherington et al., 2009);
and (2) no observations of tagged loggerheads moving across the equator
in the Atlantic, except a single case of a captive-reared animal that
was released as a juvenile from Esp[iacute]rito Santo and was
recaptured 3 years later in the Azores (Bolten et al., 1990). Post-
nesting females from Esp[iacute]rito Santo, Brazil, moved either north
or south along the coast, but remained between 10[deg] S. lat. and
30[deg] S. lat. (Marcovaldi et al., 2000; Lemke et al., 2006), while
post-nesting females from Bahia, Brazil, all moved north (Marcovaldi et
al., 2010).
Recaptures of tagged juvenile turtles and nesting females have
shown movement of animals up and down the coast of South America
(Almeida et al., 2000, 2007; Marcovaldi et al., 2000; Laporta and
Lopez, 2003). Juvenile loggerheads, presumably of Brazilian origin,
have also been captured on the high seas of the South Atlantic (Kotas
et al., 2004; Pinedo and Polacheck, 2004) and off the coast of Atlantic
Africa (Petersen, 2005; Petersen et al., 2007; Weir et al., 2007)
suggesting that, like their North Pacific, South Pacific, and Northwest
Atlantic counterparts, loggerheads of the South Atlantic may undertake
transoceanic developmental migrations (Bowen et al., 1995; Bolten et
al., 1998; Peckham et al., 2007; Boyle et al., 2009). Marcovaldi et al.
(2010) equipped 10 loggerheads nesting in Brazil with satellite
transmitters to study their internesting and postnesting movements. At
the conclusion of their nesting season, all 10 turtles migrated to the
northern coast of Brazil to individual foraging areas on the
continental shelf. Females were also tracked during a second
postnesting migration back to their foraging areas, showing a strong
fidelity to foraging grounds.
Within the Northwest Atlantic, the majority of nesting activity
occurs from April through September, with a peak in June and July
(Williams-Walls et al., 1983; Dodd, 1988; Weishampel et al., 2006).
Nesting occurs within the Northwest Atlantic along the coasts of North
America, Central America, northern South America, the Antilles, and The
Bahamas, but is concentrated in the southeastern United States and on
the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico (Sternberg, 1981; Ehrhart, 1989;
Ehrhart et al., 2003; NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Five recovery units
(management subunits of a listed species that are geographically or
otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the species)
have been identified based on genetic differences and a combination of
geographic distribution of nesting densities and geographic separation
(NMFS and USFWS, 2008). These recovery units are: Northern Recovery
Unit (Florida/Georgia border through southern Virginia), Peninsular
Florida Recovery Unit (Florida/Georgia border through Pinellas County,
Florida), Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (islands located west of Key West,
Florida), Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (Franklin County,
Florida, through Texas), and Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (Mexico
through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater
Antilles) (NMFS and USFWS, 2008).
Loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic have a complex population
genetic structure. Based on mtDNA evidence, oceanic juveniles show no
structure, neritic juveniles show moderate structure, and nesting
colonies show strong structure (Bowen et al., 2005). In contrast, a
study using microsatellite (nuclear DNA) markers showed no significant
population structure among nesting populations (Bowen et al., 2005),
indicating that while females exhibit strong philopatry, males may
provide an avenue of gene flow between nesting colonies in this region.
Nevertheless, Bowen et al. (2005) argued that male-mediated gene flow
within the Northwest Atlantic does not detract from the classification
of breeding areas as independent populations (e.g., management/recovery
units) because the production of progeny depends on female nesting
success. All Northwest Atlantic recovery units are reproductively
isolated from populations within the Northeast Atlantic, South
Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea.
As oceanic juveniles, loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic use
the North Atlantic Gyre and often are associated with Sargassum
communities (Carr, 1987). They also are found in the Mediterranean Sea.
In these areas, they overlap with animals originating from the
Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (Laurent et al., 1993,
1998; Bolten et al., 1998; Bowen et al., 2005; LaCasella et al., 2005;
Carreras et al., 2006; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2006;
Revelles et al., 2007). In the western Mediterranean, they tend to be
associated with the waters off the northern African coast and the
northeastern Balearic Archipelago, areas generally not inhabited by
turtles of Mediterranean origin (Carreras et al., 2006; Revelles et
al., 2007; Eckert et al., 2008). As larger neritic juveniles, they show
more structure and tend to inhabit areas closer to their natal origins
(Bowen et al., 2004), but some do move to and from oceanic foraging
grounds throughout this life stage (McClellan and Read, 2007; Mansfield
et al., 2009; McClellan et al., 2010), and some continue to use the
Mediterranean Sea (Casale et al., 2008a; Eckert et al., 2008).
Adult populations are highly structured with no overlap in
distribution among adult loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic,
Northeast Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean. Carapace
epibionts suggest the adult females of different subpopulations use
different foraging habitats (Caine, 1986). In the Northwest Atlantic,
based on satellite telemetry studies and flipper tag returns, non-
nesting adult females from the Northern Recovery Unit reside primarily
off the east coast of the United States; movement into the Bahamas or
the Gulf of Mexico is rare (Bell and Richardson, 1978; Williams and
Frick, 2001; Mansfield, 2006; Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG),
2009). Adult females of the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit are
distributed throughout eastern Florida, The Bahamas, Greater Antilles,
the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as
along the Atlantic seaboard of the United States (Meylan, 1982; Meylan
et al., 1983; Foley et al., 2008; TEWG, 2009). Adult females from the
Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit remained in the Gulf of Mexico,
including off the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, based on satellite
telemetry and flipper tag returns (Foley et al., 2008; TEWG, 2009;
[[Page 58878]]
M. Lamont, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
personal communication, 2009; M. Nicholas, National Park Service,
personal communication, 2009).
Nesting in the Northeast Atlantic is concentrated in the Cape Verde
Archipelago, with some nesting occurring on most of the islands, and
the highest concentration on the beaches of Boa Vista Island
(L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2000; Varo Cruz et al., 2007; Loureiro,
2008; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). On mainland Africa,
there is minor nesting on the coasts of Mauritania to Senegal
(Brongersma, 1982; Arvy et al., 2000; Fretey, 2001). Earlier reports of
loggerhead nesting in Morocco (Pasteur and Bons, 1960) have not been
confirmed in recent years (Tiwari et al., 2001). Nesting has not been
reported from Macaronesia (Azores, Madeira Archipelago, The Selvagens
Islands, and the Canary Islands), other than in the Cape Verde
Archipelago (Brongersma, 1982). In Cape Verde, nesting begins in mid-
June and extends into October (Cejudo et al., 2000), which is somewhat
later than when nesting occurs in the Northwest Atlantic.
Based on an analysis of mtDNA of nesting females from Boa Vista
Island, the Cape Verde nesting assemblage is genetically distinct from
other studied rookeries (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009,
2010). The results also indicate that despite the close proximity of
the Mediterranean, the Boa Vista rookery is most closely related to the
rookeries of the Northwest Atlantic.
The distribution of juvenile loggerheads from the Northeast
Atlantic is largely unknown but they have been found on the oceanic
foraging grounds of the North Atlantic (A. Bolten, University of
Florida, personal communication, 2008, based on Bolten et al., 1998 and
LaCasella et al., 2005; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009; M.
Tiwari, NMFS, and A. Bolten, University of Florida, unpublished data)
and in the western and central Mediterranean (A. Bolten, University of
Florida, personal communication, 2008, based on Carreras et al., 2006),
along with small juvenile loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic. The
size of nesting females in the Northeast Atlantic is comparable to
those in the Mediterranean (average 72-80 cm straight carapace length
(SCL); Margaritoulis et al., 2003) and smaller than those in the
Northwest Atlantic or the South Atlantic; 91 percent of the nesting
turtles are less than 86.5 cm curved carapace length (CCL) (Hawkes et
al., 2006) and nesting females average 77.1 cm SCL (Cejudo et al.,
2000). Satellite-tagged, post-nesting females from Cape Verde foraged
in coastal waters along northwest Africa or foraged oceanically, mostly
between Cape Verde and the African shelf from Mauritania to Guinea
Bissau (Hawkes et al., 2006).
In the Mediterranean, nesting occurs throughout the central and
eastern basins on the shores of Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria,
Lebanon, Israel, the Sinai, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia (Sternberg, 1981;
Margaritoulis et al., 2003; SWOT, 2007; Casale and Margaritoulis,
2010). Sporadic nesting also has been reported in the western
Mediterranean on Corsica (Delaugerre and Cesarini, 2004), southwestern
Italy (Bentivegna et al., 2005), and on the Spanish Mediterranean coast
(Tom[aacute]s et al., 2003, 2008). Nesting in the Mediterranean is
concentrated between June and early August (Margaritoulis et al., 2003;
Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010).
Within the Mediterranean, a recent study of mtDNA and nuclear DNA
in nesting assemblages from Greece to Israel indicated genetic
structuring, philopatry by both females and males, and limited gene
flow between assemblages (Carreras et al., 2007). Genetic
differentiation based on mtDNA indicated that there are at least four
independent nesting assemblages within the Mediterranean and usually
they are characterized by a single haplotype: (1) Mainland Greece and
the adjoining Ionian Islands, (2) eastern Turkey, (3) Israel, and (4)
Cyprus. There is no evidence of adult female exchange among these four
assemblages (Carreras et al., 2006). In studies of the foraging grounds
in the western and central Mediterranean, seven of the 17 distinct
haplotypes detected had not yet been described, indicating that nesting
beach data to describe the natal origins of juveniles exploiting the
western Mediterranean Sea are incomplete (Carreras et al., 2006; Casale
et al., 2008a). Gene flow among the Mediterranean rookeries estimated
from nuclear DNA was significantly higher than that calculated from
mtDNA, consistent with the scenario of female philopatry maintaining
isolation between rookeries, offset by male-mediated gene flow.
Nevertheless, the nuclear data show there was a higher degree of
substructuring among Mediterranean rookeries compared to those in the
Northwest Atlantic (Bowen et al., 2005; Carreras et al., 2007).
Small oceanic juveniles from the Mediterranean Sea use the eastern
basin (defined as inclusive of the central Mediterranean, Ionian,
Adriatic, and Aegean Seas) and the western basin (defined as inclusive
of the Tyrrhenian Sea) along the European coast (Laurent et al., 1998;
Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Carreras et al., 2006; Revelles et al.,
2007). Carreras et al. (2006) believe this genetic structuring is
explained by the pattern of sea surface currents and water masses, with
a limited exchange of juvenile loggerheads between water masses. Larger
juveniles also use the eastern Atlantic and the eastern Mediterranean,
especially the Tunisia-Libya shelf and the Adriatic Sea (Laurent et
al., 1993; Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et
al., 2006; Revelles et al., 2007; Eckert et al., 2008). Adults appear
to forage closer to the nesting beaches in the eastern basin; most tag
recoveries from females nesting in Greece have occurred in the Adriatic
Sea and off Tunisia (Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Lazar et al., 2004).
Loggerheads nesting in the Mediterranean were significantly smaller
than loggerheads nesting in the Northwest Atlantic and the South
Atlantic. Within the Mediterranean, carapace lengths ranged from 58 to
95 cm SCL (Margaritoulis et al., 2003). Greece's loggerheads averaged
77-80 cm SCL (Tiwari and Bjorndal, 2000; Margaritoulis et al., 2003),
whereas Turkey's loggerheads averaged 72-73 cm SCL (Margaritoulis et
al., 2003). The Greece turtles also produced larger clutches (relative
to body size) than those produced by Florida or Brazil nesters (Tiwari
and Bjorndal, 2000).
Given the information presented above, the BRT concluded, and we
concur, that four discrete population segments exist in the Atlantic
Ocean/Mediterranean: (1) Northwest Atlantic Ocean, (2) Northeast
Atlantic Ocean, (3) South Atlantic Ocean, and (4) Mediterranean Sea.
These four population segments are markedly separated from each other
and from population segments within the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean
basins as a consequence of physical, ecological, behavioral, and
oceanographic factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes
genetic analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
Genetic studies have shown that adult populations are highly structured
with no overlap in distribution among adult loggerheads in these four
population segments (Bowen et al., 1994; Encalada et al., 1998; Pearce,
2001; Carerras et al., 2007; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009,
2010). Although loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic, Northeast
Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea population segments may comingle on
oceanic foraging grounds as juveniles, adults are apparently isolated
from each other; they also differ demographically. Data from satellite
telemetry studies and
[[Page 58879]]
flipper tag returns have shown that nesting females from the Northwest
Atlantic return to the same nesting areas; they reveal no evidence of
movement of adults south of the equator or east of 40[deg] W.
longitude. Similarly, there is no evidence of movement of Northeast
Atlantic adults south of the equator, west of 40[deg] W. long., or east
of the Strait of Gibraltar, a narrow strait that connects the Atlantic
Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. Also, there is no evidence of movement
of adult Mediterranean Sea loggerheads west of the Strait of Gibraltar.
With regard to South Atlantic loggerheads, there have been no
observations of tagged loggerheads moving across the equator in the
Atlantic, except a single case of a captive-reared animal that was
released as a juvenile from Esp[iacute]rito Santo and was recaptured 3
years later in the Azores (Bolten et al., 1990). The separation of the
Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea population segments from population
segments within the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean basins is believed
to be the result of land barriers and oceanographic barriers. Based on
mtDNA analysis, Bowen et al. (1994) found a separation of loggerheads
in the Atlantic-Mediterranean basins from those in the Indo-Pacific
basins since the Pleistocene period. Geography and climate appear to
have shaped the evolution of these two matriarchal lineages with the
onset of glacial cycles, the appearance of the Panama Isthmus creating
a land barrier between the Atlantic and eastern Pacific, and upwelling
of cold water off southern Africa creating an oceanographic barrier
between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Bowen, 2003).
Significance Determination
As stated in the preceding section, the BRT identified nine
discrete population segments. As described below by ocean basin, the
BRT found that each of the nine discrete population segments is
biologically and ecologically significant. They each represent a large
portion of the species' range, sometimes encompassing an entire
hemispheric ocean basin. The range of each discrete population segment
occurs within a unique ecosystem that has significantly influenced each
population in physiology, morphology, and genetics. The loss of any
individual discrete population segment would result in a significant
gap in the loggerhead's range. Each discrete population segment is
genetically distinct, often identified by unique mtDNA haplotypes, and
the BRT suggested that this geographic partitioning of genetic
variation could also indicate adaptive differences; the loss of any one
discrete population segment would represent a significant loss of
genetic diversity. Therefore, the BRT concluded, and we concur, that
these nine population segments are both discrete from other conspecific
population segments and significant to the species to which they
belong, Caretta caretta.
The geographic delineations given below for each discrete
population segment were determined primarily based on nesting beach
locations, genetic evidence, oceanographic features, thermal tolerance,
fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead distribution and
migrations from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies (see
Map of Loggerhead Sea Turtle DPS Boundaries). With rare exception,
adults from discrete population segments remain within the delineated
boundaries. In some cases, juvenile turtles from two or more discrete
population segments may mix on foraging areas and, therefore, their
distribution and migrations may extend beyond the geographic boundaries
delineated below for each discrete population segment (e.g., juvenile
turtles from the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean,
and Mediterranean Sea discrete population segments share foraging
habitat in the western Mediterranean Sea).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22SE11.007
Pacific Ocean
The BRT considered 60[deg] N. lat. and the equator as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, of the North Pacific Ocean population
segment based on oceanographic features, loggerhead sightings, thermal
tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead
distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. The
BRT determined that the North Pacific Ocean discrete population segment
is biologically and ecologically significant because the loss of this
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon, and the population segment differs
[[Page 58880]]
markedly from other population segments of the species in its genetic
characteristics. The North Pacific Ocean population segment encompasses
an entire hemispheric ocean basin and its loss would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon. There is no evidence or
reason to believe that female loggerheads from South Pacific nesting
beaches would repopulate the North Pacific nesting beaches should those
nesting assemblages be lost (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). Tagging
studies show that the vast majority of nesting females return to the
same nesting area. As summarized by Hatase et al. (2002a), of 2,219
tagged nesting females from Japan, only five females were subsequently
documented nesting away (between 74 and 630 km) from where they were
originally encountered. In addition, flipper tag and satellite
telemetry research, as described in detail in the Discreteness
Determination section above, has shown no evidence of north-south
movement of loggerheads across the equator. This discrete population
segment is genetically unique (see Discreteness Determination section
above) and the BRT indicated that these unique haplotypes could
represent adaptive differences; thus, the loss of this discrete
population segment would represent a significant loss of genetic
diversity. Based on this information, the BRT concluded, and we concur,
that the North Pacific Ocean population segment is significant to the
taxon to which it belongs, and, therefore, that it satisfies the
significance element of the DPS policy.
The BRT considered the equator and 60[deg] S. lat. as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, and 67[deg] W. long. and 141[deg] E.
long. as the east and west boundaries, respectively, of the South
Pacific Ocean population segment based on oceanographic features,
loggerhead sightings, thermal tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and
information on loggerhead distribution from satellite telemetry and
flipper tagging studies. The BRT determined that the South Pacific
Ocean discrete population segment is biologically and ecologically
significant because the loss of this population segment would result in
a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the population segment
differs markedly from other population segments of the species in its
genetic characteristics. The South Pacific Ocean population segment
encompasses an entire hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. The South
Pacific Ocean population is the only population of loggerheads found
south of the equator in the Pacific Ocean and there is no evidence or
reason to believe that female loggerheads from North Pacific nesting
beaches would repopulate the South Pacific nesting beaches should those
nesting assemblages be lost (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). In
addition, flipper tag and satellite telemetry research, as described in
detail in the Discreteness Determination section above, has shown no
evidence of north-south movement of loggerheads across the equator. The
BRT also stated that it does not expect that recolonization from Indian
Ocean loggerheads would occur in eastern Australia within ecological
time frames. Despite evidence of foraging in the Gulf of Carpentaria by
adult loggerheads from the nesting populations in eastern Australia
(South Pacific Ocean population segment) and western Australia
(Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean population segment), the nesting females
from these two regions are considered to be genetically distinct from
one another (Limpus, 2009). In addition to a substantial disparity in
mtDNA haplotype frequencies between these two populations, FitzSimmons
(University of Canberra, unpublished data) found significant
differences in nuclear DNA microsatellite loci between females nesting
in these two regions, indicating separation between the South Pacific
Ocean and the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean population segments. Long-
term studies show a high degree of site fidelity by adult females in
the South Pacific, with most females returning to the same beach within
a nesting season and in successive nesting seasons (Limpus, 1985, 2009;
Limpus et al., 1994). This has been documented as characteristic of
loggerheads from various rookeries throughout the world (Schroeder et
al., 2003). This discrete population segment is genetically unique and
the BRT indicated that these unique haplotypes could represent adaptive
differences. Thus, the loss of this discrete population segment would
represent a significant loss of genetic diversity. Based on this
information, the BRT concluded, and we concur, that the South Pacific
Ocean population segment is significant to the taxon to which it
belongs, and, therefore, that it satisfies the significance element of
the DPS policy.
Indian Ocean
The BRT considered 30[deg] N. lat. and the equator as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, of the North Indian Ocean population
segment based on oceanographic features, loggerhead sightings, thermal
tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead
distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. The
BRT determined that the North Indian Ocean discrete population segment
is biologically and ecologically significant because the loss of this
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon, and the population segment differs markedly from other
population segments of the species in its genetic characteristics. The
North Indian Ocean population segment encompasses an entire hemispheric
ocean basin, and its loss would result in a significant gap in the
range of the taxon. Genetic information currently available for Indian
Ocean populations indicates that the Oman rookery in the North Indian
Ocean and the South African rookery in the Southwest Indian Ocean are
genetically distinct (Bowen et al., 1994), and, based on preliminary
results, once sequencing studies are completed for these rookeries, it
is likely that they will also be determined to be genetically distinct
from the Western Australia rookeries in the Southeast Indo-Pacific
Ocean (P. Dutton, NMFS, unpublished data; N. FitzSimmons, University of
Canberra, unpublished data; J. Reece, University of California at Santa
Cruz, unpublished data). In addition, oceanographic phenomena
associated with Indian Ocean equatorial waters exist between the North
Indian Ocean population segment and the two population segments in the
South Indian Ocean, which likely prevent migration of individuals
across the equator on a time scale relative to management and
conservation efforts (Conant et al., 2009). Therefore, there is no
evidence or reason to believe that female loggerheads from the
Southwest Indian Ocean or Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean would repopulate
the North Indian Ocean nesting beaches should those populations be lost
(Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). Based on this information, the BRT
concluded, and we concur, that the North Indian Ocean population
segment is significant to the taxon to which it belongs, and,
therefore, that it satisfies the significance element of the DPS
policy.
The BRT considered the equator and 60[deg] S. lat. as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, and 20[deg] E. long. at Cape Agulhas on
the southern tip of Africa and 80[deg] E. long. as the east and west
boundaries, respectively, of the Southwest Indian Ocean population
segment based on oceanographic features, thermal tolerance, fishery
bycatch data, and information on loggerhead distribution from satellite
[[Page 58881]]
telemetry and flipper tagging studies. The BRT determined that the
Southwest Indian Ocean discrete population segment is biologically and
ecologically significant because the loss of this population segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the
population segment differs markedly from other population segments of
the species in its genetic characteristics. The Southwest Indian Ocean
population segment encompasses half of a hemispheric ocean basin, and
its loss would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Genetic information currently available for Indian Ocean populations
indicates that the Oman rookery in the North Indian Ocean and the South
African rookery in the Southwest Indian Ocean are genetically distinct
(Bowen et al., 1994), and, based on preliminary results, once
sequencing studies are completed for these rookeries, it is likely that
they will also be determined to be genetically distinct from the
Western Australia rookeries in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean (P.
Dutton, NMFS, unpublished data; N. FitzSimmons, University of Canberra,
unpublished data; J. Reece, University of California at Santa Cruz,
unpublished data). In addition, biogeographical barriers (i.e.,
oceanographic phenomena associated with Indian Ocean equatorial waters,
and the large expanse between continents in the South Indian Ocean
without suitable benthic foraging habitat) likely exist between the
three Indian Ocean populations that would prevent migration of
individuals between populations on a time scale relative to management
and conservation efforts (Conant et al., 2009). Therefore, there is no
evidence or reason to believe that female loggerheads from the North
Indian Ocean or Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean would repopulate the
Southwest Indian Ocean nesting beaches should those populations be lost
(Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). There is also no evidence of
movement of adult Southwest Indian Ocean loggerheads west of 20[deg] E.
long. at Cape Agulhas, the southernmost point on the African continent,
or east of 80[deg] E. long. within the Indian Ocean. Based on this
information, the BRT concluded, and we concur, that the Southwest
Indian Ocean population segment is significant to the taxon to which it
belongs, and, therefore, that it satisfies the significance element of
the DPS policy.
The BRT considered the equator and 60[deg] S. lat. as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, and 141[deg] E. long. and 80[deg] E.
long. as the east and west boundaries, respectively, of the Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean population segment based on oceanographic features,
thermal tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead
distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. The
BRT determined that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean discrete
population segment is biologically and ecologically significant because
the loss of this population segment would result in a significant gap
in the range of the taxon, and the population segment differs markedly
from other population segments of the species in its genetic
characteristics. The Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean population segment
encompasses half of a hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Genetic
information currently available for Indian Ocean populations indicates
that the Oman rookery in the North Indian Ocean and the South African
rookery in the Southwest Indian Ocean are genetically distinct (Bowen
et al., 1994), and, based on preliminary results, once sequencing
studies are completed for these rookeries, it is likely that they will
also be determined to be genetically distinct from the Western
Australia rookeries in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean (P. Dutton,
NMFS, unpublished data; N. FitzSimmons, University of Canberra,
unpublished data; J. Reece, University of California at Santa Cruz,
unpublished data). In addition, biogeographical barriers (i.e.,
oceanographic phenomena associated with Indian Ocean equatorial waters,
and the large expanse between continents in the South Indian Ocean
without suitable benthic foraging habitat) likely exist between the
three Indian Ocean populations that would likely prevent migration of
individuals between populations on a time scale relative to management
and conservation efforts (Conant et al., 2009). Therefore, there is no
evidence or reason to believe that female loggerheads from the North
Indian Ocean or Southwest Indian Ocean would repopulate the Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean nesting beaches should those populations be lost
(Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). There is also no evidence of
movement of adult Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean loggerheads west of
80[deg] E. long. within the Indian Ocean. Despite evidence of foraging
in the Gulf of Carpentaria by adult loggerheads from the nesting
populations in eastern Australia (South Pacific Ocean population
segment) and western Australia (Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean population
segment), the nesting females from these two regions are considered to
be genetically distinct from one another (Limpus, 2009). In addition to
a substantial disparity in mtDNA haplotype frequencies between these
two regions, FitzSimmons (University of Canberra, unpublished data)
found significant differences in nuclear DNA microsatellite loci from
females nesting in these two regions, indicating separation between the
South Pacific Ocean population segment and the Southeast Indo-Pacific
Ocean population segment. Based on this information, the BRT concluded,
and we concur, that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean population segment
is significant to the taxon to which it belongs, and, therefore, it
satisfies the significance element of the DPS policy.
Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea
The BRT considered 60[deg] N. lat. and the equator as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, and 40[deg] W. long. as the eastern
boundary of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean population segment based on
oceanographic features, loggerhead sightings, thermal tolerance,
fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead distribution from
satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. The BRT determined
that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean discrete population segment is
biologically and ecologically significant because the loss of this
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon, and the population segment differs markedly from other
population segments of the species in its genetic characteristics. The
Northwest Atlantic Ocean population segment encompasses half of a
hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would result in a significant gap
in the range of the taxon. Genetic studies have shown that adult
populations are highly structured with no overlap in distribution among
adult loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic,
South Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea (Bowen et al., 1994; Encalada et
al., 1998; Pearce, 2001; Carerras et al., 2007; Monz[oacute]n-
Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009, 2010). There is no evidence or reason to
believe that female loggerheads from the Northeast Atlantic,
Mediterranean Sea, or South Atlantic nesting beaches would repopulate
the Northwest Atlantic nesting beaches should these populations be lost
(Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). Data from satellite telemetry
studies and flipper tag returns, as described in detail in the
Discreteness Determination section above, have shown that the vast
majority of nesting females from the Northwest Atlantic return to the
same
[[Page 58882]]
nesting area; they reveal no evidence of movement of adults south of
the equator or east of 40[deg] W. longitude. This discrete population
segment is genetically distinct (see Discreteness Determination section
above) possibly indicating adaptive differences as suggested by the
BRT; thus, the loss of this discrete population segment would represent
a significant loss of genetic diversity. Based on this information, the
BRT concluded, and we concur, that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
population segment is significant to the taxon to which it belongs,
and, therefore, that it satisfies the significance element of the DPS
policy.
The BRT considered 60[deg] N. lat. and the equator as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, and 40[deg] W. long. as the west
boundary of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean population segment. The BRT
considered the boundary between the Northeast Atlantic Ocean and
Mediterranean Sea population segments as 5[deg] 36' W. long. (Strait of
Gibraltar). These boundaries are based on oceanographic features,
loggerhead sightings, thermal tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and
information on loggerhead distribution from satellite telemetry and
flipper tagging studies. The BRT determined that the Northeast Atlantic
Ocean discrete population segment is biologically and ecologically
significant because the loss of this population segment would result in
a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the population segment
differs markedly from other population segments of the species in its
genetic characteristics. The Northeast Atlantic Ocean population
segment encompasses half of a hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Genetic
studies have shown that adult populations are highly structured with no
overlap in distribution among adult loggerheads from the Northwest
Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea
(Bowen et al., 1994; Encalada et al., 1998; Pearce, 2001; Carerras et
al., 2007; Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009, 2010). There is no
evidence or reason to believe that female loggerheads from the
Northwest Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, or South Atlantic nesting
beaches would repopulate the Northeast Atlantic nesting beaches should
these populations be lost (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). There is
also no evidence of movement of Northeast Atlantic adults west of
40[deg] W. long. or, in the vicinity of the Strait of Gibraltar (the
boundary between the Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea
population segments), no evidence of movement east of 5[deg] 36' W.
longitude. This discrete population segment is genetically unique (see
Discreteness Determination section above) and the BRT indicated that
these unique haplotypes could represent adaptive differences; thus, the
loss of this discrete population segment would represent a significant
loss of genetic diversity. Based on this information, the BRT
concluded, and we concur, that the Northeast Atlantic Ocean population
segment is significant to the taxon to which it belongs, and,
therefore, that it satisfies the significance element of the DPS
policy.
The BRT considered the Mediterranean Sea west to 5[deg]36' W. long.
(Strait of Gibraltar) as the boundary of the Mediterranean Sea
population segment based on oceanographic features, loggerhead
sightings, thermal tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on
loggerhead distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging
studies. The BRT determined that the Mediterranean Sea discrete
population segment is biologically and ecologically significant because
the loss of this population segment would result in a significant gap
in the range of the taxon, and the population segment differs markedly
from other population segments of the species in its genetic
characteristics. The Mediterranean Sea population segment encompasses
the entire Mediterranean Sea basin, and its loss would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon. Genetic studies have shown
that adult populations are highly structured with no overlap in
distribution among adult loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic,
Northeast Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea (Bowen et
al., 1994; Encalada et al., 1998; Pearce, 2001; Carerras et al., 2007;
Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009, 2010). There is no evidence
or reason to believe that female loggerheads from the Northwest
Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, or South Atlantic nesting beaches would
repopulate the Mediterranean Sea nesting beaches should these
populations be lost (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). As previously
described, adults from the Mediterranean Sea population segment appear
to forage closer to the nesting beaches in the eastern basin, and most
flipper tag recoveries from females nesting in Greece have occurred in
the Adriatic Sea and off Tunisia (Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Lazar et
al., 2004). There is no evidence of movement of adult Mediterranean Sea
loggerheads west of the Strait of Gibraltar (5[deg]36' W. long.). This
discrete population segment is genetically unique (see Discreteness
Determination section above) and the BRT indicated that these unique
haplotypes could represent adaptive differences; thus, the loss of this
discrete population segment would represent a significant loss of
genetic diversity. Based on this information, the BRT concluded, and we
concur, that the Mediterranean Sea population segment is significant to
the taxon to which it belongs, and, therefore, that it satisfies the
significance element of the DPS policy.
The BRT considered the equator and 60[deg] S. lat. as the north and
south boundaries, respectively, and 20[deg] E. long. at Cape Agulhas on
the southern tip of Africa and 67[deg] W. long. as the east and west
boundaries, respectively, of the South Atlantic Ocean population
segment based on oceanographic features, loggerhead sightings, thermal
tolerance, fishery bycatch data, and information on loggerhead
distribution from satellite telemetry and flipper tagging studies. The
BRT determined that the South Atlantic Ocean discrete population
segment is biologically and ecologically significant because the loss
of this population segment would result in a significant gap in the
range of the taxon, and the population segment differs markedly from
other population segments of the species in its genetic
characteristics. The South Atlantic Ocean population segment
encompasses an entire hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Genetic studies
have shown that adult populations are highly structured with no overlap
in distribution among adult loggerheads from the Northwest Atlantic,
Northeast Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean Sea (Bowen et
al., 1994; Encalada et al., 1998; Pearce, 2001; Carerras et al., 2007;
Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2009, 2010). There is no evidence
or reason to believe that female loggerheads from the Northwest
Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, or Mediterranean Sea nesting beaches
would repopulate the South Atlantic nesting beaches should these
populations be lost (Bowen et al., 1994; Bowen, 2003). This discrete
population segment is genetically unique (see Discreteness
Determination section above) and the BRT indicated that these unique
haplotypes could represent adaptive differences; thus, the loss of this
discrete population segment would represent a significant loss of
genetic diversity. Based on this information, the BRT concluded, and we
concur, that the
[[Page 58883]]
South Atlantic Ocean population segment is significant to the taxon to
which it belongs, and, therefore, that it satisfies the significance
element of the DPS policy.
In summary, based on the information provided in the Discreteness
Determination and Significance Determination sections above, the BRT
identified nine loggerhead DPSs distributed globally: (1) North Pacific
Ocean DPS, (2) South Pacific Ocean DPS, (3) North Indian Ocean DPS, (4)
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, (5) Southwest Indian Ocean DPS, (6)
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, (7) Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS, (8)
Mediterranean Sea DPS, and (9) South Atlantic Ocean DPS. We concur with
the findings and application of the DPS policy described by the BRT and
herein delineate the nine DPSs identified by the BRT as DPSs (i.e.,
they are discrete and significant).
Significant Portion of the Range
We have determined that the range of each DPS contributes
meaningfully to the conservation of the DPS and that populations that
may contribute more or less to the conservation of each DPS throughout
a portion of its range cannot be identified due to the highly migratory
nature of the listed entity.
The loggerhead sea turtle is highly migratory and crosses multiple
domestic and international geopolitical boundaries. Depending on the
life stage, they may occur in oceanic waters or along the continental
shelf of landmasses, or transit back and forth between oceanic and
neritic habitats. Protection and management of both the terrestrial and
marine environments is essential to recovering the listed entity.
Management measures implemented by any State, foreign nation, or
political subdivision likely would only affect individual sea turtles
during certain stages and seasons of the life cycle. Management
measures implemented by any State, foreign nation, or political
subdivision may also affect individuals from multiple DPSs because
juvenile turtles from disparate DPSs can overlap on foraging grounds or
migratory corridors (e.g., Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and
Mediterranean Sea DPSs). The term ``significant portion of its range''
is not defined by the statute. For the purposes of this rule, a portion
of the species' (species or distinct population segment) range is
``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the species is
so important that without that portion the species would be in danger
of extinction. The BRT was unable to identify any particular portion of
the range of any of the DPSs that was more significant to the DPS than
another portion of the same range because of the species' migratory
nature, the varying threats that affect different life stages, and the
varying benefits accruing from conservation efforts throughout the
geographic range of each DPS. The next section describes our evaluation
of the status of each DPS throughout its range.
Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs
Complete population abundance estimates do not exist for the nine
DPSs. Within the global range of the species, and within each DPS, the
primary data available are collected on nesting beaches, either as
counts of nests or counts of nesting females, or a combination of both
(either direct or extrapolated). Information on abundance and trends
away from the nesting beaches is limited or non-existent, primarily
because these data are, relative to nesting beach studies, logistically
difficult and expensive to obtain. Therefore, the primary information
source for directly evaluating status and trends of the nine DPSs is
nesting beach data.
North Pacific Ocean DPS
In the North Pacific, loggerhead nesting is essentially restricted
to Japan where monitoring of loggerhead nesting began in the 1950s on
some beaches, and expanded to include most known nesting beaches since
approximately 1990. Kamezaki et al. (2003) reviewed census data
collected from most of the Japanese nesting beaches. Although most
surveys were initiated in the 1980s and 1990s, some data collection
efforts were initiated in the 1950s. Along the Japanese coast, nine
major nesting beaches (greater than 100 nests per season) and six
``submajor'' beaches (10-100 nests per season) were identified. Census
data from 12 of these 15 beaches provide composite information on
longer-term trends in the Japanese nesting assemblage. Using
information collected on these beaches, Kamezaki et al. (2003)
concluded a substantial decline (50-90 percent) in the size of the
annual loggerhead nesting population in Japan since the 1950s. Snover
(2008) combined nesting data from the Sea Turtle Association of Japan
and data from Kamezaki et al. (2002) to analyze an 18-year time series
of nesting data from 1990-2007. Nesting declined from an initial peak
of approximately 6,638 nests in 1990-1991, followed by a steep decline
to a low of 2,064 nests in 1997. During the past decade, nesting
increased gradually to 5,167 nests in 2005, declined and then rose
again to a high of just under 11,000 nests in 2008. Estimated nest
numbers for 2009 were on the order of 7,000-8,000 nests. While nesting
numbers have gradually increased in recent years and the number for
2009 was similar to the start of the time series in 1990, historical
evidence from Kamouda Beach (census data dates back to the 1950s)
indicates that there has been a substantial decline over the last half
of the 20th century (Kamezaki et al., 2003) and that current nesting
represents a fraction of historical nesting levels.
South Pacific Ocean DPS
In the South Pacific, loggerhead nesting is almost entirely
restricted to eastern Australia (primarily Queensland) and New
Caledonia, and the population has been well studied. The size of the
annual breeding population (females only) has been monitored at
numerous rookeries in Australia since 1968 (Limpus and Limpus, 2003a),
and these data constitute the primary measure of the current status of
the DPS. The total nesting population for Queensland was approximately
3,500 females in the 1976-1977 nesting season (Limpus, 1985; Limpus and
Reimer, 1994). Little more than two decades later, Limpus and Limpus
(2003a) estimated this nesting population at less than 500 females in
the 1999-2000 nesting season. There has been a marked decline in the
number of females breeding annually since the mid-1970s, with an
estimated 50 to 80 percent decline in the number of breeding females at
various Australian rookeries up to 1990 (Limpus and Reimer, 1994) and a
decline of approximately 86 percent from 1976-1999 (Limpus and Limpus,
2003a). However, since 2000, this long-term decline in the number of
nesting females has reversed with increasing numbers of nesting females
observed from 2000-2009 (Limpus, in press). More recent data for Mon
Repos have shown increased nesting; 2009 nesting numbers were similar
to nesting numbers recorded in the 1990s (M. Hamann, James Cook
University, personal communication, 2010). However, comparable nesting
surveys have not been conducted in New Caledonia. Information from a
pilot study conducted in 2005 combined with oral history information
collected suggest that there has been a decline in loggerhead nesting
over recent decades (Limpus et al., 2006). Based on data from the pilot
study, only 60 to 70 loggerheads nested on the four surveyed New
Caledonia beaches during the
[[Page 58884]]
2004-2005 nesting season (Limpus et al., 2006).
Studies of eastern Australia loggerheads at their foraging areas
provide some information on the status of non-breeding loggerheads of
the South Pacific Ocean DPS. Chaloupka and Limpus (2001) determined
that the resident loggerhead population on coral reefs of the southern
Great Barrier Reef declined at 3 percent per year from 1985 to the late
1990s. The observed decline occurred in spite of constant high annual
survivorship measured at this foraging habitat and was hypothesized to
result from recruitment failure from fox predation of eggs at mainland
rookeries during the 1960s and pelagic juvenile mortality from
incidental capture in longline fisheries since the 1970s (Chaloupka and
Limpus, 2001). Concurrently, a decline in new recruits was measured in
these foraging areas (Limpus and Limpus, 2003a).
North Indian Ocean DPS
The North Indian Ocean hosts the largest nesting assemblage of
loggerheads in the eastern hemisphere; the vast majority of these
loggerheads nest in Oman (Baldwin et al., 2003). Nesting occurs in
greatest density on Masirah Island; the number of emergences ranges
from 27-102 per km nightly (Ross, 1998). Nesting densities have
complicated the implementation of standardized nesting beach surveys,
and more precise nesting data have only been collected since 2008.
Extrapolations resulting from partial surveys and tagging in 1977-1978
provided broad estimates of 19,000 to 60,000 females nesting annually
at Masirah Island in 1977 and 28,000 to 35,000 in 1978. A more recent
partial survey in 1991 provided an estimate of 23,000 nesting females
at Masirah Island (Ross, 1979, 1998; Ross and Barwani, 1982; Baldwin,
1992). A reinterpretation of the 1977-1978 estimates, assuming 50
percent nesting success (as compared to 100 percent in the original
estimates), resulted in an estimate of 20,000 to 40,000 females nesting
annually (Baldwin et al., 2003). Reliable trends in nesting cannot be
determined due to the lack of standardized surveys at Masirah Island
prior to 2008. From 2008 through 2010, approximately 50,000, 67,600,
and 62,400 nests, respectively, were estimated annually based on
standardized daily surveys of the highest density nesting beaches and
weekly surveys on all remaining island nesting beaches. Using an
estimated clutch frequency of five nests per nesting female this would
convert to 10,000, 13,520, and 12,480 nesting females annually (Conant
et al., 2009). Even using the low end of the 1977-1978 estimates of
20,000 nesting females at Masirah, this suggests a significant decline
in the size of the nesting population and is consistent with
observations by long-term resident rangers that the population has
declined substantially in the last three decades (E. Possardt, USFWS,
personal communication, 2008).
In addition to the nesting beaches on Masirah Island, over 3,000
nests per year have been recorded in Oman on the Al-Halaniyat Islands
and, along the Oman mainland of the Arabian Sea, approximately 2,000
nests are deposited annually (Salm, 1991; Salm et al., 1993). In Yemen,
on Socotra Island, 50-100 loggerheads were estimated to have nested in
1999 (Pilcher and Saad, 2000). A time series of nesting data based on
standardized surveys is not available to determine trends for these
nesting sites.
Loggerhead nesting is rare elsewhere in the northern Indian Ocean
and in some cases is complicated by inaccurate species identification
(Shanker, 2004; Tripathy, 2005). A small number of nesting females use
the beaches of Sri Lanka every year; however, there are no records to
suggest that Sri Lanka has ever been a major nesting area for
loggerheads (Kapurusinghe, 2006). Loggerheads have been reported
nesting in low numbers in Myanmar; however, these data may not be
reliable because of misidentification of species (Thorbjarnarson et
al., 2000).
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS
In the eastern Indian Ocean, loggerhead nesting is restricted to
Western Australia (Dodd, 1988), and this nesting population is the
largest in Australia (Wirsing et al., unpublished data, cited in
Natural Heritage Trust, 2005; Limpus, 2009).
Dirk Hartog Island hosts about 70-75 percent of nesting individuals
in the eastern Indian Ocean (Baldwin et al., 2003). Surveys were
conducted on the island for the duration of six nesting seasons between
1993/1994 and 1999/2000 (Baldwin et al., 2003) and continued until 2009
during which time 800-1,500 loggerheads were estimated to nest annually
on Dirk Hartog Island beaches (Baldwin et al., 2003).
Fewer loggerheads (approximately 150-350 per season) are reported
nesting on the Muiron Islands; however, more nesting loggerheads are
reported here than on North West Cape (approximately 50-150 per season)
(Baldwin et al., 2003). Although data are insufficient to determine
trends, historical information suggests the nesting population in the
Muiron Islands and North West Cape region was likely reduced from
historical numbers, before recent beach monitoring programs began, as a
result of bycatch in commercial fisheries (Nishemura and Nakahigashi,
1990; Poiner et al., 1990; Poiner and Harris, 1996).
Southwest Indian Ocean DPS
In the Southwest Indian Ocean, the highest concentration of nesting
occurs on the coast of Tongaland, South Africa, where surveys and
management practices were instituted in 1963 (Baldwin et al., 2003). A
trend analysis of index nesting beach data from this region from 1965
to 2008 indicates an increasing nesting population between the first
decade of surveys, which documented 500-800 nests annually, and the
last 8 years, which documented 1,100-1,500 nests annually (Nel, 2008).
These data represent approximately 50 percent of all nesting within
South Africa and are believed to be representative of trends in the
region. Loggerhead nesting occurs elsewhere in South Africa, but
sampling is not consistent and no trend data are available. The total
number of females nesting annually in South Africa is estimated between
500-2,000 turtles (Baldwin et al., 2003). In Mozambique, surveys have
been instituted much more recently; likely less than 200 females nest
annually and no trend data are available (Baldwin et al., 2003; Louro
et al., 2006; Videira et al., 2008, 2010; Pereira et al., 2009).
Similarly, in Madagascar, loggerheads have been documented nesting in
low numbers, but no trend data are available (Rakotonirina, 2001).
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
Nesting occurs within the Northwest Atlantic along the coasts of
North America, Central America, northern South America, the Antilles,
and The Bahamas, but is concentrated in the southeastern U.S. and on
the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico (Sternberg, 1981; Ehrhart, 1989;
Ehrhart et al., 2003; NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Collectively, the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean hosts the most significant nesting assemblage
of loggerheads in the western hemisphere and is one of the two largest
loggerhead nesting assemblages in the world. NMFS and USFWS (2008),
Witherington et al. (2009), and TEWG (2009) provide comprehensive
analyses of the status of the nesting assemblages within the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS using standardized data collected over survey
periods ranging from 10 to 23 years. The results of these analyses,
using different analytical approaches, were consistent in their
findings--there had been a significant, overall nesting decline
[[Page 58885]]
within this DPS. However, with the addition of nesting data from 2008
through 2010, which was not available at the time those analyses were
conducted, the final result for the trend line changes. Nesting in 2008
showed a substantial increase compared to the low of 2007, and nesting
in 2010 reached the highest level seen since 2000 (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission Core Index Nesting Beach Database).
The most current nesting trend for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS,
from 1989-2010, is very slightly negative, but the rate of decline is
not statistically different from zero. Additionally, the range from the
statistical analysis of the nesting trend includes both negative and
positive growth (NMFS, unpublished data).
NMFS and USFWS (2008) identified five recovery units (nesting
subpopulations) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean: The Northern (Florida/
Georgia border to southern Virginia); Peninsular Florida (Florida/
Georgia border south through Pinellas County, excluding the islands
west of Key West, Florida); Dry Tortugas (islands west of Key West,
Florida); Northern Gulf of Mexico (Franklin County, Florida, west
through Texas); and Greater Caribbean (Mexico through French Guiana,
The Bahamas, Lesser and Greater Antilles). At that time, declining
trends in the annual number of nests were documented for all recovery
units for which there were an adequate time series of nesting data.
The Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit represents approximately 87
percent of all nesting effort in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
(Ehrhart et al., 2003). A significant declining trend had been
documented for the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, where nesting
declined 26 percent over the 20-year period from 1989-2008, and
declined 41 percent over the period 1998-2008 (NMFS and USFWS, 2008;
Witherington et al., 2009). As explained previously, with the addition
of nesting data through 2010, the nesting trend for the Peninsular
Florida Recovery Unit, and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, does not
show a nesting decline statistically different from zero. The Northern
Recovery Unit is the second largest recovery unit within the DPS and
was declining significantly at 1.3 percent annually from 1983 to 2007
(NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Currently, nesting for that recovery unit is
showing possible signs of stabilizing. In 2008, nesting in Georgia
reached what was a new record at that time (1,646 nests), with a
downturn in 2009, followed by yet another record in 2010 (1,760 nests).
South Carolina had the two highest years of nesting in the 2000s in
2009 (2,183 nests) and 2010 (3,141 nests). The previous high for that
11-year span was 1,433 nests in 2003. North Carolina had 847 nests in
2010, which is above the average of 715. The Georgia, South Carolina,
and North Carolina nesting data come from the seaturtle.org Sea Turtle
Nest Monitoring System which is populated with data input by the State
agencies. The Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit is the third largest
recovery unit within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, with the
majority of nesting at Quintana Roo, Mexico. TEWG (2009) reported a
greater than 5 percent annual decline in loggerhead nesting from 1995-
2006 at Quintana Roo. When nest counts up through 2010 are analyzed,
however, the nesting trends from 1989 through 2010 are not
significantly different from zero for all of the recovery units within
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS for which there are enough data to
analyze (NMFS, unpublished data).
In an effort to evaluate loggerhead population status and trends
beyond the nesting beach, NMFS and USFWS (2008) and TEWG (2009)
reviewed data from in-water studies within the range of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS. NMFS and USFWS (2008), in the Recovery Plan for the
Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, summarized
population trend data reported from nine in-water study sites where
loggerheads were regularly captured and where efforts were made to
provide local indices of abundance. These sites were located from Long
Island Sound, New York, to Florida Bay, Florida. The study periods for
these nine sites varied. The earliest began in 1987, and the most
recent were initiated in 2000. Results reported from four of the
studies indicated no discernible trend, two studies reported declining
trends, and two studies reported increasing trends. Trends at one study
site, Mosquito Lagoon, Florida, indicated either a declining trend (all
data, 1977-2005) or no trend (more recent data, 1995-2005), depending
on whether all sample years were used or only the more recent, and
likely more comparable sample years, were used. TEWG (2009) used raw
data from six of the aforementioned nine in-water study sites to
conduct trend analyses. Results from three of the four sites located in
the southeastern United States showed an increasing trend in the
abundance of loggerheads, one showed no discernible trend, and the two
sites located in the northeastern United States showed a decreasing
trend in abundance of loggerheads.
Crouse et al. (1987) and Crowder et al. (1994) presented models,
using data available from what is now the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS,
suggesting that adults (males and females) are approximately 0.3
percent of the total population. These models assume that the
population is density independent and growing exponentially; however,
in the case of sea turtles, it is unlikely that either of these
assumptions is met. The most recent point estimate of the number of
adult females in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is 30,000 (Southeast
Fisheries Science Center, 2009); assuming a 1:1 adult sex ratio results
in 60,000 adults. If those individuals represent 0.3 percent of the
total population size, then the total population size would be on the
order of 20 million individuals. The vast majority of these individuals
would be in the youngest life stages, where natural mortality is very
high. This is the life history strategy of sea turtles; many
individuals must be produced to contribute to the breeding population
and to keep the population from declining. The most important point to
understand regarding these models and subsequent calculations is that
their main assumptions--the population has a stable age distribution,
anthropogenic mortality is constant, sex ratios are equal, and the
environment is constant--are likely not met.
A recent aerial survey from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to the mouth
of the Gulf of St. Lawrence provided insight into loggerhead abundance
in continental shelf waters of the U.S. Atlantic coast. In a
preliminary report (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 2011), the most
conservative estimate, in which only sightings that were positively
identified as loggerhead sea turtles were used, was that about 588,000
juvenile and adult loggerheads were present in the survey area
(approximate inter-quartile range of 382,000-817,000 individuals). When
a portion of the unidentified turtles were assigned as loggerheads, the
estimate increased to 801,000 individuals (inter-quartile range of
521,000-1,111,000). The survey effort did not encompass waters south of
Cape Canaveral on the Atlantic Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico
(Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 2011).
Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS
In the northeastern Atlantic, the Cape Verde Islands support the
only large nesting population of loggerheads in the region (Fretey,
2001). Nesting occurs at some level on most of the islands in the
archipelago with the largest nesting
[[Page 58886]]
numbers reported from the island of Boa Vista where studies have been
ongoing since 1998 (Lazar and Holcer, 1998; L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al.,
2000; Fretey, 2001; Varo Cruz et al., 2007; Loureiro, 2008; M. Tiwari,
NMFS, personal communication, 2008). On Boa Vista Island, 833 and 1,917
nests were reported in 2001 and 2002 respectively from 3.1 km of beach
(Varo Cruz et al., 2007) and between 1998 and 2002 the local project
had tagged 2,856 females (Varo Cruz et al., 2007). In 2005, 5,396 nests
and 3,121 females were reported from 9 km of beach on Boa Vista Island
(L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2007). More recently, 12,028 nests in
2008, 20,102 nests in 2009, and 9,174 nests in 2010 were reported from
approximately 68 km of beach on Boa Vista Island (Cabo Verde Natura
2000, 2010). On Sal Island, 344 nests were reported in 2008, 1,037
nests in 2009, and 566 nests in 2010 (SOS Tartarugas, 2009; J. Cozens,
SOS Tartarugas, personal communication, 2011). From Santiago Island, 66
nests were reported from four beaches in 2007 and 53 nests from five
beaches in 2008 (http://tartarugascaboverde.wordpress.com/santiago).
Due to limited data available, a population trend cannot currently be
determined for the Cape Verde population; however, available
information on the directed killing of nesting females suggests that
this nesting population is under severe pressure and likely
significantly reduced from historical levels (Marco et al., 2010).
Loureiro (2008) reported a reduction in nesting from historical levels
at Santiago Island, based on interviews with elders. Elsewhere in the
northeastern Atlantic, loggerhead nesting is non-existent or occurs at
very low levels. In Morocco, anecdotal reports indicated high numbers
of nesting turtles in southern Morocco (Pasteur and Bons, 1960), but a
few recent surveys of the Atlantic coastline have suggested a dramatic
decline (Tiwari et al., 2001, 2006). A few nests have been reported
from Mauritania (Arvy et al., 2000) and Sierra Leone (E. Aruna,
Conservation Society of Sierra Leone, personal communication, 2008).
Some loggerhead nesting in Senegal and elsewhere along the coast of
West Africa has been reported; however, a more recent and reliable
confirmation is needed (Fretey, 2001).
Mediterranean Sea DPS
Nesting occurs throughout the central and eastern Mediterranean in
Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya,
and Tunisia (Sternberg, 1981; Margaritoulis et al., 2003; SWOT, 2007;
Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). In addition, sporadic nesting has been
reported from the western Mediterranean (Spain and France), but the
vast majority of nesting occurs in Greece and Turkey (Margaritoulis et
al., 2003). The documented annual nesting of loggerheads in the
Mediterranean averages over 7,200 nests (Casale and Margaritoulis,
2010). There has been no discernible trend in nesting reported for the
two longest monitoring projects in Greece, Laganas Bay (Margaritoulis,
2005) and southern Kyparissia Bay (Margaritoulis and Rees, 2001).
However, the nesting trend at Rethymno Beach, which hosts approximately
7 percent of all documented loggerhead nesting in the Mediterranean,
showed a highly significant declining trend from 1990 through 2004
(Margaritoulis et al., 2009). In Turkey, intermittent nesting surveys
have been conducted since the 1970s with more consistent surveys
conducted on some beaches only since the 1990s, making it difficult to
assess trends in nesting. Ilgaz et al. (2007) reported a declining
trend at Fethiye Beach from 1993-2004, this beach represents
approximately 10 percent of loggerhead nesting in Turkey (Margaritoulis
et al., 2003).
South Atlantic Ocean DPS
In the South Atlantic, nesting occurs primarily along the mainland
coast of Brazil from Sergipe south to Rio de Janeiro, with peak
concentrations in northern Bahia, Esp[iacute]rito Santo, and northern
Rio de Janeiro with peak nesting along the coast of Bahia (Marcovaldi
and Chaloupka, 2007). Prior to 1980, loggerhead nesting populations in
Brazil were considered severely depleted. Recently, Marcovaldi and
Chaloupka (2007) reported a long-term, sustained increasing trend in
nesting abundance over a 16-year period from 1988 through 2003 on 22
surveyed beaches containing more than 75 percent of all loggerhead
nesting in Brazil. A total of 4,837 nests were reported from these
survey beaches for the 2003-2004 nesting season (Marcovaldi and
Chaloupka, 2007). Loggerhead nesting has continued to increase with
approximately 6,800 nests recorded during the 2008-2009 nesting season
(dos Santos et al., 2011).
Summary of Comments
With the publication of the proposed listing determination for the
nine loggerhead sea turtle DPSs on March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12598), we
announced a 90-day comment period extending through June 14, 2010. On
June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30769), we extended the public comment period for
an additional 90 days through September 13, 2010, and announced our
intention to hold a public hearing to provide an additional opportunity
and format to receive public input. The public hearing was held in
Berlin, Maryland, on June 16, 2010. On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15932), we
published in the Federal Register a notice announcing a 6-month
extension of the deadline for a final listing decision to address
substantial disagreement that existed on the interpretation of data
related to the status and trends for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
of the loggerhead sea turtle and its relevance to the assessment of
risk of extinction. At this time, we announced an additional 20-day
comment period for new information or analyses from the public that
would help clarify this issue.
A joint NMFS/USFWS policy requires us to solicit independent expert
review from at least three qualified specialists, concurrent with the
public comment period (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). In December 2004,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing minimum peer review
standards, a transparent process for public disclosure, and
opportunities for public input. The OMB Peer Review Bulletin,
implemented under the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is
intended to provide public oversight on the quality of agency
information, analyses, and regulatory activities, and applies to
information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. We solicited
technical review of the proposed listing determination from six
independent experts, and received reviews from all six of these
experts. The independent expert review under the joint NMFS/USFWS peer
review policy collectively satisfies the requirements of the OMB Peer
Review Bulletin and the joint NMFS/USFWS peer review policy. The peer
reviewers provided additional information, clarifications, suggestions,
and editorial comments to improve this final rule. Peer reviewer
comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into
this final rule as appropriate.
The Services received over 109,000 public comments on the proposed
rule, of which over 104,000 were form letters sent as part of comment
campaigns from environmental organizations. Approximately 5,000 unique
individual comments received were generally supportive of the proposed
rule. Comments were received from interested individuals, State and
Federal agencies, fishing groups, environmental
[[Page 58887]]
organizations, industry groups, and peer reviewers with scientific
expertise.
The Services received many comments outside the scope of this
rulemaking. These included comments on agency guidance on listing
species, prohibitions on take, exceptions to the ESA prohibition on
take (e.g., incidental take permits under section 10, incidental take
statements under section 7), the difference between ``take'' as defined
by the ESA and mortality, actions that may be taken as a result of
changes to the ESA listing for loggerheads, management measures
implemented via subsequent rulemakings, the findings of a National
Research Council report on the assessment of sea turtle status and
trends, and implementation of recovery plans. We do not respond to
these comments in this final rule.
The summary of comments and our responses below are organized into
six general categories: (1) Peer review comments; (2) comments on the
identification of DPSs; (3) comments on the identification and
consideration of specific threats; (4) comments on the status and
trends and extinction risk assessments of the DPSs; (5) comments on the
status determinations for the DPSs; and (6) other comments.
Peer Review Comments
Comment 1: Two of the six peer reviewers requested clearer
definitions for Endangered Species Act terminology used in the proposed
rule. For instance, the proposed rule stated ``The ESA defines an
endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as
one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range * * *'' These two
reviewers asked about the time frame for ``in danger of extinction''
and whether the term extinction is referring to quasi-extinction or
absolute extinction. One of these reviewers also asked what is meant by
a ``significant portion of its range'' and ``foreseeable future.''
Response: The ESA defines an endangered species as a species that
is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The legislative history of
the ESA indicates Congress did not provide any quantitative measures
for the Services to apply when determining whether a species is ``in
danger of extinction.'' Rather, it left to the discretion of the
Services the task of giving meaning to the terms through the process of
case-specific analyses that necessarily depend on the Services'
expertise to make the highly fact-specific decisions to list species as
endangered or threatened. Although Congress did not seek to make any
single factor controlling when drawing the distinction, Congress
acknowledged that ``there is a temporal element to the distinction
between the categories.'' In Re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act
Listing and Sec. 4(d) Rule Litigation, Slip Opinion at 40 n. 24, 51,
51 n. 27. (D.D.C. June 30, 2011). Thus, in the context of the ESA, the
Services interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one that is
presently at risk of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on the other
hand, is not currently at risk of extinction, but is likely to become
so. In other words, a key statutory difference between a threatened and
endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of
extinction, either now (endangered) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not defined by the
statute. For the purposes of this rule, a portion of the species'
(species, subspecies, or distinct population segment) range is
``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the species is
so important that, without that portion, the species would be in danger
of extinction. The definition of a ``threatened species'' is a species
that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future.'' USFWS uses the term foreseeable future as interpreted by the
U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Solicitor (Bernhardt,
2009): ``In summary, the foreseeable future describes the extent to
which the Secretary (of Interior) can, in making determinations about
the future conservation status of the species, reasonably rely on
predictions about the future. Those predictions can be in the form of
extrapolation of population or threat trends, analysis of how threats
will affect the status of the species, or events that will have a
significant new impact on the species. The Secretary's ability to rely
on predictions may significantly vary with the amount and substance of
available data.''
Comment 2: Three of the six peer reviewers agreed with the
designation of the nine proposed DPSs. Two reviewers agreed with eight
of the proposed DPSs, but disagreed with the proposed North Indian
Ocean DPS and questioned the rationale for not breaking out this DPS
into East and West components. One reviewer felt that the separation of
the Indian Ocean into three DPSs was not sufficiently explained.
Another reviewer found the evidence compelling to conclude that the
North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs
were discrete. However, he had questions about the discreteness of the
Indian Ocean DPSs, and the northern Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean
Sea DPSs. While he did not question the discreteness findings of these
DPSs, the full argument was not clear to him.
Response: Insufficient information was available to further
separate the North Indian Ocean DPS into east and west segments. As for
the comments indicating that sufficient information was not provided to
justify the separation of some of the DPSs, the Services believe the
information provided in the Discreteness Determination section of this
final rule and the Discreteness Determination section of the Status
Review (Conant et al., 2009), which is incorporated into this final
rule by reference, meets agency policy for identifying DPSs.
Comment 3: In most cases, the peer reviewers either agreed with or
did not oppose the proposed listing status for the nine DPSs. However,
one reviewer stated that while he does not oppose the proposed status
for any of the DPSs, he does not believe the proposed status for each
DPS was adequately explained or justified. Another reviewer expressed
similar concerns for the North Pacific Ocean DPS, South Pacific Ocean
DPS, North Indian Ocean DPS, Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, and the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS and stated that the status determinations
needed to be more explicitly justified. One reviewer expressed concern
about the restricted use of nesting data for the South Pacific Ocean
DPS up until 1999 only and indicated that more recent data should be
used. This reviewer indicated that the more recent data for Mon Repos,
for example, have shown increased nesting with 2009 nesting levels back
up to similar numbers as seen in the 1990s. Two reviewers did not
believe sufficient data were presented to justify listing of the North
Indian Ocean DPS as endangered, particularly in light of the large size
of the nesting population, although one of them indicated he did not
feel strongly about this. These same two reviewers also questioned the
proposed endangered status for the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS
because the nesting population is protected, trends have been stable,
and there do not appear to be major sources of mortality; however, one
of the two reviewers indicated he did not feel strongly about this.
[[Page 58888]]
Response: With regard to the North Indian Ocean DPS, threats are
substantial as identified in the five-factor review, and conservation
efforts are embryonic relative to the known and suspected threats
impacting the population. Given the information suggesting declines in
the nesting population, the emergence of gillnet fisheries in close
proximity to the nesting beaches, and the embryonic stage of
conservation efforts in the region, the Services believe an endangered
status is justified. In the case of the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean
DPS, the nesting survey effort and methods have varied over the last 2
decades and currently there are no nesting population estimates
available to suggest any positive trend in nesting populations.
However, some of the fisheries bycatch impacts have been resolved
through requirement of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in shrimp
trawlers, and longline fishery effort has declined due to fish stock
decreases and economic reasons. Although a new fisheries effort has
emerged for portunid crabs and is posing new threats to loggerheads,
and longline fishing effort for tuna and billfish is also subject to
increase if and when economics and fish populations improve, we are
unable to quantify these threats. As a result, based primarily on peer
reviewer comments regarding current threats and conservation efforts,
the Services now believe a threatened status for the Southeast Indo-
Pacific Ocean DPS is appropriate. With regard to the comment that the
status determinations for several of the DPSs lacked sufficient
justification, we have clarified the rationale for the status
determinations in the Finding section in this final rule.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer commented that the information
presented in the proposed rule appeared thorough, up-to-date, and
convincing for the conclusions made, both with respect to DPS
designation and listing status. However, he noted the Services could
have readily arrived at these conclusions without the use of either the
susceptibility to quasi-extinction (SQE) or the threat matrix analysis.
He also noted that the relative novelty and thin track records of both
methods may draw criticism that distracts from the real substance of
the analysis of the available data. Another reviewer noted weaknesses
with the extinction risk assessments, but was pleased to see these
quantitative risk assessments included in the proposed rule and
appreciated that they were considered hand-in-hand with the threats
analysis. Specifically, he stated that the SQE approach looked at the
risk of declining to 30 percent of the current population size, but it
was not clear over what time frame this decline was examined or what
risk of decline warranted listing. He also noted that the SQE method
was largely retrospective, as it used past empirical trends to forecast
future trends. He thought the matrix method was better at exploring the
potential risk posed by future trends, so it was more forward-looking
than the SQE method, but it only looked at deterministic risk, not
stochastic risk. A third reviewer agreed with the threat based
assessments, but he thought details were lacking in the SQE analysis.
Specifically, he thought there should be more emphasis on the
relationship between reduced population sizes and decreased resilience
to cope with current and future impacts and felt this to be
particularly relevant given the large time frames for maturity and the
large spatial scales involved.
Response: The Services have clarified the text in the Extinction
Risk Assessments section to more clearly state that the SQE and threat
matrix analyses were only used to provide some additional insights into
the status of the nine DPSs, but that ultimately the conclusions and
determinations made were based on an assessment of population sizes and
trends, current and anticipated threats (i.e., five-factor analysis),
and conservation efforts for each DPS.
Comment 5: One peer reviewer stated that the threats assessments
were not as future-focused as he would have liked. He thought they
tended to rely on current or past status and trends, but he believes
the ESA is forward-looking and is concerned about the future status of
the species. He recognized that some evidence was presented about
future trends, such as development pressures on beaches in various
areas of the world, progress toward enforcing existing legislation,
reduction of bycatch, and potential climate change impacts, but he
still thought the final assessments could be more future-focused.
Response: Section 4 of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A
species may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The
Services are required to use the best scientific and commercial
information available at the time we are making our listing
assessments. Thus, predicting potential future threats to a species is
dependent on available data and the life history and ecology of the
species, the nature of the threats, and the species' response to those
threats. While the SQE analysis relied on nesting beach surveys and is
retrospective, the threat matrix analyses look at the potential future
directions given the known threats and loggerhead sea turtle biology.
Although the SQE and threat matrix analyses provided some additional
insights into the status of the nine DPSs, ultimately the conclusions
and determinations made were primarily based on an assessment of
population sizes and trends, current and anticipated threats, and
conservation efforts for each DPS.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer said that for some populations (e.g.,
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS) there has been a great deal of study over
the past few decades and there is a lot of information about many
aspects of the life history of the population and its anthropogenic
threats. For other populations, there are little data. As a result he
was unclear how the quality of the empirical evidence affected the risk
assessment and the status classification under the ESA. He questioned
whether a more precautionary interpretation of the risk was taken when
there was greater uncertainty or whether the greater amount of evidence
in some places actually made it easier.
Response: We are to make status determinations based solely on the
best available scientific and commercial data after conducting a review
of the status of the species and taking into account any efforts being
made by States or foreign governments to protect the species. In
assessing the status of each identified DPS, we considered available
information on status and trends, the five-factor analysis (see Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section), and
conservation efforts that have been implemented (see Conservation
Efforts section). We considered this information in light of the ESA
definitions of endangered and threatened (see Listing Determinations
Under the ESA section).
Comment 7: One peer reviewer commented that the boundary of
139[deg] E. long. in the Gulf of Carpentaria separating the South
Pacific Ocean DPS and the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS was too far
west. He stated that satellite tracking showed a female from Western
Australia moving into 141[deg] E. long. and indicated there are
reasonable numbers of loggerheads foraging in the Torres Strait for
which genetic analyses have not yet been conducted.
Response: Based on the information provided by this peer reviewer,
the
[[Page 58889]]
Services have revised the boundary separating the South Pacific Ocean
DPS and the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS from 139[deg] E. long. to
141[deg] E. longitude.
Comments on the Identification of DPSs
Comment 8: Two commenters questioned the Services' application of
the DPS policy. They noted that DPS designations should be used
sparingly and only when biological evidence indicates that such action
is warranted to meet Congressional intent. They stated that the
separation must be marked, and DPS designations are only appropriate
where scientific evidence is conclusive to justify such listing.
Response: The Services acknowledge in the Policies for Delineating
Species Under the ESA section of this final rule that Congress has
instructed the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to exercise the
authority to designate DPSs ``* * * sparingly and only when the
biological evidence indicates such action is warranted.'' As a result,
the Services adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA
(DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. This policy, described in
the Policies for Delineating Species Under the ESA section, has been
closely followed in determining loggerhead DPSs, and the Services
believe it meets the Congressional intent.
Comment 9: One commenter did not believe additional benefits to the
populations would occur if DPSs were designated (e.g., threatened
turtles are already treated the same as endangered turtles under a 4(d)
rule, critical habitat can be designated, and section 7 of the ESA
applies). Another commenter believes the United States will diminish
its role in international sea turtle conservation by only having an
interest in the two DPSs (Northwest Atlantic Ocean and North Pacific
Ocean) that occur in the United States.
Response: The Services were petitioned to list the Northwest
Atlantic and North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle populations as DPSs
and to change the listing status of turtles in those populations from
threatened to endangered. The Services do not believe that identifying
DPSs for the loggerhead will diminish the United States' role in
international sea turtle conservation. Both Services have strong
international programs for sea turtles, including implementation of the
U.S. Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004, which was created to
assist in the conservation of sea turtles and their nesting habitats in
foreign countries.
Comment 10: The State of Florida supports the identification of
nine DPSs. The States of Georgia and South Carolina support the
designation of the Northwest Atlantic DPS. The State of Connecticut
believes the listing of nine loggerhead DPSs is reasonable and will
result in better targeted conservation for this species. The State of
Maryland believes it is premature to consider listing DPSs without full
disclosure of loggerhead population status. Numerous conservation
organizations and individuals, including all the individuals that sent
form letters, support designation of the nine proposed DPSs. Three
fishing groups do not support the identification of loggerhead DPSs.
Response: The Services have considered the best available
information on loggerhead population status and have summarized this
information in the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs
section of this final rule.
Comment 11: The State of Alaska provided information that only two
loggerheads have been observed in Alaska in the past 50 years and
requested that Alaska waters be excluded from the North Pacific Ocean
DPS.
Response: While the ESA authorizes the listing, delisting, or
reclassification of a species, subspecies, or DPS of a vertebrate
species, it does not authorize the exclusion of a subset or portion of
a listed species, subspecies, or DPS from a listing decision. Although
only two observations of loggerheads in Alaska waters have been
reported, this indicates the species does at least occasionally occur
there.
Comment 12: One commenter contended that the Services failed to
conduct analyses (e.g., statistical analysis, gene flow, extent of DNA
allele and haplotype differences, degree of DNA sequence divergence for
mtDNA or nuclear DNA) necessary to determine if the data support a
conclusion of marked separation with respect to genetics. The commenter
noted that the proposed rule stated that it relied on genetic
differences characterized by allele frequency differences rather than
fixed genetic differences.
Response: The Services conducted a thorough review of the best
available science and presented and discussed the body of published
genetic studies in the scientific literature, including statistical
analysis, gene flow, extent of DNA allele and haplotype differences,
and degree of DNA sequence divergence for mtDNA and nuclear DNA. All of
these studies consistently show evidence of deep evolutionary
divergence between the proposed DPSs. Several of the DPSs are
characterized by fixed genetic differences or endemic mtDNA haplotypes;
however, fixation is not a requirement for marked genetic separation.
Comment 13: One commenter disagreed with the Services'
determination that physical factors separate DPSs in different ocean
basins, and further disagreed that water temperatures are a sufficient
barrier to prevent turtles from moving between ocean basins. The
commenter noted that dispersal from the Indian Ocean to the South
Atlantic is possible via the Agulhas current and cited Bowen and Karl
(2007), which documented at least two such transfers. The commenter
disagreed with the rationale for dividing the Atlantic basin into North
and South because a DNA haplotype unique to the Brazilian nesting
assemblage has been found in foraging juveniles in the North Atlantic,
therefore contradicting that loggerheads in the North and South
Atlantic are isolated from each other. The commenter also believes that
loggerheads from the North Pacific and South Pacific mix during their
trans-Pacific migrations, which results in gene flow across the
equator. The commenter cited information presented in Hatase et al.
(2002a) that the Australian haplotype (South Pacific Ocean DPS) was
present in loggerheads nesting in Japan (North Pacific Ocean DPS) and
in Bowen and Karl (2007) that turtles caught off Baja California have 5
percent of the Australian haplotype.
Response: There is substantial genetic evidence that is consistent
with satellite telemetry and other lines of evidence to support the
division between Ocean basins and between the North and South Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans. The Services present a review of the available
science and discuss the rationale in detail for each DPS, which are
based on distribution of breeding populations (rookeries). The Services
note that the distribution of and migration of juveniles may extend
beyond the geographic boundaries of each DPS and that juveniles from
different DPSs may share oceanic foraging habitat. The dispersal (in
terms of expansion/exchange and establishment of breeding populations)
between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans referred to by the commenter
occurred on geological timescales, most recently during the Pleistocene
12,000-250,000 years ago. The separation between the North and South
Atlantic is believed to be even deeper according to the published
scientific literature detailed by the Services. The earlier speculation
by Bowen et al. (2005) of an Australian haplotype present in the North
Pacific (including Baja California foraging
[[Page 58890]]
grounds) has been shown by more recent studies to be a sampling
artifact (Bowen et al., 1994, 1995; Hatase et al., 2002a; Dutton, 2007,
unpublished data; Boyle et al., 2009; Watanabe et al., 2011).
Comment 14: One commenter referred to the Status Review statement
that unique DNA haplotypes could represent adaptive differences. The
commenter contended that this is speculation with no supporting
evidence and, therefore, that adaptation and selection should not be
considered in the discreteness finding.
Response: Adaptation and selection were not explicitly used as
criteria to evaluate discreteness, but are processes that are
implicitly involved in the evolution of populations (e.g., the
accumulation of geographically divergent genetic variation). The text
has been revised to clarify this point.
Comment 15: One commenter believes the Services cannot limit
genetic analysis to a subset of the DPS (adult females) because doing
so would be listing below the DPS level and contrary to court findings
and legislative history. The commenter cited various court cases
including Modesto Irrigation District v. Gutierrez, Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Evans, and Rock Creek Alliance v. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. The commenter believes that limiting genetic analyses
to only mtDNA can yield misleading results because it only reflects
female gene flow. Alternately, nuclear DNA reflects total gene flow.
Response: The Services followed the DPS Policy to determine the
applicability of the policy for the loggerhead sea turtle. The DPS
policy requires the consideration of two elements when evaluating
whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS under the
ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the
significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies to
which it belongs. The loggerhead sea turtle's global distribution and
natal site fidelity and migratory nature are integral to this
determination. While the Services relied on the genetic analysis
results of mitochondrial DNA (matriarchal), nuclear DNA analysis
results, where available, were used to determine discreteness and
significance of the DPSs. The Services presented a detailed rationale
for identifying breeding populations as the population units given the
complex life history of sea turtles. The geographic structure of
maternal lineages is an appropriate measure that has been used
extensively to delineate populations of sea turtles whose life history
is characterized by natal homing (both of adult males and females).
Comment 16: One commenter disagreed that genetic separation exists
for loggerheads in the Atlantic. The commenter believes that the data
suggest the proposed DPSs in the Atlantic (Northwest Atlantic,
Northeast Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Mediterranean) are not
genetically distinct because they share mtDNA haplotypes and
microsatellite DNA alleles. The commenter provided their own analysis
of the Northwest Atlantic and South Atlantic that showed at least four
migrants per generation between the Northwest Atlantic and South
Atlantic; the commenter contended that migration of 1 to 10 animals
between population groups per generation is sufficient to prevent
genetic differentiation. Another commenter noted scientific agreement
that male mediated gene flow is common among loggerheads, which leads
the commenter to conclude that loggerheads are not ``reproductively-
isolated'' on a global scale. This commenter believes that exchanges
between ocean basins have occurred, are occurring now, and will likely
occur in the future, while even subpopulations have been shown as
genetically distinct within regions. One commenter questioned the
Services' finding that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is
reproductively isolated and therefore markedly separated based on male-
mediated gene flow as well as nest site fidelity. The commenter cited
studies that have documented individual adult females returning to nest
at sites that were equal to or greater than distances between nesting
colonies. This commenter further believes that by declaring female
loggerheads are reproductively isolated because of ``unique'' nesting
areas is to classify an entire species based on the characteristics of
part of the proposed DPS (nesting adult females), which violates the
ESA.
Response: Male mediated gene flow is one hypothesis explaining lack
of differentiation with nuclear markers that have been found between
proximate rookeries that have otherwise shown structure based on mtDNA.
Follow up studies are necessary to further test the alternative
hypothesis that the lack of differentiation was due to the lack of
statistical power of the microsatellite markers used in early studies
to resolve fine scale structure. These studies are ongoing and there is
a suite of new microsatellite markers that has been developed to
further this research. Published studies consistently indicate that
gene flow between the DPSs identified by the Services occur over
geological time scales and shared haplotypes are the result of shared
common ancestry 12,000-3 million years ago and not ongoing radiation
and colonization between DPSs.
Comment 17: One commenter questioned and disagreed with the
Services' finding that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is genetically
separated from other DPSs, particularly the Northeast Atlantic Ocean
and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs. As evidence of substantial mixing in the
oceanic zone, the commenter cited data from bycaught loggerheads in the
pelagic longline fishery operating off Atlantic Canada as well as
fisheries off the Azores and Madeira. Relative to foraging grounds,
another commenter believes that the documented mixing of males and
females facilitates male mediated gene flow between different nesting
assemblages and different ocean basins and results in mixing by male
mediated gene flow. This commenter also believes that Northwest
Atlantic loggerheads are not a legitimate DPS because they do not have
private microsatellite alleles, share microsatellite alleles with other
loggerheads, and do not have monophyletic DNA haplotypes within
regions.
Response: There is no evidence that mating occurs on the distant
foraging grounds. Indeed the body of genetic, behavioral, and telemetry
research over the last 25 years is consistent with a paradigm of
migration by adults, both male and female, to coastal areas near natal
beaches where mating takes place at the beginning of the nesting
season. There is no evidence that mixing of immature turtles at high
seas foraging areas where pelagic fisheries also interact facilitates
male mediated gene flow. Bowen et al. (2005) also showed tendency
toward natal homing by immature loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic
as they move into the nearshore neritic habitat.
Comment 18: One commenter provided an analysis comparing mtDNA
haplotypes directly (i.e., not transforming them to Fst) for the
proposed DPSs in the Northwest Atlantic and Mediterranean. The
commenter concluded that actual genetic data show that the Northwest
Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean populations are
genetically similar, with shared mtDNA haplotypes with similar
frequencies in some nesting populations. The commenter believes these
observations of genetic patterns within and between regions indicate
the proposed DPSs
[[Page 58891]]
(Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean) are not
genetically distinct or markedly separated. The commenter noted that
after the Services concluded genetic separation between the proposed
Northwest and Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPSs, the Services admitted that
nesting females of the Boa Vista rookery in the Northeast Atlantic,
despite their proximity to other Northeast Atlantic rookeries and to
the Mediterranean, are ``most closely related to the rookeries of the
Northwest Atlantic.'' Thus, the commenter believes the Services' admit
no marked genetic separation between these two proposed DPSs. The
commenter further recalled that the proposed rule admitted loggerheads
from the Northwest Atlantic colonized the Northeast Atlantic and
Mediterranean. Additionally, the commenter believes this same rationale
applies to other DPSs. An Australian haplotype (South Pacific Ocean) is
found in Japanese nesting populations (North Pacific Ocean) indicating
comingling of these groups. Similarly, the proposed South Pacific Ocean
DPS (eastern Australia) does not appear to be markedly different from
nesting assemblages in Western Australia in the proposed Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS because the two groups share two mtDNA
haplotypes. Turtles caught off Baja California included 95 percent of
the haplotypes that are common to Japanese nesting areas and 5 percent
of Australian haplotypes; the Status Review admitted gene flow between
these populations. As noted by Bowen and Karl (2007) ``there appears to
be sufficient leakage [of genes] between ocean basins to prevent long-
term isolation and allopatric specification.''
Response: Standard population genetic analysis published in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature indicates significant population
structure. Recent studies (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010)
reinforce this and identify haplotypes that are common in the Northeast
Atlantic but absent in the Northwest Atlantic rookeries. Furthermore,
Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al. (2010) show that haplotypes that
were the same based on relatively short (~380bp) sequences were
actually different when longer sequence fragments (~760bp) were
analyzed. They identified four new variants of the base haplotype and
showed fixed differences between a Northwest Atlantic rookery and
Northeast Atlantic rookery, suggesting that previous studies have
underestimated the level of differentiation between these DPSs.
Research is currently underway using longer sequence data to
comprehensively reanalyze Atlantic and Mediterranean rookery structure
that is expected to provide greater power to detect differentiation.
Also, see the response to Comment 17.
Comment 19: One commenter believes there is an error in the
proposed rule, which notes that loggerheads at Brazilian rookeries have
a ``unique mtDNA haplotype * * *.'' but then notes the haplotype is not
``unique'' because it has been found ``in foraging populations of
juvenile loggerheads of the North Atlantic * * *.'' The commenter
believes that if the haplotype is found throughout the Atlantic it is
not ``unique'' and instead indicates common recent ancestry and male
mediated gene flow throughout the Atlantic basin. Additionally, the
commenter believes that mtDNA obtained from 11 animals from one site in
Brazil is too small a sample and limited geographically to properly
assess the presence of haplotypes in North and South Atlantic
populations.
Response: The commenter has confused the presence of haplotype in
juvenile foraging populations with absence of this haplotype in North
Atlantic rookeries. Furthermore the commenter overstates the frequency
of occurrence of the Brazilian haplotype in the North Atlantic juvenile
foraging aggregations, and since mtDNA is maternally inherited, the
claim that this is evidence of male mediated gene flow is erroneous.
Comment 20: One commenter disagreed that there are ecological
differences for adult females in the Atlantic basin because multiple
populations mix on foraging grounds. The commenter also feels that
ecological differences cannot be used as justification for delineating
a Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS because foraging behavior of adult males
and other life stages are not included. Therefore, DPS designation is
based only on a subset of the population and not the entire DPS. To
further illustrate this point, the commenter cited a 2001 Atlantic
Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan that noted adult
females comprise only 1 percent of the total turtle population and a
National Research Council report that concluded adults comprise less
than 5 percent of the non-hatchling population.
Response: See response to comment 15. Also, in general, adult
females occupy neritic foraging habitat, and mixing of adults from
different DPSs on foraging grounds is unlikely.
Comment 21: One commenter disagreed that behavioral differences
(i.e., nesting season) justify discreteness. The commenter noted that
nesting occurs in the summer months in both the South Atlantic and the
Northwest Atlantic; the months that nesting occurs are not the same
because of the earth's rotation and have nothing to do with turtle
behavior. The commenter contended that the behavior patterns of turtles
are the same in both regions, thus if nesting season is used as the
justification, it argues against separating the Northwest Atlantic from
the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
Response: Marked differences in nesting season between northern and
southern hemispheres is one of several characteristics that help
support distinction. The Services do not use nesting season per se as a
diagnostic criterion to justify DPS designation, but rather consider it
as one of several supporting factors.
Comment 22: One commenter believes the Services reached conclusions
on the discreteness factors without analysis or explanation.
Response: The Services disagree. The Discreteness Determination
section of the proposed rule clearly presented the information we
considered in determining the discreteness of populations.
Comment 23: One commenter noted that the proposed rule addressed
size issues only in the Atlantic and neglected the other ocean basins.
Also with respect to size, the commenter did not agree that mean size
of reproductive female loggerheads should be used to support splitting
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs because the
proposed rule noted that SCL in Brazil is comparable to that in the
Northwest Atlantic. Further, the commenter does not believe that size
differences are justification for separate DPSs as these differences
could be attributed to various ages, sexes, nutrition, and water
temperature, which would greatly affect growth rates and corresponding
size.
Response: The Services did not use nesting female size per se as a
diagnostic criterion to justify DPS designation, but rather considered
it as one of several supporting factors.
Comment 24: One commenter does not believe the ``significance''
standard is met in the proposed rule. The commenter believes that being
located in different geographic areas does not make each area unique
for loggerheads such that each area is significant.
Response: The Services disagree with the comment. Each of the nine
populations represents a large portion of the species' range and each
represents a unique ecosystem that is significant to the taxon as a
whole, influenced by
[[Page 58892]]
local ecological and physical factors. The loss of any individual
population would result in a significant gap in the loggerhead's range.
Each population segment is genetically unique, often identified by
unique mtDNA haplotypes, and the loss of any one population segment
would represent a significant loss of genetic diversity.
Comments on the Identification and Consideration of Specific Threats
Comment 25: Three commenters believe climate change should be
determined as a significant threat to the persistence of all of the
DPSs. The commenters provided detailed information on sea level rise
impacts on nesting beaches and nesting success, increasing sand
temperatures resulting in skewed sex ratios and higher egg mortality,
impacts of storm activity on nesting beaches and nesting success,
warmer ocean temperatures and changes in circulation effects on all age
classes, and ocean acidification impacts on nesting beaches and food
resources. Another commenter believes that global climate change should
not be considered in the listing decision for the North Pacific Ocean
DPS because its effects on loggerheads and the ecosystem are too
complex and speculative, and they could adapt to changing conditions.
Response: The Services have identified climate change impacts as
potentially having profound long-term impacts on nesting populations,
but also continue to believe it is not possible to quantify the
potential impacts at this time. Impacts from climate change, especially
due to global warming, are likely to become more apparent in future
years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). The global
mean temperature has risen 0.76 degrees Celsius over the last 150
years, and the linear trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that
for the last 100 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
2007). One of the most certain consequences of climate change is sea
level rise (Titus and Narayanan, 1995), which will result in increased
erosion rates along nesting beaches. On undeveloped and unarmored
beaches with no landward infrastructure, shoreline migration may have
limited effects on the suitability of nesting habitat. Bruun (1962)
hypothesized that during sea level rise a typical beach profile will
maintain its configuration but will be translated landward and upward.
However, along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where
erosion control structures have been constructed to limit shoreline
movement, rising sea levels are likely to cause severe effects on
nesting females and their eggs (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et
al., 2009).
Comment 26: One commenter believes that terrestrial threats
documented in the proposed rule should be irrelevant because the North
Pacific Ocean DPS nesting beach counts have increased despite these
threats during the same time period. While these threats may have some
as yet unquantified impact on the population, they are most certainly
not driving the population to extinction.
Response: The Services believe that increased impacts in the
terrestrial zone, such as beach armoring and human traffic, serve to
decrease nesting success, hatching success, and hatchling survivorship.
Thus, although terrestrial threats may not impact loggerheads through
direct mortality, the indirect effects hamper the reproductive output
of the population, on which the effects will be manifested for decades
to come.
Comment 27: One commenter believes the listing factor analysis for
the North Pacific Ocean DPS does not appropriately weigh the adequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g., regulatory measures that
address egg harvest and drift netting).
Response: The Services believe that the illegal, unidentified, and
unregulated industrial longline and driftnet fleets operating in the
North Pacific have a major adverse effect on loggerhead sea turtles.
Thus, the existing regulatory mechanisms are currently insufficient to
address these fishing impacts. It is likely that the existing
regulatory mechanisms mandating fishing strategies in U.S.-based fleets
are approaching adequate, yet loggerheads remain vulnerable to impacts
from foreign fleets.
Comment 28: One commenter believes the impacts of U.S. commercial
fisheries on North Pacific loggerheads are extremely small and not
currently (or foreseeably) a significant source of injury or mortality.
The commenter noted that peer-reviewed scientific literature
demonstrated that severe restrictions placed on the shallow-set fishery
ostensibly to protect turtles, actually resulted in substantially more
takes on the high seas by foreign fleets filling market demand not
being met by Hawaii-based longline fisheries. While foreign high seas
fisheries interact with North Pacific loggerheads, the commenter noted
the impact of this take is uncertain and unquantified. The commenter
believes that known data demonstrate that the North Pacific population
has increased and remained stable since the 1990s, which suggests that
high seas bycatch is not driving the population to extinction; this is
contrary to the language in the proposed rule on foreign high seas
fisheries' effects on the population.
Response: The Services agree that efforts by Hawaii-based longline
fisheries to minimize loggerhead takes have been substantial and
effective. However, to focus on loggerhead population trends since 1990
only tells part of the story. Empirical data clearly show that by 1990
the annual nesting population was substantially reduced relative to
historical levels. Thus, loggerheads in the North Pacific remain a
depleted population that continues to be vulnerable to fisheries
bycatch.
Comment 29: One commenter did not agree that bycatch in Japanese
coastal pound net and other fisheries is causing population declines of
the North Pacific Ocean DPS and requested detailed bycatch data/
information that supports the Services' conclusion.
Response: The loggerhead Status Review concludes that impacts from
fisheries bycatch represent a substantial threat to loggerhead sea
turtles. Coastal pound-net fisheries in Japan have been shown to
present a problem to loggerhead sea turtles in Japan and, when taken in
context of all the other fisheries impacts ongoing at present, it is
clear that no single fishery (coastal pound nets included) constitutes
the only threat to loggerheads.
Comment 30: One commenter noted that for listing Factor A (The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range), the Status Review listed threats as low and very low
for Northwest Atlantic loggerheads. The commenter believes that low or
very low threats do not provide a legally sound basis to designate the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as endangered. The commenter believes the
proposed rule is inadequate in its assessment of listing Factor A and
does not believe this factor justifies an endangered finding. The
commenter listed several threats for which effects were not quantified
(e.g., number of individuals or amount of habitat affected) or
evaluated for impacts to Northwest Atlantic loggerheads: Nesting beach
erosion, erosion control devices (beach armoring), beach washout, jetty
construction, light pollution, vehicular traffic, fishing effects on
loggerhead diet, sediment dredging for port navigation, and climate
change effects on trophic changes. Further, the commenter noted that
the proposed rule does not explain how impacts from armoring or
dredging are offset by beach nourishment programs that increase
loggerhead nesting. Another commenter also provided comments for
listing
[[Page 58893]]
Factor A and believes the discussion of trends in addressing these
threats is missing in the proposed rule (e.g., artificial lighting in
Florida, beach driving in North Carolina, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission management measures, etc.).
Response: For a number of reasons, discussed in the Finding
section, the Services are listing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as
threatened. While a listing could proceed based on one of the five
factors, determinations of any listing decision are generally based on
an examination of all five factors and how they impact the entity in
total and not by examining or relying on only one factor in isolation.
Habitat modification or destruction impacts are considered to the
extent they are known based on the best available information.
Quantification of such impacts is typically very difficult as a result
of lack of available information. Regarding armoring or dredging
impacts being offset by beach nourishment programs, we cannot quantify
what the trade-off in effects would be. However, while nourishment can
provide nesting habitat where either it had been destroyed previously
or to augment impacts from other coastal measures, it at best helps
reduce the impacts, but does not provide new benefits to the turtles.
The Services agree that many efforts have been made to reduce threats
on the nesting beaches. However, in many cases past policies have
resulted in permanent detrimental impacts to nesting beaches. As
coastal development increases, additional pressure on beach systems
will occur, and are occurring now. In many areas breakwaters, jetties,
seawalls, and other erosion control structures designed to protect
public and private property continue to be permitted and built.
Additional residential and commercial properties near beaches also
continue to be permitted and built. While measures (e.g., lighting
ordinances, construction setbacks) to mitigate these pressures to some
degree provide important protections, threats remain a serious concern.
Comment 31: One commenter noted that for listing Factor B
(Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes), the Status Review lists threats as low or very
low for Northwest Atlantic loggerheads. The commenter believes that low
or very low threats do not provide a legally sound basis to designate
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as endangered. The commenter also
questioned how a harvest of close to zero threatens loggerheads with
extinction in the Northwest Atlantic, citing the TEWG assessment of
harvest in the Caribbean and the proposed rule.
Response: For a number of reasons, discussed in the Finding
section, the Services are listing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as
threatened. While a listing could proceed based on one of the five
factors, determinations of any listing decision are generally based on
an examination of all five factors and how they impact the listed
entity in total and not by examining or relying on only one factor in
isolation.
Comment 32: One commenter noted that for listing Factor C (Disease
or Predation), the Status Review lists threats as low or very low for
Northwest Atlantic loggerheads. The commenter believes that low or very
low threats do not provide a legally sound basis to designate the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as endangered. The commenter also asserted
the proposed rule does not claim that threat from disease and predation
actually exists, only that it may be an issue for Northwest Atlantic
loggerheads. Further, the commenter believes the Services failed to
indicate the nature or extent of the threat or how many loggerheads may
be affected.
Response: For a number of reasons, discussed in the Finding
section, the Services are listing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as
threatened. While a listing could proceed based on one of the five
factors, determinations of any listing decision are generally based on
an examination of all five factors and how they impact the entity in
total and not by examining or relying on only one factor in isolation.
There are little data to assess the extent of disease and predation
threats, thus a more qualitative discussion on the factor is presented.
That some degree of disease and predation occurs is known, though it is
not expected to be significant by itself. That is the reason it was
considered to be a low to very low threat.
Comment 33: One commenter presented an argument that the declines
in Northwest Atlantic loggerhead nesting can best be explained by an
epizootic event that specifically impacted loggerheads, and not fishery
interactions. The commenter also claimed that the epizootic ended some
years ago and populations are in recovery.
Response: The Services do not find there is enough evidence to
support the epizootic hypothesis at this time. While epizootic events
may play a factor in the population trajectory, a much stronger case
would need to be made. Witherington et al. (2009) published a very
compelling analysis of loggerhead nesting trends and demonstrated that
fisheries impacts appear to account for a significant proportion of the
trend.
Comment 34: One commenter believes listing Factor D (Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms) is not at issue and cannot be used to
justify an endangered designation for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
because the Status Review noted that it is ``not considered to be
reducing survival rates directly.'' Additionally, the commenter
believes the Services never discussed what mechanisms are believed to
be inadequate nor identified any indirect impacts.
Response: For a number of reasons, discussed in the Finding
section, the Services are listing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as
threatened. While a listing could proceed based on one of the five
factors, determinations of any listing decision are generally based on
an examination of all five factors and how they impact the entity in
total and not by examining or relying on only one factor in isolation.
Our review of regulatory mechanisms for this DPS described below in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs demonstrates that
regulatory mechanisms are in place that should address direct and
incidental take for this DPS. While the regulatory mechanisms contained
within international instruments are inconsistent and likely
insufficient, the mechanisms of existing national legislation and
protection enacted under existing regulatory mechanisms, primarily the
ESA, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and
State regulations, are much more adequate. However, it remains to be
determined if national measures are being implemented effectively to
fully address the needs of loggerheads as many of the most significant
measures have come within the last generation of loggerheads, and thus
the benefits may not yet be seen in the nesting trends. In addition,
even with the existing regulatory mechanisms there is still a potential
threat from both national and international fishery bycatch and coastal
development, beachfront lighting, and coastal armoring and other
erosion control structures on nesting beaches in the United States.
More work needs to be done under the existing national regulatory
mechanisms, as well as continuing to advance the development and
effectiveness of international instruments, to ensure the persistence
of this DPS. Therefore, we have determined that the threat from the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
[[Page 58894]]
mechanisms is significant relative to the persistence of this DPS.
Comment 35: One commenter agrees with the Services that although
regulatory mechanisms are in place that should address direct and
incidental take in Northwest Atlantic loggerheads, these regulatory
mechanisms are insufficient or are not being implemented effectively to
address the needs of loggerheads.
Response: More work needs to be done under the existing national
regulatory mechanisms, as well as continuing to advance the development
and effectiveness of international instruments, to ensure the
persistence of this DPS. See the response to Comment 34 for additional
information.
Comment 36: One commenter believes that the Services' assessment of
existing regulatory measures for loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS was confounded by the Services' failure to implement existing
mechanisms. The commenter believes it is difficult to argue that the
existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate for the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS. The commenter noted that many conservation measures
have been enacted, but given the species' prolonged age to maturity,
coupled with transitory dynamics, it is likely too early to begin
measuring effects of past actions on nesting activity; this is further
complicated by multiple measures, implemented at different times,
affecting different life stages.
Response: The Services agree that nationally, significant measures
have been enacted under existing regulatory mechanisms and that is not
yet possible to determine whether the measures are sufficiently
effective as many of the most significant measures have come within the
last generation of loggerheads, and thus the benefits may not yet be
seen in the nesting trends. However, we have determined that additional
work needs to be done under the existing national regulatory
mechanisms, as well as continuing to advance the development and
effectiveness of international instruments, to ensure the persistence
of this DPS.
Comment 37: One commenter is concerned about apparent low survival
rates of adult females from the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit within
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, but suggested this is better
addressed through more effective implementation of existing regulatory
measures.
Response: The apparent low survival rate of adult females from the
Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit has also been a concern for the
Services. There is a need to continue researching the issue to better
understand what the actual survival rates are for adult females and all
age classes. The Services agree that continued, and more effective,
implementation of measures under the existing regulatory mechanisms is
needed.
Comment 38: One commenter disagreed that existing regulatory
mechanisms have failed to adequately address threats to Northwest
Atlantic loggerheads from incidental take and that no mechanism has
effectively eliminated or sufficiently reduced mortality from fishing.
Similarly, another commenter stated that the claims that NMFS faces
``limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures'' and that domestic ``regulatory mechanisms are insufficient
or are not being implemented effectively to address the needs of
loggerheads'' of the Northwest Atlantic is contrary to the commenters'
beliefs. This commenter noted that while no regulatory measure is
perfect, the mechanisms in the United States (and increasingly
internationally) are strong and subject to constant improvement and
enforcement. The law virtually assures that identified gaps in
protection are filled. Further, this commenter states that the current
system for enforcing sea turtle protective measures is comprehensive
and effective and took issue with the Services' characterization of
``limitations on enforcement capacity.'' However, several commenters
disagreed that NMFS has an adequate number of officers to enforce
existing regulations.
Response: The Services agree that substantial measures have been
taken to reduce sea turtle mortality from fishery bycatch, and NMFS is
committed to reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality further. However,
in many fisheries high interaction levels and mortalities still occur,
both nationally and internationally. While the Federal law does require
that gaps in protection under U.S. jurisdiction are addressed, many
gaps remain, and many of the measures enacted provide benefits to the
species, but impacts still remain significant. NMFS disagrees with the
assertion that there are not substantial limitations on enforcement
capacity, as the geographic scope and variety of fisheries, inshore,
coastal, and on the high seas that are known to, or potentially, impact
sea turtles make effective enforcement difficult with limited resources
at both the State and Federal levels.
Comment 39: One commenter questioned what the Services meant by
``lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies'' under Factor D (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms) for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Response: While TEDs stand as the model for sea turtle bycatch
reduction technology, many gear types do not lend themselves to
technological fixes that can reach a similarly high level of
effectiveness when properly used. Even for some trawl fisheries,
further development is needed to devise TED designs that effectively
exclude sea turtles while maintaining sufficient target catch. Longline
measures such as circle hooks and release gear requirements are
valuable, but partial, solutions. Take levels in longline fisheries,
both pelagic and bottom, can still result in significant impacts. For
many other gear types, effective technological solutions are not so
readily available, and much work remains to determine what gear
changes, if any, will result in significant reductions in interactions
and mortalities.
Comment 40: One commenter believes that ``limitations on
implementing demonstrated conservation measures'' is a fallacious
rationale to justify a change in status. The commenters again cited
longline and shrimp trawl as well as scallop dredge gear modifications
as leading to increasing protection for sea turtles at all life stages.
Response: While important measures have been enacted to address sea
turtle interactions in some fisheries, there are still substantial
levels of interactions in those and other fisheries. Limitations in
applicability, resources, and industry acceptance and compliance in
many cases present very real limitations on implementing demonstrated
conservation measures in an effective manner.
Comment 41: One commenter noted that Federal negligence to design
and execute appropriate loggerhead recovery efforts is a routinely
overlooked threat to loggerhead survival. However, the commenter
believes these failures can simply be corrected by harmonizing the
conservation recommendations of ESA mandates with permitted incidental
take. The commenter suggested better integration of three integral
agency actions--mandatory species recovery plans, ESA section 7
Biological Consultations, and incidental take (both Incidental Take
Permits for State and private actions and Incidental Take Statements
for Federal agency actions)--to facilitate the recovery of the
loggerhead sea turtle. Specifically, the commenter stated the belief
that crucial
[[Page 58895]]
recommendations in recovery plans are routinely ignored during section
7 consultations and incidental take authorizations and urged NMFS to
reassess its internal recovery management strategy (e.g., reinitiating
section 7 consultation when necessary not just when authorized take
limits are exceeded) to meet the recovery needs of loggerheads.
Response: Although the commenter is referring to actions taken
subsequent to the listing, the Services point out that the ``three
integral agency actions'' cited by the commenter are and will continue
to be integrated. The ``ESA section 7 biological consultations'' and
incidental take are both part of the same action for a Federal agency
action. Incidental take is authorized by section 7 Biological Opinions,
which are formal ESA consultations that occur when take is anticipated
from a Federal action. Section 10(a)(1)(B) provides a mechanism when an
action is being undertaken by a non-Federal entity that results in
incidental take of a species; section 10(a)(1)(A) provides a mechanism
for exempting directed take for scientific purposes. Recovery plans are
important tools in the species conservation and recovery and provide
recommendations at a broader scale and are used as guidelines but are
not regulatory. Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and
Conditions, in Biological Opinions are project specific and are
intended to minimize the effects of the incidental take on a species.
Reinitiation of section 7 consultations takes place when: The amount or
extent of take specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded;
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner
that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that
was not considered in the biological opinion; and a new species is
listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the
identified action.
Comment 42: One commenter believes that permitting incidental take
in the face of uncertainties in baseline loggerhead life history
parameters and population estimates suggests existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate. Specifically, the commenter stated the
belief that data for both sexes of loggerheads at all life stages
(growth rate, size, dispersal, etc.) are either nonexistent or
inadequate, significantly curtailing their value for modeling.
Response: The Services agree that there remain substantial gaps in
knowledge regarding loggerhead life history parameters; however, the
ESA requires us to use the best scientific data available when making a
listing determination. Although significant measures have been enacted
nationally under existing regulatory mechanisms, it is not yet possible
to determine whether the measures are sufficiently effective as many of
the most significant measures have come within the last generation of
loggerheads, and thus the benefits may not yet be seen in the nesting
trends. We have determined that additional work needs to be done under
the existing national regulatory mechanisms, as well as continuing to
advance the development and effectiveness of international instruments,
to ensure the persistence of this DPS.
Comment 43: One commenter questioned the analysis of loggerhead
survival rates in the Status Review. The commenter noted that the
natural survival rate for neritic adults (i.e., large prebreeding and
breeding males and females) is stated to be 95 percent in all DPSs. The
Status Review also stated that anthropogenic mortalities for neritic
juveniles and adults in the proposed Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS are
between 13 percent and 50 percent of the 95 percent of loggerheads left
after natural mortality is subtracted. In other words, using the high
end of the anthropogenic mortality estimate in the Status Review,
approximately 52.5 percent of the proposed Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
neritic juvenile and adult population dies annually. The TEWG estimated
the neritic juvenile and adult population of the proposed Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS to be 230,000. Given that, the Status Review
asserted that 120,750 neritic juveniles and adults from this population
die annually, almost entirely because of anthropogenic mortality. Yet
the Status Review admitted that the largest source of mortality in the
proposed Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, fishery bycatch, totals only
3,743 turtles annually.
Response: The Status Review document prepared by the BRT was only
one of many sources of information considered by the Services to make
the listing status determination. The mortality estimate used for that
particular threat analysis was based upon a majority opinion of experts
comprising the BRT, but it was not a consensus opinion. Another study
estimated that total annual mortality (natural and anthropogenic) for
the neritic juveniles was 17 percent, with a range of 11-26 percent
(Braun-McNeill et al., 2007). However, another preliminary study
determined that adult female survivorship from the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS may be a significant concern. That study estimated annual
survivorship of adult females to be as low as 0.41 (0.20-0.65, 95
percent confidence intervals), and at best 0.60 (0.40-0.78, 95 percent
confidence intervals) (NMFS, unpublished data). Additional research to
better understand survival rates for the various life stages is a high
priority for the Services.
Comment 44: One commenter believes the justification for listing
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as endangered by evaluating other
natural or manmade factors is missing. The commenter noted several
threats for which effects were not quantified adequately or
inappropriately assessed, such as vessel strikes, changing weather
(e.g., hurricanes and cold stun events), habitat change, saltwater
cooling, and bycatch. Specific to bycatch in the shrimp fishery, the
commenter provided a population calculation for Northwest Atlantic
loggerheads based on annual bycatch in all fisheries and questioned how
take of 0.17 percent of the population is likely to result in an
endangered listing.
Response: The Services disagree that an evaluation of other natural
or manmade factors was missing. In many cases, there are substantial
data limitations that prevent in-depth, quantitative analysis of
threats, including those listed by the commenter. The five-factor
analysis for listing determinations is based on consideration of all of
the factors, using the best data available.
Comment 45: The State of Florida referenced the Witherington et al.
(2009) analysis of the Index Nesting Beach Survey data set that
concluded the causal factor that best fit the nesting decline was
fisheries bycatch. The State judged the magnitude, timing, and ongoing
nature of fisheries threats to be consistent with the steep decline in
nesting following 1998. The State believes the full scope of threats
and impacts remain poorly understood as evidenced by the recent
discovery of unexpectedly high mortality rates of sea turtles in the
Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery. The State does not
believe the threat posed by fisheries bycatch is likely to abate
significantly in the foreseeable future.
Response: Inclusion of nesting data up through 2010 results in the
nesting trend line being slightly negative, but not significantly
different from zero. The Services agree that fisheries bycatch is one
factor that best fits the nesting decline seen in the past. However,
various fishery bycatch reduction measures have occurred within the
last generation time for loggerhead sea
[[Page 58896]]
turtles, and the benefits of those actions may only now be starting to
become evident on the nesting beaches. The agencies are committed to
reducing fisheries bycatch further.
Comment 46: The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the
State of South Carolina suggested that instead of reclassifying
Northwest Atlantic loggerheads as endangered, existing measures (e.g.,
TEDs, circle hooks, time/area closures) should be broadened or modified
to apply to problem gears or areas. Additionally, the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries believes that annual catch limits and
accountability measures under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act will result in lower harvest levels, reduced fishing
effort, closed areas, and shorter seasons, all of which will decrease
potential for sea turtle bycatch.
Response: A variety of conservation measures for fisheries and non-
fishery activities have been enacted in many areas, including in the
Northwest Atlantic, and many within the past generation of loggerhead
sea turtles. Additionally, many fisheries, especially the shrimp trawl
fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, have
experienced substantial declines, thus potentially reducing impacts to
sea turtles. The benefits of those fishery reductions, if permanent,
combined with conservation actions, if sufficiently effective, may only
now, or may soon, begin to become evident on the nesting beaches. The
agencies are committed to reducing fisheries bycatch further regardless
of the listing status.
Comment 47: Two commenters noted that loggerheads are at risk from
fisheries using longlines, trawls, gillnets, hooks and lines, dredges,
and assorted other types of gear, citing mortality estimates in the
2008 Recovery Plan for Northwest Atlantic loggerheads. Additionally,
the commenters noted that an unknown number of animals also sustain
serious and moderate injuries in other fisheries. The commenters
referenced Wallace et al. (2008), which concluded that turtles killed
in U.S. waters are larger and more valuable to the population;
therefore, the failure of NMFS to reduce fishery interactions is
significantly undermining the survival of Northwest Atlantic
loggerheads. Further, the commenters noted the 2008 Biological Opinion
on the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery, which states that the
population ``is likely to continue to decline until large mortality
reductions in all fisheries and other sources of mortality (including
impacts outside U.S. jurisdiction) are achieved.''
Response: The Services agree that fishery bycatch is a significant
threat to sea turtles, including Northwest Atlantic loggerheads, and
that substantial gaps remain in our understanding of take and mortality
levels for many fisheries. Various fishery bycatch reduction measures
have occurred within the most recent generation of loggerhead sea
turtles, including technological measures, time/area closures, and
effort reductions. Additionally, some U.S. fisheries that incidentally
capture loggerhead turtles have experienced effort declines within that
time. The benefits of those actions may only now be starting to become
evident on the nesting beaches. NMFS is committed to reducing fisheries
bycatch further to conserve loggerhead sea turtles, regardless of the
listing status of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Comment 48: Three commenters referenced recent data showing 1,451
loggerhead mortalities in the Southeast U.S. and Gulf of Mexico shrimp
trawl fleets, indicating this fishery is the leading cause of mortality
for Northwest Atlantic loggerheads.
Response: The Services agree that taking measures to limit sea
turtle interactions with fisheries, including the U.S. shrimp trawl
fishery, is a top priority for sea turtle conservation. NMFS is
currently working on a new consultation for the shrimp trawl fishery, a
rule to require TEDs in certain mid-Atlantic trawl fisheries, and a
rule to require TEDs in skimmer trawl fisheries. NMFS continues to work
with the coastal States to improve TED enforcement.
Comment 49: Two commenters highlighted the bycatch of hundreds of
loggerheads in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish bottom longline fishery,
citing NMFS 2005 and 2009 biological opinions. The commenters noted the
particularly lethal nature of takes in this fishery because turtles
become hooked while too deep and cannot reach the surface to breathe.
Additionally, the commenters stated that gillnet interactions represent
the greatest unknown for turtles because there is no estimate of the
total numbers of interactions occurring or the mortality sustained by
loggerheads in gillnets as observer coverage in many fisheries is so
low and State fisheries are often not observed or regulated. The
commenters further noted that as observer coverage increases, actual
take levels and authorizations are regularly revised upward. However,
another commenter disagreed with the Services' statement that
``gillnets, longlines, and trawl gear collectively result in tens of
thousands of Northwest Atlantic loggerhead deaths annually throughout
their range'' especially with regard to the pelagic longline fleet.
Additionally, yet another commenter stated that measures, particularly
shrimp TEDs, modifications to longline gear and practices, and gillnet
reductions, have progressively reduced the threat facing juvenile and
adult loggerheads by orders of magnitudes and weigh strongly against a
change in listing status.
Response: NMFS has enacted various efforts over the years to reduce
bycatch and mortality rates in domestic fisheries, and has engaged
other nations bilaterally and through larger international
organizations in efforts to reduce sea turtle bycatch overseas. Such
efforts continue to be a top priority for the agency. This includes
reductions in take, and mortality rates, for the Gulf of Mexico reef
fish bottom longline fishery enacted in 2009. However, the effect of
those measures are yet to be determined as many of the most significant
measures have come within the last generation of loggerheads, and thus
the benefits may not yet be seen in the nesting trends. The Services
are committed to enacting additional measures to reduce anthropogenic
impacts. NMFS also continues to undertake efforts to increase the
understanding of interaction levels and impacts of the many Federal and
State fisheries through means such as the 2007 ESA Sea Turtle Observer
Rule (72 FR 43176; August 3, 2007).
The level of take authorized under the ESA is based upon an
analysis of the anticipated take from the proposed action. Upward
revisions of take occur when new data indicate that take levels are
higher than previously anticipated. That new expected take level is
then analyzed to determine if it would jeopardize the continued
existence of the species, and often additional terms and conditions are
required as part of the new biological opinion that could result in
additional or different limitations or gear restrictions for the
fishing industry.
Comment 50: The State of Maryland provided information on
loggerhead strandings documented from May to November from 1991-2009
along the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast. Of the 378 dead loggerhead
strandings, less than 3 percent of strandings with evidence of human
interaction exhibited signs of fishery interaction. The Maryland
Department of Natural Resources conducts fishery-dependent and
independent surveys each year and rarely finds turtles associated with
either of these surveys.
[[Page 58897]]
Response: The Services are aware that there is variability, both
geographically and temporally, in the instances of fishery interactions
with loggerheads in coastal waters. Evidence of human interaction in
stranded turtles is difficult to ascertain, especially if the
examination is limited to externally observable anomalies. Bycatch
mortality due to drowning is not apparent through external examination,
and turtles captured in gear, such as trawls or gillnets, are most
often removed from the gear and, as such, do not strand with gear
attached. This makes it difficult to use the referenced stranding data
to ascertain rates of fisheries interactions. The Services believe that
fisheries bycatch is the leading source of anthropogenic mortality in
U.S. waters.
Comment 51: Five commenters cited information on the threat of
direct and indirect effects of oil, as well as the actions to contain,
remove, and disperse oil, on sea turtles. Two of these commenters noted
that while the preamble of the proposed rule discusses the threat posed
by oil spills, it was published prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, three of the commenters
noted that the total number of loggerhead sea turtles harmed by the
spill is likely higher than observed numbers. Another commenter
provided information on the impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spills on loggerheads.
Response: The full scope and effects of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon
(Mississippi Canyon 252) oil well blowout and uncontrolled oil release
on sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, including Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS loggerheads, is not yet determined.
Comment 52: Three commenters believe that plastic ingestion poses
immediate threats and risks to Northwest Atlantic loggerheads. The
commenters provided detailed information to support this.
Response: The Services agree that plastic ingestion is a threat to
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS loggerheads as well as other DPSs and
species. Discussion of this threat was added to the ``Other Manmade and
Natural Impacts'' section under the analysis for Factor E (Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence) in the
five-factor analysis.
Comment 53: One commenter questioned why ``geopolitical
complexities'' contribute to a listing determination given that all
populations are within the U.S. and subject to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora
(CITES), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT), etc.
Response: Although the majority of Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
nesting is within the United States, and a significant portion of adult
and sub-adult stages are spent in U.S. waters, the wide-ranging habits
of the species still results in significant exposure to pressures
outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The existence of various international
conventions (e.g., CITES) and organizations (e.g., ICCAT) are valuable
tools, as pointed out by the commenter. However, advances made in
reducing bycatch in foreign nations via these instruments are still
limited, in need of strengthening and expansion, and in many cases
tenuous as a result of political uncertainties.
Comments on the Status and Trends and Extinction Risk Assessments of
the DPSs
Comment 54: One commenter believes that neither of the
methodologies used in the 2009 Status Review provided the necessary
``convincing evidence'' of near-term extinction of loggerheads, either
globally or in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. The commenter believes
that neither of the two models employed were geared toward the legally
relevant factors, and thus do nothing to further the inquiry as to the
imminence of loggerhead extinction. The commenter believes that the
models used do not meet the ESA standard that the Services use the best
available scientific and commercial data. Thus, as a legal matter, the
commenter believes that a change in listing status is not warranted by
the best scientific and commercial data available. Another commenter
believes that models are an inappropriate tool to measure fluctuating
population trends and predict extinction.
Response: The Services have clarified the text in the Extinction
Risk Assessments section to more clearly state that the SQE and threat
matrix analyses were only used to provide some additional insights into
the status of the nine DPSs, but that ultimately the conclusions and
determinations made were primarily based on an assessment of population
sizes and trends, current and anticipated threats, and conservation
efforts for each DPS. However, for a number of reasons, discussed in
the Finding section, the Services are listing the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS as threatened.
Comment 55: Given the species' life history, one commenter
expressed concern that any positive trends in the adult segment of the
Northwest Atlantic population as a result of conservation efforts over
the last 15 years would not be apparent until 2020 and beyond. The
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries also stated that
conservation measures (e.g., TEDs) from the 1980s should have positive
effects on the segment of the population that is just now becoming
sexually mature; therefore, it would be prudent to allow enough time to
evaluate whether those conservation measures have worked before taking
further action. Similarly, a third commenter stated that the most
recent and effective management measures have and will continue to have
beneficial impacts that will not be seen on beaches for decades.
Response: The Services agree that the effects of most conservation
measures will not be apparent for many years given the loggerhead's
prolonged age to maturity. Although individual conservation measures
should have a positive effect on a population, in many cases it would
be difficult to clearly determine the effect of any individual
conservation activity due to the many different conservation efforts
being undertaken simultaneously. Collectively, however, conservation
efforts should result in a positive effect on a population as long as
the key threats have been sufficiently targeted. For a number of
reasons, discussed in the Finding section, the Services are listing the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as threatened. However, the Services do
not believe it would be prudent to wait to see the results of
conservation efforts that have been implemented before taking any
additional actions to protect the species given the species life
history. Further, under the ESA, the Services are required to make
determinations based on the best available scientific and commercial
data, and not wait to determine whether measures already implemented
are effective at ameliorating threats.
Comment 56: The Services received several comments relative to in-
water abundance and population size. One commenter questioned why the
Status Review did not consider existing in-water survey data, which
show an increase in loggerhead populations, as reported in the 2009
TEWG Report. Another commenter noted that both Epperly et al. (2007)
and the SEAMAP survey show an increase in juvenile loggerheads. Both of
these commenters stated that the Services should not proceed until a
major survey of in-water abundance is undertaken, and that the Services
should wait to make a final decision until additional data were
available.
[[Page 58898]]
Response: It would not be appropriate for the Services to wait for
additional in-water data to become available before proceeding with
this final rule. Under the ESA, the Services must base each listing
determination solely on the best available scientific and commercial
data after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking
into account any efforts being made by States or foreign governments to
protect the species. The Services were petitioned to list the North
Pacific and Northwest Atlantic populations as DPSs under the ESA. The
Services must respond to petitions within statutory deadlines. We do
not have the latitude to defer listing decisions until additional
information becomes available.
Although the Services did consider available data from in-water
studies within the range of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS in its
assessment of population status, extrapolation of these localized in-
water trends to the broader population, and relating localized trends
at neritic sites to population trends at nesting beaches, is a problem
of scale and requires the integration of many representative foraging
grounds throughout the population range (Bjorndal et al., 2005). NMFS
and USFWS (2008) summarized trend data available from nine in-water
sampling programs along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Four studies indicated
no discernible trend, two studies reported declining trends, and two
studies reported increasing trends. Trends at one study site indicated
either a declining trend or no trend depending on whether all sample
years were used or only the more recent, and likely more comparable,
sample years were used. TEWG (2009) used raw data from six of the
aforementioned nine in-water study sites to conduct trend analyses and
found three with positive trends, two with a negative trend, and one
with no trend. The TEWG did not provide a shared agreement about the
weighting of these data, nor did they establish how representative
these programs were of the larger population. As a result, caution must
be exercised in evaluating results from all of the above referenced
studies, given the relative short-term duration of most of the studies,
noted difficulties in comparisons of trend data across disparate
sampling periods, changes in sampling methodologies and equipment,
small study areas, and uncontrolled variables such as weather, sea-
state, migration patterns, and possible shifts in loggerhead
distributions.
Comment 57: One commenter referenced Northeast Fisheries Science
Center (2011) (Preliminary Summer 2010 Regional Abundance Estimate of
Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) in Northwestern Atlantic Ocean
Continental Shelf Waters) and suggested that the Services incorporate
this new information into the final rule.
Response: The Services agree and have incorporated this information
into the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section of this
final rule.
Comment 58: One commenter stated that the Status Review never
assessed the status of the proposed Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as a
whole; rather the analysis focused solely on specific indices. Thus,
the commenter stated the opinion that no finding was ever made as to
whether the proposed DPS is in danger of extinction. The commenter also
stated there was no analysis of the timeframe in which extinction is
likely to occur, which is the primary factor distinguishing a
threatened from an endangered species under the ESA. Therefore, the
commenter recommends that the appropriate response would be to find
that there is not sufficient evidence to justify reclassifying
Northwest Atlantic loggerheads as endangered.
Response: Both modeling approaches assessed the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS as a whole; the indices used were based on the population.
The commenter is correct in saying that the models did not find that
the proposed DPS was in danger of extinction. The models also did not
find that the DPS was increasing. The Status Review simply stated that
the model outputs indicated that the DPS may be declining without us
detecting the decline. However, for a number of reasons, discussed in
the Finding section, the Services are listing the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS as threatened.
Comment 59: One commenter stated that she does not believe that a
proportional decline in the population is the appropriate definition of
extinction when other information exists. Specifically, the commenter
did not agree that listing decisions should depend solely on whether
the population will decline to 50 percent, 30 percent, or 10 percent of
its current or historical population size, but should instead be based
on more quantitative listing criteria whenever possible. The commenter
further noted that stochastic population models have indicated that
population size and trend are the best focus in determining listing
status and provided several references.
Response: Stochastic population models are useful when we have
information on the magnitude of stochasticity. We incorporated the
uncertainty in the threat matrix analyses. Because of the late maturity
of the species, only small additional mortality can be tolerated for a
population of loggerhead sea turtles. Because of the large
uncertainties in additional mortalities from a wide variety of threats,
a population of loggerheads can be increasing or decreasing rapidly.
The observed trend at nesting beaches may not reflect what happens at
sea.
Comment 60: One commenter questioned whether a decline to 30
percent by itself warrants listing any species under the ESA regardless
of the population size when at 30 percent. In the case of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS, in 2007 (the lowest nesting activity in the series)
the adult population size of all recovery units combined was
approximately 30,000 adult females (TEWG, 2009). Thus, a quasi-
extinction threshold (QET) of 0.3 of that number translates to a
decline to, or below, 10,000 nesting females (or 20,000 adult females
and males combined) within 100 years, if the model was initialized with
the 2007 numbers, not the 1998 numbers, which were greater. The
commenter asked whether a population of 10,000 adult females 100 years
later warrants endangered or threatened status.
Response: The Services believe that population size is just one
piece of information to be taken into consideration when considering
the status of a species. Although the SQE and threat matrix analyses
provided some additional insights into the status of the nine DPSs,
ultimately the conclusions and determinations made were primarily based
on an assessment of population sizes and trends, current and
anticipated threats, and conservation efforts for each DPS.
Comment 61: One commenter believes the SQE analysis used outdated,
qualitative estimates of risk factors that fail to incorporate
significant changes in fishing effort and management measures that have
drastically reduced take and mortality.
Response: The SQE analysis did not use risk factors. Fishing effort
or management measures were not relevant to the SQE analysis.
Comment 62: One commenter believes that because the SQE analysis
relies exclusively on nesting beach surveys, it is retrospective and
considers only mature females thereby failing to capture important
indicators of current abundance.
Response: The Services agree that because the SQE analysis relied
on nesting beach surveys, it is retrospective and considers only mature
females. That
[[Page 58899]]
is why the BRT also conducted the threat matrix analyses to provide
insight into the future outlook for each DPS, given the known threats
and loggerhead sea turtle biology.
Comment 63: One commenter recommended that the Services update the
model to include nesting data through 2008 for the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS, Peninsula Florida Recovery Unit, and the North Pacific Ocean
DPS and through 2008-2009 for the Indian Ocean DPS as data were
provided by an independent reviewer of the Status Review. The commenter
stated the belief that including these data will change the model's
results. Another commenter also requested that the Services update the
model to include 2008 nesting data. A third commenter noted that
nesting beach abundance data for the North Pacific Ocean DPS exhibit a
long-term increasing trend. Additionally, this commenter noted that in
the Snover model, the North Pacific population ranked 0.3 on the SQE
index, thus indicating that it is at risk (i.e., ``threatened''). The
model used a single composite time series of nesting counts for 1990-
2007, which likely underestimates a strong recovery trend because it
does not include 2008 and 2009 nesting data. A fourth commenter also
noted that most major nesting beaches for which pre-1990 nest count
data are available show a consistent lower trend in the latter half of
the 1980s compared to the early 1990s, raising the question of whether
1990 may have been an anomalous year with high nesting activity.
Response: The Services have included the most recent nesting data
available for each DPS in the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead
DPSs section. For the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, the nesting data
for 2008-2010 were incorporated into the nesting trend analyses, and
the result indicated that the nesting trend for this DPS from 1989-2010
is slightly negative but not statistically different from zero.
Available data for the North Pacific Ocean DPS suggest this DPS has
declined up to 90 percent from its recorded historical population size
of about 50 years ago. The 2010 estimate of the number of nests
suggests the abundance of nesting females has returned to earlier
levels (ca. 1990); however, this level is still low relative to the
historical population.
Comment 64: One commenter noted that the Status Review model used a
constant parameter for the number of nests laid per female per season
for the next 100 years. The commenter stated that this was
inappropriate because older females produce more nests per season than
new nesters. Therefore, the commenter stated the belief that the model
fails to account for the large number of females that are about to be
added to the breeding population and the possibility of a naturally
fluctuating decrease that may follow.
Response: Because the models were not age-specific, the BRT did not
incorporate age-specific demographic parameters. Such an exercise is
important for demographic studies but not for determining effects of
possible threats to a population, as those uncertainties would be
overwhelmed with much greater uncertainty in threat measures. The
parameters of the base model in the threat matrix analyses were derived
from the basic biology of loggerhead sea turtles, rather than what may
happen in the future.
Comment 65: One commenter stated that the application of the
diffusion approximation model was so flawed as to make the results
unusable and provided a detailed analysis of these flaws. The commenter
questioned why the Services did not specify a population threshold or
range that below which the population could not survive. The commenter
also contended that the Services did not provide direct probability
estimates of extinction; instead the Services provided susceptibility
to quasi-extinction.
Response: The Services agree that the diffusion approximation
approach has limitations as do any other approaches used to estimate
possible extinctions of a population. That is why we also conducted the
threat matrix analyses to provide insight into the future outlook for
each DPS, given the known threats and loggerhead sea turtle biology.
The Services have clarified the text in the Extinction Risk Assessments
section to more clearly state that the SQE and threat matrix analyses
were only used to provide some additional insights into the status of
the nine DPSs, but that ultimately the conclusions and determinations
made were based on an assessment of population sizes and trends,
current and anticipated threats (i.e., five-factor analysis), and
conservation efforts for each DPS.
Comment 66: One commenter stated that neither the Status Review nor
the Services dealt with the actual abundance of loggerhead sea turtles
or bothered to develop a numeric value to define ``quasi-extinction''
based on known biological characteristics of loggerheads. Rather, the
Status Review included relative estimates of potential decline in its
SQE analysis. Further, the analysis relied solely on nesting data as
the only empirical input. Because sea turtles are both long-lived and
late maturing, this analysis completely ignored the myriad efforts
implemented over the past 20 to 30 years to reduce anthropogenic
mortality and increase survival, of which the benefits to conservation
of juvenile loggerheads have yet to influence adult numbers. This math-
rich, but data-poor approach does not address relevant legal criteria.
Response: The BRT included all available information in the threat
matrix analysis approach and used mathematics as a tool to explain how
these data are related to the results provided in the Status Review
rather than treating them as separate entities. The BRT also considered
the time-lag effects of the long-lived and late maturing nature of the
species through the matrix modeling approach.
Comment 67: One commenter disagreed with using 100 years in the
diffusion approximation model given that scientists who support this
concept recommend limiting the number of years to 2.5 times the number
of years for which nesting survey data are available (i.e., 50 years
based on the 20 years or less of nesting data in the Status Review).
The commenter stated that, using the current model, the population size
of the Peninsula Florida Recovery Unit within the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS in 100 years would still approach 1 million loggerheads,
which does not suggest an immediate risk of extinction.
Response: Because loggerhead sea turtles are likely to mature at
greater than 30 years of age, the BRT used the time period of 100 years
to compute QETs, which is consistent with the IUCN Red List Criteria
for estimating extinction risk (3 generations or 100 years, whichever
is shorter). To incorporate the uncertainty of parameter estimates in
determining SQE, the BRT used 95 percent confidence limits of the
arithmetic mean of the log population growth rate and the variance of
the log population growth rate, which accounts for sources of
variability, including environmental and demographic stochasticity, and
observation error.
Comment 68: One commenter stated that the diffusion approximation
model produced results outside appropriate and acceptable boundaries
and contended that the Services did not evaluate the model assumptions
to determine whether the results were within appropriate boundaries.
Response: The Services believe the assumptions made for the
diffusion approximation model were appropriate for the modeling
exercise conducted by the BRT. For further information on the
assumptions for the diffusion approximation model, see Conant et al.
[[Page 58900]]
2009, section 4. The Services have clarified the text in the Extinction
Risk Assessments section to more clearly state that the SQE and threat
matrix analyses were only used to provide some additional insights into
the status of the nine DPSs, but that ultimately the conclusions and
determinations made were primarily based on an assessment of population
sizes and trends, current and anticipated threats, and conservation
efforts for each DPS.
Comment 69: One commenter noted that there is no universal
definition or numerical value of the QET, but it is generally defined
as a small population that is doomed to eventual extinction. The
commenter provided specific information from Morris and Doak (2002) on
the range of QET values, starting at 1 (extremely low), including 20
and 50, and continuing to a much larger value of 100 breeders and noted
that typically QET values are less than 500 individuals, breeders, or
females. The commenter suggested that the Services make informed
decisions about the QET for sea turtles and use population size. The
commenter provided an example of susceptibility of quasi-extinction for
Kemp's ridley sea turtles to support this point. The commenter
recommended using a QET of 1,000 (or lesser value) adult female
loggerhead population size. The commenter provided a new analysis of
various SQE values using QET levels ranging from 10,000 to 50 adult
females. The Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit is the largest in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS (80 percent of nesting occurs in this
recovery unit) and it drives the dynamics of the DPS. Based on the
revised SQE analysis, the commenter expressed the opinion that there is
little risk (SQE<0.3) that the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, and
therefore the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, will fall to or below the
threshold of 1,000 adult females in 100 years. Similarly, the commenter
stated the South Atlantic Ocean DPS is not at risk of dropping below
1,000 adult females, whereas the North Pacific Ocean DPS and the South
Pacific Ocean DPS are at risk. The commenter stated that the
conclusions are the same when QET is set at 500 and 250 adult females,
but begin to differ when QET is 100 or less (fewer DPSs are at risk).
Response: The SQE analyses only provided information on what has
happened and what may happen if the same trend continues in the future.
Consequently, the Services do not rely solely on the SQE analysis in
the decision-making process. The Services have clarified the text in
the Extinction Risk Assessments section to more clearly state that the
SQE and threat matrix analyses were only used to provide some
additional insights into the status of the nine DPSs, but that
ultimately the conclusions and determinations made were primarily based
on an assessment of population sizes and trends, current and
anticipated threats, and conservation efforts for each DPS.
Comment 70: One commenter noted that when the impact of the scallop
fishery on loggerhead sea turtles was last assessed, NMFS undertook an
analysis that looked at the probability of extinction in terms of the
time to quasi-extinction. This report was conducted in the context of
an ESA section 7 consultation to determine whether the fishery could
lead to ``jeopardy.'' The basic findings, utilizing the same nesting
trends and similar modeling techniques as relied upon by the 2009
Status Review and very conservative (i.e., precautionary high)
estimates of takes by the scallop fishery, were that the likelihood of
quasi-extinction over a 75-year period was zero, and the likelihood at
100 years was only 0.01. The commenter noted that neither the BRT nor
the Services made a comparable quantitative finding of the likelihood
of near-term extinction with respect to loggerheads as a global species
or as a species within any of the newly proposed DPSs.
Response: The Services believe the analyses conducted were
appropriate and tailored to the best available information (see section
4 of the 2009 Status Review (Conant et al. 2009)). The Services have
clarified the text in the Extinction Risk Assessments section to more
clearly state that the SQE and threat matrix analyses were only used to
provide some additional insights into the status of the nine DPSs, but
that ultimately the conclusions and determinations made were primarily
based on an assessment of population sizes and trends, current and
anticipated threats, and conservation efforts for each DPS.
Comment 71: Comments were provided with respect to survey methods
and how the resulting data are used in the listing process for the
North Pacific Ocean DPS. One commenter stated that the proposed rule is
internally inconsistent and unjustifiably relies on questionable long-
term data. For example, the Kamouda Beach 1955-1992 data only covers
500 m of beach, is unreliable, and does not outweigh standardized data
collection from 1990 to present. Another commenter stated that
individual beach level data should be used to ameliorate the distorting
effects of inconsistent survey methods, which likely skew results when
combining Japanese nesting beach data into a single time series. This
commenter suggested the Services revise the Status Review and
extinction analysis using individual nesting beach data for longer time
periods, which would likely produce different, more positive results.
The proposed rule recognizes the positive nesting trend, but states
``nesting beach count data for the North Pacific Ocean DPS indicated a
decline of loggerhead nesting in the last 20 years.''
Response: The Services used the best available information in
assessing population trends for the North Pacific Ocean DPS. Population
size trends for this DPS rely on nesting beach counts at a number of
nesting beaches in Japan. Overall counts in the early 1990s approached
7,000 nests, declined to a low point in the mid-1990s (just over 2,000
nests), and between 2008 and 2010 have ranged from approximately 7,000
to 11,000 nests. A long-term dataset available from a single beach
(Kamouda, Japan) documents turtle emergences from 1954 to at least
2004. While these emergence counts include both nesting emergences and
non-nesting emergences (false crawls), they have a relationship to the
number of nests, and thereby to nesting females. As such, it is the
longest continual index of adult females in the North Pacific
population, and these data suggest a decline of approximately 90
percent in turtle emergences at the site over the 50-year period. Given
historical records overall, during the last half of the 20th century,
over fewer than three generations, the size of the nesting population
in Japan has declined between 50-90 percent.
Comment 72: Four commenters stated that they did not agree with the
expert opinions used in the Status Review threat matrix model. One of
the commenters questioned the validity of this approach and cited one
of the Status Review peer reviewer's comments to support their opinion
as well as a National Research Council report noting that models are a
``heuristic exercise with little or no real power for prediction.''
Further, this commenter contended that the experts arbitrarily assigned
threat rankings that were inconsistent with actual data. Another of
these commenters noted that despite disagreeing on values for
anthropogenic mortality in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, the
analysis on extinction risk using population growth rate showed that
this DPS cannot withstand much anthropogenic mortality. Yet another of
these commenters also stated that the
[[Page 58901]]
model skewed estimates of anthropogenic mortalities high (e.g., for the
scallop fishery, trawl fisheries), leading to a false sense of urgency,
primarily because it over-relied on the subjective opinions of experts.
In addition, one of the four commenters asserted that threat rankings
were arbitrarily assigned mortality values that do not correlate with
actual data. Three different commenters indicated that a paper by Dulvy
et al. (2004) noted that the available approaches have been subject to
considerable debate, but this suggests that deference to the scientific
expertise of those knowledgeable about loggerhead sea turtles, such as
the BRT, is required. These three commenters noted that general
criticisms, such as the fact that loggerhead sea turtles may be
numerous, are not sufficient to undermine the BRT's report and are not
based on the best available science. For example, Dulvy et al. (2004)
stated that the decline of an abundant species may represent a massive
biomass loss that may be of greater concern than the loss of a small
number of individuals of a rare species because it may compromise the
ecosystem's functionality, stability, or resilience. These three
commenters stressed that scientists with intimate knowledge both of
loggerhead sea turtles and their ecosystem must be able to use their
scientific opinions to analyze the status of the species.
Response: As stated in the Status Review, known anthropogenic
threats to each life stage of a DPS, measured as additional annual
mortality, were quantified using both available data and experts'
opinions, where the stage-specific additional annual mortality was
summarized in a matrix format (threat matrix). The BRT loggerhead sea
turtle experts estimated threat levels based on the best information
available. Justifications and references for each threat were provided
in the Status Review and in the online threat matrix spreadsheets
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/statusreviews.htm].
The threat matrix analysis was not used to predict the population
trends. The National Research Council (2010) review is correct in that
the threats matrix analysis was used as a heuristic exercise to show
that the current knowledge about loggerhead sea turtle biology and
anthropogenic mortalities is not sufficient to make precise conclusions
about the future. In the Status Review, the BRT stated ``* * * these
indices were used to measure the negative effects of known
anthropogenic mortalities on the overall health of each DPS and not to
estimate the actual population growth rates of these DPSs.''
Comment 73: One commenter stated the belief that the BRT
incorporated the most pessimistic and conservative assumptions in its
analyses. For example, with respect to the assumptions made in the
threat matrix analysis, the BRT stated that ``we used the precautionary
principle for characterizing the threat level.'' For the SQE analysis,
the commenter stated that the BRT ignored the model developers' use of
0.4 as the critical value, which was found to balance the risk of
making both Type I and Type II errors, opting to reduce that value to
0.3. This had the effect of increasing the chances of finding risk
where none exists. The commenter stated that all assumptions
incorporated in the models were skewed toward findings of endangerment.
The commenter noted this approach could be suitable, and perhaps even
required, in the context of a section 7 consultation, where the
question is whether a Federal action is or is not likely to result in
jeopardy to a listed species. However, the commenter argued that it is
legally inappropriate in the context of a listing decision. The
commenter noted that the Services are required to use the best
scientific and commercial data available, not data skewed toward a
particular result. In the present case, the commenter stated that the
BRT failed to utilize both basic biological and population dynamics
expertise. Further, the commenter noted that contrary information, such
as the TEWG's findings with respect to the increase in juvenile
abundance and the newer nest numbers, was ignored.
Response: The BRT clearly explained its rationale for using the SQE
value of 0.3 as follows: ``Using simulations, Snover and Heppell (2009)
demonstrated that SQE values greater than 0.4 indicated a population
has > 0.9 probability of quasi-extinction. At this critical value (SQE
= 0.40), Type I and Type II errors are minimized simultaneously at
approximately 10%. Reducing the critical value to 0.3 lessens the `Type
I' error rate but increases the `Type II' error rate (Snover and
Heppell, 2009). The choice of 0.9 as the cut-off probability was
arbitrary, and values other than 0.9 could be used. However, new
critical values other than 0.4 needed to be established for different
values of the cut-off probability. Qualitatively, the results would not
differ if a value other than 0.9 was used (Snover and Heppell, 2009).
In this assessment, we used the cut-off probability of 0.9 as in Snover
and Heppell (2009) and a critical value for the SQE of 0.30, which
reduced the `Type I' error (a DPS is considered to be not at risk when
in fact it is). SQE values greater than 0.30, therefore, indicate the
DPS is at risk.'' The Services agree with this approach taken by the
BRT.
Comments on the Status Determinations for the DPSs
Comment 74: All individuals that sent form letters, as well as 18
organizations or individuals that sent non-form letters, supported the
proposed endangered listing status for seven of the DPSs.
Response: While general support or non-support of a listing is not,
in itself, a substantive comment that we take into consideration as
part of our five-factor analysis, we appreciate the support of these
commenters. Support is important to the conservation of species.
Comment 75: Several commenters noted that in the NMFS and USFWS 5-
year review for the loggerhead sea turtle (NMFS and USFWS, 2007), the
agencies concluded that they do not believe the loggerhead sea turtle
should be reclassified; therefore, the 2009 Status Review presents no
new information to justify a new ``endangered'' finding.
Response: In the 5-year review for the loggerhead sea turtle, NMFS
and USFWS concluded that, based on the best available information, we
did not believe the entire species, as listed worldwide, should be
delisted or reclassified. However, we stated that we had information
indicating that an analysis and review of the species should be
conducted to determine the application of the DPS policy to the
loggerhead sea turtle. Subsequently, the BRT reviewed and evaluated all
relevant scientific information relating to loggerhead population
structure globally to determine whether DPSs exist and, if so, to
assess the status of each DPS. The findings of the BRT informed this
rulemaking.
Comment 76: One commenter provided an analysis of the distinction
between ``threatened'' and ``endangered'' under the ESA, referencing a
memorandum written by Dan Ashe, USFWS (Ashe Memo). The commenter stated
that the key difference is the timing for when the species is in danger
of extinction--threatened means may be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future and endangered means in danger now and on the brink
of extinction. The commenter referenced four basic categories included
in the Ashe Memo and provided information relative to loggerhead sea
turtles as follows: ``(1) Species facing a catastrophic threat from
which the risk of extinction is imminent and certain. Unlike snail
darters, loggerhead sea turtles are found throughout the world making
it neither
[[Page 58902]]
uniquely dependent on a single, vulnerable area nor subject to any
impending, catastrophic threat. (2) Narrowly restricted endemics that,
as a result of their limited range or population size, are vulnerable
to extinction from elevated threats. Conservation efforts for
loggerheads in the U.S. and internationally have greatly minimized
anthropogenic threats and these threats have been significantly reduced
over recent decades. (3) Species formerly more widespread that have
been reduced to such critically low numbers or restricted ranges that
they are at a high risk of extinction due to threats that would not
otherwise imperil the species. Loggerheads do not meet these particular
criteria, for many of the same reasons already discussed. Additionally,
in the Northwest Atlantic alone, this species numbers in the millions
at all life stages. Furthermore, such as in the Tongaland example,
local loggerhead subpopulations have shown the ability to recover from
levels of only a couple hundred mature females. (4) Species with still
relatively widespread distribution that have nevertheless suffered
ongoing major reductions in its numbers, range, or both, as a result of
factors that have not abated.'' The commenter noted that protective
measures in the form of ever improving TEDs, protective longline gear
and practices, time/area closures, and nesting beach improvements and
ordinances have gone a long way toward abating threats to loggerhead
sea turtles and that the current trend in loggerhead abundance in the
Northwest Atlantic is increasing.
The commenter further referenced the Ashe Memo, which says
``threatened species typically have some of the characteristics of the
fourth category above, in that they too have generally suffered some
recent declines in numbers, range or both, but to a less severe extent
than endangered species.'' The Ashe Memo goes on to distinguish between
a species that is endangered and one that is threatened and ``depends
on the life history and ecology of the species, the nature of the
threats, and population numbers and trends.'' The trends for
loggerheads, both in terms of increased nesting and reduced threats,
not to mention the geographic diversity of nesting habitat, the
species' extensive distribution, and the sheer numbers of individuals
in the population, all point toward, at most, a ``threatened'' status.
Response: The Services agree that numerous protective measures have
been implemented to protect loggerhead sea turtles in the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean. However, compliance levels with TEDs, high interaction
levels and mortalities in many domestic and international fisheries,
continued loss of nesting beach habitat, and inadequate development and
enforcement of lighting ordinances, to name a few, suggest that many
threats are still impacting Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles
and need to be further addressed. With regard to the commenter's
assertion that the current trend in loggerhead abundance in the
Northwest Atlantic is increasing, inclusion of nesting data up through
2010 results in the nesting trend line being slightly negative, but not
significantly different from zero. Regardless, for a number of reasons,
discussed in the Finding section, the Services are listing the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as threatened.
Comment 77: Three commenters noted that best available science
suggests that focusing solely on biological extinction, or imminent
extinction, is not useful from an ecological, management, or ecosystem
perspective because even after population declines of more than 95
percent, many marine fishes would still number in the hundreds of
thousands or millions of individuals and, therefore, not be considered
to be at an increased risk of extinction. The commenters argued that
scientists do not understand ``how the multitude of factors that
influence the extinction probability for a given population or species
interact with one another under specific physical and biological
environments.'' They contended that the ESA, by requiring NMFS and
USFWS to consider five statutory listing criteria, anticipates the
interactions of many factors and provides inherent flexibility in
determining whether a species warrants protection as endangered. The
commenters stated that requiring that the species face imminent
extinction or that the species be on the brink of extinction is neither
legally justifiable nor scientifically possible given the current
published literature on extinction risk in marine species. The
commenters urged the Services to be open to scientists' assessments of
extinction risk because these are important to convey that a species'
extinction probability has increased and that its probability of
recovery is low.
Response: The Services agree that even species that have suffered
fairly substantial declines in numbers or range are sometimes listed as
threatened rather than endangered, based on the species' resilience and
resistance to threats making the species currently less vulnerable to
threats. Whether a species is ultimately protected as an endangered
species or a threatened species depends on the specific life history
and ecology of the species, the nature of the threats, the species'
response to those threats, and population numbers and trends.
Comment 78: Two commenters stated that they did not support the
proposed endangered listing for North Pacific loggerheads. One of these
commenters stated the proposed endangered listing is contrary to
established listing practices for other species in similar situations
with North Pacific loggerheads (e.g., crested caracara, ribbon seal,
northern spotted owl, slickspot peppergrass, chirichua leopard frog,
delta green ground beetle, California red-legged frog, southeastern
beach mouse, Anastasia Island beach mouse, and Waccamaw silverside
minnow). This commenter argued that even though a species may be at
risk from significant past and projected habitat destruction,
population declines, or elimination from a portion of its range, the
Services regularly list a species as threatened when the population
declines are not steep and when the threat to the species' ongoing
survival is not imminent.
Response: An endangered species is any species which is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A
threatened species is any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Thus, a species may be listed as
threatened if it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future. Threatened species typically have some of the same
characteristics as endangered species with relatively widespread
distribution that have suffered ongoing major reductions in numbers,
range, or both, as a result of factors that have not been abated, in
that they too have generally suffered some recent decline in numbers,
range, or both, but to a less severe extent than endangered species.
Whether a species is ultimately protected as an endangered species or a
threatened species depends on the specific life history and ecology of
the species, the nature of the threats, the species' response to those
threats, and population numbers and trends.
Comment 79: One commenter stated that there is a lack of evidence
to support the endangered designation for the North Pacific Ocean DPS.
The commenter stated that recent nesting increases are clear evidence
that the North Pacific Ocean DPS is increasing, which is inconsistent
with the proposed endangered status.
Response: The Services agree there has been an encouraging trend in
the annual nesting abundance of
[[Page 58903]]
loggerheads in Japan. However, relative to historical levels, the
annual nesting abundance is very low. The agencies believe the
substantial depletion of this population, despite the aforementioned
increases, coupled with ongoing threats to loggerheads in the North
Pacific, warrants endangered status for the North Pacific Ocean DPS.
Comment 80: Two commenters stated that they do not support listing
the Southwest Indian Ocean DPS as threatened and suggested it should be
listed as endangered. The commenters noted that although this
population is increasing, it remains small and vulnerable. The
commenters noted that while the majority of nesting habitat is
protected in South Africa and Mozambique, loggerheads are at risk from
direct exploitation, especially in Madagascar, and incidental capture
has not yet been quantified. Additionally, dramatic increases in
regional longline fishing for tuna are expected to increase loggerhead
bycatch.
Response: A trend analysis of index nesting beach data from this
region from 1965 to 2008 indicates an increasing nesting population.
Although the Services agree that fisheries bycatch is a concern, the
extent of this threat is not well understood. In light of the protected
status of the majority of nesting beaches and the increasing nesting
trend, the Services believe a threatened status is appropriate for the
Southwest Indian Ocean DPS.
Comment 81: Thousands of commenters stated that they strongly
supported listing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as endangered,
particularly noting that Northwest Atlantic loggerheads are more in
need of endangered status to ensure their survival after the recent oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Many commenters noted that the majority of
Northwest Atlantic loggerheads nest in the United States and represent
the second largest nesting assemblage in the world, which makes their
survival critical to the future of the species. The States of Florida,
Georgia, and Virginia support an endangered status for the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS. The North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries
stated that it opposes an endangered listing because appropriate
information is lacking. Specifically, the agency stated that it opposes
the listing because counts of nests or females are not an assessment of
the population. Three other commenters also stated that they oppose
listing the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as endangered, arguing that
the case for a change in listing status has not been established and
the proposed rule should be rejected, particularly for the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Response: The Services agree on the importance of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS. The predominance of nesting in the United States
and the extensive use of U.S. coastal and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
waters by adults and large neritic juveniles from this DPS provides us
the ability to better control anthropogenic threats to individuals of
those highly valuable life stages compared to other DPSs which
originate in, and inhabit waters of, other nations over which we have
no control. Based on additional review and discussions within the
Services on status and trends, threats, and conservation efforts, we do
not believe the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is currently ``in danger
of extinction throughout all or a portion of its range,'' and
determined that a ``threatened'' listing under the ESA is more
appropriate.
Comment 82: The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries stated
that there is no accurate way to determine the status of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS because there is no benchmark assessment of the DPS
and periodic updates. It suggested conducting an assessment similar to
the 2009 bottlenose dolphin stock assessment.
Response: The Services agree that gaps remain in what is known
about the population dynamics of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. The
Services continue to evaluate ways to improve population assessments
for sea turtles. The Services used the best available data and the most
appropriate analyses in assessing the status of the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS and making our final determination.
Comment 83: Three commenters stated the belief that the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
portion of its range'' and therefore must be listed as endangered. The
commenters noted that the definition of an endangered species is
necessarily forward-looking, as a species ``in danger'' of extinction
is not currently extinct. Rather it is a species facing a risk of
extinction in the future. The Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, facing a
high probability of quasi-extinction, cannot be merely threatened,
because the threatened category is only for species that are not
currently in danger of extinction but instead likely to become so in
the future.
Response: Based on additional review and discussions within the
Services on status and trends, threats, and conservation efforts, we do
not believe the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is currently ``in danger
of extinction throughout all or a portion of its range,'' and
determined that a ``threatened'' listing under the ESA is more
appropriate. Quasi-extinction analyses support the fact that the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is not currently in danger of extinction
throughout all or a portion of its range. In one such analysis, a
Dennis-Holmes demographic population viability analysis (PVA) was
conducted using nesting data through 2009. Quasi-extinction was defined
as 1,000 remaining adults (which is higher than is typically used in
most PVAs) within 100 years. For a population of 35,000 turtles
(approximately the current estimated number of adult females), the risk
of reaching that QET was 0.0017, less than two-tenths of a percent
(NMFS, unpublished data). A revision of the SQE analysis done in the
Status Report written by the BRT had similar results. Including nesting
data through 2009 instead of just 2007, and redoing the analysis to use
a range of adult female abundance estimates as QETs, it was determined
that there was little risk (SQE < 0.3) of the Peninsular Florida
Recovery Unit (comprising approximately 80 percent of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS) reaching 1,000 or fewer females in 100 years.
Comment 84: Three commenters referenced Center for Biological
Diversity v. Lohn, where the court found that uncertainty regarding
data used in an ESA section 4 listing determination did not justify
failing to list the species, citing Conner v. Burford. The commenters
noted that, while data gaps exist for loggerhead sea turtles, this is
true for many if not all marine species and cannot excuse the lack of
agency action under the ESA to protect loggerhead sea turtles. The
commenters noted that with a threatened listing for over 30 years,
Northwest Atlantic loggerheads continue to decline; therefore, the
Services must grant additional protections to recover the species.
Response: The Services agree and understand that data gaps do not
justify failing to list a species under the ESA. Despite the gaps in
knowledge, loggerhead sea turtles in the Northwest Atlantic have been,
and will continue to be, listed as a threatened species under the ESA.
We disagree that there has been a ``lack of agency action under the ESA
to protect loggerhead sea turtles.'' Numerous protective regulations
and measures have been adopted since the original listing of the
loggerhead sea turtle, both on the nesting beaches and in the marine
environment. The effectiveness of many of those measures
[[Page 58904]]
may not yet be observed on the nesting beaches because of the recent
enactment relative to the life history and age to maturity of
loggerhead sea turtles. However, additional measures continue to be
undertaken to reduce anthropogenic impacts, as required by the ESA.
Analysis of nesting trends from 1989-2010 results in a trend line that
is slightly negative, but not significantly different from zero.
Comment 85: Three commenters reiterated that the Services'
determinations concerning listing species or DPSs and changing the
status of a listed species or DPS must be made ``solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available.'' The commenters
noted that the Services may not cater to political influences in
conducting a purely scientific evaluation. The commenters noted that
their petitions, prior comments, the 2009 Status Review, and the best
available science support the Services' proposed DPS designations and
changing the status of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS from threatened
to endangered. The commenters argued that the Services' alleged
substantial disagreement on the interpretation of the existing data,
which prompted a 6-month extension on the final determination, suggests
political and not scientific differences of opinion.
Response: The Services agree that such determinations must be made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. The final determination was based upon all available
information, as well as information and comments provided in response
to the proposed rule, including information provided during the public
comment extension periods. The Services then determined that the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS should be listed as threatened. A
discussion of that information and basis for the listing status is
contained in the final determination for the DPS, below.
Comment 86: One commenter questioned why the Services reasoned that
current circumstances warrant an endangered listing for the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS instead of a threatened listing. The commenter noted
that at the time of the original listing in 1978, adult loggerhead
population sizes were not well known. For example, the Final EIS
associated with the original listing of the species in 1978 identified
the Florida population with a total of 41,524 adults of both sexes and
Georgia with 551 females nesting annually. Assuming a 3-year
remigration interval and a 1:1 sex ratio, the Georgia estimate equates
to approximately 3,306 adults, and combined with the Florida estimate,
yields an adult population size of 44,830 turtles for the region. The
regional population was thought to be declining. The most recent adult
population point estimate for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is
30,050 adult females or approximately 60,100 adult males and females,
and that number is believed to be declining. Thus, while the number of
nests in the DPS [at the largest rookery] in the Northwest Atlantic
increased for 2 decades after being listed, it since has declined, and
now the population size of adults (extrapolated from the number of
nests) is comparable to or slightly greater than the number that
existed when the species was listed as threatened. Another commenter
also questioned the size of the loggerhead population against which
impacts are measured and provided an estimate of between 1,230,000 and
at least 3,300,000 animals in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Response: Based on additional review and discussions within the
Services on status and trends, threats, and conservation efforts, we do
not believe the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is currently ``in danger
of extinction throughout all or a portion of its range,'' and have
determined that a ``threatened'' listing under the ESA is more
appropriate.
Comment 87: One commenter questioned whether nesting declines are
truly valid evidence that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is headed
for extinction. The commenter expressed the belief that the Services
should have delved more rigorously into all existing abundance data to
determine whether trends in nesting actually reflect trends in the
population. The commenter cited the following text from the TEWG (2000)
report: ``nesting trends alone may give an incomplete picture of
population status.''
Response: The Services agree with the TEWG (2000) report's
statement that nesting trends alone may give an incomplete picture of
population status. However, at this time it is the strongest indicator,
and most thorough and consistent data set available for such
determinations. The limited in-water data are also given consideration
when making determinations of population status. Note that subsequent
to the publication of the proposed rule, nesting data for 2008-2010 was
incorporated into the nesting trend analyses, and the result indicated
that the nesting trend for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS from 1989-
2010 is slightly negative but not statistically different from zero.
Comment 88: The State of Florida provided data on loggerhead
nesting activity on Florida beaches collected by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission through June 2010. The analysis of
these data shows a marked decline in nest counts since 1989 when
extensive index beach monitoring began. The recent analysis reveals
that the decline in nest counts from 1989 to 2009 was 23.9 percent and
from 1998 to 2009 was 38.4 percent, which corresponds to a decline of
1.42 percent and 4.84 percent per year, respectively. The State of
Florida noted that nesting declines correspond with declines of adult
female loggerheads. The State acknowledged that nest counts vary with
reproductive output as well as adult female abundance and that this
source of variation could contribute to either an under- or over-
estimate of females from nests in a given year. As such, declines in
adult females may be lower or greater than nest counts indicate, but
the declining trend is not in dispute. The State of Florida recognized
data from other data sets representing younger life stages within the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS that come from in-water captures where
capture effort was recorded. The trends in catch per unit effort vary
by location with some showing a statistically significant increasing
trend in immature loggerheads. The State of Florida explained that
there are important differences between nest count data and catch per
unit effort data that apply to how accurately each data set represents
actual population changes. Florida nest count data have a time series
of 21 years collected via a standardized protocol, are spatially
detailed, and are collected over the majority of the principal nesting
range of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. In contrast, catch per unit
effort data, even when a composite data set, do not come close to the
spatial detail and population range as the nest count data. The State
of Florida acknowledged the importance of catch per unit effort trends
assessment, but cautioned that the inherent sampling bias of catch per
unit effort techniques introduces uncertainty into any conclusions
drawn from those data.
Response: The Services acknowledge the nesting decline reported by
the State of Florida for the period 1989-2009; however, analysis of the
data through 2010 (2010 data were not available at the time of the
proposed rule) results in a trend line that is slightly negative, but
not statistically different from zero. Nesting in 2009 on the Core
Index Nesting Beaches was relatively low at 32,717. However, in 2008,
nesting
[[Page 58905]]
numbers exceeded 38,000, the second highest total since 2002. In 2010,
the nest count was 47,880, the highest since 2000, and the ninth
highest in the 22 years in the data set. The Services agree that
available in-water abundance information must be used with caution due
to inherent sampling biases; however, we believe these data are an
important piece of information that can be used to help assess the
status of this DPS.
Comment 89: Five commenters referenced Witherington et al. (2009)
and the decline of nesting in Florida. The commenters noted that if the
trend continues the nesting population will decline by 80 percent by
2017 (using 1989-2007 data); such a drastic decline over just 19 years,
less than half a loggerhead's generation time, would warrant IUCN
Critically Endangered status. Witherington et al. 2009 noted that
fisheries bycatch is the factor that best fits the nesting decline.
Response: Inclusion of nesting data up through 2010 results in the
nesting trend line being slightly negative, but not significantly
different from zero. The Services agree that fisheries bycatch is one
factor that best fits the nesting decline seen in the past. However,
various fishery bycatch reduction measures have occurred within the
last generation time for loggerhead sea turtles, and the benefits of
those actions may only now be starting to become evident on the nesting
beaches. The agencies are committed to reducing fisheries bycatch
further.
Comment 90: The State of Georgia provided data on loggerhead
nesting in Georgia. The State noted that loggerhead nest counts in
Georgia show a stable nesting population for the corresponding time
period used in Witherington et al. (2009). However, the State
acknowledged that nesting in Georgia represents a small fraction (less
than 2 percent) of the nesting by loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS and, therefore, has little effect on the overall nesting
trend for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Response: The Services agree that Georgia loggerhead nesting
indicates a stable nesting population. Additionally, nesting in South
Carolina and North Carolina has also been relatively stable over the
past decade, with record or near record nesting since 2008 in some
cases. Nesting in these three States constitute most of the Northern
Recovery Unit of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. While small in
comparison to the Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit, it is the second
largest recovery unit in the DPS and an important source of gene flow
within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Comment 91: One commenter provided a critique of the methods used
in the loggerhead Status Review written by the BRT. In more than one
instance, the commenter made reference to the Status Review making an
``endangered'' determination or recommendation.
Response: The Services would like to clarify that the role of the
BRT and the Status Review was not to make a determination or
recommendation of listing status under the ESA. The BRT was to provide
an analysis of loggerhead status, which was then used in conjunction
with numerous other sources of information by the Services to make a
final listing determination. Confusion occurred for many readers of the
Status Review because of the convergence of language used in the BRT
report and the legal language used in the ESA. The BRT did not make
conclusions as to ESA listing status.
Comment 92: Two commenters stated that they did not support listing
the South Atlantic Ocean DPS as threatened and suggested it should be
listed as endangered. The commenters noted that although this
population is increasing, it remains small and vulnerable. The
commenters further noted that the South Atlantic Ocean DPS in Brazil is
subject to various threats on both important nesting beaches and in-
water habitat, particularly climate change and ocean acidification.
Response: The Services determined that a threatened status is
appropriate for the South Atlantic Ocean DPS. A long-term, sustained
increasing trend in nesting abundance was observed from 1988 through
2003, and loggerhead nesting has continued to increase through the
2008-2009 nesting season. Conservation efforts on nesting beaches have
been largely successful although coastal development in the main
nesting areas continues to be a concern. The Services agree that
fisheries bycatch remains a concern; however, there are efforts
underway within Brazilian waters and elsewhere in their range to
address these threats.
Other Comments
Comment 93: The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and one
other commenter noted that the proposed rule contained limited
discussion of mitigating non-fisheries threats (e.g., oil spills,
vessel strikes, entanglement in marine debris, and indirect
anthropogenic factors that affect reproductive success such as
alteration/loss of nesting habitat, light pollution, etc.) for the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS.
Response: The Services appreciate the significance and importance
of non-fisheries threats on sea turtle populations, including the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. Discussion of these threats does occur
within the preamble language of the listing rule. However, as a result
of the greater specific information available for known fishery impacts
and the general understanding that fishery impacts constitute what is
likely the largest category of impact on sea turtle populations, a
greater volume of text is dedicated to that discussion.
Comment 94: Three commenters argued the 6-month extension was
unjustified and unlawful and requested the Services withdraw the
extension and complete the final rule immediately.
Response: The Services disagree that the 6-month extension was
unjustified and unlawful. Section 4(b)(6) of the ESA allows for 6-month
extensions of final determinations when ``there is substantial
disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available
data relevant to the determination * * * for purposes of soliciting
additional data.'' The Services proposed to list the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle as endangered. However, in
preparing the final rule, there was substantial disagreement regarding
the interpretation of the existing data on status and trends and its
relevance to the assessment of extinction risk to the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS. There was also considerable disagreement regarding
the magnitude and immediacy of the fisheries bycatch threat and
measures to reduce this threat to the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. As
part of the 6-month extension notice, the Services solicited new
information or analyses to help clarify these issues and used this time
to fully evaluate and assess the best scientific and commercial data
available and ensure consistent interpretation of data and application
of statutory standards for all of the nine proposed DPSs.
Comment 95: Several individuals provided comments on critical
habitat designations for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and North Pacific
Ocean DPSs.
Response: The Services have not designated critical habitat for the
loggerhead sea turtle. Critical habitat is not determinable at this
time, but will be proposed in a separate rulemaking.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species.
[[Page 58906]]
Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must determine if a species is
threatened or endangered because of any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
We have described the effects of various factors leading to the
decline of the loggerhead sea turtle in the original listing
determination (43 FR 32800; July 28, 1978) and other documents (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998, 2007, 2008). In making this finding, information
regarding the status of each of the nine loggerhead DPSs is considered
in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
The reader is directed to section 5 of the Status Review for a more
detailed discussion of the factors affecting the nine identified
loggerhead DPSs. In section 5.1, a general description of the threats
that occur for all DPSs is presented under the relevant section 4(a)(1)
factor. In section 5.2, threats that are specific to a particular DPS
are presented by DPS under each section 4(a)(1) factor. That
information is incorporated here by reference; the following is a
summary of that information by DPS.
North Pacific Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting habitat in the
North Pacific result from coastal development and construction,
placement of erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting,
beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, beach sand placement, beach pollution, removal of native
vegetation, planting of non-native vegetation (NMFS and USFWS, 1998),
and climate change. Beaches in Japan where loggerheads nest are
extensively eroded due to dredging and dams constructed upstream, and
are obstructed by seawalls as well. Unfortunately, no quantitative
studies have been conducted to determine the impact to the loggerhead
nesting populations (Kamezaki et al., 2003). However, it is clear that
loggerhead nesting habitat has been impacted by erosion and extensive
beach use by tourists, both of which have contributed to unusually high
mortality of eggs and pre-emergent hatchlings at many Japanese
rookeries (Matsuzawa, 2006). While the Services cannot predict the
exact impacts of climate change, sea level rise may present a more
immediate challenge for this DPS because of the proportion of beaches
with shoreline armoring that prevents or interferes with the ability of
nesting females to access to suitable nesting habitat.
Maehama Beach and Inakahama Beach on Yakushima in Kagoshima
Prefecture account for approximately 30 percent of loggerhead nesting
in Japan (Kamezaki et al., 2003), making Yakushima an important area
for nesting beach protection. However, the beaches suffer from beach
erosion and light pollution, especially from passing cars, as well as
from tourists encroaching on the nesting beaches (Matsuzawa, 2006).
Burgeoning numbers of visitors to beaches may cause sand compaction and
nest trampling. Egg and pre-emergent hatchling mortality in Yakushima
has been shown to be higher in areas where public access is not
restricted and is mostly attributed to human foot traffic on nests
(Kudo et al., 2003). Fences have been constructed around areas where
the highest densities of nests are laid; however, there are still lower
survival rates of eggs and pre-emergent hatchlings due to excessive
foot traffic (Ohmuta, 2006).
Loggerhead nesting habitat also has been lost at important
rookeries in Miyazaki due in part to port construction that involved
development of a groin of 1 kilometer from the coast into the sea, a
yacht harbor with breakwaters and artificial beach, and an airport,
causing erosion of beaches on both sides of the construction zone. This
once excellent nesting habitat for loggerheads is now seriously
threatened by erosion (Takeshita, 2006).
Minabe-Senri beach, Wakayama Prefecture is a ``submajor'' nesting
beach (in Kamezaki et al., 2003), but is one of the most important
rookeries on the main island of Japan (Honshu). Based on unpublished
data, Matsuzawa (2006) reported hatching success of unwashed-out
clutches at Minabe-Senri beach to be 24 percent in 1996, 50 percent in
1997, 53 percent in 1998, 48 percent in 1999, 62 percent in 2000, 41
percent in 2001, and 34 percent in 2002.
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the North Pacific Ocean include fishing practices, channel dredging,
sand extraction, marine pollution, and climate change. Fishing methods
not only incidentally capture loggerheads, but also deplete
invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics. In
many cases loggerhead foraging areas coincide with fishing zones. For
example, using aerial surveys and satellite telemetry, juvenile
foraging hotspots have recently been identified off the coast of Baja
California, Mexico; these hotspots overlap with intensive small-scale
fisheries (Peckham and Nichols, 2006; Peckham et al., 2007, 2008).
Comprehensive data currently are unavailable to fully understand how
intense harvesting of fish resources changes neritic and oceanic
ecosystems. Climate change also may result in future trophic changes,
thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and distribution.
In summary, we find that the North Pacific Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both
its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Within Factor A, we find
that coastal development and coastal armoring on nesting beaches in
Japan are significant threats to the persistence of this DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In Japan, the use of loggerhead meat for food was historically
popular in local communities such as Kochi and Wakayama prefectures. In
addition, egg collection was common in the coastal areas during times
of hunger and later by those who valued loggerhead eggs as revitalizers
or aphrodisiacs and acquired them on the black market (in Kamezaki et
al., 2003; Takeshita, 2006). Currently, due in large part to research
and conservation efforts throughout the country, egg harvesting no
longer represents a problem in Japan (Kamezaki et al., 2003; Ohmuta,
2006; Takeshita, 2006). Laws were enacted in 1973 to prohibit egg
collection on Yakushima, and in 1988, the laws were extended to the
entire Kagoshima Prefecture, where two of the most important loggerhead
nesting beaches are protected (Matsuzawa, 2006).
Despite national laws, in many other countries where loggerheads
are found migrating through or foraging, the hunting of adult and
juvenile turtles is still a problem, as seen in Baja California Sur,
Mexico (Koch et al., 2006; Mancini and Koch, 2009). Sea turtles have
been protected in Mexico since 1990, when a Federal law decreed the
prohibition of the ``extraction, capture and pursuit of all species of
sea turtle in federal waters or from beaches within national territory
* * * [and a
[[Page 58907]]
requirement that] * * * any species of sea turtle incidentally captured
during the operations of any commercial fishery shall be returned to
the sea, independently of its physical state, dead or alive'' (in
Garcia-Martinez and Nichols, 2000). Despite the ban, studies have shown
that sea turtles continue to be caught, both indirectly in fisheries
and by a directed harvest of juvenile turtles. Turtles are principally
hunted using nets, longlines, and harpoons. While some are killed
immediately, others are kept alive in pens and transported to market.
The market for sea turtles consists of two types: the local market
(consumed locally) and the export market (sold to restaurants in Mexico
cities such as Tijuana, Ensenada, and Mexicali, and U.S. cities such as
San Diego and Tucson). Consumption is highest during holidays such as
Easter and Christmas (Wildcoast/Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias,
2003).
Based on a combination of analyses of stranding data, beach and sea
surveys, tag-recapture studies, and extensive interviews, all carried
out between June 1994 and January 1999, Nichols (2003) conservatively
estimated the annual take of sea turtles by various fisheries and
through direct harvest in the Baja California, Mexico, region. Sea
turtle mortality data collected between 1994 and 1999 indicated that
over 90 percent of sea turtles recorded dead were either green turtles
(30 percent of total) or loggerheads (61 percent of total), and signs
of human consumption were evident in over half of the specimens. These
studies resulted in an estimated 1,950 loggerheads killed annually,
affecting primarily juvenile size classes. The primary causes for
mortality were the incidental take in a variety of fishing gears and
direct harvest for consumption and [illegal] trade (Gardner and
Nichols, 2001; Nichols, 2003).
From April 2000 to July 2003 throughout the Bahia Magdalena region
(including local beaches and towns), researchers found 1,945 sea turtle
carcasses, 44.1 percent of which were loggerheads. Of the sea turtle
carcasses found, slaughter for human consumption was the primary cause
of death for all species (63 percent for loggerheads). Over 90 percent
of all turtles found were juvenile turtles (Koch et al., 2006). As the
population of green turtles has declined in Baja California Sur waters,
poachers have switched to loggerheads (H. Peckham, Pro Peninsula,
personal communication, 2006).
In summary, overutilization for commercial purposes in both Japan
and Mexico likely was a factor that contributed to the historical
declines of this DPS. Current illegal harvest of loggerheads in Baja,
California for human consumption continues as a significant threat to
the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the North Pacific Ocean. As in other nesting
locations, egg predation also exists in Japan, particularly by raccoon
dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and weasels (Mustela itatsi); however,
quantitative data do not exist to evaluate the impact on loggerhead
populations (Kamezaki et al., 2003). Loggerheads in the North Pacific
Ocean also may be impacted by harmful algal blooms.
In summary, although nest predation in Japan is known to occur,
quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of
nest predation on the persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the North Pacific Ocean. The
reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.1.4. of the Status Review
for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle (2002) and
Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of these
international instruments. The problems with existing international
treaties are often that they have not realized their full potential, do
not include some key countries, do not specifically address sea turtle
conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a sovereign authority
to enforce environmental regulations. The ineffectiveness of
international treaties and national legislation is oftentimes due to
the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to implement and
enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is available in a
special 2002 issue of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle Conservation
(Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the North Pacific Ocean is
substantial (see Factor E). Although national and international
governmental and non-governmental entities on both sides of the North
Pacific are currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and
some positive actions have been implemented, it is unlikely that this
source of mortality can be sufficiently reduced in the near future due
to the challenges of mitigating illegal, unregulated, and unreported
fisheries, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing
distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated
effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations
on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive
bycatch reduction technologies.
In addition to fishery bycatch, coastal development and coastal
armoring on nesting beaches in Japan continues as a substantial threat
(see Factor A). Coastal armoring, if left unaddressed, will become an
even more substantial threat as sea level rises. Recently, the Japan
Ministry of Environment has supported the local non-governmental
organization conducting turtle surveys and conservation on Yakushima in
establishing guidelines for surveys and minimizing impacts by humans
encroaching on the nesting beaches. As of the 2009 nesting season,
humans accessing Inakahama, Maehama, and Yotsuse beaches at night must
comply with the established rules (Y. Matsuzawa, Sea Turtle Association
of Japan, personal communication, 2009).
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that although regulatory mechanisms are in place that
should address direct and incidental take of North Pacific Ocean
loggerheads, these regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not
being implemented effectively to address the needs of loggerheads. We
find that the threats from the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for fishery bycatch (Factor E) and coastal development and
coastal armoring (Factor A) are significant relative to the persistence
of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of loggerheads in the North Pacific.
(Artisanal fisheries are typically small scale-commercial or
subsistence fisheries.) Sea turtles may be caught in pelagic and
demersal longlines, drift and set gillnets, bottom and mid-water
trawling, fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, haul and purse seines,
pots and traps, and hook and line gear.
Based on turtle sightings and capture rates reported in an April
1988 through
[[Page 58908]]
March 1989 survey of fisheries research and training vessels and
extrapolated to total longline fleet effort by the Japanese fleet in
1978, Nishemura and Nakahigashi (1990) estimated that 21,200 turtles,
including greens, leatherbacks, loggerheads, olive ridleys, and
hawksbills, were captured annually by Japanese tuna longliners in the
western Pacific and South China Sea, with a reported mortality of
approximately 12,300 turtles per year. Using commercial tuna longline
logbooks, research vessel data, and questionnaires, Nishemura and
Nakahigashi (1990) estimated that for every 10,000 hooks in the western
Pacific and South China Sea, one turtle is captured, with a mortality
rate of 42 percent. Although species-specific information on the
bycatch is not available, vessels reported that 36 percent of the
sightings of turtles in locations that overlap with these commercial
fishing grounds were loggerheads.
Caution should be used in interpreting the results of Nishemura and
Nakahigashi (1990), including estimates of sea turtle take rate (per
number of hooks) and resultant mortality rate, and estimates of annual
take by the fishery, for the following reasons: (1) The data collected
were based on observations by training and research vessels, logbooks,
and a questionnaire (i.e., hypothetical), and do not represent actual,
substantiated logged or observed catch of sea turtles by the fishery;
(2) the authors assumed that turtles were distributed homogeneously;
and (3) the authors used only one year (1978) to estimate total effort
and distribution of the Japanese tuna longline fleet. Although the data
and analyses provided by Nishemura and Nakahigashi (1990) are
conjectural, longliners fishing in the Pacific have significantly
impacted and, with the current level of effort, probably will continue
to have significant impacts on sea turtle populations.
Foreign high-seas driftnet fishing in the North Pacific Ocean for
squid, tuna, and billfish ended with a United Nations moratorium in
December 1992. Except for observer data collected in 1990-1991, there
is virtually no information on the incidental take of sea turtle
species by the driftnet fisheries prior to the moratorium. The high-
seas squid driftnet fishery in the North Pacific was observed in Japan,
Korea, and Taiwan, while the large-mesh fisheries targeting tuna and
billfish were observed in the Japanese fleet (1990-1991) and the
Taiwanese fleet (1990). A combination of observer data and fleet effort
statistics indicate that 2,986 loggerhead sea turtles were entangled by
the combined fleets of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan from June 1990 through
May 1991, when all fleets were monitored. Of these incidental
entanglements, an estimated 805 loggerheads were killed (27 percent
mortality rate) (Wetherall, 1997). Data on size composition of the
turtles caught in the high-seas driftnet fisheries also were collected
by observers. The majority of loggerheads measured by observers were
juvenile (Wetherall, 1997). The cessation of high-seas driftnet fishing
in 1992 should have reduced the incidental take of marine turtles.
However, nations involved in driftnet fishing may have shifted to other
gear types (e.g., pelagic or demersal longlines, coastal gillnets);
this shift in gear types could have resulted in either similar or
increased turtle bycatch and associated mortality.
These rough mortality estimates for a single fishing season provide
only a narrow glimpse of the impacts of the driftnet fishery on sea
turtles, and a full assessment of impacts would consider the turtle
mortality generated by the driftnet fleets over their entire range.
Unfortunately, comprehensive data are lacking, but the observer data do
indicate the possible magnitude of turtle mortality given the best
information available. Wetherall et al. (1993) speculate that the
actual mortality of sea turtles may have been between 2,500 and 9,000
per year, with most of the mortalities being loggerheads taken in the
Japanese and Taiwanese large-mesh fisheries.
While a comprehensive, quantitative assessment of the impacts of
the North Pacific driftnet fishery on turtles is impossible without a
better understanding of turtle population abundance, genetic
identities, exploitation history, and population dynamics, it is likely
that the mortality inflicted by the driftnet fisheries in 1990 and in
prior years was significant (Wetherall et al., 1993), and the effects
may still be evident in sea turtle populations today. The high
mortality of juvenile turtles and reproductive adults in the high-seas
driftnet fishery has probably altered the current age structure
(especially if certain age groups were more vulnerable to driftnet
fisheries) and therefore diminished or limited the future reproductive
potential of affected sea turtle populations.
Extensive ongoing studies regarding loggerhead mortality and
bycatch have been administered off the coast of Baja California Sur,
Mexico. The location and timing of loggerhead strandings documented in
2003-2005 along a 43-kilometer beach (Playa San Lazaro) indicated
bycatch in local small-scale fisheries. In order to corroborate this,
in 2005, researchers observed two small-scale fleets operating closest
to an area identified as a high-use area for loggerheads. One fleet,
based out of Puerto L[oacute]pez-Mateos, fished primarily for halibut
using bottom set gillnets, soaking from 20 to 48 hours. This fleet
consisted of up to 75 boats in 2005, and, on a given day, 9 to 40
vessels fished the deep area (32-45 meter depths). During a 2-month
period, 11 loggerheads were observed taken in 73 gillnet day-trips,
with eight of those loggerheads landed dead (observed mortality rate of
73 percent). The other fleet, based in Santa Rosa, fished primarily for
demersal sharks using bottom-set longlines baited with tuna or mackerel
and left to soak for 20 to 48 hours. In 2005, the fleet numbered only
five to six vessels. During the seven day-long bottom-set longline
trips observed, 26 loggerheads were caught; 24 of them were dead when
the longlines were retrieved (observed mortality rate of 92 percent).
Based on these observations, researchers estimated that in 2005 at
least 299 loggerheads died in the bottom-set gillnet fishery and at
least 680 loggerheads died in the bottom-set longline fishery. This
annual bycatch estimate of approximately 1,000 loggerheads is
considered a minimum and is also supported by shoreline mortality
surveys and informal interviews (Peckham et al., 2007). These results
suggest that incidental capture at Baja California Sur is one of the
most significant sources of mortality identified for the North Pacific
loggerhead population and underscores the importance of reducing
bycatch in small-scale fisheries.
Peckham et al. (2008) assessed anthropogenic mortality of
loggerhead sea turtles in the coastal waters of Baja California Sur
through the synthesis of three sources: (1) Intensive surveys of an
index shoreline from 2003-2007, (2) bimonthly surveys of additional
shorelines and towns for stranded and consumed carcasses from 2006-
2007, and (3) bycatch observations of two small-scale fishing fleets.
They estimated that 1,500-2,950 loggerhead sea turtles died per year
from 2005-2006 due to bycatch in the two observed fleets. Actual
mortality may have been considerably higher due to bycatch in other
fisheries, directed hunting for black market trade, and natural factors
including predation and disease. From 2003-2007, 2,719 loggerhead
carcasses were encountered on shorelines and in and around towns of
Baja California Sur. Along the 43-km Playa San L[aacute]zaro, thousands
of loggerheads stranded
[[Page 58909]]
during the summer fishing months over 5 years, which is among the
highest reported stranding rates worldwide. This stranding rate
corroborates similarly high observed bycatch rates for local small-
scale longline (29 loggerheads per 1,000 hooks) and gillnet (1.0
loggerhead per km of net) fisheries. A significant increase in mean
length of 2,636 carcasses measured at Baja California Sur occurred from
1995-2007. Due to the decades-long maturation time of loggerheads, this
increasing trend in turtle size may reflect both long term declines in
nesting described from Japan (Kamezaki et al., 2003) and also
historically high bycatch of juvenile loggerheads in both high seas
driftnet (Wetherall et al., 1993) and longline fisheries (Lewison et
al., 2004). The decreasing proportion of smaller juveniles at Baja
California Sur especially from 2000-2007 could be related to sharp
declines in nesting observed across all Japanese rookeries in the 1990s
(Peckham et al., 2008).
In the U.S. Pacific, longline fisheries targeting swordfish and
tuna and drift gillnet fisheries targeting swordfish have been
identified as the primary fisheries of concern for loggerheads. Bycatch
of loggerhead sea turtles in these fisheries has been significantly
reduced as a result of time-area closures, required gear modifications,
and hard caps imposed on turtle bycatch, with 100 percent observer
coverage in certain areas.
The California/Oregon (CA/OR) drift gillnet fishery targets
swordfish and thresher shark off the west coast of the United States.
The fishery has been observed by NMFS since July 1990 and currently
averages 20 percent observer coverage. From July 1990 to January 2000,
the CA/OR drift gillnet fishery was observed to incidentally capture 17
loggerheads (12 released alive, 1 injured, and 4 killed). Based on a
worst-case scenario, NMFS estimated that a maximum of 33 loggerheads in
a given year could be incidentally taken by the CA/OR drift gillnet
fleet. Sea turtle mortality rates for hard-shelled species were
estimated to be 32 percent (NMFS, 2000). In 2000, analyses conducted
under the mandates of the ESA showed that the CA/OR drift gillnet
fishery was taking excessive numbers of sea turtles, such that the
fishery ``jeopardized the continued existence of'' loggerheads and
leatherbacks. In this case, the consulting agency (NMFS) was required
to provide a reasonable and prudent alternative to the action (i.e.,
the fishery). In order to reduce the likelihood of interactions with
loggerhead sea turtles, NMFS has regulations in place to close areas to
drift gillnet fishing off southern California during forecasted or
occurring El Ni[ntilde]o events from June 1 through August 31, when
loggerheads are likely to move into the area from the Pacific coast of
Baja California following a preferred prey species, pelagic red crabs.
Prior to 2000, the Hawaii-based longline fishery targeted highly
migratory species north of Hawaii using gear largely used by fleets
around the world. From 1994-1999, the fishery was estimated to take
between 369 and 501 loggerheads per year, with between 64 and 88
mortalities per year (NMFS, 2000). Currently, the Hawaii-based shallow
longline fishery targeting swordfish is strictly regulated such that an
annual take of 17 loggerheads is authorized for the fishery, beginning
in 2004, when the fishery was re-opened after being closed for several
years. In 2004 and 2005, the fishing year was completed without
reaching the turtle take levels (1 and 10 loggerheads were captured,
respectively, with fleets operating with 100 percent observer
coverage). However, in 2006, 17 loggerheads were taken, resulting in
early closure of the fishery. From 2007 through 2010, 15, 0, 3, and 5
loggerheads were taken, respectively, by the fishery. Most loggerheads
were released alive (NMFS--Pacific Islands Regional Office, Observer
Database Public Web site, 2011, http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/OBS/obs_qrtrly_annual_rprts.html).
Recent investigations off the coast of Japan, particularly focused
off the main islands of Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu, have revealed a
major threat to the more mature stage classes of loggerheads
(approximately 70-80 cm SCL) due to pound net fisheries set offshore of
the nesting beaches and in the coastal foraging areas (T. Ishihara, Sea
Turtle Association of Japan, personal communication, 2007). While pound
nets constitute the third largest fishery in terms of metric tons of
fish caught in Japan, they account for the majority of loggerhead
bycatch by Japanese fisheries (Ishihara, 2007, 2009). Open-type pound
nets studied in an area off Shikoku were shown to take loggerheads as
the most prevalent sea turtle species caught but had lower mortality
rates (less than 15 percent), primarily because turtles could reach the
surface to breathe. Middle layer and bottom-type pound nets in
particular have high rates of mortality (nearly 100 percent), because
the nets are submerged and sea turtles are unable to reach the surface.
Estimates of loggerhead mortality in one area studied between April
2006 and September 2007 were on the order of 100 individuals. While the
fishing industry has an interest in changing its gear to open-type, it
is very expensive, and the support from the Japanese government is
limited (T. Ishihara, Sea Turtle Association of Japan, personal
communication, 2007). Nonetheless, the BRT recognized that coastal
pound net fisheries off Japan may pose a significant threat to the
North Pacific population of loggerheads.
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries in the North
Pacific Ocean on loggerhead sea turtles is very difficult given the low
level of observer coverage or investigations into bycatch conducted by
countries that have large fishing fleets. Efforts have been made to
quantify the effect of pelagic longline fishing on loggerheads, and
annual estimates of bycatch were on the order of over 10,000 sea
turtles, with as many as 2,600 individual loggerheads killed annually
through immediate or delayed mortality as a result of interacting with
the gear (Lewison et al., 2004).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in the North Pacific
Ocean. This includes beach erosion and loss from rising sea levels,
skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures,
and abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal
during the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009). Because the majority of Japanese beaches are armored,
loggerheads nesting on Japan beaches are likely to be left with
increasingly limited nesting habitat when they undergo the vertical and
poleward shifts in nesting habitat selection necessitated by sea level
rise (S.H. Peckham, Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias, personal
communication, 2010). Matsuzawa et al. (2002) found heat-related
mortality of pre-emergent hatchlings in Minabe Senri Beach and
concluded that this population is vulnerable to even small temperature
increases resulting from global warming because sand temperatures
already exceed the optimal thermal range for incubation. Recently,
Chaloupka et al. (2008) used generalized additive regression modeling
and autoregressive-prewhitened cross-correlation analysis to consider
whether changes in regional ocean temperatures affect long-term nesting
population dynamics for Pacific loggerheads from primary nesting
assemblages in Japan and Australia. Researchers chose four nesting
sites with a generally long time series to model, two in Japan (Kamouda
rookery, declining population, and Yakushima
[[Page 58910]]
rookery, generally increasing in the last 20 years), and two in
Australia (Woongarra rookery, generally declining through early 1990s
and beginning to recover, and Wreck Island rookery, which is generally
declining). Analysis of 51 years of mean annual sea surface
temperatures around two core foraging areas off Japan and eastern
Australia, showed a general warming of the oceans in these regions. In
general, nesting abundance for all four rookeries was inversely related
to sea surface temperatures; that is, higher sea surface temperatures
during the previous year in the core foraging area resulted in lower
summer season nesting at all rookeries. Given that cooler ocean
temperatures are generally associated with increased productivity and
that female sea turtles generally require at least 1 year to acquire
sufficient fat stores for vitellogenesis to be completed, as well as
the necessary somatic energy reserves required for the breeding season,
any lag in productivity due to warmer temperatures has physiological
basis. Over the long term, warming ocean temperatures could therefore
lead to lower productivity and prey abundance, and thus reduced nesting
and recruitment by Pacific loggerheads (Chaloupka et al., 2008).
Other anthropogenic impacts include boat strikes, ingestion of and
entanglement in marine debris, and entrainment in coastal power plants.
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones, hurricanes, and
tsunamis, may affect loggerheads in the North Pacific Ocean. Typhoons
also have been shown to cause severe beach erosion and negatively
affect hatching success at many loggerhead nesting beaches in Japan,
especially in areas already prone to erosion. For example, during the
2004 season, the Japanese archipelago suffered a record number of
typhoons and many nests were drowned or washed out. Extreme sand
temperatures at nesting beaches also create highly skewed female sex
ratios of hatchlings or threaten the health of hatchlings. Without
human intervention to protect clutches against some of these natural
threats, many of these nests would be lost (Matsuzawa, 2006).
In summary, we find that the North Pacific Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the North Pacific
Ocean, including the coastal pound net fisheries off Japan, coastal
fisheries impacting juvenile foraging populations off Baja California,
Mexico, and undescribed fisheries likely affecting loggerheads in the
South China Sea and the North Pacific Ocean, is a significant threat to
the persistence of this DPS.
South Pacific Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
In the South Pacific Ocean, loggerhead sea turtles nest primarily
in Queensland, Australia, and, to a lesser extent, New Caledonia and
Vanuatu (Limpus and Limpus, 2003a; Limpus et al., 2006; Limpus, 2009).
Over 80 percent of all loggerhead nesting in Queensland occurs within
the protected habitat of Conservation Parks and National Parks (Limpus,
2009). However, destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting
habitat outside the protected areas in Queensland result from coastal
development and construction, beach erosion, placement of erosion
control structures, and beachfront lighting (Limpus et al., 2006;
Limpus, 2009).
Removal or destruction of native dune vegetation, which enhances
beach stability and acts as an integral buffer zone between land and
sea, results in erosion of nesting habitat. Preliminary studies on
nesting beaches in New Caledonia include local oral histories that
attribute the decrease in loggerhead nesting to the removal of
vegetation for construction purposes and subsequent beach erosion
(Limpus et al., 2006).
Beach armoring presents a barrier to nesting in New Caledonia. On
the primary nesting beach in New Caledonia, a rock wall was constructed
to prevent coastal erosion, and sea turtle nesting attempts have been
unsuccessful. Local residents are seeking authorization to extend the
wall further down the beach (Limpus et al., 2006).
Beachfront lighting has been identified as a problem in some areas
of Queensland. Hatchling disorientations have been regularly documented
on the small nesting beaches adjacent to Mon Repos (Burnett Heads,
Neilson Park, Bargara) and at Heron Island (Limpus, 1985; EPA
Queensland Turtle Conservation Project unpublished data cited in
Limpus, 2009). However, efforts have been made to reduce hatchling
disorientations on Burnett Heads beach with the installation of low
pressure sodium vapor lighting. Lighting has not been controlled at
other beaches (Neilson Park, Bargara, Kellys Beach), and eggs are
relocated to nearby dark beaches to protect emerging hatchlings
(Limpus, 2009). Hatchling disorientations have been reduced along the
Woongarra Coast to a few clutches annually as a result of altered light
horizons (Limpus, 2009).
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the South Pacific Ocean include fishing practices, channel dredging,
sand extraction, marine pollution, and climate change, though they
appear to be minor. However, climate change may result in future
trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and
distribution.
In summary, we find that the South Pacific Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both
its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. However, the majority of
nesting is located within protected parks in Queensland, and current
threats in both the terrestrial and marine environments appear to be
low and are not believed to be significant threats to the persistence
of this DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Australian Native Title Legislation (Native Title Act 1993)
allows the harvesting of loggerheads and their eggs by indigenous
peoples (Environment Australia, 2003). However, egg consumption in
Australia is virtually nil and very few loggerheads are taken for food
by indigenous Australians (M. Hamann, James Cook University, personal
communication, 2010). Outside of Australia, despite national laws, in
many areas the poaching of eggs and hunting of adult and juvenile
turtles is still a problem, and Limpus (2009) suggests that the harvest
rate of loggerheads by indigenous hunters (including the legal take in
Australia and the illegal take in neighboring countries) is on the
order of 40 turtles per year. Preliminary studies suggest that local
harvesting in New Caledonia constitutes about 5 percent of the nesting
population (Limpus et al., 2006). Loggerheads also are consumed after
being captured incidentally in high-seas fisheries of the southeastern
Pacific (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2006), and occasionally may be the
product of illegal trade throughout the region.
In summary, current legal and illegal harvest of loggerheads in
Australia and New Caledonia for human consumption, as well as the
consumption of loggerheads incidentally taken in high-seas fisheries,
continues to affect the South Pacific Ocean DPS. However, current
threats in both the terrestrial
[[Page 58911]]
and marine environments appears to be minor to moderate and are not
believed to be a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
There are no reports of diseases causing significant loggerhead
mortality in the South Pacific (Limpus, 2009). The prevalence of
fibropapillomatosis is thought to be small and occurs at low frequency
among loggerheads in Moreton Bay and the southern Great Barrier Reef
(Limpus and Miller, 1994; Limpus, 2009). Limpus et al. (1994) reported
14 of 320 loggerheads (4.4 percent) captured in Moreton Bay, Australia,
during 1990-1992 as exhibiting the disease. According to Limpus (2009),
there is no evidence this disease is having a significant impact on the
population. Predation on nests and hatchlings by terrestrial
vertebrates is a major problem at loggerhead rookeries in the South
Pacific. At mainland rookeries in eastern Australia, for example, the
introduced fox (Vulpes vulpes) has been the most significant predator
on loggerhead eggs (Limpus, 1985, 2009). Although this has been
minimized in recent years (to less than 5 percent; Limpus, 2009),
researchers believe the earlier egg loss will greatly impact
recruitment to this nesting population in the early 21st century
(Limpus and Reimer, 1994). Predation on hatchlings by crabs and diurnal
birds is also a threat (Limpus, 2009). In New Caledonia, feral dogs
pose a predation threat to nesting loggerheads, and thus far no
management has been implemented (Limpus et al., 2006).
In summary, nest and hatchling predation likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical decline of this DPS. Current fox
predation levels in eastern Australia are greatly reduced from
historical levels, although predation by other species still occurs,
and predation by feral dogs in New Caledonia has not been addressed and
continues to affect the South Pacific Ocean DPS. In addition, a low
incidence of the fibropapillomatosis disease exists in Moreton Bay and
the southern Great Barrier Reef. However, these threats appear to be
minor and are not believed to be a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the South Pacific Ocean. The
reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.2.4. of the Status Review
for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle (2002) and
Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of these
international instruments. The problems with existing international
treaties are often that they have not realized their full potential, do
not include some key countries, do not specifically address sea turtle
conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a sovereign authority
to enforce environmental regulations. The ineffectiveness of
international treaties and national legislation is oftentimes due to
the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to implement and
enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is available in a
special 2002 issue of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle Conservation
(Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
A large part of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Queensland,
Australia, is protected as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
which helps limit human use impacts such as fishing and tourism. Over
80 percent of all loggerhead nesting in Queensland occurs within the
protected ownership (Limpus, 2009). In 1981, in recognition of its rich
faunal diversity, the Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's World
Heritage List. One of the key reasons for its listing as the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) was the presence of
internationally significant foraging and nesting populations of sea
turtles, including loggerheads. Since its listing, protection of
habitats within the GBRWHA has increased, with the current zone-based
management plan enacted in 2004 (Dryden et al., 2008). Nesting habitat
protection has also increased with the addition of indigenous co-
management plans and ecotourism regulations at Mon Repos (M. Hamann,
James Cook University, personal communication, 2010). However,
destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting habitat outside the
protected areas in Queensland result from coastal development and
construction, beach erosion, placement of erosion control structures,
and beachfront lighting, (Limpus et al., 2006; Limpus, 2009).
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the South Pacific Ocean is
substantial (see Factor E). Although national and international
governmental and non-governmental entities on both sides of the South
Pacific are currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and
some positive actions have been implemented (e.g., TED requirements in
certain trawl fisheries in Australia), it is unlikely that this
cumulative bycatch mortality can be sufficiently reduced in the near
future due to the challenges of mitigating illegal, unregulated, and
unreported fisheries, the continued expansion of artisanal fleets in
the southeastern Pacific, the lack of comprehensive information on
fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that although regulatory mechanisms are in place that
should address direct and incidental take of South Pacific Ocean
loggerheads, these regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not
being implemented effectively to address the needs of loggerheads. We
find that the threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for fishery bycatch across the range of the DPS (Factor E)
is significant relative to the persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries and shark
control programs are a significant threat to the survival of
loggerheads throughout the South Pacific. The primary gear types
involved in these interactions include longlines, driftnets, set nets,
and trawl fisheries. These are employed by both artisanal and
industrial fleets, and target a wide variety of species including
tunas, sharks, sardines, swordfish, and mahi mahi.
In the southwestern Pacific, bottom trawling gear has been a
contributing factor to the decline in the eastern Australian loggerhead
population (Limpus and Reimer, 1994). The northern Australian prawn
fishery (NPF) is made up of both a banana prawn fishery and a tiger
prawn fishery, and extends from Cape York, Queensland (142[deg] E) to
Cape Londonberry, Western Australia (127[deg] E). The fishery is one of
the most valuable in all of Australia and in 2000 comprised 121 vessels
fishing approximately 16,000 fishing days (Robins et al., 2002a). In
2000, the use of TEDs in the NPF was made mandatory, due in part to
several factors: (1) Objectives of the Draft
[[Page 58912]]
Australian Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles, (2) requirement of the
Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for
Commonwealth fisheries to become ecologically sustainable, and (3) the
1996 U.S. import embargo on wild-caught prawns taken in a fishery
without adequate turtle bycatch management practices (Robins et al.,
2002a). Data primarily were collected by volunteer fishers who were
trained extensively in the collection of scientific data on sea turtles
caught as bycatch in their fishery. Prior to the use of TEDs in this
fishery, the NPF annually took between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as
bycatch, with a mortality rate of an estimated 40 percent due to
drowning, injuries, or being returned to the water comatose (Poiner and
Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use of TEDs has been in effect, the
annual bycatch of sea turtles in the NPF has dropped to less than 200
sea turtles per year, with a mortality rate of approximately 22 percent
(based on recent years). This lower mortality rate also may be based on
better sea turtle handling techniques adopted by the fleet. In general,
loggerheads were the third most common sea turtle taken in this
fishery. In the East Coast otter trawl fishery, Robins (1995) suggests
that upwards of 340 turtle mortalities may potentially occur each year,
with loggerheads comprising the bulk of the interactions. Despite
encouraging signs of reduced impacts to turtles from these and other
fisheries operating on the East Coast due to rezoning of the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage site, there remain fisheries threats in
nearshore areas that have yet to be abated and that may continue to
impact loggerhead sea turtles (Dryden et al., 2008).
Loggerheads also are taken by longline fisheries operating out of
Australia (Limpus, 2009). For example, Robins et al. (2002b) estimate
that approximately 400 turtles are killed annually in Australian
pelagic longline fishery operations. Of this annual estimate,
leatherbacks accounted for over 60 percent of this total, while
unidentified hardshelled turtles accounted for the remaining species.
Therefore, the effect of this longline fishery on loggerheads is
unknown.
Loggerheads also have been the most common turtle species captured
in shark control programs in Australia (Kidston et al., 1992; Limpus,
2009). From 1998-2002, a total of 232 loggerheads was captured with 195
taken on drum lines and 37 taken in nets, both with a low level of
direct mortality (Limpus, 2009).
In the southeastern Pacific, significant bycatch has been reported
in artisanal gillnet and longline shark and mahi mahi fisheries
operating out of Peru (Kelez et al., 2003; Alfaro-Shigueto et al.,
2006, 2010) and, to a lesser extent, Chile (Donoso and Dutton, 2010).
The fishing industry in Peru is the second largest economic activity in
the country, and, over the past few years, the longline fishery has
rapidly increased. Currently, nearly 600 longline vessels fish in the
winter and over 1,300 vessels fish in the summer. During an observer
program in 2003/2004, 588 sets were observed during 60 trips, and 154
sea turtles were taken as bycatch. Loggerheads were the species most
often caught (73.4 percent). Of the loggerheads taken, 68 percent were
entangled and 32 percent were hooked. Of the two fisheries, sea turtle
bycatch was highest during the mahi mahi season, with 0.597 turtles/
1,000 hooks, while the shark fishery caught 0.356 turtles/1,000 hooks
(Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2008b). A separate study by Kelez et al.
(2003) reported that approximately 30 percent of all turtles bycaught
in Peru were loggerheads. In many cases, loggerheads are kept on board
for human consumption; therefore, the mortality rate in this artisanal
longline fishery is likely high because sea turtles are retained for
future consumption or sale.
Data on loggerhead bycatch in Chile are limited to the industrial
swordfish fleet (Donoso and Dutton, 2010). Since 1990, fleet size has
ranged from 7 to 23 vessels with a mean of approximately 14 vessels per
year. These vessels fish up to and over 1,000 nautical miles along the
Chilean coast with mechanized sets numbering approximately 1,300 to
2,000 hooks (M. Donoso, ONG Pacifico Laud--Chile, personal
communication, 2007; Donoso and Dutton, 2010). Loggerhead bycatch is
present in Chilean fleets; however, the catch rate is substantially
lower than that reported for Peru (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2008b, 2010;
Donoso and Dutton, 2010).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other threats such as marine debris ingestion, boat strikes, port
dredging, and oil and gas development also impact loggerheads in the
South Pacific (Limpus, 2009; M. Hamann, James Cook University, personal
communication, 2010). Loggerhead mortality resulting from dredging of
channels in Queensland is a persistent, albeit minor problem. From
1999-2002, the average annual reported mortality was 1.7 turtles per
year (range = 1-3) from port dredging operations (Limpus, 2009).
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in the South Pacific
Ocean. This includes beach erosion and loss from rising sea levels,
skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures,
and abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal
during the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al.,
2009). Climate change studies for the northern Great Barrier Reef green
turtle population indicate that increased sand temperatures will result
in the sex ratio of hatchlings produced by this population skewing
toward females, as well as lethal incubation temperatures; up to 34
percent of available nesting habitat used by this population may be
inundated as a result of sea level rise; and changes in nesting beach
sedimentology may result in changes in nesting success, hatchling
emerging success, and reduced optimal nesting habitat (Fuentes et al.,
2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011). Thus, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to also impact loggerheads in the South Pacific
Ocean; however, the impact of these threats for loggerheads has not
been quantified (Hamann et al., 2007).
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones or hurricanes, may
affect loggerheads in the South Pacific Ocean. These types of events
may disrupt loggerhead nesting activity, albeit on a temporary scale.
Chaloupka et al. (2008) demonstrated that nesting abundance of
loggerheads in Australia was inversely related to sea surface
temperatures, and suggested that a long-term warming trend in the South
Pacific may be adversely impacting the recovery potential of this
population.
In summary, we find that the South Pacific Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that the cumulative fishery bycatch of loggerheads that occurs
throughout the South Pacific Ocean is a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS.
North Indian Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting habitat in the
North Indian Ocean result from coastal development and construction,
beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach pollution,
[[Page 58913]]
removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation (E.
Possardt, USFWS, personal observation, 2008).
The primary loggerhead nesting beaches of this DPS are at Masirah
Island, Oman, and are still relatively undeveloped but now facing
increasing development pressures. Newly paved roads closely paralleling
most of the Masirah Island coast are bringing newly constructed highway
lights (E. Possardt, USFWS, personal observation, 2008) and greater
access to nesting beaches by the public. Light pollution from the
military installation at Masirah Island also is evident at the most
densely nested northern end of the island and is a likely cause of
hatchling disorientation and nesting female disturbance (E. Possardt,
USFWS, personal observation, 2008). Beach driving occurs on most of the
major beaches outside the military installation. This vehicular traffic
creates ruts that obstruct hatchling movements (Mann, 1977; Hosier et
al., 1981; Baldwin, 1992; Cox et al., 1994), tramples nests, and
destroys vegetation and dune formation processes, which exacerbates
light pollution effects. Free ranging camels, sheep, and goats
overgraze beach vegetation, which impedes natural dune formation (E.
Possardt, USFWS, personal observation, 2008). A new hotel on a major
loggerhead nesting beach at Masirah Island was recently completed and,
although not yet approved, there are plans for a major resort at an
important loggerhead nesting beach on one of the Halaniyat Islands.
Armoring structures common to many developed beaches throughout the
world are not yet evident on the major loggerhead nesting beaches of
this DPS.
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the North Indian Ocean include fishing practices, channel dredging,
sand extraction, marine pollution, and climate change. Fishing methods
not only incidentally capture loggerheads, but also deplete
invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics. In
many cases loggerhead foraging areas coincide with fishing zones. There
has been an apparent growth in artisanal and commercial fisheries in
waters surrounding Masirah Island (Baldwin, 1992). Climate change also
may result in future trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey
abundance and distribution.
In summary, we find that the North Indian Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both
its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Within Factor A, we find
that coastal development, beachfront lighting, and vehicular beach
driving on nesting beaches in Oman are significant threats to the
persistence of this DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The use of loggerhead meat for food in Oman is not legal or
popular. However, routine egg collection on Masirah Island does occur
(Baldwin, 1992). The extent of egg collection as estimated by Masirah
rangers and local residents is approximately 2,000 clutches per year
(less than 10 percent).
In summary, although the collection of eggs for human consumption
is known to occur, it does not appear to be a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the North Indian Ocean. Natural egg predation on
Oman loggerhead nesting beaches undoubtedly occurs, but is not well
documented or believed to be significant. Predation on hatchlings by
Arabian red fox (Vulpes vulpes arabica), ghost crabs (Ocypode saratan),
night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), and gulls (Larus spp.) likely
occurs. While quantitative data do not exist to evaluate these impacts
on the North Indian Ocean loggerhead population, they are not likely to
be significant.
In summary, nest predation is known to occur and hatchling
predation is likely. The best available data suggest predation is
potentially affecting the persistence of this DPS; however,
quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of
nest predation on the persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the North Indian Ocean. The
reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.3.4. of the Status Review
for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle (2002) and
Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of these
international instruments. The problems with existing international
treaties are often that they have not realized their full potential, do
not include some key countries, do not specifically address sea turtle
conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a sovereign authority
to enforce environmental regulations. The ineffectiveness of
international treaties and national legislation is oftentimes due to
the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to implement and
enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is available in a
special 2002 issue of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle Conservation
(Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Oman Royal Decree No. 6/2003 (The Law of Nature Conservation and
Wildlife) prohibits harm to all species of sea turtles or the
collecting of their eggs. Royal Decrees also exist to protect habitat
for important green turtle nesting beaches (Ras al Hadd Turtle Reserve)
and hawksbills (Damaniyat Nature Reserve). No such protection exists in
Oman for the important nesting beaches at Masirah Island and Halaniyat
Islands, although a proposed protected area is being developed and
considered for Masirah Island for the loggerhead nesting beaches and
other endangered wildlife.
Impacts to loggerheads and loggerhead nesting habitat from coastal
development, beachfront lighting, and vehicular beach driving on
nesting beaches in Oman is substantial (see Factor A). In addition,
fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the North Indian Ocean, although
not quantified, is likely substantial (see Factor E). Threats to
nesting beaches are likely to increase, which would require additional
and widespread nesting beach protection efforts (Factor A). Little is
currently being done to monitor and reduce mortality from neritic and
oceanic fisheries in the range of the North Indian Ocean DPS; this
mortality is likely to continue and increase with expected additional
fishing effort from commercial and artisanal fisheries (Factor E).
Reduction of mortality would be difficult due to a lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
indicates that existing regulatory mechanisms may be insufficient or
may not be sufficiently implemented to address the
[[Page 58914]]
needs of loggerheads. The best available data suggest that insufficient
or insufficiently implemented regulatory mechanisms in both the
terrestrial and marine environments are potentially affecting the
persistence of this DPS; however, sufficient data are not available to
assess the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms on the
persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
The magnitude of the threat of incidental capture of sea turtles in
artisanal and commercial fisheries in the North Indian Ocean is
difficult to assess. A bycatch survey administered off the coast of Sri
Lanka between September 1999 and November 2000 reported 5,241 total
turtle entanglements, of which 1,310 were loggerheads, between
Kalpitiya and Kirinda (Kapurusinghe and Saman, 2001; Kapurusinghe and
Cooray, 2002). Sea turtle bycatch has been reported in driftnet and set
gillnets, longlines, trawls, and hook and line gear (Kapurusinghe and
Saman, 2001; Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002; Lewison et al., 2004).
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries on loggerheads
in the North Indian Ocean is difficult given the low level of observer
coverage or investigations into bycatch conducted by countries that
have large fishing fleets. Efforts have been made to quantify the
effects of pelagic longline fishing on loggerheads globally (Lewison et
al., 2004; Wallace et al., 2010). While there were no turtle bycatch
data available from the North Indian Ocean to use in their assessment,
extrapolations that considered bycatch data for the Pacific and
Atlantic basins gave a conservative estimate of 6,000 loggerheads
captured in the Indian Ocean in the year 2000 (Lewison et al., 2004).
Interviews with rangers at Masirah Island reveal that shark gillnets
capture many loggerheads off nesting beaches during the nesting season.
As many as 60 boats are involved in this fishery with up to 6 km of
gillnets being fished daily from June through October along the Masirah
Island coast. Quantitative estimates of bycatch are not available due
to lack of observer coverage; however, rangers reported that loggerhead
bycatch is a common occurrence (E. Possardt, USFWS, personal
communication, 2008).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other anthropogenic impacts, such as boat strikes and ingestion or
entanglement in marine debris, as well as entrainment in coastal power
plants, likely apply to loggerheads in the North Indian Ocean. Similar
to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise have the
potential to impact loggerheads in the North Indian Ocean. This
includes beach erosion and loss from rising sea levels, skewed
hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures, and
abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal during
the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009).
Climate change impacts could have profound long-term impacts on nesting
populations in the North Indian Ocean, but it is not possible to
quantify the potential impacts at this point in time.
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones, tsunamis, and
hurricanes, affect loggerheads in the North Indian Ocean. For example,
during the 2007 season, Oman suffered a rare typhoon. In general,
however, severe storm events are episodic and, although they may affect
loggerhead hatchling production, the results are generally localized
and they rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting
seasons.
In summary, we find that the North Indian Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the North Indian
Ocean, although not quantified, is likely a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS.
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
The primary loggerhead nesting beaches for this DPS occur in
Australia on Dirk Hartog Island and Murion Islands (Baldwin et al.,
2003), which are undeveloped. Dirk Hartog Island and the Murion Islands
recently became part of the Western Australian Protected Area System.
On the mainland, loggerhead nesting habitat is not well protected
within the Australian conservation reserve system (Limpus, 2009).
Nesting habitat on the Ningaloo Coast is almost entirely contained
within the Ningaloo Marine Park; however, management of nesting habitat
on this coast is primarily driven by management related to the adjacent
pastoral leases. South of the Ningaloo Marine Park, other mainland
nesting habitat mostly occurs within pastoral leases (Limpus, 2009).
The Gnaraloo section of the coast is a private leasehold, but there are
concerns about future coastal development (M. Hamann, James Cook
University, personal communication, 2010). The Ningaloo Coast
(including Gnaraloo) is currently being considered for World Heritage
listing (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010).
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean include fishing practices, channel
dredging, oil and gas development, sand extraction, marine pollution,
and climate change. Fishing methods not only incidentally capture
loggerheads, but also deplete invertebrate and fish populations and
thus alter ecosystem dynamics. In many cases, loggerhead foraging areas
coincide with fishing zones. Climate change also may result in future
trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and
distribution.
In summary, we find that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS of
the loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in
its marine habitats. The best available data suggest that threats to
neritic and oceanic habitats are potentially affecting the persistence
of this DPS; however, sufficient data are not available to assess the
degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Australian Native Title Legislation (Native Title Act 1993)
allows the harvesting of loggerheads and their eggs by indigenous
peoples (Environment Australia, 2003). However, egg consumption in
Australia is virtually nil, and very few loggerheads are taken for food
by indigenous Australians (M. Hamann, James Cook University, personal
communication, 2010). Dirk Hartog Island and Murion Islands are largely
uninhabited, and poaching of eggs and turtles is likely negligible.
In summary, harvest of eggs and turtles is believed to be
negligible and does not appear to be a threat to the persistence of
this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean. On the North
West Cape and the beaches of the Ningaloo coast of mainland Australia,
a long established feral European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) population
preyed heavily on eggs and
[[Page 58915]]
is thought to be responsible for the lower numbers of nesting turtles
on the mainland beaches (Baldwin et al., 2003).
The fox populations have been eradicated on Dirk Hartog Island and
Murion Islands (Baldwin et al., 2003), and fox eradication projects
currently occur at Gnaraloo and Ningaloo in Western Australia. However,
fox predation is still a significant issue on these mainland beaches
(Limpus, 2009; Butcher, 2010; Hattingh et al., 2010), but these are
minor nesting sites (M. Hamann, James Cook University, personal
communication, 2010).
In summary, nest predation likely was a factor that contributed to
the historical decline of this DPS. However, foxes have been eradicated
on Dirk Hartog Island and Murion Islands, and current fox predation
levels on mainland beaches in Western Australia are greatly reduced
from historical levels. Therefore, predation no longer appears to be a
significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the Southeast Indo-Pacific
Ocean. The reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.4.4. of the
Status Review for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle
(2002) and Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of
these international instruments. The problems with existing
international treaties are often that they have not realized their full
potential, do not include some key countries, do not specifically
address sea turtle conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a
sovereign authority to enforce environmental regulations. The
ineffectiveness of international treaties and national legislation is
oftentimes due to the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to
implement and enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is
available in a special 2002 issue of the Journal of International
Wildlife Law and Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle
Conservation (Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Southeast Indo-Pacific
Ocean, although not quantified, is likely substantial (see Factor E).
With the exception of efforts to reduce loggerhead bycatch in the
northern Australian prawn fishery, little is currently being done to
monitor and reduce mortality from neritic and oceanic fisheries in the
range of the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS. This mortality is likely
to continue and increase with expected additional fishing effort from
commercial and artisanal fisheries (Factor E). Although national and
international governmental and non-governmental entities are currently
working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and some positive actions
have been implemented, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can
be sufficiently reduced in the near future due to the challenges of
mitigating illegal, unregulated, and unreported fisheries, the
continued expansion of artisanal fleets, the lack of comprehensive
information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on
implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
Loggerheads are listed as Endangered under Australia's Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. As described
under Factor A, the primary nesting beaches for this DPS occur in
Australia on Dirk Hartog Island and Murion Islands (Baldwin et al.,
2003). These islands are undeveloped and recently became part of the
Western Australian Protected Area System. On the mainland, loggerhead
nesting habitat is not well protected within the Australian
conservation reserve system (Limpus, 2009), although the Ningaloo Coast
(including Gnaraloo) is currently being considered for World Heritage
listing (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). At this time, loggerhead
nesting habitat on the Ningaloo Coast is almost entirely contained
within the Ningaloo Marine Park, but the Gnaraloo section of the coast
is a private leasehold and there are concerns about future coastal
development (M. Hamann, James Cook University, personal communication,
2010).
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that although regulatory mechanisms are in place that
should address direct and incidental take of Southeast Indo-Pacific
Ocean loggerheads, these regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are
not being implemented effectively to address the needs of loggerheads.
We find that the threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for fishery bycatch (Factor E) is significant relative to
the persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
The extent of the threat of incidental capture of sea turtles in
artisanal and commercial fisheries in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean
is unknown. Sea turtles are caught in pelagic and demersal longlines,
gillnets, trawls, seines, and pots and traps (Environment Australia,
2003). There is evidence of significant historical bycatch from prawn
fisheries, which may have depleted nesting populations long before
nesting surveys were initiated in the 1990s (Baldwin et al., 2003).
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries on loggerheads
in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean is very difficult given the low
level of observer coverage or investigations into bycatch conducted by
countries that have large fishing fleets. Efforts have been made to
quantify the effects of pelagic longline fishing on loggerheads
globally (Lewison et al., 2004). While there were no turtle bycatch
data available from the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean to use in their
assessment, extrapolations that considered bycatch data for the Pacific
and Atlantic basins gave a conservative estimate of 6,000 loggerheads
captured in the Indian Ocean in the year 2000. Loggerheads are known to
be taken by Japanese longline fisheries operating off of Western
Australia (Limpus, 2009).
The northern Australian prawn fishery (NPF) is made up of both a
banana prawn fishery and a tiger prawn fishery, and extends from Cape
York, Queensland (142[deg] E) to Cape Londonberry, Western Australia
(127[deg] E). The fishery is one of the most valuable in all of
Australia and in 2000 comprised 121 vessels fishing approximately
16,000 fishing days (Robins et al., 2002a). In 2000, the use of TEDs in
the NPF was made mandatory, due in part to several factors: (1)
Objectives of the Draft Australian Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles,
(2) requirement of the Australian Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act for Commonwealth fisheries to become
ecologically sustainable, and (3) the 1996 U.S. import embargo on wild-
caught prawns taken in a fishery without adequate turtle bycatch
management practices (Robins et al., 2002a). Data primarily were
collected by volunteer fishers who were trained extensively in the
collection of scientific data on sea turtles caught as bycatch in their
fishery. Prior to the use of TEDs in this fishery, the NPF annually
took between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as bycatch, with a mortality
rate of an
[[Page 58916]]
estimated 40 percent, due to drowning, injuries, or being returned to
the water comatose (Poiner and Harris, 1996). Since the mandatory use
of TEDs has been in effect, the annual bycatch of sea turtles in the
NPF has dropped to less than 200 sea turtles per year, with a mortality
rate of approximately 22 percent (based on recent years). This lower
mortality rate also may be based on better sea turtle handling
techniques adopted by the fleet. In general, loggerheads were the third
most common sea turtle taken in this fishery.
Loggerheads also have been the most common turtle species captured
in shark control programs in Pacific Australia (Kidston et al., 1992;
Limpus, 2009); however, the Western Australian demersal longline
fishery for sharks has no recorded interaction with loggerheads. An
emerging and expanding fishery for portunid crabs has started up in
Western Australia and is known to kill loggerheads as bycatch (R.
Prince, Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia,
personal communication, 2011).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other anthropogenic impacts, such as boat strikes, oil and gas
development, and ingestion or entanglement in marine debris, likely
apply to loggerheads in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean. Similar to
other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise have the
potential to impact loggerheads in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean.
This includes beach erosion and loss from rising sea levels, skewed
hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures, and
abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal during
the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009).
Climate change impacts could have profound long-term impacts on nesting
populations in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, but it is not possible
to quantify the potential impacts at this point in time.
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones and hurricanes, may
affect loggerheads in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean. In general,
however, severe storm events are episodic and, although they may affect
loggerhead hatchling production, the results are generally localized
and they rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting
seasons.
In summary, we find that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS of
the loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E; however, many of these
threats have not been quantified. Within Factor E, we find that fishery
bycatch, particularly from the northern Australian prawn fishery, was a
factor that contributed to the historical decline of this DPS. Although
loggerhead bycatch has been greatly reduced in the northern Australian
prawn fishery, bycatch that occurs elsewhere in the Southeast Indo-
Pacific Ocean has not been fully quantified, and there is a new fishery
for portunid crabs with known but unquantified bycatch. The best
available data suggest the effects of pelagic longline fishing on
loggerheads in the Southeast Indo-Pacific are likely substantial when
considering the number of industrial and artisanal vessels operating
out of nations lining the Indo-Pacific region (FAO Fisheries Statistics
[http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en], accessed online June 2011).
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout
the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, although not quantified, is likely a
significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
Southwest Indian Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
Limited information is available on threats in the terrestrial
zone. All nesting beaches within South Africa are within protected
areas (Baldwin et al., 2003). In Mozambique, nesting beaches in the
Maputo Special Reserve (approximately 60 km of nesting beach) and in
the Paradise Islands are within protected areas (Baldwin et al., 2003;
Costa et al., 2007).
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat from fishing practices, channel dredging, sand
extraction, and marine pollution likely apply to loggerhead neritic and
oceanic zones in the Southwest Indian Ocean DPS. Fishing methods not
only incidentally capture loggerheads, but also deplete invertebrate
and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics. In many cases,
loggerhead foraging areas coincide with fishing zones. Climate change
also may result in future trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead
prey abundance and distribution.
In summary, we find that the Southwest Indian Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is likely negatively affected by ongoing changes
in its marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as
considered above in Factor A. The best available data suggest that
threats to neritic and oceanic habitats are potentially affecting the
persistence of this DPS; however, sufficient data are not available to
assess the significance of these threats to the persistence of this
DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
In the Southwest Indian Ocean, on the east coast of Africa,
subsistence hunting by local people is a continued threat to
loggerheads (Baldwin et al., 2003). Illegal hunting of marine turtles
and egg harvesting remains a threat in Mozambique as well (Louro et
al., 2006).
In summary, harvest of loggerheads and eggs for human consumption
on the east coast of Africa, although not quantified, is likely a
significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the Southwest Indian Ocean. Side striped jackals
(Canis adustus) and honey badgers (Melivora capensis) are known to
depredate nests (Baldwin et al., 2003).
In summary, nest predation is known to occur. The best available
data suggest predation is potentially affecting the persistence of this
DPS; however, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree
of impact of nest predation on the persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the Southwest Indian Ocean.
The reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.5.4. of the Status
Review for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle (2002)
and Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of these
international instruments. The problems with existing international
treaties are often that they have not realized their full potential, do
not include some key countries, do not specifically address sea turtle
conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a sovereign authority
to enforce environmental regulations. The ineffectiveness of
international treaties and national legislation is oftentimes due to
the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to implement and
enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is available in a
special 2002 issue of the Journal of International Wildlife Law
[[Page 58917]]
and Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle Conservation
(Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Southwest Indian Ocean,
although not broadly quantified, is likely substantial (see Factor E).
This mortality is likely to continue and may increase with expected
additional fishing effort from commercial and artisanal fisheries.
Reduction of mortality would be difficult due to a lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
As described under Factor A, all loggerhead nesting beaches within
South Africa are within protected areas (Baldwin et al., 2003). In
Mozambique, nesting beaches in the Maputo Special Reserve
(approximately 60 km of nesting beach) and in the Paradise Islands are
within protected areas (Baldwin et al., 2003; Costa et al., 2007).
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
indicates that existing regulatory mechanisms may be insufficient or
may not be sufficiently implemented to address the needs of
loggerheads. The best available data suggest that insufficient or
insufficiently implemented regulatory mechanisms in the marine
environment are potentially affecting the persistence of this DPS;
however, sufficient data are not available to assess the adequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms on the persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
The full extent of the threat of incidental capture of sea turtles
in artisanal and commercial fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean is
unknown. Sea turtles are caught in demersal and pelagic longlines,
trawls, gillnets, and seines (Petersen, 2005; Louro et al., 2006; Costa
et al., 2007; Fennessy and Isaksen, 2007; Petersen et al., 2007, 2009).
There is evidence of significant historical bycatch from prawn
fisheries, which may have depleted nesting populations long before
nesting surveys were initiated in the 1990s (Baldwin et al., 2003).
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries on loggerheads
in the Southwest Indian Ocean is very difficult given the low level of
observer coverage or investigations into bycatch conducted by countries
that have large fishing fleets. Efforts have been made to quantify the
effects of pelagic longline fishing on loggerheads globally (Lewison et
al., 2004). While there were no turtle bycatch data available from the
Southwest Indian Ocean to use in their assessment, extrapolations that
considered bycatch data for the Pacific and Atlantic basins gave a
conservative estimate of 6,000 loggerheads captured in the Indian Ocean
in the year 2000. The effect of the longline fishery on loggerheads in
the Indian Ocean is largely unknown (Lewison et al., 2004).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other anthropogenic impacts, such as boat strikes and ingestion or
entanglement in marine debris, likely apply to loggerheads in the
Southwest Indian Ocean. Similar to other areas of the world, climate
change and sea level rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in
the Southwest Indian Ocean. This includes beach erosion and loss from
rising sea levels, skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising beach
incubation temperatures, and abrupt disruption of ocean currents used
for natural dispersal during the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Climate change impacts could have
profound long-term impacts on nesting populations in the Southwest
Indian Ocean, but it is not possible at this time to predict how and
the extent to which climate change will impact this DPS.
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones, tsunamis and
hurricanes, may affect loggerheads in the Southwest Indian Ocean. In
general, however, severe storm events are episodic and, although they
may affect loggerhead hatchling production, the results are generally
localized and they rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple
nesting seasons.
In summary, we find that the Southwest Indian Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Southwest Indian
Ocean, although not quantified, is likely a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS.
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting habitat in the
Northwest Atlantic results from coastal development and construction,
placement of erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting,
placement of nearshore shoreline stabilization structures, beachfront
lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach erosion, beach sand
placement, removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-native
vegetation (NMFS and USFWS, 2008).
Numerous beaches in the southeastern United States are eroding due
to both natural (e.g., storms, sea level changes, waves, shoreline
geology) and anthropogenic (e.g., construction of armoring structures,
groins, and jetties; coastal development; inlet dredging) factors. Such
shoreline erosion leads to a loss of nesting habitat for sea turtles.
In the southeastern United States, numerous erosion control
structures (e.g., bulkheads, seawalls, soil retaining walls, rock
revetments, sandbags, geotextile tubes) that create barriers to nesting
have been constructed. The proportion of coastline that is armored is
approximately 18 percent (239 km) in Florida (Clark, 1992; Schroeder
and Mosier, 2000; Witherington et al., 2006b), 9 percent (14 km) in
Georgia (M. Dodd, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, personal
communication, 2009), 12 percent (29 km) in South Carolina (D. Griffin,
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, personal communication,
2009), and 3 percent (9 km) in North Carolina (M. Godfrey, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2009). These estimates of
armoring extent do not include structures that are also barriers to sea
turtle nesting but do not fit the definition of armoring, such as dune
crossovers, cabanas, sand fences, and recreational equipment. Jetties
have been placed at many ocean inlets along the U.S. Atlantic coast to
keep transported sand from closing the inlet channel. Witherington et
al. (2005) found a significant negative relationship between loggerhead
nesting density and distance from the nearest of 17 ocean inlets on the
Atlantic coast of Florida. The effect of inlets in lowering nesting
density was observed both updrift and downdrift of the inlets, leading
researchers to propose that beach instability from both erosion and
[[Page 58918]]
accretion may discourage loggerhead nesting.
Stormwater and other water source runoff from coastal development,
including beachfront parking lots, building rooftops, roads, decks, and
draining swimming pools adjacent to the beach, is frequently discharged
directly onto Northwest Atlantic beaches and dunes either by sheet
flow, through stormwater collection system outfalls, or through small
diameter pipes. These outfalls create localized erosion channels,
prevent natural dune establishment, and wash out sea turtle nests
(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished data).
Contaminants contained in stormwater, such as oils, grease, antifreeze,
gasoline, metals, pesticides, chlorine, and nutrients, are also
discharged onto the beach and have the potential to affect sea turtle
nests and emergent hatchlings. The effects of these contaminants on
loggerheads are not yet understood. As a result of natural and
anthropogenic factors, beach nourishment is a frequent activity, and
many beaches are on a periodic nourishment schedule. On severely eroded
sections of beach, where little or no suitable nesting habitat
previously existed, beach nourishment has been found to result in
increased nesting (Ernest and Martin, 1999). However, on most beaches
in the southeastern United States, nesting success typically declines
for the first year or two following construction, even though more
nesting habitat is available for turtles (Trindell et al., 1998; Ernest
and Martin, 1999; Herren, 1999).
Coastal development also contributes to habitat degradation by
increasing light pollution. Both nesting and hatchling sea turtles are
adversely affected by the presence of artificial lighting on or near
the beach (Witherington and Martin, 1996). Experimental studies have
shown that artificial lighting deters adult female turtles from
emerging from the ocean to nest (Witherington, 1992). Witherington
(1986) also noted that loggerheads aborted nesting attempts at a
greater frequency in lighted areas. Because adult females rely on
visual brightness cues to find their way back to the ocean after
nesting, those turtles that nest on lighted beaches may become
disoriented by artificial lighting and have difficulty finding their
way back to the ocean. In some cases, misdirected nesting females have
crawled onto coastal highways and have been struck and killed by
vehicles (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
unpublished data).
Reports of hatchling disorientation events in Florida alone
describe several hundred nests each year and are likely to involve tens
of thousands of hatchlings (Nelson et al., 2002); however, this number
calculated is likely a vast underestimate. Independent of these
reports, Witherington et al. (1996) surveyed hatchling orientation at
nests located at 23 representative beaches in six counties around
Florida in 1993 and 1994 and found that, by county, approximately 10 to
30 percent of nests showed evidence of hatchlings disoriented by
lighting. From this survey and from measures of hatchling production
(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, unpublished data),
the number of hatchlings disoriented by lighting in Florida is
calculated in the range of hundreds of thousands per year. Mortality of
disoriented clutches is likely very high (NMFS and USFWS, 2008--see
Appendix 2).
In the United States, vehicular driving is allowed on certain
beaches in northeast Florida (Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, and Volusia
Counties), northwest Florida (Walton and Gulf Counties), Georgia
(Cumberland, Little Cumberland, and Sapelo Islands), North Carolina
(Fort Fisher State Recreation Area, Carolina Beach, Freeman Park,
Onslow Beach, Emerald Isle, Indian Beach/Salter Path, Pine Knoll
Shores, Atlantic Beach, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, Nag's Head, Kill Devil Hills, Town of Duck, and
Currituck Banks), Virginia (Chincoteague NWR and Wallops Island), and
Texas (the majority of beaches except for a highly developed section of
South Padre Island and Padre Island National Seashore, San Jose Island,
Matagorda Island, and Matagorda Peninsula where driving is not allowed
or is limited to agency personnel, land owners, and researchers). Beach
driving has been found to reduce the quality of loggerhead nesting
habitat in several ways. In the southeastern U.S., vehicle ruts on the
beach have been found to prevent or impede hatchlings from reaching the
ocean following emergence from the nest (Mann, 1977; Hosier et al.,
1981; Cox et al., 1994; Hughes and Caine, 1994). Sand compaction by
vehicles has been found to hinder nest construction and hatchling
emergence from nests (Mann, 1977). Vehicle lights and vehicle movement
on the beach after dark results in reduced habitat suitability, which
can deter females from nesting and disorient hatchlings. Additionally,
vehicle traffic on nesting beaches contributes to erosion, especially
during high tides or on narrow beaches where driving is concentrated on
the high beach and foredune.
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean include fishing practices, channel
dredging, sand extraction, oil exploration and development, marine
pollution, and climate change. Fishing methods not only incidentally
capture loggerheads, but also deplete invertebrate and fish populations
and thus alter ecosystem dynamics. Although anthropogenic disruptions
of natural ecological interactions have been difficult to discern, a
few studies have been focused on the effects of these disruptions on
loggerheads. For instance, Youngkin (2001) analyzed gut contents from
hundreds of loggerheads stranded in Georgia over a 20-year period. His
findings point to the probability of major effects on loggerhead diet
from activities such as shrimp trawling and dredging. Lutcavage and
Musick (1985) found that horseshoe crabs strongly dominated the diet of
loggerheads in Chesapeake Bay in 1980-1981. Subsequently, fishermen
began to harvest horseshoe crabs, primarily for use as bait in the eel
and whelk pot fisheries, using several gear types. Atlantic coast
horseshoe crab landings increased by an order of magnitude (0.5 to 6.0
million pounds) between 1980 and 1997, and in 1998 the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission implemented a horseshoe crab fishery
management plan to curtail catches (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 1998). The decline in horseshoe crab availability has
apparently caused a diet shift in juvenile loggerheads, from
predominantly horseshoe crabs in the early to mid-1980s to blue crabs
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to mostly finfish in the late 1990s
and early 2000s (Seney, 2003; Seney and Musick, 2007). These data
suggest that turtles are foraging in greater numbers in or around
fishing gears and on discarded bycatch (Seney, 2003). However, Wallace
et al. (2009) and McClellan et al. (2010) reported that neritic crabs
(blue crabs, in particular) and whelk comprised the most important
dietary items for juvenile loggerheads in neritic areas in North
Carolina, indicating that the trend reported by Seney and Musick (2007)
might be regional.
Periodic dredging of sediments from navigational channels is
carried out at large ports to provide for the passage of large
commercial and military vessels. In addition, sand mining (dredging)
for
[[Page 58919]]
beach renourishment and construction projects occurs in the Northwest
Atlantic along the U.S., Mexico, Central American, Colombia, and
Venezuela coasts. Although directed studies have not been conducted,
dredging activities, which occur regularly in the Northwest Atlantic,
have the potential to destroy or degrade benthic habitats used by
loggerheads. Channelization of inshore and nearshore habitat and the
subsequent disposal of dredged material in the marine environment can
destroy or disrupt resting or foraging grounds (including grass beds
and coral reefs) and may affect nesting distribution by altering
physical features in the marine environment (Hopkins and Murphy, 1980).
Oil exploration and development on live bottom areas may disrupt
foraging grounds by smothering benthic organisms with sediments and
drilling muds (Coston-Clements and Hoss, 1983). The effects of benthic
habitat alteration on loggerhead prey abundance and distribution, and
the effects of these potential changes on loggerhead populations, have
not been determined but are of concern. Climate change also may result
in trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and
distribution.
In summary, we find that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both
its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Within Factor A, we find
that coastal development, beachfront lighting, and coastal armoring and
other erosion control structures on nesting beaches in the United
States are significant threats to the persistence of this DPS. We also
find that anthropogenic disruptions of natural ecological interactions
as a result of fishing practices, channel dredging, and oil exploration
and development are likely a significant threat to the persistence of
this DPS. However, compared to many of the other loggerhead DPSs and
sea turtle species, the United States has the ability to control a very
large proportion of the anthropogenic threats to nesting and foraging
habitats used by neritic juveniles and adults. While not minimizing the
role of the Caribbean rookeries, the vast majority of nesting is on
U.S. beaches, and a great number of large neritic juveniles and adults,
the most reproductively valuable age classes, from all rookeries spend
a large portion of their time in U.S. waters.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Deliberate hunting of loggerheads for their meat, shells, and eggs
is reduced from previous exploitation levels, but still exists. In the
Caribbean, 12 of 29 (41 percent) countries/territories allow the
harvest of loggerheads (NMFS and USFWS, 2008--see Appendix 3; A.
Bolten, University of Florida, personal communication, 2009); this
takes into account the September 2009 ban on the harvest of sea turtles
in The Bahamas. Loggerhead harvest in the Caribbean is generally
restricted to the non-nesting season with the exception of St. Kitts
and Nevis, where turtle harvest is allowed annually from March 1
through September 30, and the Turks and Caicos Islands, where turtle
harvest is allowed year-round. Most countries/territories that allow
harvest have regulations that favor the harvest of large juvenile and
adult turtles, the most reproductively valuable members of the
population. Exceptions include the Cayman Islands, which mandates
maximum size limits, and Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago, which have no
size restrictions. All North, Central, and South American countries in
the Northwest Atlantic have enacted laws that mandate complete
protection of loggerheads from harvest in their territorial waters with
the exception of Guyana. Despite national laws, in many countries the
poaching of eggs and hunting of adult and juvenile turtles still occurs
at varying levels (NMFS and USFWS, 2008--see Appendix 3). Although
unquantified, the extent of legal and illegal take in most locations is
believed to be low and occur in locations where loggerhead density is
low (NMFS and USFWS, 2008--see Appendix 2; TEWG, 2009). However, take
in Cuba, despite the national ban, is thought to be rather extensive
(F. Moncada-Gavilan, Cuba Fisheries Research Centre, personal
communication, 2009).
In summary, overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a
factor that contributed to the historical decline of this DPS. Legal
and illegal harvest of loggerheads in the Caribbean for human
consumption continues, and the best available data suggest this harvest
is potentially affecting the persistence of this DPS; however,
quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of
overutilization on the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the Northwest Atlantic. Viral diseases have not
been documented in free-ranging loggerheads, with the possible
exception of sea turtle fibropapillomatosis, which may have a viral
etiology (Herbst and Jacobson, 1995; George, 1997). Although
fibropapillomatosis reaches epidemic proportions in some wild green
turtle populations, the prevalence of this disease in most loggerhead
populations is thought to be small. An exception is Florida Bay where
approximately 9.5 percent of the loggerheads captured exhibit
fibropapilloma-like external lesions (B. Schroeder, NMFS, personal
communication, 2006). Mortality levels and population-level effects
associated with the disease are still unknown. Heavy infestations of
endoparasites may cause or contribute to debilitation or mortality in
loggerhead sea turtles. Trematode eggs and adult trematodes were
recorded in a variety of tissues including the spinal cord and brain of
debilitated loggerheads during an epizootic in South Florida, USA,
during late 2000 and early 2001. These endoparasites were implicated as
a possible cause of the epizootic (Jacobson et al., 2006). Although
many health problems have been described in wild populations through
the necropsy of stranded turtles, the significance of diseases on the
ecology of wild loggerhead populations is not known (Herbst and
Jacobson, 1995).
Predation of eggs and hatchlings by native and introduced species
occurs on almost all nesting beaches throughout the Northwest Atlantic.
The most common predators at the primary nesting beaches in the
southeastern United States are ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), raccoons
(Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans),
armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and red fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta) (Stancyk, 1982; Dodd, 1988). In the absence of well managed
nest protection programs, predators may take significant numbers of
eggs; however, nest protection programs are in place at most of the
major nesting beaches in the Northwest Atlantic.
Non-native vegetation has invaded many coastal areas and often
outcompetes native plant species. Exotic vegetation may form
impenetrable root mats that can invade and desiccate eggs, as well as
trap hatchlings. The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) is
particularly harmful to sea turtles. Dense stands have taken over many
coastal areas throughout central and south Florida. Australian pines
cause excessive shading of the beach that would not otherwise occur.
[[Page 58920]]
Studies in Florida suggest that nests laid in shaded areas are
subjected to lower incubation temperatures, which may alter the natural
hatchling sex ratio (Marcus and Maley, 1987; Schmelz and Mezich, 1988;
Hanson et al., 1998). Fallen Australian pines limit access to suitable
nest sites and can entrap nesting females (Austin, 1978; Reardon and
Mansfield, 1997). The shallow root network of these pines can interfere
with nest construction (Schmelz and Mezich, 1988). Davis and Whiting
(1977) reported that nesting activity declined in Everglades National
Park where dense stands of Australian pine took over native dune
vegetation on a remote nesting beach. Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia)
is native to countries in the western Pacific and was introduced to the
horticulture trade in the southeastern United States in the mid-1980s
and is often sold as a ``dune stabilizer.'' Its presence on North
Carolina and South Carolina beaches has a negative effect on sea turtle
nesting as its dense mats interfere with sea turtle nesting and
hatchling emergence from nests (Brabson, 2006). This exotic plant is
crowding out the native species, such as sea oats and bitter panicum,
and can colonize large areas in just a few years. Sisal, or century
plant, (Agave americana) is native to arid regions of Mexico. The plant
was widely grown in sandy soils around Florida in order to provide
fiber for cordage. It has escaped cultivation in Florida and has been
purposely planted on dunes. Although the effects of sisal on sea turtle
nesting are uncertain, thickets with impenetrable sharp spines are
occasionally found on developed beaches.
Harmful algal blooms, such as a red tide, also affect loggerheads
in the Northwest Atlantic. In Florida, the species that causes most red
tides is Karenia brevis, a dinoflagellate that produces a toxin
(Florida Marine Research Institute, 2003) and can cause mortality in
birds, marine mammals, and sea turtles. During four red tide events
along the west coast of Florida, sea turtle stranding trends indicated
that these events were acting as a mortality factor (Redlow et al.,
2003). Furthermore, brevetoxin concentrations supportive of
intoxication were detected in biological samples from dead and moribund
sea turtles during a mortality event in 2005 and in subsequent events
(Fauquier et al., 2007). The population level effects of these events
are not yet known.
In summary, nest and hatchling predation likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical decline of this DPS. Although current
predation levels in the United States are greatly reduced from
historical levels, predation still occurs in the United States, as well
as in Mexico, and could be significant in the absence of the current
well managed protection efforts. Although diseases and parasites are
known to impact loggerheads in this DPS, the significance of these
threats is not known. Overall, however, current threats in both the
terrestrial and marine environments are not believed to be a
significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
(Conant et al., 2009). Hykle (2002) and Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the
effectiveness of some of these international instruments. The problems
with existing international treaties are often that they have not
realized their full potential, do not include some key countries, do
not specifically address sea turtle conservation, and are handicapped
by the lack of a sovereign authority to enforce environmental
regulations. The ineffectiveness of international treaties and national
legislation is oftentimes due to the lack of motivation or obligation
by countries to implement and enforce them. A thorough discussion of
this topic is available in a special 2002 issue of the Journal of
International Wildlife Law and Policy: International Instruments and
Marine Turtle Conservation (Hykle, 2002). However, efforts continue to
establish international instruments for sea turtle protection and to
incorporate sea turtle protection into existing instruments. In
November 2010, ICCAT approved a proposal to require data reporting on
the capture of sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean and mandated the use
of hook-removal and fishing line disentanglement gear.
National Legislation and Protection
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the North Atlantic Ocean is
substantial (see Factor E). National and international governmental and
non-governmental entities on both sides of the North Atlantic are
currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch. Some positive
actions have been implemented in addition to effort reductions
occurring in some fisheries as a result of economics and reductions in
target species. However, it is still unclear to what degree this source
of mortality can be reduced across the range of the DPS in the near
future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries
operating in the North Atlantic, the lack of comprehensive information
on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies. National
legislation and protective measures have been implemented in the past,
and in many cases it is yet too early to determine the effectiveness of
those actions stemming from the available regulatory mechanisms. With a
long age to maturity and transitory dynamics in the populations, the
effects of actions taken over 20 years ago may just now be expected to
be observed on the nesting beaches. The existing regulatory framework
uses the authority of the ESA, as well as that of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as the primary means of
providing protection from fishery interactions. Further explanation of
specific protective actions taken under these Acts to reduce fishery
bycatch are detailed in the discussion of incidental bycatch in fishing
gear under Factor E as well as under the Conservation Efforts section.
A comprehensive review of the framework for all U.S. fisheries in which
turtle (as well as mammal and seabird) bycatch occurs is provided by
Moore et al. (2009).
Coastal development, coupled with critical beach erosion, has led
to the placement of structures (e.g., armoring, sand fences, and other
erosion control structures to protect upland property), which have
destroyed or degraded nesting habitat. While some States have
regulations prohibiting coastal armoring, other State regulations are
insufficient to protect nesting habitat. State regulations related to
the placement and design of new coastal structures need to be reviewed
and revised as appropriate to reduce the need for coastal armoring.
Where lighting ordinances have been adopted and adequately enforced,
hatchling disorientation has been managed at acceptable levels;
however, not all coastal counties or municipalities have adopted or
fully enforced effective lighting ordinances and thus additional work
is needed to ensure more consistent protective measures.
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that regulatory mechanisms are in place that should
address direct and incidental take of
[[Page 58921]]
Northwest Atlantic Ocean loggerheads. While the regulatory mechanisms
contained within international instruments are inconsistent and likely
insufficient, the mechanisms of existing national legislation and
protection are much more adequate. However, it remains to be determined
if national measures are being implemented effectively to fully address
the needs of loggerheads. The potential strength of the existing
national regulatory mechanisms provides a likely advantage to the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS compared to other loggerhead DPSs and
other sea turtle species, as a very large proportion of the adult and
large juvenile stages occur in waters under our national jurisdiction.
However, we find that even with the existing regulatory mechanisms
there is still a potential threat from both national and international
fishery bycatch (Factor E) and coastal development, beachfront
lighting, and coastal armoring and other erosion control structures on
nesting beaches in the United States (Factor A). More work needs to be
done under the existing national regulatory mechanisms, as well as
continuing to advance the development and effectiveness of
international instruments, to ensure the persistence of this DPS.
Therefore, we find that the threat from the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is significant relative to the persistence of
this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Bycatch of loggerheads in commercial and recreational fisheries in
the Northwest Atlantic is a significant threat facing the species in
this region. A variety of fishing gears that incidentally capture
loggerhead sea turtles are employed including gillnets, trawls, hook
and line, longlines, seines, dredges, pound nets, and various types of
pots/traps. Among these, gillnets, longlines, and trawl gear contribute
to the vast majority of bycatch mortality of loggerheads annually
throughout their range in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico with
shrimp trawls likely accounting for the majority of bycatch mortality
(Epperly et al., 1995; NMFS, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008; Lewison et al.,
2003, 2004; Richards, 2007; Moore et al., 2009; NMFS, unpublished
data). Considerable effort has been expended since the 1980s to
document and address fishery bycatch, especially in the United States
and Mexico. Observer programs have been implemented in some fisheries
to collect turtle bycatch data, and efforts to reduce bycatch and
mortality of loggerheads in certain fishing operations have been
undertaken and implemented or partially implemented. These efforts
include developing gear solutions to prevent or reduce captures or to
allow turtles to escape without harm (e.g., TEDs, circle hooks and bait
combinations), implementing time and area closures to prevent
interactions from occurring (e.g., prohibitions on gillnet fishing
along the mid-Atlantic coast during the critical time of northward
migration of loggerheads), implementation of careful release protocols
(e.g., requirements for careful release of turtles captured in longline
fisheries), prohibitions of gillnetting in some U.S. State waters, and
modifying gear (e.g., requirements to reduce mesh size in the leaders
of pound nets in certain U.S. coastal waters to prevent entanglement).
The primary bycatch reduction focus in the Northwest Atlantic,
since the 1978 ESA listing of the loggerhead, has been on bycatch
reduction in shrimp trawls. The United States has required the use of
TEDs throughout the year since the mid-1990s, with modifications
required and implemented as necessary (52 FR 24244; June 29, 1987; 57
FR 57348; December 4, 1992; Epperly, 2003). Most notably, in 2003, NMFS
implemented new requirements for TEDs in the shrimp trawl fishery to
ensure that large loggerheads could escape through TED openings (68 FR
8456; February 21, 2003). Significant effort has been expended to
transfer this technology to other shrimping fleets in the Northwest
Atlantic; however, not all nations where loggerheads occur require the
device be used. Enforcement of TED regulations is difficult and
compliance is not believed to be complete in any of the nations
requiring TED use, including the United States. Even if compliance was
complete, TEDs are not 100 percent effective, as it is estimated that
as much as 3 percent of turtles may still be retained and possibly
drown in a trawl with a properly installed TED. Therefore, a
significant number of loggerheads are estimated to still be killed
annually in shrimp trawls throughout the Northwest Atlantic. For the
U.S. Southeast food shrimp trawl fishery, NMFS previously estimated the
annual mortality of loggerheads in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern
U.S. Atlantic Ocean as 3,948 individuals (95 percent confidence
intervals, 1,221-8,498) based upon 2001 effort data (NMFS, 2002).
However, shrimping effort by otter trawls in the southeastern United
States has significantly declined in both the Gulf of Mexico (2009
effort was 39 percent of 2001 effort) and the South Atlantic (2009
effort was 62 percent of 2001 effort) (NMFS, unpublished data). In 2011
a revised estimate of annual loggerhead mortality for the Southeast
food shrimp trawl fishery was calculated using 2009 data (the latest
available at the time). It estimated annual mortality to be 778
individuals in the Gulf of Mexico and 673 in the South Atlantic (NMFS,
unpublished data).
Other trawl fisheries operating in Northwest Atlantic waters that
are known or expected to capture sea turtles include, but are not
limited to, summer flounder, calico scallop, sea scallop, blue crab,
whelk, cannonball jellyfish, horseshoe crab, and mid-Atlantic directed
finfish trawl fisheries and the Sargassum fishery. In the United
States, the summer flounder fishery is the only trawl fishery (other
than the shrimp fishery) with federally mandated TED use (in certain
areas). Loggerhead annual bycatch estimates in 2004 and 2005 in U.S.
mid-Atlantic scallop trawl gear ranged from 81 to 191 turtles,
depending on the estimation methodology used (Murray, 2007). Estimated
average annual bycatch of loggerheads in other mid-Atlantic federally
managed bottom otter trawl fisheries during 1996-2004 was 616 turtles
(Murray, 2006). A more recent study estimated that between the years
2005-2008, an average of 352 loggerheads were caught annually by the
U.S. Mid-Atlantic fish and scallop bottom otter trawl fisheries
(Warden, 2011). The harvest of Sargassum by trawlers can result in
incidental capture of post-hatchlings and habitat destruction
(Schwartz, 1988; Witherington, 2002); however, this fishery is not
currently active. Likewise, the calico scallop fishery was a periodic
fishery that did not occur on a regular basis and has not been
prosecuted for years: no commercial landings of calico scallop have
been reported from the East Coast of Florida since 2003 (NMFS
commercial fisheries landings database), and the processing facilities
that previously supported these fisheries have been closed, hampering
the rapid resumption of a large-scale fishery.
Dredge fishing gear is the predominant gear used to harvest sea
scallops off the mid- and northeastern United States Atlantic coast.
Turtles can be struck and injured or killed by the dredge frame or
captured in the bag where they may drown or be further injured or
killed when the catch and heavy gear are dumped on the vessel deck.
Total estimated bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles in the U.S. sea
scallop dredge fishery operating in the mid-Atlantic region (New York
to North
[[Page 58922]]
Carolina) from June through November is on the order of several hundred
turtles per year (Murray, 2004, 2005, 2007). The impact of the sea
scallop dredge fishery on loggerheads in U.S. waters of the Northwest
Atlantic remains a serious concern.
Incidental take of oceanic-stage loggerheads in pelagic longline
fisheries has recently received significant attention (Balazs and
Pooley, 1994; Bolten et al., 1994, 2000; Aguilar et al., 1995; Laurent
et al., 1998; Long and Schroeder, 2004; Watson et al., 2005). Large-
scale commercial longline fisheries operate throughout the pelagic
range of the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead, including the western
Mediterranean. The largest size classes in the oceanic stage are the
size classes impacted by the swordfish longline fishery in the Azores
(Bolten, 2003) and on the Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank, and Grand Banks
in Canadian waters (Watson et al., 2005; Brazner and McMillan, 2008),
and this is likely the case for other nation's fleets operating in the
region, including but not limited to, the European Union, United
States, Japan, and Taiwan. The demographic consequences relative to
population recovery of the increased mortality of these size classes
have been discussed (Crouse et al., 1987; Heppell et al., 2003;
Chaloupka, 2003; Wallace et al., 2008). Estimates derived from data
recorded by the international observer program suggest that thousands
of mostly juvenile loggerheads have been captured in the Canadian
pelagic longline fishery in the western North Atlantic since 1999
(Brazner and McMillan, 2008). NMFS (2004) estimates that 635
loggerheads (143 lethal) will be taken annually in the U.S. pelagic
longline fishery.
Incidental capture of neritic-stage loggerheads in demersal
longline fishing gear has also been documented. Richards (2007)
estimated total annual bycatch of loggerheads in the Southeast U.S.
Atlantic and U.S. Gulf of Mexico commercial directed shark bottom
longline fishery from 2003-2005 as follows: 2003: 302-1,620 (CV 0.45);
2004: 95-591 (CV 0.49); and 2005: 139-778 (CV 0.46). NMFS (2009)
estimated the total number of captures of hardshell turtles in the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery (demersal longline fishery) from July
2006-December 2008 as 861 turtles (95 percent confidence intervals,
383-1934). Based on the 2009 biological opinion for the Gulf of Mexico
reef fish fishery, estimated takes by the demersal longline portion of
the fishery following new regulations on gear restrictions and post-
hooking gear removal was determined to be 623 every 3 years, with a
mortality of 378 over that time span. This represents a reduction
compared to the recent historical take cited above. These estimates are
not comprehensive across this gear type (i.e., pelagic and demersal
longline) throughout the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Cumulatively, the
bycatch and mortality of Northwest Atlantic loggerheads in longline
fisheries is significant.
Gillnet fisheries may be the most ubiquitous of fisheries operating
in the neritic range of the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead.
Comprehensive estimates of bycatch in gillnet fisheries do not yet
exist and, while this precludes a quantitative analysis of their
impacts on loggerhead populations, the cumulative mortality of
loggerheads in gillnet fisheries is likely high. In the U.S. mid-
Atlantic, the average annual estimated bycatch of loggerheads from
1995-2006 was 350 turtles (CV = 0.20., 95 percent confidence intervals
over the 12-year period: 234 to 504) (Murray, 2009). From 2007-2009,
the U.S. pelagic shark gillnet fishery had a total of three observed
loggerhead takes (all in 2007), but insufficient data exist to
extrapolate a total estimated take for the fishery (NMFS, unpublished
report). In the United States, some States (e.g., South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas) have prohibited gillnets in
their waters, but there remain active gillnet fisheries in other U.S.
States, in U.S. Federal waters, Mexico waters, Central and South
America waters, and the Northeast Atlantic.
Pound nets are fixed gear with a long mesh leader that can be
suspended from the surface by a series of stringers or vertical lines
or a mesh supported along its length supported by stakes; both end in a
``heart'' that funnels animals into an impoundment for trapping fish at
the terminal point of the gear. Sea turtles incidentally captured in
the open top pound are usually safe from injury and can be released
when the fishermen pull the nets (Mansfield et al., 2002; Epperly et
al., 2007). However, sea turtle mortalities have been documented in the
leader of certain pound nets. Large mesh leaders (greater than 12-inch
stretched mesh) may act as a gillnet, entangling sea turtles by the
head or foreflippers (Bellmund et al., 1987) or may act as a barrier
against which turtles may be impinged (NMFS, unpublished data). Nets
with small mesh leaders (less than 8 inches stretched mesh) usually do
not present a mortality threat to loggerheads, but some mortality has
been reported (Morreale and Standora, 1998; Epperly et al., 2000, 2007;
Mansfield et al., 2002). In 2002, the United States prohibited, in
certain areas within the Chesapeake Bay and at certain times, pound net
leaders having mesh greater than or equal to 12 inches and leaders with
stringers (67 FR 41196; June 17, 2002). Subsequent regulations have
further restricted the use of certain pound net leaders in certain
geographic areas and established pound net leader gear modifications
(69 FR 24997; May 5, 2004; 71 FR 36024; June 23, 2006).
Pots/traps are commonly used to target crabs, lobsters, whelk, and
reef fishes. These traps vary in size and configuration, but all are
attached to a surface float by means of a vertical line leading to the
trap. Entanglement and mortality of loggerheads has been documented in
various pot/trap fisheries in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
Data from the U.S. Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network indicate
that 82 loggerheads (dead and rescued alive) were documented by the
stranding network in various pot/trap gear from 1996-2005, of these
approximately 30-40 percent were adults and the remainder juvenile
turtles (NMFS, unpublished data). Without intervention it is likely
that the majority of the live, entangled turtles would die.
Additionally, documented strandings represent only a portion of total
interactions and mortality. Recently, a small number of loggerhead
entanglements also have been recorded in whelk pot bridles in the U.S.
Mid-Atlantic (M. Fagan, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, personal
communication, 2008). However, no dedicated observer programs exist to
provide estimates of take and mortality from pot/trap fisheries;
therefore, comprehensive estimates of loggerhead interactions with pot/
trap gear are not available, but the gear is widely used throughout the
range of the DPS, and poses a continuing threat.
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Propeller and collision injuries from boats and ships are becoming
more common in sea turtles. In the U.S. Atlantic, from 1997 to 2005,
14.9 percent of all stranded loggerheads were documented as having
sustained some type of propeller or collision injuries (NMFS,
unpublished data). The incidence of propeller wounds observed in sea
turtles stranded in the United States has risen from approximately 10
percent in the late 1980s to a record high of 20.5 percent in 2004,
followed by annual rates of 15.2, 15.6, and 16.5 percent from 2005 to
2007, respectively (NMFS, unpublished data). In the United States,
propeller wounds are greatest in Southeast Florida; during some years,
as many as 60 percent of the loggerhead strandings found in these
[[Page 58923]]
areas had propeller wounds (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, unpublished data). However, it is still unclear what
proportion of those received the wounds postmortem. As the number of
vessels increases, in concert with increased coastal development, and
possibly increasing numbers of juvenile sea turtles, especially in
nearshore waters, propeller and vessel collision injuries are also
expected to rise.
Marine pollution impacts, especially the ingestion of or
entanglement in plastic, is another significant anthropogenic impact to
loggerhead sea turtles. Studies have shown that approximately 15
percent of post-hatchling loggerheads that emerge from Florida beaches
ingest plastics as they forage during their first few weeks in the
pelagic environment. Even in small quantities, plastics can kill sea
turtles due to obstruction of the esophagus or perforation of the
bowel, as well as potentially reducing normal food intake.
Several activities associated with offshore oil and gas production,
including oil spills, water quality (operational discharge), seismic
surveys, explosive platform removal, platform lighting, and noise from
drillships and production activities, are known to impact loggerheads
(National Research Council, 1996; Minerals Management Service, 2000;
Gregg Gitschlag, NMFS, personal communication, 2007; Viada et al.,
2008). Currently, there are 3,443 federally regulated offshore
platforms in the Gulf of Mexico dedicated to natural gas and oil
production. Additional State-regulated platforms are located in State
waters (Texas and Louisiana). There are currently no active leases off
the Atlantic coast.
Oil spills also threaten loggerheads in the Northwest Atlantic. Two
oil spills that occurred near loggerhead nesting beaches in Florida
were observed to affect eggs, hatchlings, and nesting females.
Approximately 350,000 gallons of fuel oil spilled in Tampa Bay in
August 1993 and was carried onto nesting beaches in Pinellas County.
Observed mortalities included 31 hatchlings and 176 oil-covered nests;
an additional 2,177 eggs and hatchlings were either exposed to oil or
disturbed by response activities (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection et al., 1997). Another spill near the beaches of Broward
County in August 2000 involved approximately 15,000 gallons of oil and
tar (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, 2002). Models estimated that
approximately 1,500 to 2,000 hatchlings and 0 to 1 adult were injured
or killed. Annually about 1 percent of all sea turtle strandings along
the U.S. east coast have been associated with oil, but higher rates of
3 to 6 percent have been observed in South Florida and Texas (Rabalais
and Rabalais, 1980; Plotkin and Amos, 1990; Teas, 1994). It is not yet
clear what the immediate and long-term impacts of the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon (Mississippi Canyon 252) oil well blowout and uncontrolled
release has had, and will have, on sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico,
including Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS loggerheads.
In addition to the destruction or degradation of habitat, periodic
dredging of sediments from navigational channels can also result in
incidental mortality of sea turtles. Direct injury or mortality of
loggerheads by dredges has been well documented in the southeastern and
mid-Atlantic United States (National Research Council, 1990).
Solutions, including modification of dredges and time/area closures,
have been successfully implemented to reduce mortalities and injuries
in the United States (NMFS, 1991, 1995, 1997; Nelson and Shafer, 1996).
The entrainment and entrapment of loggerheads in saltwater cooling
intake systems of coastal power plants has been documented in New
Jersey, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas (Eggers, 1989; National
Research Council, 1990; Carolina Power and Light Company, 2003;
Progress Energy Florida, Inc., 2003; Florida Power and Light Company
and Quantum Resources, Inc., 2005). Average annual incidental capture
rates for most coastal plants from which captures have been reported
amount to several turtles per plant per year. One notable exception is
the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant located on Hutchinson Island,
Florida. During the first 15 years of operation (1977-1991), an average
of 128 loggerheads per year was captured in the intake canal with a
mortality rate of 6.4 percent. During 1991-2005, loggerhead captures
more than doubled (average of 308 per year), while mortality rates
decreased to 0.3 percent per year (Florida Power and Light Company and
Quantum Resources, Inc., 2005). From 2005-2009, numbers fluctuated in
the 200+ to 400+ range (Florida Power and Light Company and Quantum
Resources, Inc. take database). Epperly et al. (2007) and TEWG (2009)
used this dataset, among others, to demonstrate that an examination of
all in-water research sites in the United States with data suitable for
trend analysis was showing a similar increase. This suggests a possible
juvenile population increase.
Although not a major source of mortality, cold stunning of
loggerheads has been reported at several locations in the United
States, including Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts (Still et al., 2002);
Long Island Sound, New York (Meylan and Sadove, 1986; Morreale et al.,
1992); the Indian River system, Florida (Mendon[ccedil]a and Ehrhart,
1982; Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989); and Texas inshore waters
(Hildebrand, 1982; Shaver, 1990). Cold stunning is a phenomenon during
which turtles become incapacitated as a result of rapidly dropping
water temperatures (Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; Morreale et al.,
1992). As temperatures fall below 8-10[deg] C, turtles may lose their
ability to swim and dive, often floating to the surface. The rate of
cooling that precipitates cold stunning appears to be the primary
threat, rather than the water temperature itself (Milton and Lutz,
2003). Sea turtles that overwinter in inshore waters are most
susceptible to cold stunning, because temperature changes are most
rapid in shallow water (Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989). More recent
large-scale cold-stunning events have occurred in January 2010, and
December 2010/January 2011. Although the vast majority of the sea
turtles were green turtles, some loggerheads were also impacted
(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission data).
Another natural factor that has the potential to affect recovery of
loggerhead sea turtles is aperiodic hurricanes. In general, these
events are episodic and, although they may affect loggerhead hatchling
production, the results are generally localized and they rarely result
in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting seasons. The negative
effects of hurricanes on low-lying and developed shorelines may be
longer-lasting and a greater threat overall.
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in the Northwest
Atlantic. These potential impacts include beach erosion from rising sea
levels, repeated inundation of nests, skewed hatchling sex ratios from
rising incubation temperatures, and abrupt disruption of ocean currents
used for natural dispersal during the complex life cycle (Fish et al.,
2005, 2008; Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Climate
change impacts could have profound long-term impacts on nesting
populations in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, but it is not possible to
predict the impacts at this point in time.
In summary, we find that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the
[[Page 58924]]
North Atlantic Ocean, particularly bycatch mortality of loggerheads
from gillnet, longline, and trawl fisheries throughout their range in
the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, is a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS. In addition, boat strikes are becoming more
common, possibly as a result of increased boat traffic, increased
juvenile populations, or some combination of both, and are possibly a
significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting habitat in the
Northeast Atlantic result from coastal development and construction,
placement of erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting,
beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, and beach pollution (Formia et al., 2003; Loureiro,
2008).
In the Northeast Atlantic, the only loggerhead nesting of note
occurs in the Cape Verde Islands. The Cape Verde government's plans to
develop Boa Vista Island, the location of the main nesting beaches,
could increase the terrestrial threats to loggerheads (van Bogaert,
2006). Sand extraction on Santiago Island, Cape Verde, may be
responsible for the apparent decrease in nesting there (Loureiro,
2008). Both sand extraction and beachfront lighting have been
identified as serious threats to the continued existence of a nesting
population on Santiago Island (Loureiro, 2008). Scattered and
infrequent nesting occurs in western Africa, where much
industrialization is located on the coast and population growth rates
fluctuate between 0.8 percent (Cape Verde) and 3.8 percent (C[ocirc]te
D'Ivoire) (Abe et al., 2004; Tayaa et al., 2005). Land mines on some of
the beaches of mainland Africa, within the reported historical range of
nesting by loggerheads (e.g., the Western Sahara region), would be
detrimental to nesters and are an impediment to scientific surveys of
the region (Tiwari et al., 2001). Tiwari et al. (2001) noted a high
level of human use of many of the beaches in Morocco--enough that any
evidence of nesting activity would be quickly erased. Garbage litters
many developed beaches (Formia et al., 2003). Erosion is a problem
along the long stretches of high energy ocean shoreline of Africa and
is further exacerbated by sand mining and harbor building (Formia et
al., 2003); crumbling buildings claimed by the sea may present
obstructions to nesting females.
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the Northeast Atlantic Ocean include fishing practices, marine
pollution and climate change. Ecosystem alterations have occurred due
to the tremendous human pressure on the environment in the region.
Turtles, including loggerheads, usually are included in ecosystem
models of the region (see Palomares and Pauly, 2004). In the Canary
Current Large Marine Ecosystem (LME), the area is characterized by the
Global International Waters Assessment as severely impacted in the area
of modification or loss of ecosystems or ecotones and health impacts,
but these impacts are decreasing (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). The Celtic-
Biscay Shelf LME is affected by alterations to the seabed, agriculture,
and sewage (Vald[eacute]s and Lavin, 2002). The Gulf of Guinea has been
characterized as severely impacted in the area of solid wastes by the
Global International Waters Assessment; this and other pollution
indicators are increasing (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). Marine pollution,
such as oil and debris, has been shown to negatively impact loggerheads
and represent a degradation of the habitat (Or[oacute]s et al., 2005,
2009; Calabuig Miranda and Liria Loza, 2007). Climate change also may
result in future trophic changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey
abundance and distribution.
Additionally, fishing is a major source of ecosystem alteration of
the neritic and oceanic habitats of loggerhead sea turtles in the
region. Fishing effort off the western African coast is increasing and
record low biomass has been recorded for exploited resources,
representing a decline in fish biomass by a factor of 13 since 1960
(see Palomares and Pauly, 2004). Throughout the North Atlantic, fishery
landings fell by 90 percent during the 20th century, foreboding a
trophic cascade and a change in food-web competition (Pauly et al.,
1998; Christensen et al., 2003). For a description of the exploited
marine resources in the region, see Lamboeuf (1997). The Celtic-Biscay
Shelf LME, the Iberian Coastal Ecosystem LME, the Canary Current LME,
and the Guinea Current LME all are severely overfished, and effort now
is turning to a focus on pelagic fisheries, whereas historically there
were demersal fisheries. The impacts continue to increase in the Guinea
Current LME despite efforts throughout the region to reduce fishing
pressure (http://www.lme.noaa.gov).
The threats to bottom habitat for loggerheads include modification
of the habitat through bottom trawling. Trawling occurs off the
European coast and the area off Northwest Africa is one of the most
intensively trawled areas in the world (Zeeberg et al., 2006). Trawling
has been banned in the Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands to protect
cold-water corals (Lutter, 2005). Although illegal, trawling also
occurs in the Cape Verde Islands (L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2003).
The use of destructive fishing practices, such as explosives and toxic
chemicals, has been reported in the Canary Current area, causing
serious damage to both the resources and the habitat (Tayaa et al.,
2005).
In summary, we find that the Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both
its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Within Factor A, we find
that sand extraction and beachfront lighting on nesting beaches are
significant threats to the persistence of this DPS. We also find that
anthropogenic disruptions of natural ecological interactions as a
result of fishing practices and marine pollution are likely a
significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Deliberate hunting of loggerheads for their meat, shells, and eggs
still exists and remains the most serious threat facing nesting turtles
in the Northeast Atlantic. Historical records indicate turtles were
harvested throughout Macaronesia (see L[oacute]pez-Jurado, 2007).
Intensive exploitation has been cited for the extirpation of the
loggerhead nesting colony in the Canary Islands (L[oacute]pez-Jurado,
2007), and heavy human predation on nesting and foraging animals
occurred on Santiago Island, Cape Verde, the first in the Archipelago
to be settled (Loureiro, 2008), as well as on Sal and Sao Vicente
islands (L[oacute]pez-Jurado, 2007). Nesting loggerheads and eggs are
still harvested at Boa Vista, Cape Verde (Cabrera et al., 2000;
L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2003). In 2007, over 1,100 (36 percent) of
the nesting turtles were hunted, which is about 15 percent of the
estimated adult female population (Marco et al., 2010). In 2008, the
military protected one of the major nesting beaches on Boa Vista where
in 2007 55 percent of the mortality had occurred; with the additional
protection, only 17 percent of the turtles
[[Page 58925]]
on that beach were slaughtered (Roder et al., in press). On Sal Island,
11.5 percent of the emergences on unprotected beaches ended with
mortality, whereas mortality was 3 percent of the emergences on
protected beaches (Cozens et al., in press). The slaughter of nesting
turtles is a problem wherever turtles nest in the Cape Verde Islands
and may approach 100 percent in some places (C. Roder, Turtle
Foundation, M[uuml]nsing, Germany, personal communication, 2009;
Cozens, in press). The meat and eggs are consumed locally as well as
traded among the archipelago (C. Roder, Turtle Foundation,
M[uuml]nsing, Germany, personal communication, 2009). Hatchlings are
collected on Sal Island, but this activity appears to be rare on other
islands of the archipelago (J. Cozens, SOS Tartarugas, Santa Maria, Sal
Island, Cape Verde, personal communication, 2009). Additionally, free
divers target turtles for consumption of meat, often selectively taking
large males (L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2003). Turtles are harvested
along the African coast and, in some areas, are considered a
significant source of food and income due to the poverty of many
residents along the African coast (Formia et al., 2003). Loggerhead
carapaces are sold in markets in Morocco and Western Sahara (Fretey,
2001; Tiwari et al., 2001; Benhardouze et al., 2004).
In summary, overutilization for human consumption likely was a
factor that contributed to the historical decline of this DPS. Current
harvest of loggerhead sea turtles and eggs for human consumption in
both Cape Verde and along the African coast, as well as the sale of
loggerhead carapaces in markets in Africa, are a significant threat to
the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Spontaneous diseases
documented in the Northeast Atlantic include pneumonia, hepatitis,
meningitis, septicemic processes, and neoplasia (Or[oacute]s et al.,
2005). Pneumonia could result from the aspiration of water from forced
submergence in fishing gear. The authors also reported nephritis,
esophagitis, nematode infestation, and eye lesions. Fibropapillomatosis
does not appear to be an issue in the Northeast Atlantic.
Nest depredation by ghost crabs (Ocypode cursor) occurs in Cape
Verde (L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2000). The ghost crabs feed on both
eggs and hatchlings. Arvy et al. (2000) reported predation of
loggerhead eggs in two nests in Mauritania by golden jackals (Canis
aureus); a loggerhead sea turtle creating a third nest also had been
killed, with meat and eggs eaten, but the predator was not identified.
Loggerheads in the Northeast Atlantic also may be impacted by
harmful algal blooms, which have been reported infrequently in the
Canary Islands and the Iberian Coastal LME (Ramos et al., 2005; Akin-
Oriola et al., 2006; Amorim and Dale, 2006; Moita et al., 2006; http://www.lme.noaa.gov).
In summary, disease and predation are known to occur. The best
available data suggest these threats are potentially affecting the
persistence of this DPS; however, quantitative data are not sufficient
to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of
this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the Northeast Atlantic
Ocean. The reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.7.4. of the
Status Review for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle
(2002) and Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of
these international instruments. The problems with existing
international treaties are often that they have not realized their full
potential, do not include some key countries, do not specifically
address sea turtle conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a
sovereign authority to enforce environmental regulations. The
ineffectiveness of international treaties and national legislation is
oftentimes due to the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to
implement and enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is
available in a special 2002 issue of the Journal of International
Wildlife Law and Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle
Conservation (Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Ongoing directed lethal take of nesting females and eggs (Factor
B), low hatching and emergence success (Factors A, B, and C), and
mortality of juvenile and adult turtles from fishery bycatch (Factor E)
that occurs throughout the Northeast Atlantic Ocean is substantial.
Currently, conservation efforts to protect nesting females are growing,
and a reduction in this source of mortality is likely to continue in
the near future. Although national and international governmental and
non-governmental entities in the Northeast Atlantic are currently
working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and some positive actions
have been implemented, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can
be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future
because of the lack of bycatch reduction in high seas fisheries
operating within the range of this DPS, lack of bycatch reduction in
coastal fisheries in Africa, the lack of comprehensive information on
fishing distribution and effort, limitations on implementing
demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that although regulatory mechanisms are in place that
should address direct and incidental take of Northeast Atlantic Ocean
loggerheads, these regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not
being implemented effectively to address the needs of loggerheads. We
find that the threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for harvest of turtles and eggs for human consumption
(Factor B), fishery bycatch (Factor E), and sand extraction and
beachfront lighting on nesting beaches (Factor A) is significant
relative to the persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Loggerhead sea turtles strand throughout the Northeast Atlantic
(Fretey, 2001; Tiwari et al., 2001; Duguy et al., 2004, 2005; Witt et
al., 2007), and there are indications that the turtles become entangled
in nets and monofilament and swallow hooks in the region (Or[oacute]s
et al., 2005; Calabuig Miranda and Liria Loza, 2007). On the European
coasts, most stranded loggerheads are small (mean of less than 30 cm
SCL), but a few are greater than 60 cm SCL (Witt et al., 2007).
Similarly, Tiwari et al. (2001) and Benhardouze et al. (2004) indicated
that the animals they viewed in Morocco and Western Sahara were small
juveniles and preliminary genetic analyses of stranded turtles indicate
that they are of western Atlantic origin (M. Tiwari, NMFS, and A.
Bolten, University of Florida, unpublished data), whereas Fretey (2001)
reported that loggerheads captured and stranded in Mauritania
[[Page 58926]]
were both juvenile and adult-sized animals.
Incidental capture of sea turtles in artisanal and commercial
fisheries is a threat to the survival of loggerheads in the Northeast
Atlantic. Sea turtles may be caught in a multitude of gears deployed in
the region: pelagic and demersal longlines, drift and set gillnets,
bottom and mid-water trawling, weirs, haul and purse seines, pots and
traps, cast nets, and hook and line gear (see Pascoe and
Gr[eacute]boval, 2003; Bayliff et al., 2005; Tayaa et al., 2005; Dossa
et al., 2007). Fishing effort off the western African coast has been
increasing (see Palomares and Pauly, 2004). Impacts continue to
increase in the Guinea Current LME, but, in contrast, the impacts are
reported to be decreasing in the Canary Current LME (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). Throughout the region, fish stocks are depleted and
management authorities are striving to reduce the fishing pressure.
In the Northeast Atlantic, loggerheads, particularly the largest
size classes in the oceanic environment (most of which are small
juveniles), are captured in surface longline fisheries targeting
swordfish (Ziphias gladius) and tuna (Thunnus spp.) (Ferreira et al.,
2001; Bolten, 2003). Bottom longlines in Madeira Island targeting
black-scabbard (Aphanopus carbo) capture and kill small juvenile
loggerhead sea turtles as the fishing depth does not allow hooked
turtles to surface (Dellinger and Encarna[ccedil][acirc]o, 2000;
Delgado et al., in press).
In United Kingdom and Irish waters, loggerhead bycatch is uncommon
but has been noted in pelagic driftnet fisheries (Pierpoint, 2000;
Rogan and Mackey, 2007). Loggerheads have not been captured in pelagic
trawls, demersal trawls, or gillnets in United Kingdom and Irish waters
(Pierpoint, 2000), but have been captured in nets off France (Duguy et
al., 2004, 2005).
International fleets of trawl fisheries operate in Mauritania and
have been documented to capture sea turtles, including loggerheads
(Zeeberg et al., 2006). Despite being illegal, trawling occurs in the
Cape Verde Islands and has the potential to capture and kill loggerhead
sea turtles; one piece of abandoned trawl net washed ashore with eight
live and two dead loggerheads (L[oacute]pez-Jurado et al., 2003).
Longlines, seines, and hook and line have been documented to capture
loggerheads 35-73 cm SCL off the northwestern Moroccan coast
(Benhardouze, 2004).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other anthropogenic impacts, such as boat strikes and ingestion or
entanglement in marine debris, also apply to loggerheads in the
Northeast Atlantic. Propeller and boat strike injuries have been
documented in the Northeast Atlantic (Or[oacute]s et al., 2005;
Calabuig Miranda and Liria Loza, 2007). Exposure to crude oil is also
of concern. Loggerhead strandings in the Canary Islands have shown
evidence of hydrocarbon exposure as well as ingestion of marine debris,
such as plastic and monofilament (Or[oacute]s et al., 2005; Calabuig
Miranda and Liria Loza, 2007), and in the Azores and elsewhere plastic
debris is found both on the beaches and floating in the waters
(Barrerios and Barcelos, 2001; Tiwari et al., 2001). Pollution from
heavy metals is a concern for the seas around the Iberian Peninsula
(European Environmental Agency, 1998) and in the Guinea Current LME
(Abe et al., 2004). Bioaccumulation of metals in loggerheads has been
measured in the Canary Islands and along the French Atlantic Coast
(Caurant et al., 1999; Torrent et al., 2004). However, the consequences
of long-term exposure to heavy metals are unknown (Torrent et al.,
2004).
Natural environmental events, such as climate change, could affect
loggerheads in the Northeast Atlantic. Similar to other areas of the
world, climate change and sea level rise have the potential to impact
loggerheads in the Northeast Atlantic, and the changes may be further
exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. This
includes beach erosion and loss from rising sea levels, skewed
hatchling sex ratios from rising beach incubation temperatures, and
abrupt disruption of ocean currents used for natural dispersal during
the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009).
Climate change impacts could have profound long-term impacts on nesting
populations in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, but it is not possible to
quantify the potential impacts at this point in time. Tropical and sub-
tropical storms occasionally strike the area and could have a negative
impact on nesting, although such an impact would be of limited
duration.
In summary, we find that the Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Northeast Atlantic
Ocean, particularly bycatch mortality of loggerheads from longline and
trawl fisheries, is a significant threat to the persistence of this
DPS.
Mediterranean Sea DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
In the Mediterranean, some areas known to host nesting activity in
the past have been lost to turtles (e.g., Malta) or severely degraded
(e.g., Israel) (Margaritoulis et al., 2003). Destruction and
modification of loggerhead nesting habitat in the Mediterranean result
from coastal development and construction, placement of erosion control
structures and other barriers to nesting, beachfront lighting,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction, beach erosion, beach
sand placement, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and
planting of non-native vegetation (Baldwin, 1992; Margaritoulis et al.,
2003). These activities may directly impact the nesting success of
loggerheads and survivability of eggs and hatchlings. Nesting in the
Mediterranean almost exclusively occurs in the Eastern basin, with the
main concentrations found in Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and Libya
(Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Laurent et al., 1999); therefore, the
following threats to the nesting habitat are concentrated in these
areas.
The Mediterranean experiences a large influx of tourists during the
summer months, coinciding with the nesting season. Margaritoulis et al.
(2003) stated that extensive urbanization of the coastline, largely a
result of tourism and recreation, is likely the most serious threat to
loggerhead nesting areas. The large numbers of tourists that use
Mediterranean beaches result in an increase in umbrellas, chairs,
garbage, and towels, as well as related hotels, restaurants, and
stationary (e.g., street lights, hotels) and moving (e.g., cars)
lighting, all which can impact sea turtle nesting success
(Demetropoulos, 2000). Further, the eastern Mediterranean is exposed to
high levels of pollution and marine debris, in particular the nesting
beaches of Cyprus, Turkey, and Egypt (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004).
Construction and infrastructure development also have the potential
to alter nesting beaches and subsequently impact nesting success. The
construction of new buildings on or near nesting beaches has been a
problem in Greece and Turkey (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). The construction
of a jetty and waterworks around Mersin, Turkey, has
[[Page 58927]]
contributed significantly to the continuous loss of adjacent beach
(Cami[ntilde]as, 2004).
Beach erosion and sand extraction also pose a problem for sea
turtle nesting sites. The noted decline of the nesting population at
Rethymno, Island of Crete, Greece, is partly attributed to beach
erosion caused by construction on the high beach and at sea (e.g.,
groins) (Margaritoulis et al., 2009). A 2001 survey of Lebanese nesting
beaches found severe erosion on beaches where previous nesting had been
reported, and in some cases the beaches had disappeared completely
(Venizelos et al., 2005). Definitive causes of this erosion were found
to be sand extraction, offshore sand dredging, and sediment removal
from river beds for construction and military purposes. Beach erosion
also may occur from natural changes, with the same deleterious effects
to loggerhead nesting. On Patara, Turkey, beach erosion and subsequent
inundation by waves and shifting sand dunes are responsible for about
half of all loggerhead nest losses (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). Erosion can
further be exacerbated when native dune vegetation, which enhances
beach stability and acts as an integral buffer zone between land and
sea, is degraded or destroyed. This in turn often leaves insufficient
nesting opportunities above the high tide line, and nests may be washed
out. In contrast, the planting or invasion of less stabilizing, non-
native plants can lead to increased erosion and degradation of suitable
nesting habitat. Finally, sand extraction has been a serious problem on
Mediterranean nesting beaches, especially in Turkey (T[uuml]rkozan and
Baran, 1996), Cyprus (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 1989;
Godley et al., 1996), and Israel (Levy, 2003).
While the most obvious effect of nesting beach destruction and
modification may be to the existence of the actual nests, hatchlings
are also threatened by habitat alteration. In the Mediterranean,
disorientation of hatchlings due to artificial lighting has been
recorded mainly in Greece (Rees, 2005; Margaritoulis et al., 2007,
2009), Turkey (T[uuml]rkozan and Baran, 1996), and Lebanon (Newbury et
al., 2002). Additionally, vehicle traffic on nesting beaches may
disrupt the natural beach environment and contribute to erosion,
especially during high tides or on narrow beaches where driving is
concentrated on the high beach and foredune. On Zakynthos Island in
Greece, Venizelos et al. (2006) reported that vehicles drove along the
beach and sand dunes throughout the tourist season on East Laganas and
Kalamaki beaches, leaving deep ruts in the sand, disturbing sea turtles
trying to nest, and impacting hatchlings trying to reach the sea.
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the loggerhead neritic and oceanic zones in
the Mediterranean Sea include fishing practices, channel dredging, sand
extraction, marine pollution, and climate change. Trawling occurs
throughout the Mediterranean, most notably in areas off Albania,
Algeria, Croatia, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Libya, Morocco,
Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, and Turkey (Gerosa and Casale, 1999;
Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Casale, 2008). This fishing practice has the
potential to destroy bottom habitat in these areas. Fishing methods
affect neritic zones by not only impacting bottom habitat and
incidentally capturing loggerheads but also depleting fish populations,
and thus altering ecosystem dynamics. For example, depleted fish stocks
in Zakynthos, Greece, likely contributed to predation of adult
loggerheads by monk seals (Monachus monachus) (Margaritoulis et al.,
1996). Further, by depleting fish populations, the trophic dynamics
will be altered, which may then in turn affect the ability of
loggerheads to find prey resources. If loggerheads are not able to
forage on the necessary prey resources, their long-term survivability
may be impacted. Climate change also may result in future trophic
changes, thus impacting loggerhead prey abundance and distribution.
Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural
habitat degradation, can affect loggerhead neritic and oceanic habitat.
As the Mediterranean is an enclosed sea, organic and inorganic wastes,
toxic effluents, and other pollutants rapidly affect the ecosystem
(Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). The Mediterranean has been declared a ``special
area'' by the MARPOL Convention, in which deliberate petroleum
discharges from vessels are banned, but numerous repeated offenses are
still thought to occur (Pavlakis et al., 1996). Some estimates of the
amount of oil released into the region are as high as 1,200,000 metric
tons (Alpers, 1993). Direct oil spill events also occur as happened in
Lebanon in 2006 when 10,000 to 15,000 tons of heavy fuel oil spilled
into the eastern Mediterranean (United Nations Environment Programme,
2007).
Destruction and modification of loggerhead habitat also may occur
as a result of other activities. For example, underwater explosives
have been identified as a key threat to loggerhead habitat in
internesting areas in the Mediterranean (Margaritoulis et al., 2003).
Further, the Mediterranean is a site of intense tourist activity, and
corresponding boat anchoring also may impact loggerhead habitat in the
neritic environment.
In summary, we find that the Mediterranean Sea DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both
its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices as considered above in Factor A. Within Factor A, we find
that coastal development, placement of barriers to nesting, beachfront
lighting, and erosion resulting from sand extraction, offshore sand
dredging, and sediment removal from river beds are significant threats
to the persistence of this DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Mediterranean turtle populations were subject to severe
exploitation until the mid-1960s (Margaritoulis et al., 2003).
Deliberate hunting of loggerheads for their meat, shells, and eggs is
reduced from previous exploitation levels, but still exists. For
example, Nada and Casale (2008) found that egg collection (for
individual consumption) still occurs in Egypt. In some areas of the
Mediterranean, like on the Greek Island of Zakynthos, nesting beaches
are protected (Panagopoulou et al., 2008), so egg harvest by humans in
those areas is likely negligible.
Exploitation of juveniles and adults still occurs in some
Mediterranean areas. In Tunisia, clandestine trade for local
consumption is still recorded, despite prohibition of the sale of
turtles in fish markets in 1989 (Laurent et al., 1996). In Egypt,
turtles are sold in fish markets despite prohibitive laws; of 71
turtles observed at fish markets in 1995 and 1996, 68 percent were
loggerheads (Laurent et al., 1996). Nada (2001) reported 135 turtles
(of which 85 percent were loggerheads) slaughtered at the fish market
of Alexandria in 6 months (December 1998-May 1999). Based on observed
sea turtle slaughters in 1995 and 1996, Laurent et al. (1996) estimated
that several thousand sea turtles were probably killed each year in
Egypt. More recently, a study found that the open selling of sea
turtles in Egypt generally has been curtailed due to enforcement
efforts, but a high level of intentional killing for the black market
or for direct personal consumption still exists (Nada and Casale,
2008). Given the high numbers of turtles caught in this area, several
hundred turtles are currently estimated to be slaughtered
[[Page 58928]]
each year in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2008). This estimate likely
includes both juvenile and adult loggerheads, as Egyptian fish markets
have been documented selling different sized sea turtles. While the
mean sea turtle size was 65.7 cm CCL (range 38-86.3 cm CCL; n = 48),
37.5 percent of observed loggerhead samples were greater than 70 cm CCL
(Laurent et al., 1996).
In summary, overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a
factor that contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Current
illegal harvest of loggerheads in Egypt for human consumption continues
as a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the Mediterranean. Endoparasites in loggerheads
have been studied in the western Mediterranean. While the composition
of the gastrointestinal community of sea turtles is expected to include
digeneans, nematodes, and aspidogastreans, loggerheads in the
Mediterranean were found to harbor only four digenean species typical
of marine turtles (Aznar et al., 1998). There have been no records of
fibropapillomatosis in the Mediterranean. While there is the potential
for disease in this area, information on the prevalence of such disease
is lacking.
In the Mediterranean Sea, loggerhead hatchlings and eggs are
subject to depredation by wild canids (i.e., foxes (Vulpes vulpes),
golden jackals (Canis aureus)), feral/domestic dogs, and ghost crabs
(Ocypode cursor) (Margaritoulis et al., 2003). Predators have caused
the loss of 48.4 percent of loggerhead clutches at Kyparissia Bay,
Greece (Margaritoulis, 1988), 70-80 percent at Dalyan Beach, Turkey
(Erk'akan, 1993), 36 percent (includes green turtle clutches) in Cyprus
(Broderick and Godley, 1996), and 44.8 percent in Libya (Laurent et
al., 1995). A survey of the Syrian coast in 1999 found 100 percent nest
predation, mostly due to stray dogs and humans (Venizelos et al.,
2005). Loggerhead eggs are also depredated by insect larvae in Cyprus
(McGowan et al., 2001), Turkey ([Ouml]zdemir et al., 2004), and Greece
(Lazou and Rees, 2006). Ghost crabs have been reported preying on
loggerhead hatchlings in northern Cyprus and Egypt, suggesting 66
percent of emerging hatchlings succumb to this mortality source (Simms
et al., 2002). Predation also has been influenced by anthropogenic
sources. On Zakynthos, Greece, a landfill site next to loggerhead
nesting beaches has resulted in an artificially high level of seagulls
(Larus spp.), which results in increased predation pressure on
hatchlings (Panagopoulou et al., 2008). Planting of non-native plants
also can have a detrimental effect on nests in the form of roots
invading eggs (e.g., tamarisk tree (Tamarix spp.) roots invading eggs
in Zakynthos, Greece) (Margaritoulis et al., 2007).
Predation on adult and juvenile loggerheads has also been
documented in the Mediterranean. Predation of nesting loggerheads by
golden jackals has been recorded in Turkey (Peters et al., 1994).
During a 1995 survey of loggerhead nesting in Libya, two nesting
females were found killed by carnivores, probably jackals (Laurent et
al., 1997). Off the sea turtle nesting beach of Zakynthos, Greece,
adult loggerheads were found being predated upon by Mediterranean monk
seals (Monachus monachus). Of the eight predated turtles observed or
reported, 62.5 percent were adult males (Margaritoulis et al., 1996).
Further, stomach contents were examined from 24 Mediterranean white
sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), and 17 percent contained remains of
marine turtles, including two loggerheads, one green, and one
unidentifiable turtle (Fergusson et al., 2000). One of the loggerhead
sea turtles ingested was a juvenile with a carapace length of
approximately 60 cm (length not reported as either SCL or CCL).
Fergusson et al. (2000) report that white shark interactions with sea
turtles are likely rare east of the Ionian Sea, and while the impact of
shark predation on turtle populations is unknown, it is probably small
compared to other sources of mortality.
The Mediterranean is a low-productivity body of water, with high
water clarity as a result. However, harmful algal blooms do occur in
this area (e.g., off Algeria in 2002), and the problem is particularly
acute in enclosed ocean basins such as the Mediterranean. In the
northern Adriatic Sea, fish kills have occurred as a result of noxious
phytoplankton blooms and anoxic conditions (Mediterranean Sea LME).
While fish may be more susceptible to these harmful algal blooms,
loggerheads in the Mediterranean also may be impacted by such noxious
or toxic phytoplankton to some extent.
In summary, nest and hatchling predation likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical decline of this DPS. The best available
data suggest that current nest and hatchling predation on several
Mediterranean nesting beaches is a significant threat to the
persistence of this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the Mediterranean Sea. The
reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.8.4. of the Status Review
for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle (2002) and
Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of these
international instruments. The problems with existing international
treaties are often that they have not realized their full potential, do
not include some key countries, do not specifically address sea turtle
conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a sovereign authority
to enforce environmental regulations. The ineffectiveness of
international treaties and national legislation is oftentimes due to
the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to implement and
enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is available in a
special 2002 issue of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle Conservation
(Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Mediterranean Sea (see
Factor E), as well as anthropogenic threats to nesting beaches (Factor
A) and eggs/hatchlings (Factors A, B, C, and E), is substantial.
Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting beaches are
underway, more widespread and consistent protection is needed. Although
national and international governmental and non-governmental entities
in the Mediterranean Sea are currently working toward reducing
loggerhead bycatch, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future
because of the lack of bycatch reduction in commercial and artisanal
fisheries operating within the range of this DPS, the lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that although regulatory mechanisms are in place that
should address direct and incidental take of Mediterranean Sea
loggerheads, these
[[Page 58929]]
regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not being implemented
effectively to address the needs of loggerheads. We find that the
threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for
fishery bycatch (Factor E) and impacts to nesting beach habitat (Factor
A) is significant relative to the persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Other anthropogenic and natural factors affecting loggerhead
survival include incidental bycatch in fisheries, vessel collisions,
marine pollution, climate change, and cyclonic storm events. Fishing
practices alone have been estimated to result in over 150,000 sea
turtle captures per year, with approximately 50,000 mortalities
(Casale, 2008; Lucchetti and Sala, 2009), and sea turtle bycatch in
multiple gears in the Mediterranean is considered among the most urgent
conservation priorities globally (Wallace et al., 2010).
The only estimation of loggerhead survival probabilities in the
Mediterranean was calculated by using capture-mark-recapture techniques
from 1981-2003 (Casale et al., 2007b). Of the 3,254 loggerheads tagged,
134 were recaptured at different sites throughout the Mediterranean.
Most recaptured animals were juveniles (mean 54.4 cm CCL; range 25-88
cm CCL), but the study did not delineate between juvenile life stages.
This research estimated a loggerhead annual survival probability of
0.73 (95 percent confidence intervals; 0.67-0.78), recognizing that
there are methodological limitations of the technique used.
Nonetheless, Casale et al. (2007c) stated that assuming a natural
survivorship no higher than 0.95 and a tag loss rate of 0.1, a range of
0.1-0.2 appears reasonable for the additional human induced mortality
(from all sources).
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture of sea turtles in artisanal and commercial
fisheries is a significant threat to the survivability of loggerheads
in the Mediterranean. Sea turtles may be caught in pelagic and demersal
longlines, drift gillnets, set gillnets and trammel nets, bottom and
mid-water trawls, seines, dredges, traps/pots, and hook and line gear.
In a 2004 FAO Fisheries Report, Cami[ntilde]as (2004) stated that the
main fisheries affecting sea turtles in the Mediterranean Sea (at that
time) were Spanish and Italian longline, North Adriatic Italian,
Tunisian, and Turkish trawl, and Moroccan and Italian driftnet.
Available information on sea turtle bycatch by gear type is discussed
below. There is growing evidence that artisanal/small vessel fisheries
(set gillnet, bottom longline, and part of the pelagic longline
fishery) may be responsible for a comparable or higher number of
captures with higher mortality rates than the commercial/large vessel
fisheries (Casale, 2008) as previously suggested by indirect clues
(Casale et al., 2005b).
Mediterranean fish landings have increased steadily since the
1950s, but the FAO 10-year capture trend from 1990-1999 shows stable
landings (Mediterranean LME, http://www.lme.noaa.gov). However, stable
fish landings may result from stable fishing effort at the same catch
rates, or higher fishing effort at lower catch rates. As fish stocks in
the Mediterranean are being depleted (P. Casale, MTSG-IUCN Italy,
personal communication, 2009), fishing effort in some areas may be
increasing to catch the available fish. This trend has not yet been
verified throughout the Mediterranean, but fishing pressures may be
increasing even though landings appear stable.
Longline Fisheries. In the Mediterranean, pelagic longline
fisheries targeting swordfish (Ziphias gladius) and albacore (Thunnus
alalunga) may be the primary source of loggerhead bycatch. It appears
that most of the incidental captures occur in the western and central
portions of the area (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 1995). The
most severe bycatch in the Mediterranean occurs around the Balearic
Islands where 1,950-35,000 juveniles are caught annually in the surface
longline fishery (Mayol and Castell[oacute] Mas, 1983; Cami[ntilde]as,
1988, 1997; Aguilar et al., 1995). Specifically, the following regions
have reported annual estimates of total turtle bycatch from pelagic
longlines: Spain--17,000 to 35,000 turtles (Aguilar et al., 1995;
Cami[ntilde]as et al., 2003); Italy (Ionian Sea)--1,084 to 4,447
turtles (Deflorio et al., 2005); Morocco--3,000 turtles (Laurent,
1990); Greece--280 to 3,310 turtles (Panou et al., 1999; Kapantagakis
and Lioudakis, 2006); Italy (Lampedusa)--2,100 turtles (Casale et al.,
2007c); Malta--1,500 to 2,500 turtles (Gramentz, 1989); South Tunisia
(Gulf of Gab[egrave]s)--486 turtles (Jribi et al., 2008); and Algeria--
300 turtles (Laurent, 1990).
For the entire Mediterranean pelagic longline fishery, an
extrapolation resulted in a bycatch estimate of 60,000 to 80,000
loggerheads in 2000 (Lewison et al., 2004). Further, a more recent
paper used the best available information to estimate that Spain,
Morocco, and Italy have the highest level of sea turtle bycatch, with
over 10,000 turtle captures per year for each country, and Greece,
Malta, Libya, and Tunisia each catch 1,000 to 3,000 turtles per year
(Casale, 2008). Available data suggest the annual number of loggerhead
sea turtle captures by all Mediterranean pelagic longline fisheries may
be greater than 50,000 (Casale, 2008). Note that these are not
necessarily individual turtles, as the same sea turtle can be captured
more than once.
Mortality estimates in the pelagic longline fishery at gear
retrieval appear to be lower than in some other types of gear (e.g.,
set gillnet). Although limited to observations of direct mortality at
gear retrieval, Carreras et al. (2004) found mortality to be low (0-7.7
percent) in the longline fishery off the Balearic Islands, and Jribi et
al. (2008) reported 0 percent direct mortality in the southern Tunisia
surface longline fishery. These estimates are consistent with those
found in other areas; direct mortality was estimated at 4.3 percent in
Greece (n = 23), 0 percent in Italy (n = 214), and 2.6 percent in Spain
(n = 676) (Laurent et al., 2001). However, considering injured turtles
and those released with hooks, the potential for mortality is likely
much higher. Based upon observations of hooked loggerhead sea turtles
in captivity, Aguilar et al. (1995) estimated 20-30 percent of animals
caught in longline gear may eventually die. More recently, Casale et
al. (2008b) reported, given variations in hook position affecting
survivability, the mortality rate of turtles caught by pelagic
longlines could be higher than previously thought (17-42 percent;
Lewison et al., 2004). Considering direct and post-release mortality,
Casale (2008) used a conservative approach to arrive at 40 percent for
the average mortality from Mediterranean pelagic longlines. The result
is an estimated 20,000 turtles killed per year by pelagic longlines
(Casale, 2008).
In general, most of the turtles captured in the Mediterranean
surface longline fisheries are juvenile animals (Aguilar et al., 1995;
Panou et al., 1999; Cami[ntilde]as et al., 2003; Casale et al., 2007c;
Jribi et al., 2008), but some adult loggerhead bycatch is also
reported. Considering data from many Mediterranean areas and research
studies, the average size of turtles caught by pelagic longlines was
48.9 cm CCL (range 20.5-79.2 cm CCL; n = 1868) (Casale, 2008).
Specifically, in the Spanish surface longline fishery, 13 percent of
estimated carapace sizes (n = 455) ranged from 75.36 to 107 cm CCL,
considered to be adult animals (Cami[ntilde]as et al., 2003), and in
the Ionian Sea, 15
[[Page 58930]]
percent of a total 157 loggerhead sea turtles captured in swordfish
longlines were adult animals (estimated size at greater than or equal
to 75 cm) (Panou et al., 1999).
Bottom longlines are also fished in the Mediterranean, but specific
capture rates for loggerheads are largely unknown for many areas. The
countries with the highest number of documented captures (in the
thousands per year) are Tunisia, Libya, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco,
and Italy (Casale, 2008). Available data suggest the annual number of
loggerhead sea turtle captures (not necessarily individual turtles) by
all Mediterranean demersal longliners may be greater than 35,000
(Casale, 2008). Given available information and using a conservative
approach, mortality from bottom longlines may be at least equal to
pelagic longline mortality (40 percent; Casale, 2008). The result is an
estimated 14,000 turtles killed per year in Mediterranean bottom
longlines (Casale, 2008). It is likely that these animals represent
mostly juvenile loggerheads, Casale (2008) reported an average turtle
size of 51.8 cm CCL (n = 35) in bottom longlines based on available
data throughout the Mediterranean.
Artisanal longline fisheries also have the potential to take sea
turtles. A survey of 54 small boat (4-10 meter length) artisanal
fishermen in Cyprus and Turkey resulted in an estimated minimum bycatch
of over 2,000 turtles per year, with an estimated 10 percent mortality
rate (Godley et al., 1998a). These small boats fished with a
combination of longlines and trammel/gillnets. However, note that it is
likely that a proportion (perhaps a large proportion) of the turtle
bycatch estimated in this study are green turtles.
Set Net (Gillnet) Fisheries. As in other areas, sea turtles have
the potential to interact with set nets (gillnets or trammel nets) in
the Mediterranean. Mediterranean set nets refer to gillnets (a single
layer of net) and trammel nets, which consist of three layers of net
with different mesh size. Casale (2008) estimated that the countries
with the highest number of loggerhead captures (in the thousands per
year) are Tunisia, Libya, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, and Croatia. Italy,
Morocco, Egypt, and France likely have high capture rates as well.
Available information suggests the annual number of loggerhead captures
by Mediterranean set nets may be greater than 30,000 (Casale, 2008).
Due to the nature of the gear and fishing practices (e.g.,
relatively long soak times), incidental capture in gillnets is among
the highest source of direct sea turtle mortality. An evaluation of
turtles tagged then recaptured in gillnets along the Italian coast
found 14 of 19 loggerheads (73.7 percent) to be dead (Argano et al.,
1992). Gillnets off France were observed to capture six loggerheads
with a 50 percent mortality rate (Laurent, 1991). Six loggerheads were
recovered in gillnets off Croatia between 1993 and 1996; 83 percent
were found dead (Lazar et al., 2000). Off the Balearic Islands, 196 sea
turtles were estimated to be captured in lobster trammel nets in 2001,
with a CPUE of 0.17 turtles per vessel (Carreras et al., 2004).
Mortality estimates for this artisanal lobster trammel net fishery
ranged from 78 to 100 percent. Given this mortality rate and the number
of turtles reported in lobster trammel nets, Carreras et al. (2004)
estimate that a few thousand loggerhead sea turtles are killed annually
by lobster trammel nets in the whole western Mediterranean. Considering
data throughout the entire Mediterranean, as well as a conservative
approach, Casale (2008) considered mortality by set nets to be 60
percent, with a resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles killed per year.
Most of these animals are likely juveniles; Casale (2008) evaluated
available set net catch data throughout the Mediterranean and found an
average size of 45.4 cm CCL (n = 74).
As noted above, artisanal set net fisheries also may capture
numerous sea turtles, as observed off Cyprus and Turkey (Godley et al.,
1998a).
Driftnet Fisheries. Historically, driftnet fishing in the
Mediterranean caught large numbers of sea turtles. An estimated 16,000
turtles were captured annually in the Ionian Sea driftnet fishery in
the 1980s (De Metrio and Megalofonou, 1988). The United Nations
established a worldwide moratorium on driftnet fishing effective in
1992, but unregulated driftnetting continued to occur in the
Mediterranean. For instance, a bycatch estimate of 236 loggerhead sea
turtles was developed for the Spanish swordfish driftnet fishery in
1994 (Silvani et al., 1999). While the Spanish fleet curtailed activity
in 1994, the Moroccan, Turkish, French, and Italian driftnet fleets
continued to operate. Tudela et al. (2005) presented bycatch rates for
driftnet fisheries in the Alboran Sea and off Italy. The Moroccan
Alboran Sea driftnet fleet bycatch rate ranged from 0.21 to 0.78
loggerheads per haul, whereas the Italian driftnet fleet had a lower
bycatch rate of 0.046 to 0.057 loggerheads per haul (Di Natale, 1995;
Cami[ntilde]as, 1997; Silvani et al., 1999). The use of driftnets in
the Mediterranean continues to be illegal: the General Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean prohibited driftnet fishing in 1997; a
total ban on driftnet fishing by the European Union fleet in the
Mediterranean went into effect in 2002; and ICCAT banned driftnets in
2003. Nevertheless, there are an estimated 600 illegal driftnet vessels
operating in the Mediterranean, including fleets based in Algeria,
France, Italy, Morocco, and Turkey (Environmental Justice Foundation,
2007). In particular, the Moroccan fleet, operating in the Alboran Sea
and Straits of Gibraltar, comprises the bulk of Mediterranean
driftnetting, and has been found responsible for high bycatch,
including loggerhead sea turtles (Environmental Justice Foundation,
2007; Aksissou et al., 2010). Driftnet fishing in the Mediterranean,
and accompanying threats to loggerhead sea turtles, continues to occur.
Trawl Fisheries. Sea turtles are known to be incidentally captured
in trawls in Albania, Algeria, Croatia, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy,
Libya, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, and Turkey (Gerosa and
Casale, 1999; Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Casale, 2008). Laurent et al.
(1996) estimated that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 sea turtles (most
of which are loggerheads) are captured by bottom trawling in the entire
Mediterranean. More recently, Casale (2008) compiled available trawl
bycatch data throughout the Mediterranean and reported that Italy and
Tunisia have the highest level of sea turtle bycatch, potentially over
20,000 captures per year combined, and Croatia, Greece, Turkey, Egypt,
and Libya each catch more than 2,000 turtles per year. Further, Spain
and Albania may each capture a few hundred sea turtles per year
(Casale, 2008). Available data suggest the annual number of sea turtle
captures by all Mediterranean trawlers may be greater than 40,000
(Casale, 2008). Although juveniles are incidentally captured in trawl
gear in many areas of the Mediterranean (Casale et al., 2004, 2007c;
Jribi et al., 2007), adult turtles are also found. In Egypt, 25 percent
of loggerheads captured in bottom trawl gear (n = 16) were greater than
or equal to 70 cm CCL, and in Tunisia, 26.2 percent (n = 62) were of
this larger size class (Laurent et al., 1996). Off Lampedusa Island,
Italy, the average size of turtles caught by bottom trawlers was 51.8
cm CCL (range 22-87 cm CCL; n = 368), and approximately 10 percent of
the animals measured greater than 75 cm CCL (Casale et al., 2007c). For
all areas of the Mediterranean, Casale (2008) reported that medium to
large turtles are generally caught by
[[Page 58931]]
bottom trawl gear (mean 53.9 cm CCL; range 22-87 cm CCL; n = 648).
While there is a notable interaction rate in the Mediterranean, it
appears that the mortality associated with trawling is relatively low.
Incidents of mortality have ranged from 3.3 percent (n = 60) in Tunisia
(Jribi et al., 2007) and 3.3 percent (n = 92) in France (Laurent, 1991)
to 9.4 percent (n = 32) in Italy (Casale et al., 2004). Casale et al.
(2004) found that mortality would be higher if all comatose turtles
were assumed to die. It also should be noted that the mortality rate in
trawls depends on the duration of the haul, with longer haul durations
resulting in higher mortality rates (Henwood and Stuntz, 1987; Sasso
and Epperly, 2006). Jribi et al. (2007) stated that the low recorded
mortality in the Gulf of Gab[egrave]s is likely due to the short haul
durations in this area. Based on available information from multiple
areas of the Mediterranean, and assuming that comatose animals die if
released in that condition, the overall average mortality rate for
bottom trawlers was estimated to be 20 percent (Casale, 2008). This
results in at least 7,400 turtles killed per year by bottom trawlers in
all of the Mediterranean, but the number is likely more than 10,000
(Casale, 2008).
Mid-water trawling may have less total impact on sea turtles found
in the Mediterranean than some other gear types, but interactions still
occur. Casale et al. (2004) found that while no turtles were caught on
observed mid-water trawl trips in the North Adriatic Sea, vessel
captains reported 13 sea turtles captured from April to September.
Considering total fishing effort, these reports resulted in a minimum
total catch estimate of 161 turtles a year in the Italian mid-water
trawl fishery. Off Turkey, 71 loggerheads were captured in mid-water
trawls from 1995-1996, while 43 loggerheads were incidentally taken in
bottom trawls (Oru[ccedil], 2001). In this same study, of a total 320
turtles captured in mid-water trawls (loggerheads and greens combined),
95 percent were captured alive and apparently healthy. While the total
catch numbers throughout the Mediterranean have not been estimated,
mid-water trawl fisheries do present a threat to loggerhead sea
turtles.
Other Gear Types. Seine, dredge, trap/pot, and hook and line
fisheries operate in Mediterranean waters and may affect loggerhead sea
turtles, although incidental captures in these gear types are largely
unknown (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). Artisanal fisheries using a variety of
gear types also have the potential for sea turtle takes, but the
effects of most artisanal gear types on sea turtles have not been
estimated.
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other anthropogenic threats, such as interactions with recreational
and commercial vessels, marine pollution, and intentional killing, also
impact loggerheads found in the Mediterranean. Propeller and collision
injuries from boats and ships are becoming more common in sea turtles,
although it is unclear as to whether the events are increasing or just
the reporting of the injuries. Speedboat impacts are of particular
concern in areas of intense tourist activity, such as Greece and
Turkey. Losses of nesting females from vessel collisions have been
documented in Zakynthos and Crete in Greece (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). In
the Gulf of Naples, 28.1 percent of loggerheads recovered from 1993-
1996 had injuries attributed to boat strikes (Bentivegna and
Paglialonga, 1998). Along the Greece coastline from 1997-1999, boat
strikes were reported as a seasonal phenomenon in stranded turtles
(Kopsida et al., 2002), but numbers were not presented.
Direct or indirect disposal of anthropogenic debris introduces
potentially lethal materials into loggerhead foraging habitats.
Unattended or discarded nets, floating plastics and bags, and tar balls
are of particular concern (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Margaritoulis, 2007).
Monofilament netting appears to be the most dangerous waste produced by
the fishing industry (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). In the Mediterranean, 20
of 99 loggerhead sea turtles examined from Maltese fisheries were found
contaminated with plastic or metal litter and hydrocarbons, with crude
oil being the most common pollutant (Gramentz, 1988). Of 54 juvenile
loggerhead sea turtles incidentally caught by fisheries in Spanish
Mediterranean waters, 79.6 percent had debris in their digestive tracts
(Tom[aacute]s et al., 2002). In this study, plastics were the most
frequent type of marine debris observed (75.9 percent), followed by tar
(25.9 percent). However, an examination of stranded sea turtles in
Northern Cyprus and Turkey found that only 3 of 98 animals were
affected by marine debris (Godley et al., 1998b).
Pollutant waste in the marine environment may impact loggerheads,
likely more than other sea turtle species. Omnivorous loggerheads
stranded in Cyprus, Greece, and Scotland had the highest organochlorine
contaminant concentrations, as compared to green and leatherback
turtles (Mckenzie et al., 1999). In northern Cyprus, Godley et al.
(1999) found heavy metal concentrations (mercury, cadmium, and lead) to
be higher in loggerheads than green turtles. Even so, concentrations of
contaminants from sea turtles in Mediterranean waters were found to be
comparable to other areas, generally with levels lower than
concentrations shown to cause deleterious effects in other species
(Godley et al., 1999; Mckenzie et al., 1999). However, lead
concentrations in some Mediterranean loggerhead hatchlings were at
levels known to cause toxic effects in other vertebrate groups (Godley
et al., 1999).
As in other areas of the world, intentional killing or injuring of
sea turtles has been reported to occur in the Mediterranean. Of 524
strandings in Greece, it appeared that 23 percent had been
intentionally killed or injured (Kopsida et al., 2002). While some
turtles incidentally captured are used for consumption, it has been
reported that some fishermen kill the sea turtles they catch for a
variety of other reasons, including non-commercial use, hostility,
prejudice, recovery of hooks, and ignorance (Laurent et al., 1996;
Godley et al., 1998a; Gerosa and Casale, 1999; Casale, 2008).
Natural environmental events also may affect loggerheads in the
Mediterranean. Cyclonic storms that closely resemble tropical cyclones
in satellite images occasionally form over the Mediterranean Sea
(Emanuel, 2005). While hurricanes typically do not occur in the
Mediterranean, researchers have suggested that climate change could
trigger hurricane development in this area in the future (Gaertner et
al., 2007). Any significant storm event that may develop could disrupt
loggerhead nesting activity and hatchling production, but the results
are generally localized and rarely result in whole-scale losses over
multiple nesting seasons.
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to impact loggerheads in the Mediterranean.
Over the long term, Mediterranean turtle populations could be
threatened by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from
global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of female
hatchling production (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Hawkes et al., 2009;
Poloczanska et al., 2009). Further, a significant rise in sea level
would restrict loggerhead nesting habitat in the eastern Mediterranean.
In summary, we find that the Mediterranean Sea DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the
[[Page 58932]]
Mediterranean Sea, particularly bycatch mortality of loggerheads from
pelagic and bottom longline, set net, driftnet, and trawl fisheries, is
a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS. In addition, boat
strikes are becoming more common and are likely also a significant
threat to the persistence of this DPS.
South Atlantic Ocean DPS
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of loggerhead nesting habitat in the
South Atlantic result from coastal development and construction,
placement of erosion control structures and other barriers to nesting,
beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, beach sand placement, beach pollution, removal of native
vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation (D'Amato and
Marczwski, 1993; Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999; Naro-Maciel et al.,
1999; Marcovaldi et al., 2002b, 2005; Marcovaldi, 2007).
The primary nesting areas for loggerheads in the South Atlantic are
in the States of Sergipe, Bahia, Esp[iacute]rito Santo, and Rio de
Janeiro in Brazil (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999). These primary
nesting areas are monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the national sea turtle
conservation program in Brazil. Since 1980, Projeto TAMAR has worked to
establish legal protection for nesting beaches (Marcovaldi and
Marcovaldi, 1999). As such, human activities, including sand
extraction, beach nourishment, seawall construction, beach driving, and
artificial lighting, that can negatively impact sea turtle nesting
habitat, as well as directly impact nesting turtles and their eggs and
hatchlings during the reproductive season, are restricted by various
State and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et
al., 2002b, 2005). Nevertheless, tourism development in coastal areas
in Brazil is high, and Projeto TAMAR works toward raising awareness of
turtles and their conservation needs through educational and
informational activities at their Visitor Centers that are dispersed
throughout the nesting areas (Marcovaldi et al., 2005).
In terms of non-native vegetation, the majority of nesting beaches
in northern Bahia, where loggerhead nesting density is highest in
Brazil (Marcovaldi and Chaloupka, 2007), have coconut plantations
dating back to the 17th century backing them (Naro-Maciel et al.,
1999). It is impossible to assess whether this structured habitat has
resulted in long-term changes to the loggerhead nesting rookery in
northern Bahia.
Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Human activities that impact bottom habitat in the loggerhead
neritic and oceanic zones in the South Atlantic Ocean include fishing
practices, channel dredging, sand extraction, marine pollution, and
climate change (e.g., Ibe, 1996; Silva et al., 1997). General human
activities have altered ocean ecosystems, as identified by ecosystem
models (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). On the western side of the South
Atlantic, the Brazil Current LME region is characterized by the Global
International Waters Assessment as suffering severe impacts in the
areas of pollution, coastal habitat modification, and overexploitation
of fish stocks (Marques et al., 2004). The Patagonian Shelf LME is
moderately affected by pollution, habitat modification, and overfishing
(Mugetti et al., 2004). On the eastern side of the South Atlantic, the
Benguela Current LME has been characterized as moderately impacted in
the area of overfishing, with future conditions expected to worsen by
the Global International Waters Assessment (Prochazka et al., 2005).
Climate change also may result in future trophic changes, thus
impacting loggerhead prey abundance and distribution.
In summary, we find that the South Atlantic Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in its
marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices as
considered above in Factor A. The best available data suggest that
threats to neritic and oceanic habitats are potentially affecting the
persistence of this DPS; however, sufficient data are not available to
assess the significance of these threats to the persistence of this
DPS.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Deliberate hunting of loggerheads for their meat, shells, and eggs
is reduced from previous exploitation levels, but still exists. Limited
numbers of eggs are taken for human consumption in Brazil, but the
relative amount is considered minor when compared to historical rates
of egg collection (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al.,
2005; Almeida and Mendes, 2007). Use of sea turtles including
loggerheads for medicinal purposes occasionally occurs in northeastern
Brazil (Alves and Rosa, 2006). Use of bycaught loggerheads for
subsistence and medicinal purposes is likely to occur in southern
Atlantic Africa, based on information from central West Africa (Fretey,
2001; Fretey et al., 2007).
In summary, the harvest of loggerheads in Brazil for their meat,
shells, and eggs likely was a factor that contributed to the historical
decline of this DPS. However, current harvest levels are greatly
reduced from historical levels. Although harvest is known to still
occur in Brazil and southern Atlantic Africa, it no longer appears to
be a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Disease or Predation
The potential exists for diseases and endoparasites to impact
loggerheads found in the South Atlantic Ocean. There have been five
confirmed cases of fibropapillomatosis in loggerheads in Brazil
(Baptistotte, 2007). There is no indication that this disease poses a
major threat for this species in the eastern South Atlantic (Formia et
al., 2007).
Eggs and nests in Brazil experience depredation, primarily by foxes
(Marcovaldi and Laurent, 1996). Nests laid by loggerheads in the
southern Atlantic African coastline, if any, likely experience similar
predation pressures to those on nests of other species laid in the same
area (e.g., jackals depredate green turtle nests in Angola; Weir et
al., 2007).
Loggerheads in the South Atlantic also may be impacted by harmful
algal blooms (Gilbert et al., 2005).
In summary, disease and predation are known to occur. The best
available data suggest these threats are potentially affecting the
persistence of this DPS; however, quantitative data are not sufficient
to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the persistence of
this DPS.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
International Instruments
The BRT identified several regulatory mechanisms that apply to
loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the South Atlantic Ocean.
The reader is directed to sections 5.1.4. and 5.2.9.4. of the Status
Review for a discussion of these regulatory mechanisms. Hykle (2002)
and Tiwari (2002) have reviewed the effectiveness of some of these
international instruments. The problems with existing international
treaties are often that they have not realized their full potential, do
not include some key countries, do not specifically address
[[Page 58933]]
sea turtle conservation, and are handicapped by the lack of a sovereign
authority to enforce environmental regulations. The ineffectiveness of
international treaties and national legislation is oftentimes due to
the lack of motivation or obligation by countries to implement and
enforce them. A thorough discussion of this topic is available in a
special 2002 issue of the Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy: International Instruments and Marine Turtle Conservation
(Hykle, 2002).
National Legislation and Protection
Fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the South Atlantic Ocean is
substantial (see Factor E). Although national and international
governmental and non-governmental entities on both sides of the South
Atlantic are currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch in
the South Atlantic, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future
because of the diversity and magnitude of the commercial and artisanal
fisheries operating in the South Atlantic, the lack of comprehensive
information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on
implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
In the primary nesting areas in the States of Sergipe, Bahia,
Esp[iacute]rito Santo, and Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, human activities,
including sand extraction, beach nourishment, seawall construction,
beach driving, and artificial lighting, are restricted by various State
and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al.,
2002b, 2005).
In summary, our review of regulatory mechanisms under Factor D
demonstrates that although regulatory mechanisms are in place that
should address direct and incidental take of South Atlantic Ocean
loggerheads, these regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not
being implemented effectively to address the needs of loggerheads. We
find that the threat from the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for fishery bycatch (Factor E) is significant relative to
the persistence of this DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture of sea turtles in artisanal and commercial
fisheries is a significant threat to the survivability of loggerheads
in the South Atlantic. Sea turtles may be caught in pelagic and
demersal longlines, drift and set gillnets, bottom and mid-water
trawling, fishing dredges, pound nets and weirs, haul and purse seines,
pots and traps, and hook and line gear. In the western South Atlantic,
there are various efforts aimed at mitigating bycatch of sea turtles in
various fisheries. In Brazil, there is the National Action Plan to
Reduce Incidental Capture of Sea Turtles in Fisheries, coordinated by
Projeto TAMAR (Marcovaldi et al., 2006). This action plan focuses on
both artisanal and commercial fisheries, and collects data directly
from fishers as well as on-board observers. Although loggerheads have
been observed as bycatch in all fishing gear and methods identified
above, Marcovaldi et al. (2006) have identified longlining as the major
source of incidental capture of loggerhead sea turtles. Reports of
loggerhead bycatch by pelagic longlines come mostly from the southern
portion of the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone, between 20[deg] S.
and 35[deg] S. latitude. Bugoni et al. (2008) reported a loggerhead
bycatch rate of 0.52 juvenile turtles/1,000 hooks by surface longlines
targeting dolphinfish. Pinedo and Polacheck (2004) reported seasonal
variation in bycatch of juvenile loggerheads (and other sea turtle
species) by pelagic longlines in the same region of Brazil, with the
highest rates (1.85 turtles/1,000 hooks) in the austral spring. Kotas
et al. (2004) reported the highest rates of loggerhead bycatch (greater
than 10 turtles/1,000 hooks) by pelagic longlines in the austral
summer/fall months. A study based on several years found that the
highest rate of loggerhead bycatch in pelagic longlines off Uruguay and
Brazil was in the late austral summer month of February: 2.72 turtles/
1,000 hooks (L[oacute]pez-Medilaharsu et al., 2007). Sales et al.
(2008) reported a loggerhead bycatch rate of 0.87/1,000 hooks near the
Rio Grande Elevacao do Rio Grande, about 600 nautical miles off the
coast of southern Brazil. In Uruguayan waters, the primary fisheries
with loggerhead bycatch are bottom trawlers and longlines (Domingo et
al., 2006). Domingo et al. (2008) reported bycatch rates of loggerheads
of 0.9-1.3/1,000 hooks by longline deployed south of 30[deg] S.
latitude. In waters off Argentina, bottom trawlers also catch some
loggerheads (Domingo et al., 2006).
In the eastern South Atlantic, sea turtle bycatch in fisheries has
been documented from Gabon to South Africa (Fretey, 2001). Limited data
are available on bycatch of loggerheads in coastal fisheries, although
loggerheads are known (or strongly suspected) to occur in coastal
waters from Gabon to South Africa (Fretey, 2001; Bal et al., 2007; Weir
et al., 2007). Coastal fisheries implicated in bycatch of loggerheads
and other turtles include gillnets, beach seines, and trawlers (Bal et
al., 2007).
In the high seas, longlines are used by fishing boats targeting
tuna and swordfish in the eastern South Atlantic. A recent study by
Honig et al. (2008) estimates 7,600-120,000 sea turtles are
incidentally captured by commercial longlines fishing in the Benguela
Current LME; 60 percent of these are loggerheads. Petersen et al.
(2007, 2009) reported that the rate of loggerhead bycatch in South
African longliners was around 0.02 turtles/1,000 hooks, largely in the
Benguela Current LME. In the middle of the South Atlantic, loggerhead
bycatch by longlines was reported to be low, relative to other regions
in the Atlantic (Mejuto et al., 2008).
Other Manmade and Natural Impacts
Other anthropogenic impacts, such as boat strikes and ingestion or
entanglement in marine debris, also apply to loggerheads in the South
Atlantic. Bugoni et al. (2001) have suggested the ingestion of plastic
and oil may contribute to loggerhead mortality on the southern coast of
Brazil. Plastic marine debris in the eastern South Atlantic also may
pose a problem for loggerheads and other sea turtles (Ryan, 1996).
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise
have the potential to impact loggerheads in the South Atlantic. This
includes beach erosion and loss from rising sea levels, repeated
inundation of nests, skewed hatchling sex ratios from rising beach
incubation temperatures, and abrupt disruption of ocean currents used
for natural dispersal during the complex life cycle (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Climate change impacts could have
profound long-term impacts on nesting populations in the South Atlantic
Ocean, as is the case for all DPSs, but at this time we cannot predict
what those impacts may be.
Oil reserve exploration and extraction activities also may pose a
threat for sea turtles in the South Atlantic. Seismic surveys in Brazil
and Angola have recorded sea turtle occurrences near the seismic work
(Gurj[atilde]o et al., 2005; Weir et al., 2007). While no sea turtle
takes were directly observed on these surveys, increased equipment and
presence in the water that is associated with these
[[Page 58934]]
activities also increases the likelihood of sea turtle interactions
(Weir et al., 2007).
Natural environmental events may affect loggerheads in the South
Atlantic. However, while a rare hurricane hit Brazil in March 2004,
typically hurricanes do not occur in the South Atlantic (McTaggart-
Cowan et al., 2006). This is generally due to higher windspeeds aloft,
preventing the storms from gaining height and therefore strength.
In summary, we find that the South Atlantic Ocean DPS of the
loggerhead sea turtle is negatively affected by both natural and
manmade impacts as described above in Factor E. Within Factor E, we
find that fishery bycatch, particularly bycatch mortality of
loggerheads from pelagic longline fisheries, is a significant threat to
the persistence of this DPS.
Supplemental Extinction Risk Assessments
In addition to the status evaluation and Section 4(a)(1) 5-factor
analysis provided above, the BRT conducted two independent analyses to
further assess extinction risks of the nine identified DPSs. Although
these analyses provided some additional insights into the status of the
nine DPSs, ultimately the conclusions and determinations made were
primarily based on an assessment of population sizes and trends,
current and anticipated threats, and conservation efforts for each DPS.
The first analysis used the diffusion approximation approach based
on time series of counts of nesting females (Lande and Orzack, 1988;
Dennis et al., 1991; Holmes, 2001; Snover and Heppell, 2009). This
analysis provided a metric (SQE) to determine if the probability of a
population's risk of quasi-extinction is high enough to warrant a
particular listing status (Snover and Heppell, 2009). The term ``quasi-
extinction'' is defined by Ginzburg et al. (1982) as the minimum number
of individuals (often females) below which the population is likely to
be critically and immediately imperiled. The diffusion approximation
approach is based on stochastic projections of observed trends and
variability in the numbers of mature females at various nesting
beaches. The second analysis used a deterministic stage-based
population model that focused on determining the effects of known
anthropogenic mortalities on each DPS with respect to the vital rates
of the species. Anthropogenic mortalities were added to natural
mortalities and possible ranges of population growth rates were
computed as another metric of population health. Because this approach
is based on matrix models, the BRT referred to it as a threat matrix
analysis. This approach focused on how additional mortalities may
affect the future growth and recovery rate of a loggerhead sea turtle
DPS. The first approach (SQE) was solely based on the available time-
series data on the numbers of nests at nesting beaches, whereas the
second approach (threat matrix analysis) was based on the known biology
of the species, natural mortality rates, and anthropogenic mortalities,
independent of observed nesting beach data.
The BRT found that for three of five DPSs with sufficient data to
conduct the SQE analysis (North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, and
Northwest Atlantic Ocean), these DPSs were at risk of declining to
levels that are less than 30 percent of the current numbers of nesting
females (QETs <0.30). The BRT found that for the other two DPSs with
sufficient data to conduct the SQE analysis (Southwest Indian Ocean and
South Atlantic Ocean), the risk of declining to any level of quasi-
extinction is negligible using the SQE analysis because of the observed
increases in the nesting females in both DPSs. There were not enough
data to conduct the SQE analysis for the North Indian Ocean, Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea
DPSs. It is important to note that the BRT's analysis was not based on
the actual population size at the end of the 100-year projection
period, but was based on reaching a certain proportion (2.5 and 97.5
percent) of the current population size. Thus, it is possible to
greatly diminish a population but still have a large population size
after 100 years.
According to the threat matrix analysis using a majority of
experts' opinions in the matrix model framework, the BRT determined
that all loggerhead sea turtle DPSs have the potential to decline in
the future. Although some DPSs are indicating increasing trends at
nesting beaches (Southwest Indian Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean),
available information about anthropogenic threats to juvenile and adult
loggerheads in neritic and oceanic environments indicate possible
unsustainable additional mortalities. According to the threat matrix
analysis, the potential for future decline is greatest for the North
Indian Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean,
Mediterranean Sea, and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs.
The BRT's approach to the risk analysis presented several important
points. First, the lack of precise estimates of age at first
reproduction hindered precise assessment of the status of any DPS.
Within the range of possible ages at first reproduction of the species,
however, some DPSs could decline rapidly regardless of the exact age at
first reproduction because of high anthropogenic mortality.
Second, the lack of precise estimates of anthropogenic mortalities
resulted in a wide range of possible status using the threat matrix
analysis. For the best case scenario, a DPS may be considered healthy,
whereas for the worst case scenario the same DPS may be considered as
declining rapidly. The precise prognosis of each DPS relies on
obtaining precise estimates of anthropogenic mortality and vital rates.
Third, the assessment of a population without the information on
natural and anthropogenic mortalities is difficult. Because of the
longevity of the species, loggerhead sea turtles require high survival
rates throughout their life to maintain a population. Anthropogenic
mortality on the species occurs at every stage of their life, where the
exact magnitude of the mortality is often unknown. As described in the
Status Review, the upper end of natural mortality can be computed from
available information.
Nesting beach count data for the North Pacific Ocean DPS indicated
a decline of loggerhead sea turtle nesting in the last 20 years. The
SQE approach reflected the observed decline. However, in the threat
matrix analysis, the asymptotic population growth rates ([lambda]) with
anthropogenic mortalities ranged from less than one to greater than
one, indicating a large uncertainty about the future of the DPS.
Fishery bycatch along the coast of the Baja Peninsula and the nearshore
waters of Japan are the main known sources of mortalities. Mortalities
in the high-seas, where a large number of juvenile loggerhead sea
turtles reside (Kobayashi et al., 2008), from fishery bycatch are still
unknown.
The SQE approach indicated that, based on nest count data from the
mid-1970s through the early to mid-2000s, the South Pacific Ocean DPS
is at risk and thus likely to decline in the future. These results were
based on recently published nesting census data for loggerhead sea
turtles at index beaches in eastern Australia (Limpus, 2009). The
threat matrix analysis provided uncertain results: in the case of the
lowest anthropogenic threats, the South Pacific Ocean DPS may recover,
but in the worst-case scenario, the DPS may substantially decline in
the future. These results are largely driven by the ongoing threats to
juvenile and adult loggerheads from fishery bycatch that
[[Page 58935]]
occur throughout the South Pacific Ocean and the uncertainty in
estimated mortalities.
For the North Indian Ocean DPS, there were no nesting beach data
available to conduct the SQE analysis. The threat matrix analysis
indicated a decline of the DPS in the future, primarily as a result of
fishery bycatch in neritic habitats. Cumulatively, substantial threats
may exist for eggs/hatchlings. Because of the lack of precise estimates
of bycatch, however, the range of possible [lambda] values was large.
Similar to the North Indian Ocean DPS, no nesting beach data were
available for the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS. The level of
anthropogenic mortalities is low for the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean
DPS, based on the best available information, resulting in relatively
large P[lambda] (the proportion of [lambda] values greater
than 1) and a narrow range. The greatest threats for the Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS exist for the first year of the life stages
(eggs and hatchlings).
For the Southwest Indian Ocean DPS, the SQE approach, based on a
37-year time series of nesting female counts at Tongaland, South Africa
(1963-1999), indicated this segment of the population, while small, has
increased, and the likelihood of quasi-extinction is negligible. The
threat matrix analysis, on the other hand, provided a wide range of
results: In the best case scenario, the DPS would grow slowly, whereas
in the worst case scenario, the DPS would decline in the future. The
results of the threat matrix analysis were driven by uncertainty in
anthropogenic mortalities in the neritic environment and the eggs/
hatchlings stage.
Within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, four of the five
identified recovery units have adequate time series data for applying
the original SQE analysis; these are the Northern, Peninsular Florida,
Northern Gulf of Mexico, and Greater Caribbean Recovery Units. The
original SQE analysis indicated differences in SQEs among these four
recovery units. Although the Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit
indicated the worst result among the four recovery units assessed the
length of the time series was shortest (12 data points). The other
three recovery units, however, appeared to show similar declining
trends, which were indicated through the SQE approach. A revision of
the SQE analysis, however, had different results. Including nesting
data through 2009 instead of just 2007, and redoing the analysis to use
a range of adult female abundance estimates as QETs, it was determined
that there was little risk (SQE <0.3) of the Peninsular Florida
Recovery Unit (comprising approximately 80 percent of the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean DPS) reaching 1,000 or fewer females in 100 years. This
revised analysis was done by the same member of the BRT that performed
the original SQE analysis. The threat matrix analysis indicated a
likely decline of the DPS in the future. The greatest threats to the
DPS result from cumulative fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic
habitats.
Sufficient nesting beach data for the Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS
were not available to conduct the SQE analysis. The high likelihood of
the predicted decline of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS from the
threat matrix analysis is largely driven by the ongoing harvest of
nesting females, low hatchling and emergence success, and mortality of
juvenile and adult turtles from fishery bycatch throughout the
Northeast Atlantic Ocean. The threat matrix analysis indicated a
consistently pessimistic future for the DPS.
Representative nesting beach data for the Mediterranean Sea DPS
were not available to conduct the SQE analysis. The threat matrix
analysis indicated the DPS is likely to decline in the future. The
primary threats are fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic habitats.
The two approaches for determining risks to the South Atlantic
Ocean DPS provided different, although not incompatible, results. The
SQE approach indicated that, based on nest count data for the past 2
decades, the population was unlikely to decline in the future. These
results were based on recently published nesting beach trend analyses
by Marcovaldi and Chaloupka (2007) and this QET analysis was consistent
with their conclusions. However, the SQE approach was based on past
performance of the DPS, specifically only nesting beach data, and did
not address ongoing or future threats to segments of the DPS that might
not have been or might not yet be reflected by nest count data. The
threat matrix approach indicated that the South Atlantic Ocean DPS is
likely to decline in the future. These results were largely driven by
the ongoing mortality threats to juvenile turtles from fishery bycatch
that occurs throughout the South Atlantic Ocean. Although conservation
efforts by national and international groups in the South Atlantic are
currently working toward mitigating bycatch in the South Atlantic, it
is unlikely that this source of mortality can be greatly reduced in the
near future, largely due to inadequate funding and knowledge gaps that
together inhibit implementation of large-scale management actions
(Domingo et al., 2006).
Conservation Efforts
When considering the listing of a species, section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the ESA requires us to consider efforts by any State, foreign nation,
or political subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect the
species. Such efforts would include measures by Native American tribes
and organizations. Also, Federal, tribal, State, and foreign recovery
actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)), and Federal consultation requirements (16
U.S.C. 1536) constitute conservation measures. In addition to
identifying these efforts, under the ESA and our policy implementing
this provision (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) we must evaluate the
certainty of an effort's effectiveness on the basis of whether the
effort or plan establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies
the necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes
quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; is
likely to be implemented; and is likely to improve the species'
viability at the time of the listing determination.
North Pacific Ocean DPS
NMFS has formalized two conservation actions to protect foraging
loggerheads in the North Pacific Ocean, both of which were implemented
to reduce loggerhead bycatch in U.S. fisheries. Prior to 2001, the
Hawaii-based longline fishery had annual interaction levels of 300 to
500 loggerhead sea turtles. The temporary closure of the shallow-set
swordfish fishery in 2001 in large part over concerns of turtle
interactions brought about the immediate need to develop effective
solutions to reduce turtle interactions while maintaining the viability
of the industry. Since the reopening of the swordfish sector in 2004,
the fishery has operated under strict management measures, including
the use of large circle hooks and fish bait, restricted annual effort,
annual caps on loggerhead interactions (17 annually), and 100 percent
onboard observer coverage (50 CFR 665.3). As a result of these
measures, loggerhead interactions in the swordfish fishery have been
reduced by over 90 percent (Gilman et al., 2007). Furthermore, in 2003,
NMFS implemented a time/area closure in southern California during
forecasted or existing El Ni[ntilde]o-like conditions to reduce the
take of loggerheads in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery (68
FR 69962;
[[Page 58936]]
December 16, 2003). While this closure has not been implemented since
the passage of these regulations due to the lack of conditions
occurring in the area, such a closure is expected to reduce
interactions between the large-mesh gillnet fishery and loggerheads by
over 70 percent. NMFS has also developed a mapping product known as
TurtleWatch that provides a near real time product that recommends
areas where the deployment of pelagic longline shallow sets should be
avoided to help reduce interactions between Hawaii-based pelagic
longline fishing vessels and loggerhead sea turtles (Howell et al.,
2008).
Loggerhead interactions and mortalities with coastal fisheries in
Mexico and Japan are of concern and are considered a major threat to
North Pacific loggerhead recovery. NMFS and U.S. non-governmental
organizations have worked with international entities to: (1) Assess
bycatch mortality through systematic stranding surveys in Baja
California Sur, Mexico; (2) reduce interactions and mortalities in two
bottom-set fisheries in Mexico; (3) conduct gear mitigation trials to
reduce bycatch in Japanese pound nets; and (4) convey information to
fishers and other stakeholders through participatory activities, events
and outreach.
In 2003, the Grupo Tortuguero's ProCaguama (Operation Loggerhead)
was initiated to partner directly with fishermen to assess and mitigate
their bycatch while maintaining fisheries sustainability in Baja
California, Mexico. ProCaguama's fisher-scientist team discovered the
highest turtle bycatch rates documented worldwide and has made
considerable progress in mitigating anthropogenic mortality in Mexican
waters (Peckham et al., 2007, 2008). As a result of the 2006 and 2007
tri-national fishermen's exchanges run by ProCaguama, Sea Turtle
Association of Japan, and the Western Pacific Fisheries Management
Council, in 2007 a prominent Baja California Sur fleet retired its
bottom-set longlines (Peckham et al., 2008; Peckham and Maldonado-Diaz,
in press). Prior to this closure, the longline fleet interacted with an
estimated 1,160-2,174 loggerheads annually, with nearly all (89
percent) of the takes resulting in mortalities (Peckham et al., 2008).
Because this fleet no longer interacts with loggerheads, conservation
efforts have resulted in the continued protection of approximately
1,160-2,174 juvenile loggerheads annually.
Led by the Mexican wildlife service (Vida Silvestre), a Federal
loggerhead bycatch reduction task force was organized in 2008 to ensure
loggerheads receive the protection they are afforded by Mexican law.
The task force is comprised of Federal and State agencies, in addition
to non-governmental organizations, to address the bycatch problem,
meeting ProCaguama's bottom-up initiatives with complementary top-down
management and enforcement resources. In 2009, while testing a variety
of potential solutions, ProCaguama's fisher-scientist team demonstrated
the commercial viability of substituting bycatch-free hook fishing for
gillnet fishing. Local fishers are interested in adoption of this gear
because the technique results in higher quality catch offering access
to higher-value markets and potentially higher sustainability with zero
bycatch. ProCaguama, in coordination with the task force, is working to
develop a market-based bycatch solution consisting of hook
substitution, training to augment ex-vessel fish value, development of
fisheries infrastructure, linkage of local fleets with regional and
international markets, and concurrent strengthening of local fisheries
management.
The United States has also funded non-governmental organizations to
convey bycatch solutions to local fishers as well as to educate
communities on the protection of all sea turtles (i.e., reduce directed
harvest). The effectiveness of these efforts are difficult to quantify
without several post-outreach years of documenting reductions in sea
turtle strandings, directed takes, or bycatch in local fisheries.
Due to concerns of high adult loggerhead mortality in mid-water
pound nets, as documented in 2006, Sea Turtle Association of Japan
researchers began to engage the pound net operators in an effort to
study the impact and reduce sea turtle bycatch. This work was expanded
in 2008 with U.S. support and, similar to outreach efforts in Mexico,
is intended to engage local fishermen in conservation throughout
several Japanese prefectures. Research opportunities will be developed
with and for local fishermen in order to assess and mitigate bycatch.
The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), an
intergovernmental organization established in 1967 to promote
sustainable fisheries development, also has made progress in managing
sea turtle bycatch in the North Pacific region. SEAFDEC activities
include research for the enhancement of sea turtle populations that is
comprised of a sea turtle tagging and satellite telemetry study aimed
at determining migration routes, inter-nesting and foraging habitats,
and other relevant biological information of sea turtles in the region;
investigation of the interaction between fisheries activities and sea
turtle mortality; and an assessment of the effectiveness of the use of
TEDs and circle hooks in reducing sea turtle mortality (SEAFDEC 2009,
2010). Since 2003, with the assistance of the United States, the Sea
Turtle Association of Japan and, in recent years with the Grupo
Tortuguero, has conducted nesting beach monitoring and management at
several major loggerhead nesting beaches, with the intent of increasing
the number of beaches surveyed and protected. Due to logistical
problems and costs, the Sea Turtle Association of Japan's program had
been limited to five primary rookeries. At these areas, hatchling
production has been augmented through: (1) Relocation of doomed nests;
and (2) protection of nests in situ from trampling, desiccation, and
predation. Between 2004 and 2008, management activities have been
successful with over 160,000 hatchlings released from relocated nests
that would have otherwise been lost to inundation or erosion, with many
more hatchlings produced from in situ nests.
The United States plans to continue supporting this project in the
foreseeable future, increasing relocation activities at other high-
density nesting beaches, implementing predator control activities to
reduce predation by raccoon dogs and raccoons, and assessing the
effects of light pollution at a major nesting beach (Maehama Beach).
Determination of hatching success will also be initiated at several key
nesting beaches (Inakahama, Maehama, Yotsuse, and Kurio, all in
Yakushima) to provide information to support the removal of armoring
structures and to evaluate the success of relocation and other nest
protection activities. Outreach and education activities in coastal
cities will increase public awareness of problems with foot traffic,
light pollution, and armoring.
Egg harvest was common in Japan until the 1970s, when several of
the major nesting areas (notably Yakushima and Miyazaki) led locally
based efforts to ban or eliminate egg harvest. As a result, egg harvest
at Japanese nesting beaches was eliminated by the early 1980s.
The establishment of the Sea Turtle Association of Japan in 1990
created a network of individuals and organizations conducting sea
turtle monitoring and conservation activities in Japan for the first
time. The Sea Turtle Association of Japan also served
[[Page 58937]]
to standardize data collection methods (for tagging and measuring). The
Association greatly depends on its members around Japan to gather
nesting data as well as to conduct various conservation measures.
Shoreline erosion and bycatch are some of the major concerns the
Sea Turtle Association of Japan is dealing with today. Much of Japan's
coastline is ``armored'' using concrete structures to prevent and
minimize impacts to coastal communities from natural disasters. These
structures have resulted in a number of nesting beaches losing sand
suitable for sea turtle nesting, and nests are often relocated to safe
areas or hatcheries to protect them from further erosion and
inundation. In recent years, a portion of the concrete structures at a
beach in Toyohashi City, Aichi Prefecture, was experimentally removed
to create better nesting habitat. The Sea Turtle Association of Japan,
along with various other organizations in Japan, are carrying out
discussions with local and Federal Government agencies to develop
further solutions to the beach erosion issue and to maintain viable
nesting sites. Beach erosion and armament still remain one of the most
significant threats to nesting beaches in Japan.
While conservation efforts for the North Pacific Ocean DPS are
substantive and improving and may be reflected in the recent increases
in the number of nesting females, they still remain inadequate to
ensure the long-term viability of the population. For example, while
most of the major nesting beaches are monitored, some of the management
measures in place are inadequate and may be inappropriate. On some
beaches, hatchling releases are coordinated with the tourist industry
or nests are being trampled on or are unprotected. The largest threat
on the nesting beach, reduced availability of habitat due to heavy
armament and subsequent erosion, is just beginning to be addressed but
without immediate attention may ultimately result in the demise of the
highest density beaches. Efforts to reduce loggerhead bycatch in known
coastal fisheries off Baja California, Mexico, and Japan is
encouraging, but concerns remain regarding the mortalities of adult and
juvenile turtles in mid-water pound nets and the high costs that may be
involved in replacing or mitigating this gear. With these coastal
fishery threats still emerging, there has not yet been sufficient
time--or a nationwide understanding of the threat--to develop
appropriate conservation strategies or work to fully engage with the
government of Japan. Greater international cooperation and
implementation of the use of circle hooks in longline fisheries
operating in the North Pacific Ocean is necessary, as well as
understanding fishery related impacts in the South China Sea. Further,
it is suspected that there are substantial impacts from illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing, which we are unable to mitigate
without additional fisheries management efforts and international
collaborations. While conservation projects for this population have
been in place since 2004 for some important areas, efforts in other
areas are still being developed to address major threats, including
fisheries bycatch and long-term nesting habitat protection.
South Pacific Ocean DPS
The New Caledonia Aquarium and NMFS have collaborated since 2007 to
address and influence management measures of the regional fishery
management organization. Their intent is to reduce pelagic fishery
interactions with sea turtles through increased understanding of
pelagic habitat use by South Pacific loggerheads using satellite
telemetry, oceanographic analysis, and juvenile loggerheads reared at
the Aquarium. NMFS augments this effort by supporting animal husbandry,
education and outreach activities coordinated through the New Caledonia
Aquarium to build capacity, and public awareness regarding turtle
conservation in general.
The United States has collaborated on at-sea conservation of sea
turtles with Chile under the US-Chile Fisheries Cooperation Agreement,
and with Peru in collaboration with El Instituto del Mar del Peru and
local non-governmental organizations. Research from this collaboration
showed that loggerheads of southwestern Pacific stock origin interact
with commercial and artisanal longline fisheries off the South American
coast. NMFS has supported efforts by Chile to reduce bycatch and
mortality by placing observers that have been trained and equipped to
dehook, resuscitate, and release loggerheads on vessels. Since 2002,
Chile also has closed the northernmost sector where the loggerheads
interactions occur to longline fishing (Miguel Donoso, Pacifico Laud,
personal communication, 2009). Local non-governmental organizations,
such as Pacifico Laud (Chile), Associacion Pro Delphinus (Peru), and
Areas Costeras y Recursos Marinos (Peru), have been engaged in outreach
and conservation activities promoting loggerhead bycatch reduction,
with support from NMFS.
Coastal trawl fisheries also threaten juvenile and adult
loggerheads foraging off eastern Australia, particularly the northern
Australian prawn fishery (estimated to take between 5,000 and 6,000
turtles annually in the late 1980s/early 1990s). However, since the
introduction and requirement for these fisheries to use TEDs in 2000,
that threat has been drastically reduced, to an estimated 200 turtles/
year (Robins et al., 2002a). TEDs were also made mandatory in the
Queensland East Coast trawl fisheries (2000), the Torres Strait prawn
fishery (2002), and the Western Australian prawn and scallop fisheries
(2002) (Limpus, 2009).
Predation of loggerhead eggs by foxes was a major threat to nests
laid in eastern Australia through the late 1970s, particularly on Mon
Repos and Wreck Rock. Harassment by local residents and researchers, as
well as baiting and shooting, discouraged foxes from encroaching on the
nesting beach at Mon Repos so that by the mid-1970s predation levels
had declined to trivial levels. At Wreck Rock, fox predation was
intense through the mid-1980s, with a 90-95 percent predation rate
documented. Fox baiting was introduced at Wreck Rock and some adjacent
beaches in 1987, and has been successful at reducing the predation rate
to low levels by the late 1990s (Limpus, 2009). To reduce the risk of
hatchling disorientation due to artificial lighting inland of the
nesting beaches adjacent to Mon Repos and Heron Island, low pressure
sodium vapor lights have been installed or, where lighting has not been
controlled, eggs are relocated to artificial nests on nearby dark
beaches. Limpus (2009) reported that hatchling mortality due to altered
light horizons on the Woongara coast has been reduced to a handful of
clutches annually.
Since the Great Barrier Reef's listing on the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's World Heritage List
in 1981, protection of habitats within the GBRWHA has increased, with
the current zone-based management plan enacted in 2004 (Dryden et al.,
2008). Nesting habitat protection has also increased with the addition
of indigenous co-management plans and ecotourism regulations at Mon
Repos (M. Hamann, James Cook University, personal communication, 2010).
While most of the conservation efforts for the South Pacific Ocean
DPS are long-term, substantive, and improving, given the low number of
nesting females, the declining trends, and major threats that are just
beginning to be addressed, they still remain inadequate to ensure the
long-term viability of the
[[Page 58938]]
population. The use of TEDs in most of the major trawl fisheries in
Australia has certainly reduced the bycatch of juvenile and adult
turtles, as has the reduction in fox predation on important nesting
beaches. However, the intense effort by longline fisheries in the South
Pacific, particularly from artisanal fleets operating out of Peru, and
its estimated impact on this loggerhead population, particularly
oceanic juveniles, remains a significant threat that is just beginning
to be addressed by most participating countries, including the regional
fishery management council(s) that manages many of these fleets.
Modeling by Chaloupka (2003) showed the impact of this fleet poses a
greater risk than either fox predation at major nesting beaches (90
percent egg loss per year during unmanaged periods) or past high
mortalities in coastal trawl fisheries. The recent sea turtle
conservation resolution by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission, requiring longline fleets to use specific gear and collect
information on bycatch, is encouraging but took effect in January 2010,
so improvement in the status of this population may not be realized for
many years. Potentially important pelagic foraging habitat in areas of
high fishing intensity remains poorly studied but is improving through
U.S. and international collaborations. While a comprehensive
conservation program for this population has been in place for
important nesting beaches, efforts in other areas are still being
developed to address major threats, including fisheries bycatch.
North Indian Ocean DPS
The main threats to North Indian Ocean loggerheads are fishery
bycatch and nesting beach habitat loss and degradation. Royal Decree
53/81 prohibits the hunting of turtles and eggs in Oman. The Ministry
of Environment and Climate Affairs (MECA) and Environmental Society of
Oman (ESO) are collaborating to carry out a number of conservation
measures at Masirah Island for the nesting loggerhead population. First
and foremost are standardized annual nesting surveys to monitor
population trends. Standardized surveys were first implemented in 2008.
Less complete nesting surveys have been conducted in some previous
years beginning in 1977, but the data have yet to be adequately
analyzed to determine their usefulness in determining population size
and trends. Nine kilometers of nesting habitat within the Masirah Air
Force Base is largely protected from tourist development but remains
subject to light pollution from military operations. The remaining 50
kilometers of loggerhead nesting beaches are not protected from egg
harvest, lighting, or beach driving. Currently, MECA is in the process
of developing a protected area proposal for Masirah Island that will
address needed protection of nesting beaches, including protection from
egg collection and beach driving. In the meantime, development is
continuing and it is uncertain how much, when, and if nesting habitat
will receive adequate protection. MECA is beginning to regulate
artificial lighting in new development. In 2010, a major outreach
effort in the form of a Turtle Celebration Day is planned at Masirah
Island to raise greater awareness of the local communities about the
global importance of the Masirah Island loggerhead nesting population
and to increase community involvement in conservation efforts. Nesting
surveys are also being conducted on the Halaniyat Islands. There are no
specific efforts underway to designate Halaniyat nesting beaches as
Protected Areas in the face of proposed development plans. Although
important management actions are underway on the nesting beaches, their
effectiveness has yet to be determined and the potential for strong
habitat protection and restoration of degraded nesting habitat remains
uncertain. At present, hatchling production is not measured.
The only research that has been conducted on the nesting population
to date was a study of internesting and post-nesting movements
conducted in 2006 when 20 nesting females were fitted with satellite
transmitters. This research identified important inter-seasonal
foraging grounds but is considered incomplete, and additional nesting
females were satellite tagged in 2011 to assess clutch frequency,
determine inter-nesting and post-nesting movements, and identify
potential overlap of loggerhead habitat use with coastal fisheries. In
2009, efforts to investigate loggerhead bycatch in gillnet fisheries at
Masirah were initiated, and some fisherman are cooperating and
documenting bycatch.
While conservation efforts for the North Indian Ocean loggerhead
DPS are substantive and improving, they still remain inadequate to
ensure the long-term viability of the population. For example, there is
currently no assessment of hatchling production on the main nesting
beaches, no efforts underway to restore the largely degraded nesting
habitat on the major nesting beaches, and little understanding or
knowledge of foraging grounds for juveniles or adults and the extent of
their interactions with fisheries. There is no information on bycatch
from fisheries off the main nesting beaches other than reports that
this bycatch occurs. A comprehensive conservation program for this
population is under development, but is incomplete relative to
fisheries bycatch and long-term nesting habitat protection.
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS
The level of anthropogenic mortalities is low for the Southeast
Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, based on the best available information.
However, there are many known opportunities for conservation efforts
that would aid recovery. Some significant conservation efforts are
underway.
One of the principal nesting beaches for this DPS, Australia's Dirk
Hartog Island, is part of the Shark Bay World Heritage Area and
recently became part of Australia's National Park System. This
designation may facilitate monitoring of nesting beaches and
enforcement of prohibitions on direct take of loggerheads and their
eggs. Loggerheads are listed as Endangered under Australia's
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999.
Conservation efforts on nesting beaches have included invasive
predator control. On the North West Cape and the beaches of the
Ningaloo coast of mainland Australia, a long established feral European
red fox (Vulpes vulpes) population preyed heavily on eggs and is
thought to be responsible for the lower numbers of nesting turtles on
the mainland beaches (Baldwin et al., 2003). Fox populations have been
eradicated on Dirk Hartog Island and Murion Islands (Baldwin et al.,
2003), and threat abatement plans have been implemented for the control
of foxes (1999) and feral pigs (2005).
In 2000, the use of TEDs in the Northern Australian Prawn Fishery
(NPF) was made mandatory. Prior to the use of TEDs in this fishery, the
NPF annually took between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as bycatch, with
a mortality rate estimated to be 40 percent (Poiner and Harris, 1996).
Since the mandatory use of TEDs has been in effect, the annual bycatch
of sea turtles in the NPF has dropped to less than 200 sea turtles per
year, with a mortality rate of approximately 22 percent (based on
recent years). Initial progress has been made to measure the threat of
incidental capture of sea turtles in other artisanal and commercial
fisheries in the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean (Lewison et al., 2004;
Limpus, 2009); however, the data remain inadequate for population
assessment.
[[Page 58939]]
As in other DPSs, persistent marine debris poses entanglement and
ingestion hazards to loggerheads. In 2009, Australia's Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts published a threat
abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine
life.
In spite of these conservation efforts, considerable uncertainty in
the status of this DPS lies with inadequate efforts to measure bycatch
in the region, a short time-series of monitoring on nesting beaches,
and missing vital rates data necessary for population assessments.
Southwest Indian Ocean DPS
The Southwest Indian Ocean DPS is small but has experienced an
increase in numbers of nesting females. Although there is considerable
uncertainty in anthropogenic mortalities, especially in the water, the
DPS may have benefitted from important conservation efforts at the
nesting beaches.
All principal nesting beaches, centered in South Africa, are within
protected areas (Baldwin et al., 2003). In Mozambique, nesting beaches
in the Maputo Special Reserve (approximately 60 kilometers of nesting
beach) and in the Paradise Islands are also within protected areas
(Baldwin et al., 2003; Costa et al., 2007).
The international regulatory mechanisms described in Section 5.1.4.
of the Status Review apply to loggerheads found in the Southwest Indian
Ocean. In addition, loggerheads of this DPS benefit from the Indian
Ocean-South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding
(IOSEA) and the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and
Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern
African Region.
In spite of these conservation efforts, caution in the status of
this DPS lies with its small population size, inadequate efforts to
measure bycatch in the region, and missing vital rates data necessary
for population assessments.
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
The main threats to Northwest Atlantic Ocean loggerheads include
fishery bycatch mortality, particularly in gillnet, longline, and trawl
fisheries; nesting beach habitat loss and degradation (e.g., beachfront
lighting, coastal armoring); and ingestion of marine debris during the
epipelagic lifestage. In addition, mortality from vessel strikes is
increasing and likely also a significant threat to this DPS.
Mortality resulting from domestic and international commercial
fishing is the most significant threat to Northwest Atlantic
loggerheads. Fishing gear types include gillnets, trawls, hook and line
(e.g., longlines), seines, dredges, and various types of pots/traps.
Among these, gillnets, longlines, and trawl gear collectively result in
tens of thousands of Northwest Atlantic loggerhead deaths annually
throughout their range (see for example, NMFS, 2002, 2004; Lewison et
al., 2004; Wallace et al., 2008, 2010).
Considerable effort has been expended since the 1980s to document
and reduce commercial fishing bycatch mortality. NMFS has implemented
observer programs in many federally managed and some State-managed
fisheries to collect turtle bycatch data and estimate mortality. NMFS,
working with industry and other partners, has reduced bycatch in some
fisheries by developing technological solutions to prevent capture or
to allow most turtles to escape without harm (e.g., TEDs), by
implementing time and area closures to prevent interactions from
occurring (e.g., prohibitions on gillnet fishing along the mid-Atlantic
coast during the periods of high loggerhead abundance), and by
modifying gear (e.g., requirements to reduce mesh size in the leaders
of pound nets to prevent entanglement, requirements to use large circle
hooks with certain bait types in segments of the pelagic longline
fishery). Many of these measures have been implemented within the
lifetime of one generation of loggerhead sea turtles, and thus the
conservation benefits may not yet be observed on the nesting beaches.
NMFS is currently working to implement a coastwide, comprehensive
strategy to reduce bycatch of sea turtles in State and Federal
fisheries in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. This approach was
developed to address sea turtle bycatch issues on a per-gear basis,
rather than a fishery by fishery basis, with a goal of developing and
implementing coastwide solutions for reducing turtle bycatch inshore,
nearshore, and offshore.
The development and implementation of TEDs in the shrimp trawl
fishery is arguably the most significant conservation accomplishment
for Northwest Atlantic loggerheads in the marine environment since
their listing. In the southeastern United States and Gulf of Mexico,
TEDs have been mandatory in shrimp and flounder trawls for over a
decade. However, TEDs are not required in all trawl fisheries, and
significant loggerhead mortality continues in some trawl fisheries. In
addition, enforcement of TED regulations depends on available
resources, and illegal or improperly installed TEDs continue to
contribute to mortality. Current observer coverage in the shrimp
fishery is very limited, at around 2 percent of total directed effort,
as a result of the size of the fishery and the expense of observer
programs.
Gillnets of various mesh sizes are used extensively to harvest fish
in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. All size classes of
loggerheads in coastal waters are prone to entanglement in gillnets,
and, generally, the larger the mesh size the more likely that turtles
will become entangled. State resource agencies and NMFS have been
addressing this issue on several fronts. In the southeastern United
States, gillnets are prohibited in the State waters of South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, and Texas and are restricted to fishing for pompano
and mullet in saltwater areas of Louisiana. Reducing bycatch of
loggerheads in the remaining State and federally regulated gillnet
fisheries of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico has not been fully
accomplished. NMFS has addressed the issue for several federally
managed fisheries, such as the large-mesh gillnet fishery (primarily
for monkfish) along the Atlantic coast, where gillnets larger than 8-
inch stretched mesh are now regulated in North Carolina and Virginia
through rolling closures timed to match the northward migration of
loggerheads along the mid-Atlantic coast in late spring and early
summer. The State of North Carolina, working with NMFS through the ESA
section 10 process, has been making some progress in reducing bycatch
of loggerheads in gillnet fisheries operating in Pamlico Sound though
that fishery predominantly catches green and Kemp's ridley turtles,
with loggerheads accounting for a smaller percentage. The large mesh
driftnet fishery for sharks off the Atlantic coast of Florida and
Georgia remains a concern as do gillnet fisheries operating elsewhere
in the range of the DPS, including Mexico and Cuba.
Observer programs have documented significant bycatch of
loggerheads in the U.S. longline fishery operating in the Atlantic
Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. In recent years, NMFS has dedicated
significant funding and effort to address this bycatch issue. In
partnership with academia and industry, NMFS has funded and conducted
field experiments in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean to develop gear
modifications that eliminate or significantly reduce loggerhead bycatch
and mortality. As a result of these experiments, NMFS now requires the
use of circle hooks fleet-wide and larger circle hooks in combination
with whole finfish bait in the Northeast Distant area (69 FR 40734;
July 6, 2004). Gear limitations, seasonal restrictions, and sea turtle
release gear
[[Page 58940]]
and handling requirements in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
bottom longline fisheries are also expected to reduce loggerhead
bycatch and mortality.
The incidental capture and mortality of loggerheads by
international longline fleets operating in the North Atlantic Ocean and
Mediterranean Sea is of great concern. The United States has been
attempting to work through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations,
such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas, to encourage member nations to adopt gear modifications (e.g.,
large circle hooks) that have been shown to significantly reduce
loggerhead bycatch. As stated previously, in late 2010, ICCAT approved
a proposal to require data reporting on the capture of sea turtles in
the Atlantic Ocean and mandated the use of hook-removal and fishing
line disentanglement gear. To date, limited success in reducing
loggerhead bycatch has been achieved in these international forums, but
efforts are ongoing.
Although numerous efforts are underway to reduce loggerhead bycatch
in fisheries, and many positive actions have been implemented, it is
unknown whether this source of mortality can be sufficiently reduced
across the range of the DPS in the near future because of the diversity
and magnitude of the fisheries operating in the North Atlantic, the
lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort
(primarily international, but even some State fisheries), limitations
on implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures,
geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and
lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies.
The advent of TED requirements, longline requirements, and other
conservation measures, along with the decline of some fisheries,
especially trawling and surface longlining, have primarily occurred
within one generation of loggerhead sea turtles. A number of measures
(larger TED openings and longline requirements among the most
important) occurred only in the past 8 years or less. Therefore, the
conservation benefit to loggerhead populations is difficult to gauge at
this time as the effect on the nesting population may only be starting
to be realized.
In the southeastern U.S., nest protection efforts have been
implemented on the majority of nesting beaches, and progress has been
made in reducing mortality from human-related impacts on the nesting
beach. A key effort has been the acquisition of Archie Carr National
Wildlife Refuge in Florida, where nesting densities often exceed 600
nests per km (1,000 nests per mile). Over 60 percent of the available
beachfront acquisitions for the Refuge have been completed as the
result of a multi-agency land acquisition effort. In addition, 14
additional refuges, as well as numerous coastal national seashores,
military installations, and State parks in the Southeast where
loggerheads regularly nest are also provided protection. However,
despite these efforts, alteration of the coastline continues, and
outside of publicly owned lands, coastal development and associated
coastal armoring remains a serious threat.
Efforts are also ongoing to reduce light pollution on nesting
beaches. A significant number of local governments in the southeastern
U.S. have enacted lighting ordinances designed to reduce the effects of
artificial lighting on sea turtles. However, enforcement of the
lighting ordinances varies considerably and efforts to strengthen these
measures are ongoing.
With regard to marine debris, the MARPOL Convention (International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978) is the main international convention
that addresses prevention of pollution (including oil, chemicals,
harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, and garbage) of the marine
environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. However,
challenges remain to implementation and enforcement of the MARPOL
Convention and marine pollution remains an issue of concern.
The seriousness of the threat caused by vessel strikes to
loggerheads in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico is not fully understood
at this time, but is expected to be significant. This growing problem
is particularly difficult to address. In some cases, NMFS, through
section 7 of the ESA, has worked with the U.S. Coast Guard in an
attempt to reduce the probability of vessel strikes during permitted
offshore race events. However, most vessel strikes occur outside of
these venues and the growing number of licensed vessels over the years,
especially inshore and nearshore, exacerbates the conflict.
A number of regulatory instruments at international, regional,
national, and local levels have been developed that provide legal
protection for loggerhead sea turtles globally and within the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean. The Status Review identifies and includes a discussion
of these regulatory instruments (Conant et al., 2009). The problems
with existing international treaties are often that they have not
realized their full potential, do not include some key countries, do
not specifically address sea turtle conservation, and are handicapped
by the lack of a sovereign authority to enforce environmental
regulations. Continued efforts are needed to develop and strengthen
these international initiatives.
In summary, while conservation efforts for the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean loggerhead DPS are substantive and improving, it is still too
soon to tell if they are adequate to ensure the long-term viability of
the population.
Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS
Since 2002, all sea turtles and their habitats in Cape Verde have
been protected by law (Decreto-Regulamentar n[deg] 7/2002). The
reality, however, is that the laws are not respected or enforced and
that in recent years until 2008 up to 25-30 percent of nesting females
were illegally killed for meat each year on the nesting beaches. Egg
collection is also a serious threat on some of the islands. Other major
threats include developments and commensurate light pollution behind
one important nesting beach on Boa Vista and the most important nesting
beach on Sal, as well as sand mining on many of the islands. Other
planned and potential developments on these and other islands present
future threats. Bycatch and directed take in coastal waters is likely a
significant mortality factor to the population given the importance of
the coastal waters as loggerhead foraging grounds and the extensive
fisheries occurring there. Adult females nesting in Cape Verde have
been found foraging along the mainland coast of West Africa as well as
in the oceanic environment, thereby making them vulnerable to impacts
from a wide range of fisheries (Hawkes et al., 2006). Unfortunately,
law enforcement on the nesting beaches and in the marine environment is
lacking in Cape Verde.
Conservation efforts in Cape Verde began in the mid-1990s and
focused on efforts to raise local, national, and international
awareness of the importance of the Cape Verdian loggerhead population
and the ongoing slaughter of nesting females. A field camp set up by
the non-governmental organization Cabo Verde Natura 2000 in 1999 on the
10-kilometer Ervatao Beach, the single most important nesting beach at
Boa Vista, grew out of this initial effort. This camp established a
presence to deter poaching and gather data on nesting and poaching
activity. In 2008, The Turtle Foundation, another non-
[[Page 58941]]
governmental organization, began to work at Porto Ferreira Beach, the
second most important nesting area on Boa Vista. The non-governmental
organization SOS Tartarugas began conservation work on the important
nesting beaches of Sal in 2008. In May 2009, USFWS funded a workshop in
Cape Verde to bring together representatives from the three non-
governmental organizations and the universities involved with
loggerhead conservation in Cape Verde and government representatives
from the Ministry of Environment, Military and Municipalities to
discuss the threats, current conservation efforts, and priority actions
needed. A Sea Turtle Network was established to better coordinate and
expand conservation efforts throughout the Cape Verdean islands.
Cabo Verde Natura 2000 has continued its efforts on Ervatao Beach
and in 2009 assumed responsibility for work on Porto Ferreira Beach.
Cabo Verde Natura 2000 has reduced poaching to about 5 percent on these
two important beaches, which represent 75 percent of the nesting on Boa
Vista. The Turtle Foundation also conducts extensive public outreach on
sea turtle conservation issues. The Turtle Foundation covered four
other important beaches in 2009 with the assistance of the Cape Verdian
military and likewise believes poaching was reduced to about 5 percent
of nesting females on the beaches covered. The University of Algarve
established a research project on Santiago Island in 2007; activities
included nest monitoring and protection, collecting biological data and
information on poaching, and outreach through the media and to the
government representatives (Loureiro, 2008). This project minimized its
efforts in 2009. The Turtle Foundation continued to focus its primary
efforts on patrolling beaches to protect nesting females on Boa Vista
with the assistance of the military. SOS Tartarugas has also been doing
regular monitoring of beaches with support from the military, extensive
public outreach on light pollution behind nesting beaches, and
relocating nests to a hatchery to alleviate hatchling disorientation,
as well as assisting with training of turtle projects on the islands of
Maio and Sao Nicolau.
In the last 2 years, new efforts to better coordinate and expand
projects being conducted by the three non-governmental organizations,
as well as engage the national and municipal governments, are
dramatically decreasing the poaching of nesting turtles and with
sustained and planned efforts may be able to reduce it to less than 1
percent in the next few years. The issues of light pollution, sand
mining on nesting beaches, long-term protection of even the most
important nesting beaches, law enforcement, and bycatch have not even
begun to be addressed. While there is definite improvement in a once
gloomy situation as recent as 2 years ago, the future of the population
is tenuous.
Mediterranean Sea DPS
The main threats to Mediterranean Sea loggerheads include fishery
bycatch, as well as pollution/debris, vessel collisions, and habitat
destruction impacting eggs and hatchlings at nesting beaches. Most
Mediterranean countries have developed national legislation to protect
sea turtles and nesting habitats (Margaritoulis, 2007). National
protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing,
harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these (Margaritoulis et
al., 2003). Some countries have site specific legislation for turtle
habitat protection. In 1999, a National Marine Park was established on
Zakynthos in western Greece, with the primary aim to provide protection
to loggerhead nesting areas (Dimopoulos, 2001). Zakynthos represents
approximately 43 percent of the average annual nesting effort of the
major and moderate nesting areas in Greece (Margaritoulis et al., 2003)
and about 26 percent of the documented nesting effort in the
Mediterranean (Touliatou et al., 2009). It is noteworthy for
conservation purposes that this site is legally protected. While park
management has improved over the last several years, there are still
some needed measures to improve and ensure sufficient protection at
this Park (Panagopoulou et al., 2008; Touliatou et al., 2009).
In Turkey, five nesting beaches (Belek, Dalyan, Fethiye, Goksu
Delta, and Patara) were designated Specially Protected Area status in
the context of the Barcelona Convention (Margaritoulis et al., 2003).
Based on the average annual number of nests from the major nesting
sites, these five beaches represent approximately 56 percent of nesting
in Turkey (World Wildlife Fund, 2005). In Cyprus, the two nesting
beaches of Lara and Toxeftra have been afforded protection through the
Fisheries Regulation since 1989 (Margaritoulis, 2007), and Alagadi is a
Specially Protected Area (World Wildlife Fund, 2005). Of the major
Cyprus nesting sites included in the 2005 World Wildlife Fund Species
Action Plan, the nesting beaches afforded protection represent 51
percent of the average annual number of nests in Cyprus. Note, however,
that the annual nesting effort in Cyprus presented in Margaritoulis et
al. (2003) includes additional sites, so the total proportion of
protected nesting sites in Cyprus is much lower, potentially around 22
percent. In Italy, a reserve to protect nesting on Lampedusa was
established in 1984 (Margaritoulis et al., 2003). In summary,
Mediterranean loggerhead nesting primarily occurs in Greece, Libya,
Turkey, and Cyprus, and a notable proportion of nesting in those areas
is protected through various mechanisms. It is important to recognize
the success of these protected areas, but as the protection has been in
place for some time and the threats to the species remain (particularly
from increasing tourism activities), it is unlikely that the
conservation measures discussed here will change the status of the
species as outlined in Conant et al. (2009).
Protection of marine habitats is at the early stages in the
Mediterranean, as in other areas of the world. Off Zakynthos, the
National Marine Park established in 1999 also included maritime zones.
The marine area of Laganas Bay is divided into three zones controlling
maritime traffic from May 1 to October 31: Zone A--no boating activity;
Zone B--speed limit of 6 knots, no anchoring; Zone C--speed limit of 6
knots. The restraints on boating activity are particularly aimed at
protecting the internesting area surrounding the Zakynthos Laganas Bay
nesting area. However, despite the regulations, there has been
insufficient enforcement (especially of the 6 knot speed limit), and a
high density of speedboats and recorded violations within the marine
area of the Park have been reported. In 2009, 13 of 28 recorded
strandings in the area of the National Marine Park bore evidence of
watercraft injuries and fishing gear interactions, and four live
turtles were found with fishing gear lines/hooks. Another marine zone
occurs in Cyprus; off the nesting beaches of Lara and Toxeftra, a
maritime zone extends to the 20 meter isobath as delineated by the
Fisheries Regulation (Margaritoulis, 2007).
The main concern to loggerheads in the Mediterranean includes
incidental capture in fisheries. While there are country specific
fishery regulations that may limit fishing effort to some degree (to
conserve the fishery resource), little, if anything, has been
undertaken to reduce sea turtle bycatch and associated mortality in
Mediterranean fisheries. Given the lack of conservation efforts to
address fisheries and the limited in-water protection provided to
turtles to reduce the additional impacts of vessel
[[Page 58942]]
collisions and pollution/debris interactions, it is unlikely that the
status of the species will change given the measures discussed here.
It appears that international and national laws are not always
enforced or followed. This minimizes the potential success of these
conservation efforts. For example, in Egypt, international and national
measures to protect turtles were not immediately adhered to, but in
recent years, there has been a notable effort to enforce laws and
regulations that prohibit the trade of sea turtles at fish markets.
However, the illegal trade of turtles in the Alexandria fish market has
persisted and a black market has been created (Nada and Casale, 2008).
This is an example of ineffective sea turtle protection and continuing
threat to the species, even with conservation efforts in place.
South Atlantic Ocean DPS
The only documented and confirmed nesting locations for loggerhead
sea turtles in the South Atlantic occur in Brazil, and major nesting
beaches are found in the States of Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo,
Bahia, and Sergipe (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1999). Protection of
nesting loggerheads and their eggs in Brazil is afforded by national
law that was established in 1989 and most recently reaffirmed in 2008.
Illegal practices, such as collecting eggs or nesting females for
consumption or sale, are considered environmental crimes and are
punishable by law. Other State or Federal laws have been established in
Brazil to protect reproductive females, incubating eggs, emergent
hatchlings, and nesting habitat, including restricting nighttime
lighting adjacent to nesting beaches during the nesting/hatching
seasons and prohibiting vehicular traffic on beaches. Projeto TAMAR, a
semi-governmental organization, is responsible for sea turtle
conservation in Brazil. In general, nesting beach protection in Brazil
is considered to be effective and successful for loggerheads and other
species of nesting turtles (e.g. Marcovaldi and Chaloupka, 2007;
Thom[eacute] et al., 2007; da Silva et al., 2007). Efforts at
protecting reproductive turtles, their nests, hatchlings and their
nesting beaches have been supplemented by the establishment of
federally mandated protected areas that include major loggerhead
nesting populations: Reserva Biologica de Santa Isabel (established in
1988 in Sergipe) and Reserva Biologica de Comboios (established in 1984
in Espirito Santo); at the State level, Environmental Protection Areas
have been established for many loggerhead nesting beaches in Bahia and
Espirito Santo (Marcovaldi et al., 2005). In addition, Projeto TAMAR
has initiated several high-profile public awareness campaigns, which
have focused national attention on the conservation of loggerheads and
other marine turtles in Brazil.
Loggerhead sea turtles of various sizes and life stages occur
throughout the South Atlantic, although density/observations are more
limited in equatorial waters (Ehrhart et al., 2003). Within national
waters of specific countries, various laws and actions have been
instituted to mitigate threats to loggerheads and other species of sea
turtles; less protection is afforded in the high seas of the South
Atlantic. Overall, the principal in-water threat to loggerheads in the
South Atlantic is incidental capture in fisheries. In the southwest
Atlantic, the South Atlantic Association is a multinational group that
includes representatives from Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina, and meets
bi-annually to share information and develop regional action plans to
address threats including bycatch (http://www.tortugasaso.org/). At the
national level, Brazil has developed a national plan for the reduction
of incidental capture of sea turtles that was initiated in 2001
(Marcovaldi et al., 2002a). This national plan includes various
activities to mitigate bycatch, including time-area restrictions of
fisheries, use of bycatch reduction devices, and working with fishermen
to successfully release live-captured turtles. In Uruguay, all sea
turtles are protected from human impacts, including fisheries bycatch,
by presidential decree (Decreto presidencial 144/98). The Karumbe
conservation project in Uruguay has been working on assessing in-water
threats to loggerheads and marine turtles for several years (see http://www.seaturtle.org/promacoda), with the objective of developing
mitigation plans in the future. In Argentina, various conservation
organizations are working toward assessing bycatch of loggerheads and
other sea turtle species in fisheries, with the objective of developing
mitigation plans for this threat (see http://www.prictma.com.ar).
Overall, more effort to date has been expended on evaluating and
assessing levels of fisheries bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles, than
concretely reducing bycatch in the Southwest Atlantic, but this
information is necessary for developing adequate mitigation plans. In
the southeastern Atlantic, efforts have been directed toward assessing
the distribution and levels of bycatch of loggerheads in coastal waters
of southwestern Africa (Petersen et al., 2007, 2009; Weir et al.,
2007). Bycatch of loggerheads has been documented in longline fisheries
off the Atlantic coasts of Angola, Namibia, and South Africa (Petersen
et al., 2007), and several authors have highlighted the need to develop
regional mitigation plans to reduce bycatch of loggerheads and other
sea turtle species in coastal waters (Formia et al., 2003; Weir et al.,
2007; Petersen et al., 2009). On the high seas of the South Atlantic,
little is known about exact bycatch levels, but there are some areas of
higher concentration of longline effort that are likely to result in
loggerhead bycatch (Lewison et al., 2004).
Overall, conservation efforts for loggerhead sea turtles in the
South Atlantic are dichotomous. On the nesting beaches (almost
exclusively in Brazil), conservation actions are successful at
protecting nesting females and their clutches, resulting in large
numbers of hatchlings being released each year. In contrast, fisheries
bycatch in coastal and oceanic waters remains a serious threat, despite
regional emphasis on assessing bycatch rates in various fisheries on
both sides of the South Atlantic. Comprehensive management actions to
reduce or eliminate bycatch mortality are lacking in most areas, which
is likely to result in a decline of this DPS in the future.
Finding
We find that nine loggerhead sea turtle DPSs exist. We have
carefully considered the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding the past, present and future threats faced by the nine
loggerhead sea turtle DPSs. We are listing the North Pacific Ocean,
South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and
Mediterranean Sea DPSs of the loggerhead sea turtle as endangered and
the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, Southwest Indian Ocean, Northwest
Atlantic Ocean, and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs as threatened for the
reasons described below for each DPS.
North Pacific Ocean DPS
In the North Pacific, loggerhead nesting is essentially restricted
to Japan where monitoring of loggerhead nesting began in the 1950s on
some beaches, and expanded to include most known nesting beaches since
approximately 1990. While nesting numbers have gradually increased in
recent years and the number for 2009 is similar to the start of the
time series in 1990, historical evidence indicates that there has been
a substantial decline over the
[[Page 58943]]
last half of the 20th century and that current nesting represents a
fraction of historical nesting levels. In addition, based on nest count
data for nearly the past 2 decades, the North Pacific population of
loggerheads is small. The SQE approach described in the Status and
Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section suggested that the North
Pacific Ocean DPS appears to be declining, is at risk, and is thus
likely to decline in the future. The stage-based deterministic modeling
approach suggested that the North Pacific Ocean DPS could grow
slightly, but in the worst-case scenario, the model indicates that the
population is likely to substantially decline in the future. These
results are largely driven by the mortality of juvenile and adult
loggerheads from fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the North
Pacific Ocean, including the coastal pound net fisheries off Japan,
coastal fisheries impacting juvenile foraging populations off Baja
California, Mexico, and undescribed fisheries likely affecting
loggerheads in the South China Sea and the North Pacific Ocean (Factor
E). Although national and international governmental and non-
governmental entities on both sides of the North Pacific are currently
working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and some positive actions
have been implemented, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can
be sufficiently reduced in the near future due to the challenges of
mitigating illegal, unregulated, and unreported fisheries, the lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. In addition to fishery bycatch, coastal development and
coastal armoring on nesting beaches in Japan continues as a substantial
threat (Factor A). Coastal armoring, if left unaddressed, will become
an even more substantial threat as sea level rises as a result of
climate change. It is highly uncertain whether the actions identified
in the Conservation Efforts section above will be fully implemented in
the near future or that they will be sufficiently effective. While
climate change may have adverse effects on all of the loggerhead sea
turtle DPSs, it is not possible to predict exactly what those would be
and the extent to which they would affect this DPS beyond the concern
noted above.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. In light of the
small nesting range and small size of the nesting population, an
estimated decline between 50-90 percent in the size of the nesting
population since the 1950s, significant and ongoing threats to the
nesting beaches, significant and continuing fishery bycatch with
limited bycatch reduction success except in the Hawaii longline
fishery, and only limited efforts at conservation thus far, we have
determined that the North Pacific Ocean DPS is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are listing it as
endangered. In other words, we believe that a threatened status is not
appropriate for this DPS because of the significance of the threats,
the small size of the nesting population, and the estimated historical
decline in the nesting population.
South Pacific Ocean DPS
In the South Pacific, loggerhead nesting is almost entirely
restricted to eastern Australia (primarily Queensland) and New
Caledonia. In eastern Australia, there has been a marked decline in the
number of females breeding annually since the mid-1970s, with an
estimated 50 to 80 percent decline in the number of breeding females at
various Australian rookeries up to 1990 and a decline of approximately
86 percent by 1999. Comparable nesting surveys have not been conducted
in New Caledonia however. Information from pilot surveys conducted in
2005, combined with oral history information collected, suggest that
there has been a decline in loggerhead nesting (see the Status and
Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section above for additional
information). Similarly, studies of eastern Australia loggerheads at
their foraging areas revealed a decline of 3 percent per year from 1985
to the late 1990s on the coral reefs of the southern Great Barrier
Reef. A decline in new recruits was also measured in these foraging
areas. The SQE approach described in the Status and Trends of the Nine
Loggerhead DPSs section suggested that, based on nest count data from
the mid-1970s through the early to mid-2000s, the population is at risk
and thus likely to decline in the future. These results were based on
published nesting census data for loggerhead sea turtles at index
beaches in eastern Australia. The stage-based deterministic modeling
approach provided a wide range of results: in the case of the lowest
anthropogenic mortality rates (or the best case scenario), the
deterministic model suggests that the South Pacific Ocean DPS will grow
slightly, but in the worst-case scenario, the model indicates that the
population is likely to substantially decline in the future. These
results are largely driven by mortality of juvenile and adult
loggerheads from fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the South
Pacific Ocean (Factor E). Although national and international
governmental and non-governmental entities on both sides of the South
Pacific are currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and
some positive actions have been implemented, it is unlikely that this
source of mortality can be sufficiently reduced in the near future due
to the challenges of mitigating illegal, unregulated, and unreported
fisheries, the continued expansion of artisanal fleets in the
southeastern Pacific, the lack of comprehensive information on fishing
distribution and effort, limitations on implementing demonstrated
effective conservation measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations
on enforcement capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive
bycatch reduction technologies. It is highly uncertain whether the
actions identified in the Conservation Efforts section above will be
fully implemented in the near future or that they will be sufficiently
effective. While climate change may have adverse effects on all of the
loggerhead sea turtle DPSs, it is not possible to predict exactly what
those would be and the extent to which they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. In light of the
small nesting range and small size of the nesting population, a marked
decline in the number of females nesting annually since the mid-1970s,
and significant and continuing fishery bycatch with limited bycatch
reduction success except in the northern Australian prawn fishery, we
have determined that the South Pacific Ocean DPS is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are listing it as
endangered. In other words, we believe that a threatened status is not
appropriate for this DPS because of the significance of the threats,
the small size of the nesting population, and the observed marked
decline in the nesting population.
[[Page 58944]]
North Indian Ocean DPS
In the North Indian Ocean, nesting occurs in greatest density on
Masirah Island. Reliable trends in nesting cannot be determined due to
the lack of standardized surveys at Masirah Island prior to 2008.
However, a reinterpretation of the 1977-1978 and 1991 estimates of
nesting females was compared to survey information collected since 2008
and results suggest a significant decline in the size of the nesting
population, which is consistent with observations by local rangers that
the population has declined dramatically in the last three decades.
Nesting trends cannot be determined elsewhere in the North Indian Ocean
where loggerhead nesting occurs because the time series of nesting data
based on standardized surveys is not available. The SQE approach
described in the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section
is based on nesting data; however, an adequate time series of nesting
data for this DPS was not available. Therefore, we could not use this
approach to evaluate extinction risk. The stage-based deterministic
modeling approach indicated the North Indian Ocean DPS is likely to
decline in the future. These results are driven by cumulative mortality
from a variety of sources across all life stages. Threats to nesting
beaches are likely to increase, which would require additional and
widespread nesting beach protection efforts (Factor A). Little is
currently being done to monitor and reduce mortality from neritic and
oceanic fisheries in the range of the North Indian Ocean DPS; this
mortality is likely to continue and increase with expected additional
fishing effort from commercial and artisanal fisheries (Factor E).
Reduction of mortality would be difficult due to a lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. It is highly uncertain whether the actions identified in
the Conservation Efforts section above will be fully implemented in the
near future or that they will be sufficiently effective. While climate
change may have adverse effects on all of the loggerhead sea turtle
DPSs, it is not possible to predict exactly what those would be and the
extent to which they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. In light of the
estimated significant decline in the number of females nesting annually
since the late 1970s, significant and increasing threats on nesting
beaches, insufficient monitoring and reduction of bycatch in neritic
and oceanic fisheries, and only limited efforts at conservation thus
far, we have determined that the North Indian Ocean DPS is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are listing it as
endangered. In other words, we believe that a threatened status is not
appropriate for this DPS because of the significance of the threats and
the estimated significant decline in the nesting population.
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS
The Services originally published a proposed rule (75 FR 12598;
March 16, 2010) in which a Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS would be
established and listed as endangered under the ESA. Subsequently, based
on information provided by one of the peer reviewers and information
gathered in response, the Services determined that the Southeast Indo-
Pacific Ocean population warranted DPS designation, but that the
proposed listing status of the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS needed
to be revisited prior to making a final determination. The Services
ultimately determined that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS should
be listed as threatened because the majority of nesting occurs on
protected lands and nesting trends have been stable. However, the
nesting survey effort and methods have varied over the last 2 decades
and currently there are no nesting population estimates available to
suggest any positive trend in nesting populations. In addition, some of
the fisheries bycatch impacts appear to have been resolved through
requirement of TEDs in shrimp trawlers, and longline fishery effort has
declined due to fish stock decreases and economic reasons. However, a
new fisheries effort has emerged for portunid crabs and is posing new
threats to loggerheads, and longline fishing effort for tuna and
billfish is also subject to increase if and when economics and fish
populations improve.
In the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, loggerhead nesting is
restricted to Western Australia, with the greatest number of
loggerheads nesting on Dirk Hartog Island. Loggerheads also nest on the
Muiron Islands and North West Cape, but in smaller numbers. Although
data are insufficient to determine trends, evidence suggests the
nesting population in the Muiron Islands and North West Cape region was
depleted before recent beach monitoring programs began. The SQE
approach described in the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs
section is based on nesting data; however, an adequate time series of
nesting data for this DPS was not available; therefore, we could not
use this approach to evaluate extinction risk. The stage-based
deterministic modeling approach provided a wide range of results: in
the case of the lowest anthropogenic mortality rates, the deterministic
model suggests that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS will grow
slightly, but in the worst-case scenario, the model indicates that the
population is likely to substantially decline in the future. These
results are largely driven by mortality of juvenile and adult
loggerheads from fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the region, as
can be inferred from data from Australia's Pacific waters (Factor E).
However, the current level of anthropogenic mortalities is low for the
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS, based on the best available
information. In addition, some significant conservation efforts are
underway. One of the principal nesting beaches for this DPS,
Australia's Dirk Hartog Island, is part of the Shark Bay World Heritage
Area and recently became part of Australia's National Park System.
Control of red foxes, formerly a significant threat to nests laid on
the principal nesting beaches for this DPS, has been extremely
successful with fox populations now eradicated on Dirk Hartog Island
and Murion Islands. A requirement for the mandatory use of TEDs in the
Northern Australian Prawn Fishery in 2000 has substantially reduced the
annual bycatch of sea turtles in this fishery. Regardless, although
national and international governmental and non-governmental entities
are currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and some
positive actions have been implemented, it is unlikely that mortality
from fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the entire region can be
sufficiently reduced in the near future due to the challenges of
mitigating illegal, unregulated, and unreported fisheries, the
continued expansion of artisanal fleets, the lack of comprehensive
information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on
implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies. In spite
of the actions identified in the Conservation
[[Page 58945]]
Efforts section above, considerable uncertainty in the status of this
DPS still exists relative to inadequate efforts to measure bycatch
throughout the entire region, a short time-series of monitoring on
nesting beaches, and missing vital rates data necessary for population
assessments. While climate change may have adverse effects on all the
loggerhead sea turtle DPSs, it is not possible to predict exactly what
those would be and the extent to which they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. Although the
nesting population is small, the primary nesting beaches on Dirk Hartog
Island and the Murion Islands are undeveloped and are now both
protected under the Western Australian Protected Area System; Dirk
Hartog also recently became a National Park. In addition, nest
predation and bycatch from the northern Australian prawn fishery that
contributed to the historical decline of this DPS have been greatly
reduced and are no longer significant threats. However, bycatch in
other fisheries, including a new fishery for portunid crabs and pelagic
longline fishing, are believed to be substantial. As a result, we have
determined that the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS of the loggerhead
sea turtle is not currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Therefore, we are listing it as threatened. In other words, we believe
that an endangered status is not appropriate for this DPS because of
the protected status of the primary nesting beaches and the successful
conservation efforts that have significantly reduced some of the key
threats that historically affected this DPS.
Southwest Indian Ocean DPS
In the Southwest Indian Ocean, the highest concentration of nesting
occurs on the coast of Tongaland, South Africa, where surveys and
management practices were instituted in 1963. A trend analysis of index
nesting beach data from this region from 1965 to 2008 indicates an
increasing nesting population between the first decade of surveys and
the last 8 years. These data represent approximately 50 percent of all
nesting within South Africa and are believed to be representative of
trends in the region. Loggerhead nesting occurs elsewhere in South
Africa, but sampling is not consistent and no trend data are available.
Similarly, in Madagascar, loggerheads have been documented nesting in
low numbers, but no trend data are available. The SQE approach
described in the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section,
based on a 37-year time series of nesting female counts at Tongaland,
South Africa (1963-1999), indicated this segment of the population,
while small, has increased, and the likelihood of quasi-extinction is
negligible. We note that the SQE approach we used is based on past
performance of the DPS (nesting data from 1963-1999) and does not fully
reflect ongoing and future threats to all life stages within the DPS.
The stage-based deterministic modeling approach provided a wide range
of results: in the case of the lowest anthropogenic mortality rates,
the deterministic model suggests that the Southwest Indian Ocean DPS
will grow slightly, but in the worst-case scenario, the model indicates
that the population is likely to substantially decline in the future.
These results are largely driven by mortality of juvenile loggerheads
from fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Southwest Indian Ocean
(Factor E). This mortality is likely to continue and may increase with
expected additional fishing effort from commercial and artisanal
fisheries. Reduction of mortality would be difficult due to a lack of
comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. Although there is uncertainty in anthropogenic
mortalities, especially in the water, this DPS has likely benefitted
from important conservation efforts at the nesting beaches. All
principal nesting beaches, centered in South Africa, are within
protected areas. In Mozambique, nesting beaches in the Maputo Special
Reserve and in the Paradise Islands are also within protected areas.
However, in spite of the actions identified in the Conservation Efforts
section above, caution in the status of this DPS lies with its small,
although increasing, population size, inadequate efforts to measure
bycatch in the region, and missing vital rates data necessary for
population assessments. While climate change may have adverse effects
on all of the loggerhead sea turtle DPSs, it is not possible to predict
exactly what those would be and the extent to which they would affect
this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. Although the
nesting population is small, increased nesting has been observed since
the 1960s in Tongaland where the highest concentration of nesting
occurs for this DPS, and this trend is believed to be representative of
nesting trends for the entire DPS. However, fishery bycatch in neritic
and oceanic fisheries remains of concern and is not yet fully
addressed. As a result, we have determined that the Southwest Indian
Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle is not currently in danger of
extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are listing it as
threatened. In other words, we believe that an endangered status is not
appropriate for this DPS because of the observed increase in the
nesting population, the protected status of the primary nesting
beaches, and the success of conservation efforts on the nesting
beaches.
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS
The Services originally published a proposed rule (75 FR 12598;
March 16, 2010) in which a Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS would be
established and listed as endangered under the ESA. Subsequently, the
Services determined that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean population
warranted DPS designation, but that the proposed listing status of the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS needed to be revisited prior to making a
final determination. Nesting data available after the proposed rule was
published, information provided by commenters on the proposed rule, and
further discussions within the Services were taken into account to
determine whether this DPS should be classified as threatened or
endangered. A working group comprised of biologists and managers from
NMFS and USFWS met in November 2010 to discuss these issues and begin
working toward a final agreement on the listing status for both the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS and the North Pacific Ocean DPS.
Subsequent discussions and review of the full range of information
available occurred over the months following the working group meeting,
with the Services ultimately determining that it was more appropriate
to list the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS as threatened. The rationale
for that decision is contained in the information presented in the
previous sections, and is summarized below.
The two primary lines of evidence upon which the Services
ultimately determined that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS should be
listed as
[[Page 58946]]
threatened were population abundance and population trend. As detailed
previously, the absolute magnitude of the population is calculated to
be in the millions, with just mature adult individuals numbering over
60,000. The adult population exceeds that of any other ESA-listed
marine species in the Atlantic. While population abundance is
important, population trend is also a vital component of the status of
a species. For sea turtles in general, including the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS, there is currently a large gap in our knowledge of
population trends. As a result, nesting trends are typically used as a
proxy. Although using the most complete and consistent dataset (Florida
Index Nesting Beach Survey data starting with 1989), the nesting trend
for this DPS was determined to be declining through the 2007 nesting
season. With the addition of nesting data available after the proposed
rule was published (data through 2010), the nesting trend is slightly
negative, but not statistically different from zero. Although not as
complete and consistent as the nesting dataset, Epperly et al. (2007)
and TEWG (2009) examined data from in-water research sites in the
United States that they determined were suitable for trend analysis and
concluded these data suggested a likely increasing juvenile population.
Additionally, a revision of the SQE analysis conducted in the Status
Review indicated that the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS had a lower risk
of extinction with the addition of nesting data available after the
proposed rule was published. Including nesting data through 2009, and
redoing the analysis to use a range of adult female abundance estimates
as QETs, it was determined that there was little risk (SQE <0.3) of the
Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (comprising over 80 percent of the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS) reaching 1,000 or fewer females in 100
years. This revised analysis was done by the same member of the BRT
that performed the original SQE analysis.
In addition to population abundance and trends, an understanding of
the threats faced by the listed entity and effects of conservation
efforts must be taken into consideration when making a determination on
whether a species would be more appropriately classified as threatened
or as endangered. As described previously, loggerhead sea turtles of
the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS face a multitude of threats. The scope
of these threats are examined, in the context of the DPS' population
abundance and trends, and conservation efforts, to determine whether
the DPS is in danger of extinction or likely to become so and therefore
more appropriate to classify the DPS as threatened or as endangered.
The primary threat to the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS was determined
to be fisheries bycatch and mortality, although other anthropogenic
impacts also play an important role. Although bycatch and bycatch
mortality levels of Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS loggerheads in
domestic and foreign fisheries remain high, and continued efforts are
necessary to reduce those impacts, it is too early to determine if the
bycatch and mortality reduction measures to date are adequate. Many of
the most significant bycatch and bycatch mortality reduction efforts
have occurred within the past generation of loggerhead sea turtles, and
many fisheries have experienced effort reductions in recent years, and
thus the benefits may not yet be observed on the nesting beaches. This
does not, however, mean that the Services are to take a ``wait and
see'' approach; continued efforts to reduce bycatch and bycatch
mortality, as well as reduce other sources of anthropogenic impacts,
are a priority of the Services. Because the majority of nesting of
loggerhead sea turtles within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS is on
U.S. beaches, and a great number of large neritic juveniles and adults
from this DPS spend a substantial portion of their time in U.S. waters,
this provides us the opportunity to use U.S. regulatory mechanisms to
afford a greater degree of protection to the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
DPS compared to other loggerhead DPSs. While climate change may have
adverse effects on all of the loggerhead sea turtle DPSs, it is not
possible to predict exactly what those would be and the extent to which
they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. Although this DPS
faces significant threats from fishery bycatch, particularly bycatch
mortality from gillnet, longline, and trawl fisheries throughout their
range in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, as well as negative
impacts to both its terrestrial and marine habitats, the nesting
population is large and widespread, and the nesting population trend
appears to be stabilizing. As a result, we have determined that the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle is not
currently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are
listing it as threatened. In other words, we believe that an endangered
status is not appropriate for this DPS because of the large size of the
nesting population, the overall nesting population remains widespread,
the trend for the nesting population appears to be stabilizing, and
substantial conservation efforts are underway to address threats.
Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS
In the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, the Cape Verde Islands support the
only large nesting population of loggerheads in the region. Nesting
occurs at some level on most of the islands in the archipelago with the
largest nesting numbers reported from the island of Boa Vista where
studies have been ongoing since 1998. Due to limited data available, a
population trend cannot currently be determined for the Cape Verde
population; however, available information on the directed killing of
nesting females suggests that this nesting population is under severe
pressure and likely significantly reduced from historical levels. In
addition, based on interviews with elders, a reduction in nesting from
historical levels at Santiago Island has been reported. Elsewhere in
the northeastern Atlantic, loggerhead nesting is non-existent or occurs
at very low levels. The SQE approach described in the Status and Trends
of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section is based on nesting data. However,
we had insufficient nest count data over an appropriate time series for
this DPS and could not use this approach to evaluate extinction risk.
The stage-based deterministic modeling approach indicated the Northeast
Atlantic Ocean DPS is likely to decline in the future, even under the
scenario of the lowest anthropogenic mortality rates. These results are
largely driven by the ongoing directed lethal take of nesting females
and eggs (Factor B), low hatching and emergence success (Factors A, B,
and C), and mortality of juveniles and adults from fishery bycatch
(Factor E) that occurs throughout the Northeast Atlantic Ocean.
Currently, conservation efforts to protect nesting females are growing,
and a reduction in this source of mortality is likely to continue in
the near future. Although national and international governmental and
non-governmental entities in the Northeast Atlantic are currently
working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, and some positive actions
have been implemented, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can
be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in
[[Page 58947]]
the near future because of the lack of bycatch reduction in high seas
fisheries operating within the range of this DPS, lack of bycatch
reduction in coastal fisheries in Africa, the lack of comprehensive
information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on
implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies. It is
highly uncertain whether the actions identified in the Conservation
Efforts section above will be fully implemented in the near future or
that they will be sufficiently effective. While climate change may have
adverse effects on all of the loggerhead sea turtle DPSs, it is not
possible to predict exactly what those would be and the extent to which
they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. In light of
available information indicating significant directed killing of
nesting females and eggs for consumption at the main nesting beaches,
evidence indicating the nesting population is significantly reduced
from historical levels, significant and unaddressed fishery bycatch,
particularly bycatch in longline and trawl fisheries, and only limited
efforts at conservation thus far, we have determined that the Northeast
Atlantic Ocean DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range. Therefore, we are listing it as endangered. In other words, we
believe that a threatened status is not appropriate for this DPS
because of the significance of the threats, particularly directed
harvest and fishery bycatch, and evidence that the nesting population
is significantly reduced from historical levels.
Mediterranean Sea DPS
Nesting occurs throughout the central and eastern Mediterranean in
Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Sinai,
Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. In addition, sporadic nesting has been
reported from the western Mediterranean, but the vast majority of
nesting (greater than 80 percent) occurs in Greece and Turkey. There is
no discernible trend in nesting at the two longest monitoring projects
in Greece, Laganas Bay and southern Kyparissia Bay. However, the
nesting trend at Rethymno Beach, which hosts approximately 7 percent of
all documented loggerhead nesting in the Mediterranean, shows a highly
significant declining trend (1990-2004). In Turkey, intermittent
nesting surveys have been conducted since the 1970s with more
consistent surveys conducted on some beaches only since the 1990s,
making it difficult to assess trends in nesting. A declining trend
(1993-2004) has been reported at Fethiye Beach, which represents
approximately 10 percent of loggerhead nesting in Turkey. The SQE
approach described in the Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs
section is based on nesting data; however, region-wide nesting data for
this DPS were not available. Therefore, we could not use this approach
to evaluate extinction risk. The stage-based deterministic modeling
approach indicated the Mediterranean Sea DPS is likely to decline in
the future, even under the scenario of the lowest anthropogenic
mortality rates. These results are largely driven by mortality of
juvenile and adult loggerheads from fishery bycatch that occurs
throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Factor E), as well as anthropogenic
threats to nesting beaches (Factor A) and eggs/hatchlings (Factors A,
B, C, and E). Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting
beaches are underway, more widespread and consistent protection is
needed. Although national and international governmental and non-
governmental entities in the Mediterranean Sea are currently working
toward reducing loggerhead bycatch, it is unlikely that this source of
mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in
the near future because of the lack of bycatch reduction in commercial
and artisanal fisheries operating within the range of this DPS, the
lack of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies. It is highly uncertain whether the actions identified in
the Conservation Efforts section above will be fully implemented in the
near future or that they will be sufficiently effective. While climate
change may have adverse effects on all of the loggerhead sea turtle
DPSs, it is not possible to predict exactly what those would be and the
extent to which they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. In light of the
significant fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the Mediterranean
Sea, particularly ongoing bycatch mortality from pelagic and bottom
longline, set net, driftnet, and trawl fisheries, as well as ongoing
threats to terrestrial and marine habitats, current illegal harvest of
loggerheads in Egypt for human consumption, and only limited efforts at
bycatch reduction thus far, we have determined that the Mediterranean
Sea DPS is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Therefore, we are listing it as endangered. In other words, we believe
that a threatened status is not appropriate for this DPS because of the
significance of the threats, particularly fishery bycatch, and
ineffective protection of loggerheads even with some conservation
efforts in place.
South Atlantic Ocean DPS
In the South Atlantic nesting occurs primarily along the mainland
coast of Brazil from Sergipe south to Rio de Janeiro. Prior to 1980,
loggerhead nesting populations in Brazil were considered severely
depleted. More recently, a long-term, sustained increasing trend in
nesting abundance has been observed over a 16-year period from 1988
through 2003 on 22 surveyed beaches containing more than 75 percent of
all loggerhead nesting in Brazil. The SQE approach described in the
Status and Trends of the Nine Loggerhead DPSs section suggested that,
based on nest count data for the past 2 decades, the population is
unlikely to decline in the future. These results are consistent with
Marcovaldi and Chaloupka's (2007) nesting beach trend analyses. We note
that the SQE approach is based on past performance of the DPS (nesting
data) and does not fully reflect ongoing and future threats to all life
stages within the DPS. The stage-based deterministic modeling approach
indicated the South Atlantic Ocean DPS is likely to decline in the
future, even under the scenario of the lowest anthropogenic mortality
rates. This result is largely driven by mortality of juvenile
loggerheads from fishery bycatch that occurs throughout the South
Atlantic Ocean (Factor E). Although national and international
governmental and non-governmental entities on both sides of the South
Atlantic are currently working toward reducing loggerhead bycatch in
the South Atlantic, it is unlikely that this source of mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in the near future
because of the diversity and magnitude of the commercial and artisanal
fisheries operating in the South Atlantic, the lack of comprehensive
[[Page 58948]]
information on fishing distribution and effort, limitations on
implementing demonstrated effective conservation measures, geopolitical
complexities, limitations on enforcement capacity, and lack of
availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction technologies. It is
highly uncertain whether the actions identified in the Conservation
Efforts section above will be fully implemented in the near future or
that they will be sufficiently effective. While climate change may have
adverse effects on all of the loggerhead sea turtle DPSs, it is not
possible to predict exactly what those would be and the extent to which
they would affect this DPS.
We have considered the five factors described above in the Summary
of Factors Affecting the Nine Loggerhead DPSs, efforts to protect the
DPS, and the population size and trends of the DPS. Although the
nesting population is small and is believed to be severely depleted
from historical levels, trends observed since the 1980s have shown a
more recent increase in nesting abundance, nesting beach protection in
Brazil has been effective and successful, and many important nesting
beaches have been placed in protected status. However, fishery bycatch
is believed to be a significant threat to this DPS. Although efforts
have been made to evaluate and assess levels of fishery bycatch,
actions to reduce or eliminate bycatch mortality are lacking in most
areas. As a result, we have determined that the South Atlantic Ocean
DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle is not currently in danger of
extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. Therefore, we are listing it as
threatened. In other words, we believe that an endangered status is not
appropriate for this DPS because of the increased trend in nesting
abundance observed since the 1980s, the protected status of many of the
important nesting beaches, and successful efforts to address threats on
the nesting beaches.
Take Prohibitions
The existing take prohibitions and exceptions contained in 50 CFR
17.31, 17.42(b), 223.205, 223.206, and 223.207 remain in effect and
continue to apply to those DPSs listed as threatened sea turtle
species, which are the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, Southwest Indian
Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, and South Atlantic Ocean DPSs.
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed * * * on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) Essential to the conservation of the species
and (II) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed * * * upon a
determination by the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' Section 3(3)
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the terms ``conserve,''
``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to mean ``to use and the use of
all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.''
Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent and
determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the
listing of a species. Section 4(b)(2) provides that designation of
critical habitat must be based on the best scientific data available.
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry
out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that
habitat. This requirement is in addition to section 7's requirement
that Federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
In determining what areas qualify as critical habitat, 50 CFR
424.12(b) requires that the Services consider those physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of a given
species including space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical
geographical and ecological distribution of a species. The regulations
further direct the Services to ``focus on the principal biological or
physical constituent elements * * * that are essential to the
conservation of the species,'' and specify that the ``Known primary
constituent elements shall be listed with the critical habitat
description.'' The regulations identify primary constituent elements
(PCEs) as including, but not limited to: ``roost sites, nesting
grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland,
water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinator, geological
formation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types.''
The ESA also directs the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to
consider the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat, and under section
4(b)(2) the Secretaries may exclude any area from such designation if
the benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion, provided that
the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. In
addition, the Secretaries may not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan under section 101 of the
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretaries determine in writing
that such a plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation (see section 318(a)(3) of the
National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 108-136). We also cannot
designate critical habitat in foreign countries or other areas outside
U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
At this time, we lack the comprehensive data and information
necessary to identify and describe physical and biological features of
the marine and terrestrial habitats of the loggerhead sea turtle.
Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat to be ``not
determinable'' at this time.
Public Comments Solicitied
We request interested persons to submit information related to the
identification of critical habitat and essential physical or biological
features for this species, as well as economic or other relevant
impacts of designation of critical habitat, for the U.S. marine and
terrestrial habitats of loggerhead sea turtles occurring within the
U.S. range of the North Pacific Ocean DPS and the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean DPS. We solicit information from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party. You may submit this information by any one of several
methods (see ADDRESSES).
Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
[[Page 58949]]
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. We obtained independent peer
review of the scientific information compiled in the 2009 Status Review
(Conant et al., 2009) that supported the proposed rule (75 FR 12598;
March 16, 2010) to list nine DPSs of the loggerhead sea turtle as
endangered or threatened. The Status Review underwent independent peer
review by nine scientists with expertise in loggerhead sea turtle
biology, genetics, and modeling. We also solicited technical review of
the proposed listing determination from six independent experts, and
received reviews from all six of these experts.
On July 1, 1994, the Services published a policy for peer review of
scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer review policy is
to ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial
data available. We solicited the expert opinions of six qualified and
independent specialists from the academic and scientific community. We
have addressed their comments in the Summary of Comments section and
incorporated them as appropriate in this final rule.
References
A complete list of the references and all non-copyrighted
publications cited in this final rule are available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
ESA listing decisions are exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6.03(e)(1); Pacific Legal Foundation v.
Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981)). Thus, we have determined that
the final listing determinations for the nine loggerhead DPSs described
in this notice are exempt from the requirements of NEPA.
Information Quality Act
The Information Quality Act directed the Office of Management and
Budget to issue government wide guidelines that ``provide policy and
procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including
statistical information) disseminated by federal agencies.'' Compliance
of this document with NOAA guidelines is evaluated below.
Utility: The information disseminated is intended to
describe a species' life history, population status, threats, and
risks; management actions; and the effects of management actions. The
information is intended to be useful to State and Federal agencies,
non-governmental organizations, industry groups and other interested
parties so they can understand the listing status of the species.
Integrity: No confidential data were used in the analysis
of the impacts associated with this document. All information
considered in this document and used to analyze the proposed action, is
considered public information.
Objectivity: The NOAA Information Quality Guidelines
require disseminated information to be presented in an accurate, clear,
complete, and unbiased manner. This document was prepared with these
objectives in mind. It was also reviewed by a variety of biologists,
policy analysts, and attorneys from NMFS and USFWS.
Administrative Procedure Act
The Federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes
procedural requirements applicable to informal rulemaking by Federal
agencies. The purpose of the APA is to ensure public access to the
Federal rulemaking process and to give the public notice and an
opportunity to comment before the agency promulgates new regulations.
These public notice and comment procedures have been completed in this
rulemaking as further explained in the Background.
Coastal Zone Management Act
Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 requires that all Federal activities that affect any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with approved
State coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent
practicable. NMFS and USFWS have determined that this action is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of approved Coastal Zone Management Programs of Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California,
Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Letters documenting our determination, along with the proposed rule,
were sent to the coastal zone management program offices of these
States. A list of the specific State contacts and a copy of the letters
are available upon request. A copy of the final rule will be sent to
the coastal zone management programs in these States.
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to take into account any
federalism impacts of regulations under development. It includes
specific directives for consultation in situations where a regulation
will preempt State law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on
State and local governments (unless required by statute). Neither of
those circumstances is applicable to this final rule. In keeping with
the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and
meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State and Federal interest, the
proposed rule was provided to each State in which the subject species
occurs, and the State was invited to comment. We considered and
incorporated their comments and recommendations into this final
determination where applicable. We also provided responses to their
comments in the Summary of Comments section.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that Federal actions address
environmental justice in decision-making process. In particular, the
environmental effects of the actions should not have a disproportionate
effect on minority and low-income communities. The final listing
determinations are not expected to have a disproportionate effect on
minority or low-income communities because the implications of these
listing actions do not adversely affect the human health of low-income,
minority, or other populations or the environment in which these
various populations live.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA)
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts shall not be considered when assessing the status
of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for the purposes of the PRA.
[[Page 58950]]
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: September 9, 2011.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, FWS and NOAA amend 50 CFR
parts 17, 223, and 224 as follows:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Sea turtle, loggerhead'',
which is in alphabetical order under REPTILES, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sea turtle, loggerhead, Caretta caretta..... Mediterranean Sea Mediterranean Sea E 794 NA NA
Mediterranean Sea. Basin. east of 5[deg]36'
W. Long.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, North Caretta caretta..... North Indian Ocean North Indian Ocean E 794 NA NA
Indian Ocean. Basin. north of the
equator and south
of 30[deg] N. Lat.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, North Caretta caretta..... North Pacific Ocean North Pacific north E 794 NA NA
Pacific Ocean. Basin. of the equator and
south of 60[deg]
N. Lat.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, Northeast Caretta caretta..... Northeast Atlantic Northeast Atlantic E 794 NA NA
Atlantic Ocean. Ocean Basin. Ocean north of the
equator, south of
60[deg] N. Lat.,
and east of
40[deg] W. Long.,
except in the
vicinity of the
Strait of
Gibraltar where
the eastern
boundary is
5[deg]36' W. Long.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, Northwest Caretta caretta..... Northwest Atlantic Northwest Atlantic T 794 NA NA
Atlantic Ocean. Ocean Basin. Ocean north of the
equator, south of
60[deg] N. Lat.,
and west of
40[deg] W. Long.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, South Caretta caretta..... South Atlantic South Atlantic T 794 NA NA
Atlantic Ocean. Ocean Basin. Ocean south of the
equator, north of
60[deg] S. Lat.,
west of 20[deg] E.
Long., and east of
67[deg] W. Long.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, South Caretta caretta..... South Pacific Ocean South Pacific south E 794 NA NA
Pacific Ocean. Basin. of the equator,
north of 60[deg]
S. Lat., west of
67[deg] W. Long.,
and east of
141[deg] E. Long.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, Southeast Caretta caretta..... Southeast Indian Southeast Indian T 794 NA NA
Indo-Pacific Ocean. Ocean Basin; South Ocean south of the
Pacific Ocean equator, north of
Basin as far east 60[deg] S. Lat.,
as 141[deg] E. and east of
Long. 80[deg] E. Long.;
South Pacific
Ocean south of the
equator, north of
60[deg] S. Lat.,
and west of
141[deg] E. Long.
Sea turtle, loggerhead, Southwest Caretta caretta..... Southwest Indian Southwest Indian T 794 NA NA
Indian Ocean. Ocean Basin. Ocean north of the
equator, south of
30[deg] N. Lat.,
west of 20[deg] E.
Long., and east of
80[deg] E. Long.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58951]]
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
3. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).
0
4. Amend the table in Sec. 223.102 by revising paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\ Citation(s) for Citation(s) for
---------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing critical habitat
Common name Scientific name determination(s) designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(b) Sea Turtles
(1) Green sea turtle \2\....... Chelonia mydas.... Wherever found, 43 FR 32800; Jul 63 FR 46693; Sep
except where 28, 1978. 2, 1998, 64 FR
listed as 14052; Mar 23,
endangered under 1999.
Sec.
224.101(c);
circumglobal in
tropical and
temperate seas
and oceans.
(2) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... Northwest Atlantic [INSERT FR CITATION NA.
Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS Ocean north of WHEN PUBLISHED AS
\2\. the equator, A FINAL RULE].
south of 60[deg]
N. Lat., and west
of 40[deg] W.
Long.
(3) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... South Atlantic [INSERT FR CITATION NA.
South Atlantic Ocean DPS \2\. Ocean south of WHEN PUBLISHED AS
the equator, A FINAL RULE].
north of 60[deg]
S. Lat., west of
20[deg] E. Long.,
and east of
67[deg] W. Long.
(4) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... Southeast Indian [INSERT FR CITATION NA.
Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean Ocean south of WHEN PUBLISHED AS
DPS \2\. the equator, A FINAL RULE].
north of 60[deg]
S. Lat., and east
of 80[deg] E.
Long.; South
Pacific Ocean
south of the
equator, north of
60[deg] S. Lat.,
and west of
141[deg] E. Long.
(5) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... Southwest Indian [INSERT FR CITATION NA.
Southwest Indian Ocean DPS \2\. Ocean north of WHEN PUBLISHED AS
the equator, A FINAL RULE].
south of 30[deg]
N. Lat., west of
20[deg] E. Long.,
and east of
80[deg] E. Long.
(6) Olive ridley sea turtle \2\ Lepidochelys Wherever found, 43 FR 32800; Jul NA.
olivacea. except where 28, 1978.
listed as
endangered under
Sec.
224.101(c);
circumglobal in
tropical and
temperate seas.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
5. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
6. Amend Sec. 224.101 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous
species.
* * * * *
(c) Sea turtles. The following table lists the common and
scientific names of endangered sea turtles, the locations where they
are listed, and the citations for the listings and critical habitat
designations. Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species\1\ Citation(s) for Citation(s) for
---------------------------------------------------- Where listed listing critical habitat
Common name Scientific name determination(s) designation(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(1) Green sea turtle.......... Chelonia mydas.... Breeding colony 43 FR 32800; Jul NA.
populations in 28, 1978.
Florida and on
the Pacific coast
of Mexico.
(2) Hawksbill sea turtle...... Eretmochelys Wherever found; 35 FR 8491; Jun 2, 47 FR 27295; Jun
imbricata. tropical seas. 1970. 24, 1982, 63 FR
46693; Sep 2,
1998, 64 FR
14052; Mar 23,
1999.
(3) Kemp's ridley sea turtle.. Lepidochelys Wherever found; 35 FR 18319; Dec 2, NA.
kempii. tropical and 1970.
temperate seas in
Atlantic Basin,
incl. Gulf of
Mexico.
[[Page 58952]]
(4) Leatherback sea turtle.... Dermochelys Wherever found; 35 FR 8491; Jun 2, 43 FR 43688; Sep
coriacea. tropical, 1970. 26, 1978, 44 FR
temperate, and 17710; Mar 23,
subpolar seas. 1979, 64 FR
14052; Mar 23,
1999.
(5) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... Mediterranean Sea [INSERT FR NA.
Mediterranean Sea DPS. east of 5[deg]36' CITATION WHEN
W Long. PUBLISHED AS A
FINAL RULE].
(6) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... North Indian Ocean [INSERT FR NA.
North Indian Ocean DPS. north of the CITATION WHEN
equator and south PUBLISHED AS A
of 30[deg] N. Lat. FINAL RULE].
(7) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... North Pacific [INSERT FR NA.
North Pacific Ocean DPS. north of the CITATION WHEN
equator and south PUBLISHED AS A
of 60[deg] N. Lat. FINAL RULE].
(8) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... Northeast Atlantic [INSERT FR NA.
Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS. Ocean north of CITATION WHEN
the equator, PUBLISHED AS A
south of 60[deg] FINAL RULE].
N. Lat., and east
of 40[deg] W.
Long., except in
the vicinity of
the Strait of
Gibraltar where
the eastern
boundary is
5[deg]36' W. Long.
(9) Loggerhead sea turtle-- Caretta caretta... South Pacific [INSERT FR NA.
South Pacific Ocean DPS. south of the CITATION WHEN
equator, north of PUBLISHED AS A
60[deg] S. Lat., FINAL RULE].
west of 67[deg]
W. Long., and
east of 141[deg]
E. Long.
(10) Sea turtle, olive ridley. Lepidochelys Breeding colony 43 FR 32800; Jul NA.
olivacea. populations on 28, 1978.
the Pacific coast
of Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-23960 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P