[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15271-15337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06136]
[[Page 15271]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 55
March 23, 2015
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; Identification and Proposed Listing
of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia
mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15272]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 120425024-5022-02]
RIN 0648-XB089
Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification and Proposed
Listing of Eleven Distinct Population Segments of Green Sea Turtles
(Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current
Listings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments;
notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas; hereafter referred to as
the green turtle) is currently listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) as a threatened species, with the exception of the Florida and
Mexican Pacific coast breeding populations, which are listed as
endangered. We, NMFS and USFWS, find that the green turtle is composed
of 11 distinct population segments (DPSs) that qualify as ``species''
for listing under the ESA. We propose to remove the current range-wide
listing and, in its place, list eight DPSs as threatened and three as
endangered. We also propose to apply existing protective regulations to
the DPSs. We solicit comments on these proposed actions.
Although not determinable at this time, designation of critical
habitat may be prudent, and we solicit relevant information for those
DPSs occurring within U.S. jurisdiction. In the interim, we propose to
continue the existing critical habitat designation (i.e., waters
surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico) in effect for the North
Atlantic DPS.
This proposed rule also constitutes the 12-month finding on a
petition to reclassify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS
and to delist that DPS. Although we find the Hawaiian green turtle
population to constitute a DPS (referred to in this proposed rule as
the Central North Pacific DPS), we do not find delisting warranted.
A public hearing will be held in Hawai`i. Interested parties may
provide oral or written comments at this hearing.
DATES: Comments and information regarding this proposed rule must be
received by close of business on June 22, 2015. A public hearing will
be held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with an informational open
house starting at 5:30 p.m. Requests for additional public hearings
must be made in writing and received by May 7, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154, by the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0154.
2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
OR
Mail: Submit written comments to Green Turtle Proposed
Listing Rule, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13535, Silver Spring, MD 20910;
or Green Turtle Proposed Listing Rule, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
North Florida Ecological Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite
200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.
OR
Public hearing: Interested parties may provide oral or
written comments at the public hearing to be held at the Japanese
Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96826.
Parking is available at the Japanese Cultural Center for $5.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by the Services. All comments received are a part
of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. The Services will accept
anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). The proposed rule is available electronically at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm and http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/green-sea-turtle.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Schultz, NMFS (ph. 301-427-
8443, email jennifer.schultz@noaa.gov), or Ann Marie Lauritsen, USFWS
(ph. 904-731-3032, email annmarie_lauritsen@fws.gov). 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, and
7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited on the Proposed Listing
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as
accurate and effective as possible and informed by the best available
scientific and commercial information. Therefore, we request comments
or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule. We are seeking information and comments
on whether each of the 11 proposed green turtle DPSs qualify as DPSs,
whether listing of each DPS is warranted, and, if so, whether they
should be classified as threatened or endangered as described in the
``Listing Determinations Under the ESA'' section provided below.
Specifically, we are soliciting information on the following subjects
relative to green turtles within the 11 proposed DPSs: (1) Historical
and current population status and trends, (2) historical and current
distribution, (3) migratory movements and behavior, (4) genetic
population structure, (5) current or planned activities that may
adversely affect green turtles, (6) conservation efforts to protect
green turtles, and (7) our extinction risk analysis and findings. We
request that all data, information, and comments be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. We will consider comments and new
information when making final determinations.
Public Comments Solicited on Critical Habitat
Though we are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this
time, we request evaluations describing the quality and extent of
existing habitats within U.S. jurisdiction for the proposed North
Atlantic, South Atlantic (U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South Pacific
(American Samoa), Central West Pacific (Commonwealth of the Northern
[[Page 15273]]
Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam), Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs, as well as information on other areas that may qualify as
critical habitat for these proposed DPSs. Specifically, we are
soliciting the identification of particular areas within the
geographical area occupied by these species that include physical or
biological features that are essential to the conservation of these
DPSs and that may require special management considerations or
protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)). Essential features may include,
but are not limited to, features specific to individual species'
ranges, habitats, and life history characteristics within the following
general categories of habitat features: (1) Space for individual growth
and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter;
(4) sites for breeding, reproduction and development of offspring; and
(5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative
of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of the
species (50 CFR 424.12(b)). Areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing should also be
identified, if such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(ii)). Unlike for occupied habitat, such
areas are not required to contain physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. ESA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) specify that critical habitat shall not
be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside of
U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request information only on potential
areas of critical habitat within locations under U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the
``economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant
impact'' of designating a particular area as critical habitat. Section
4(b)(2) also authorizes the Secretary to conduct a balancing of the
benefits of inclusion and the benefits of exclusion from a critical
habitat designation of a particular area, and to exclude any particular
area where the Secretary finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of designation, unless excluding that area will result in
extinction of the species. Therefore, for features and areas
potentially qualifying as critical habitat, we also request information
describing: (1) Activities or other threats to the essential features
that could be affected by designating them as critical habitat
(pursuant to section 4(b)(8) of the ESA); and (2) the positive and
negative economic, national security and other relevant impacts,
including benefits to the recovery of the species, likely to result if
these areas are designated as critical habitat. We also seek
information regarding the conservation benefits of designating areas
within nesting beaches and waters under U.S. jurisdiction as critical
habitat. Data sought include, but are not limited to the following: (1)
Scientific or commercial publications, (2) administrative reports, maps
or other graphic materials, and (3) information from experts or other
interested parties. Comments and data particularly are sought
concerning the following: (1) Maps and specific information describing
the amount, distribution, and type of use (e.g., foraging or migration)
by green turtles, as well as any additional information on occupied and
unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the reasons why any habitat should or
should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by sections
3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information regarding the benefits
of designating particular areas as critical habitat; (4) current or
planned activities in the areas that might be proposed for designation
and their possible impacts; (5) any foreseeable economic or other
potential impacts resulting from designation, and in particular any
impacts on small entities; and (6) whether specific unoccupied areas
may be essential to provide additional habitat areas for the
conservation of the proposed DPSs. We seek information regarding
critical habitat for the proposed green turtle DPSs as soon as
possible, but no later than June 22, 2015.
Public Hearings
The Services will hold a public hearing in Hawai`i. Interested
parties may provide oral or written comments at this hearing. A public
hearing will be held on April 8, 2015 from 6 to 8 p.m., with an
informational open house starting at 5:30 p.m., at the Japanese
Cultural Center, 2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96826.
Parking is available at the Japanese Cultural Center for $5. If
requested by the public by May 7, 2015, additional hearings will be
held regarding the proposed listing of the green turtle DPSs. If
additional hearings are requested, details regarding location(s),
date(s), and time(s) will be published in a forthcoming Federal
Register notice.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Policies for Delineating Species Under the ESA
III. Listing Determinations Under the ESA
IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles
V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used To Identify DPSs
A. Discreteness Determination
1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea
2. Indian Ocean
3. Pacific Ocean
B. Significance Determination
1. North Atlantic
2. Mediterranean
3. South Atlantic
4. Southwest Indian
5. North Indian
6. East Indian-West Pacific
7. Central West Pacific
8. Southwest Pacific
9. Central South Pacific
10. Central North Pacific
11. East Pacific
C. Summary of Discreteness and Significance Determinations
VI. Listing Evaluation Process
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Eleven Green
Turtle DPSs
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
C. Conservation Efforts
D. Extinction Risk Assessments and Findings
VII. North Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Atlantic
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries
ii. Dredge Fishing
b. Channel Dredging
c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
e. Effects of Cold Stunning
f. Contaminants and Marine Debris
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Atlantic DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North
Atlantic DPS
VIII. Mediterranean DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Mediterranean DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Mediterranean DPS
[[Page 15274]]
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Longline Fisheries
ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing
iii. Trawl Fisheries
b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
c. Pollution
d. Effects of Climate Change
C. Conservation Efforts
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings
IX. South Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the South Atlantic
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change
C. Conservation Efforts for the South Atlantic DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the South
Atlantic DPS
X. Southwest Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Southwest Indian
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Indian DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest
Indian DPS
XI. North Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Indian DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Gill Net Fisheries
ii. Trawl Fisheries
b. Vessel Strikes
c. Beach Driving
d. Pollution
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disaster
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Indian DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North Indian
DPS
XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Indian-
West Pacific DPS
XIII. Central West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central West
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Vessel Strikes
c. Pollution
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central West
Pacific DPS
XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters in the Southwest Pacific
DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Shark Control Programs
c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging
d. Pollution and Marine Debris
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest
Pacific DPS
XV. Central South Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central South
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central South Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central South Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central South
Pacific DPS
XVI. Central North Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central North
Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central North Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
[[Page 15275]]
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
i. Longline Fisheries
ii. Gillnet Fisheries
iii. Other Gear Types
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
c. Vessel Interactions
d. Effects of Climate Change
e. Effects of Spatial Structure
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central North Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central North
Pacific DPS
XVII. East Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Pacific DPS
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
b. Pollution
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific DPS
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Pacific
DPS
XVIII. Proposed Determinations
XIX. Significant Portion of the Range
XX. Effects of Listing
A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation
Requirements
B. Critical Habitat
C. Take Prohibitions
D. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a
Violation of Section 9 of the ESA
XXI. Peer Review
XXII. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
I. Background
On July 28, 1978, NMFS and USFWS, collectively referred to as the
Services, listed the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) under the ESA (43 FR
32800). Pursuant to the authority that the statute provided, and prior
to the current language in the definition of ``species'' regarding
DPSs, the Services listed the species as threatened, except for the
Florida and Mexican Pacific Coast breeding populations, which were
listed as endangered. The Services published recovery plans for U.S.
Atlantic (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm) and U.S.
Pacific (including the East Pacific) populations of the green turtle
(63 FR 28359, May 22, 1998). NMFS designated critical habitat for the
species to include waters surrounding Culebra Island, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys (63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998).
On February 16, 2012, the Services received a petition from the
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green
turtle population as a DPS and ``delist'' the DPS under the ESA. On
August 1, 2012, NMFS, with USFWS concurrence, determined that the
petition presented substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (77 FR 45571). Initiating a review
of new information in accordance with the DPS policy was consistent
with the recommendation made in the Services' 2007 Green Sea Turtle 5-
year Review. The Services initiated a status review to consider the
species across its range, determine whether the petitioned action is
warranted, and determine whether other DPSs could be recognized. The
Services decided to review the Hawaiian population in the context of
green turtles globally with regard to application of the DPS policy and
in light of significant new information since the listing of the
species in 1978.
The Services appointed a Status Review Team (SRT) in September
2012. SRT members were affiliated with NMFS Science Centers and the
Services' field, regional, and headquarters offices, and provided a
diverse range of expertise, including green turtle genetics,
demography, ecology, and management, as well as risk analysis and ESA
policy. The SRT was charged with reviewing and evaluating all relevant
scientific information relating to green turtle population structure
globally to determine whether any populations may qualify as DPSs and,
if so, to assess the extinction risk for each proposed DPS. Findings of
the SRT are detailed in the ``Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Status
Review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' (hereinafter referred to
as the Status Review; NMFS and USFWS, 2014). The Status Review
underwent independent peer review by 14 scientists with expertise in
green turtle biology, genetics, or related fields, and endangered
species listing policy. The Status Review is available electronically
at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm.
This Federal Register document announces the 12-month finding on
the petition to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population as a DPS
and remove the protections of the ESA from the DPS, and includes a
proposed rule to revise the existing listings to identify 11 green
turtle DPSs worldwide and list them as threatened or endangered under
the ESA in place of the existing listings. Our determinations have been
made only after review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the species throughout its range and within
each DPS. This is similar to the action we took for loggerhead sea
turtles (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011).
The ESA gives us clear authority to make these listing
determinations and to revise the lists of endangered and threatened
species to reflect these determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA
authorizes us to determine by regulation whether ``any species,'' which
is expressly defined to include species, subspecies, and DPS, is an
endangered species or a threatened species based on certain factors.
Review of the status of a species may be commenced at any time, either
on the Services' own initiative--through a status review or in
connection with a 5-year review under Section 4(c)(2)--or in response
to a petition. Because a DPS is not a scientifically recognized entity,
but rather one that is created under the language of the ESA and
effectuated through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), we
have some discretion to determine whether the species should be
reclassified into DPSs and what boundaries should be recognized for
each DPS. Section 4(c)(1) gives us authority to update the lists of
threatened and endangered species to reflect these determinations. This
can include revising the lists to remove a species or reclassify the
listed entity.
II. 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. Therefore, the Services
adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy;
61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS Policy requires the
consideration of three elements when evaluating the status of possible
DPSs: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of
the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the
[[Page 15276]]
ESA's standards for listing. This is discussed further in the Status
Review, in the section entitled, ``Overview of Information and Process
Used to Identify DPSs.''
III. 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
(section 3(6)), 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 (section 3(20)). Thus, in the context
of the ESA, the Services interpret an ``endangered species'' to be one
that is presently in danger of extinction. A ``threatened species,'' on
the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely
to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, the primary
statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the
timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either
presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened
under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable
future.'' It is appropriate to interpret ``foreseeable future'' as the
horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the
species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers
the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability
of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the
reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events
on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may
be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are
available, or which operate across different time scales, the
foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number
of years. For the green turtle, the SRT used a horizon of 100 years to
evaluate the likelihood that a DPS would reach a critical risk
threshold (i.e., quasi-extinction). In making the proposed listing
determinations, we applied the horizon of 100 years in our
consideration of foreseeable future under the scope of the definitions
of endangered and threatened species, pursuant to section 3 of the ESA.
The statute requires us to determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened as a result of any one or combination of the
following 5-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) of the ESA).
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make this determination
based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data
available 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.
IV. Biology and Life History of Green Turtles
A thorough account of green turtle biology and life history may be
found in the Status Review, which is incorporated here by reference.
The following is a succinct summary of that information.
The green turtle, C. mydas, has a circumglobal distribution,
occurring throughout tropical, subtropical, and, to a lesser extent,
temperate waters. Their movements within the marine environment are not
fully understood, but it is believed that green turtles inhabit coastal
waters of over 140 countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989). The
Status Review lists 468 known nesting sites worldwide, with 79 having
nesting aggregations with greater than 500 females. The largest green
turtle nesting aggregation, with an estimated number of nesting females
greater than 132,000, is Tortuguero, Costa Rica (Sea Turtle
Conservancy, 2013). There are 14 aggregations estimated to have 10,001-
100,000 nesting females: Quintana Roo, Mexico (Julio Zurita, pers.
comm., 2012); Ascension Island, UK (S. Weber, Ascension Island
Government, pers. comm., 2013); Poil[atilde]o, Guinea-Bissau (Catry et
al., 2009); Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 2011; Mortimer,
2012; J. Mortimer, unpubl. data.); Moh[eacute]li, Comoros Islands,
France (Bourjea, 2012); Mayotte, Comoros Islands (Bourjea, 2012);
Europa, Esparses Islands, France (Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; Bourjea,
2012); Ras Al Hadd, Oman (AlKindi et al., 2008); Ras Sharma, Yemen
(PERSGA/GEF, 2004); Wellesley Group, Australia (Unpubl. data cited in
Limpus, 2009); Raine Island, Australia (Chaloupka et al., 2008a;
Limpus, 2009); Moulter Cay, Australia (Limpus, 2009); Capricorn Bunker
Group of Islands, Australia (Limpus et al., 2003); and Colola, Mexico
(Delgado-Trejo and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012).
Most green turtles spend the majority of their lives in coastal
foraging grounds. These areas include fairly shallow waters in open
coastline and protected bays and lagoons. While in these areas, green
turtles rely on marine algae and seagrass as their primary diet
constituents, although some populations also forage heavily on
invertebrates. These marine habitats are often highly dynamic and in
areas with annual fluctuations in seawater and air temperatures, which
can cause the distribution and abundance of potential green turtle food
items to vary substantially between seasons and years (Carballo et al.,
2002).
At nesting beaches, green turtles rely on beaches characterized by
intact dune structures, native vegetation, little to no artificial
lighting, and 26 to 35[deg] C beach temperatures for nesting (Limpus,
1971; Salmon et al., 1992; Ackerman, 1997; Witherington, 1997; Lorne
and Salmon, 2007). Nests are typically laid at night at the base of the
primary dune (Hirth, 1997; Witherington et al., 2006). Complete removal
of vegetation, or coastal construction, can affect thermal regimes on
beaches and thus affect the incubation and resulting sex ratio of
hatchling turtles. Nests laid in these areas are at a higher risk of
tidal inundation (Schroeder and Mosier, 2000).
Hatchlings emerge from their nests en masse and almost exclusively
at night, presumably using decreasing sand temperature as a cue
(Hendrickson, 1958; Mrosovsky, 1968). Immediately after hatchlings
emerge from the nest, they begin a period of frenzied activity. During
this active period, hatchlings crawl to the surf, swim, and are swept
through the surf zone (Carr and Ogren, 1960; Carr, 1961; Wyneken and
Salmon, 1992). They orient to waves in the nearshore area and to the
magnetic field as they proceed further toward open water (Lohmann and
Lohmann, 2003).
Upon leaving the nesting beach and entering the marine environment,
post-hatchling green turtles begin an oceanic juvenile phase during
which they are presumed to primarily inhabit areas where surface waters
converge to form local downwellings that result in linear accumulations
of floating material, especially Sargassum sp. This association with
downwellings is well-documented for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta), as well as for some post-hatchling green turtles
(Witherington et al., 2006; 2012). The smallest of oceanic green
turtles associating with these areas are relatively active, moving both
within Sargassum sp. mats and in nearby open water, which may limit the
ability of
[[Page 15277]]
researchers to detect their presence as compared to relatively immobile
loggerheads of the same life stage that associate with similar habitat
(Smith and Salmon, 2009; Witherington et al., 2012).
Oceanic-stage juvenile green turtles originating from nesting
beaches in the Northwest Atlantic appear to use oceanic developmental
habitats and move with the predominant ocean gyres for several years
before returning to their neritic (shallower water, generally to 200 m
depth, including open coastline and protected bays and lagoons)
foraging and developmental habitats (Musick and Limpus, 1997; Bolten,
2003). Larger neonate green turtles (at least 15-26 cm straight
carapace length; SCL) are known to occupy Sargassum sp. habitats and
surrounding epipelagic waters, where food items include Sargassum sp.
and associated invertebrates, fish eggs, and insects (Witherington et
al., 2012). Knowledge of the diet and behavior of oceanic stage
juveniles, however, is limited.
The neritic juvenile stage begins when green turtles exit the
oceanic zone and enter the neritic zone (Bolten, 2003). The age at
recruitment to the neritic zone likely varies with individuals leaving
the oceanic zone over a wide size range (summarized in Avens and
Snover, 2013). After migrating to the neritic zone, juveniles continue
maturing until they reach adulthood, and some may periodically move
between the neritic and oceanic zones (NMFS and USFWS, 2007; Parker et
al., 2011). The neritic zone, including both open coastline and
protected bays and lagoons, provides important foraging habitat, inter-
nesting habitat, breeding, and migratory habitat for adult green
turtles (Plotkin, 2003; NMFS and USFWS, 2007). Some adult females may
also periodically move between the neritic and oceanic zones (Plotkin,
2003; Hatase et al., 2006) and, in some instances, adult green turtles
may reside in the oceanic zone for foraging (NMFS and USFWS, 2007;
Seminoff et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2011). Despite these uses of the
oceanic zone by green turtles, much remains unknown about how
oceanography affects juvenile and adult survival, adult migration, prey
availability, and reproductive output.
Most green turtles exhibit slow growth rates, which has been
described as a consequence of their largely herbivorous (i.e., low net
energy) diet (Bjorndal, 1982). Consistent with slow growth, age-to-
maturity for green turtles appears to be the longest of any sea turtle
species (Chaloupka and Musick, 1997; Hirth, 1997). Published age at
sexual maturity estimates are as high as 35-50 years, with lower ranges
reported for known age turtles from the Cayman Islands (15-19 years;
Bell et al., 2005) and Caribbean Mexico (12-20 years; Zurita et al.,
2012) and some mark-recapture projects (e.g., 15-25 years in the
Eastern Pacific; Seminoff et al., 2002a). Mean adult reproductive
lifespan of green turtles from Australia's southern Great Barrier Reef
(GBR) has been estimated at 19 years using mark-recapture and survival
data (Chaloupka and Limpus, 2005). The maximum nesting lifespan
observed in a 27-year tag return dataset from Trindade Island, Brazil
was 16 years; however, nesting monitoring was discontinuous over time
(Almeida et al., 2011). Tag return data comprising 2,077 females
(42,928 nesting events, 1968-partial 2012 season) from continuous
monitoring at French Frigate Shoals (FFS), Hawai`i show maximum nesting
lifespans of 37-38 years (n=2), with many individuals (n=54) documented
nesting over a minimum of 25-35 years (I. Nurzia-Humburg, S. Hargrove,
and G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished data, 2013).
V. Overview of the Policies and Process Used To Identify DPSs
The SRT considered a vast array of information in assessing whether
there are any green turtle population segments that satisfy the DPS
criteria of being both discrete and significant. In anticipation of
conducting a green turtle status review, NMFS contracted two post-
doctoral associates in 2011 to collect and synthesize genetic and
demographic information on green turtles worldwide. The SRT was
presented with, and evaluated, this genetic and demographic
information. Demographic information included green turtle nesting
information; morphological and behavioral data; movements, as indicated
by tagging (flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags) and
satellite telemetry data; and anthropogenic impacts. Also discussed and
considered as a part of this analysis were oceanographic features and
geographic barriers.
A population 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 as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; 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 (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). According to the policy, quantitative measures of
genetic or morphological discontinuity can be used to provide evidence
for item (1). The SRT compiled a list of attributes that suggested
various population groups might be considered discrete, identified
potentially discrete units, and discussed alternative scenarios for
lumping or splitting these potentially discrete units. After arriving
at a tentative list of units, each member of the SRT was given 100
points that could be distributed among two categories: (1) The unit
under consideration is discrete, and (2) the unit under consideration
is not discrete. The spread of points reflects the level of certainty
of the SRT surrounding a decision to call the unit discrete. The SRT
determined that there are 11 discrete regional populations of green
turtles globally. Each of these was then evaluated for significance.
A population may be considered significant if it satisfies any one
of the following conditions: (1) Persistence of the discrete segment in
an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence
that loss of the discrete segment would result in a significant gap in
the range of the taxon; (3) 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 (4) evidence that the discrete segment differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Because condition (3) is not applicable to green
turtles, the SRT addressed conditions (1), (2) and (4). The SRT listed
the attributes that would make potential DPSs (those determined to be
discrete in the previous step) significant. As in the vote for
discreteness, members of the SRT were then given 100 points with which
to vote for whether each unit met the significance criterion in the
joint policy. All units that had been identified as discrete were also
determined to be significant.
For more discussion on the process the SRT used to identify DPSs,
see Section 3 of the Status Review document.
A. Discreteness Determination
In evaluating discreteness among the global green turtle
population, the SRT began by focusing on the physical separation of
ocean basins (i.e., Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans). The result
was an evaluation of data by major ocean basins, although it quickly
became clear that the Indian and Pacific
[[Page 15278]]
Ocean populations overlapped. The evaluation by ocean basin was not to
preclude any larger or smaller DPS delineation, but to aid in data
organization and assessment. We organized this section by ocean basin
to explain the discreteness determination process and results.
Within each ocean basin, the SRT started by evaluating genetic
information. The genetic data consisted of results from studies using
maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), biparentally inherited
nuclear DNA (nDNA) microsatellite (a section of DNA consisting of very
short nucleotide sequences repeated many times), and single nucleotide
polymorphism (a DNA sequence variation occurring commonly within a
population) markers. Next, the SRT reviewed tagging, telemetry and
demographic data, and additional information such as potential
differences in morphology. The SRT also considered whether the
available information suggests that green turtle population segments
are separated by vicariant barriers, such as oceanographic features
(e.g., current systems), or biogeographic boundaries.
Genetic information that was presented to the SRT resulted from a
global phylogenetic analysis (analysis based on natural evolutionary
relationships) based on sequence data from a total of 129 mtDNA
haplotypes (i.e., mtDNA sequences, which are inherited together)
identified from approximately 4,400 individuals sampled at 105 green
turtle nesting sites around the world (Jensen and Dutton, NMFS,
unpublished data; M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Results indicated
that the mtDNA variation present in green turtles throughout the world
today occurs within eight major clades (i.e., a group consisting of an
ancestor and all its descendants) that are structured geographically
within ocean basins. These clades represent similarities between
haplotypes on evolutionary timescales as opposed to ecological
timescales. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of these clades.
There is divergence among individual haplotypes within each green
turtle clade (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013) and discrete
populations can exist within these clades.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 15279]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MR15.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
1. Atlantic Ocean/Mediterranean Sea
Two of the eight major mtDNA clades, Clades I and II, are found in
the Atlantic/Mediterranean region. Clade I includes haplotypes
primarily found in turtles from the Mediterranean and the western North
Atlantic. Within Clade I, two strongly divergent groups of haplotypes
are found, with one group being restricted to the Mediterranean and the
other being restricted to the western North Atlantic. Mediterranean and
western North Atlantic turtles share only one specific haplotype that
has been found in only two individuals, indicating very strong long-
term isolation of females. As such, there is strong evidence that these
two geographically-separated groups of divergent haplotypes may be
considered discrete.
In addition to genetic evidence for discreteness, in the
Mediterranean, green turtles are spatially separated from populations
in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, with the nearest known nesting sites
outside the Mediterranean being several thousand kilometers away in the
Republic of Senegal (Senegal), and the North Atlantic population being
more than 8,000 km away. Further, no turtles tagged in the eastern
Mediterranean have been recovered farther west than the Tunisian
Republic (Tunisia) inside the Mediterranean. Nesting females from
Cyprus, Turkey, the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria), and the State of
Israel (Israel) have been satellite tracked to the Arab Republic of
Egypt (Egypt), Libya, and Turkey--with movements largely restricted to
the eastern Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002; Broderick et al.,
2007). Post-nesting turtles from this region migrate primarily along
the coast from their nesting beach to their foraging and
[[Page 15280]]
overwintering grounds in the Mediterranean (Godley et al., 2002;
Broderick et al., 2007).
Demographic evidence of discreteness of Mediterranean green turtles
lies in the fact that Mediterranean green turtles are the second
smallest green turtles worldwide (the smallest being in the eastern
Pacific), with a mean nesting size in Alagadi, Cyprus of 92 cm Curved
Carapace Length (CCL; Broderick et al., 2003), compared with 95 cm to
110 cm CCL size range for most other populations.
In the North Atlantic, tag recovery and telemetry data indicate
that nesting females primarily reside within the North Atlantic. Some
nesting females tagged at Tortuguero, Costa Rica were recaptured in the
South Atlantic (Tro[euml]ng et al., 2005). There is some degree of
mixing of immature turtles on foraging pastures between the North and
South Atlantic; however, nesting sites in the eastern Caribbean carry
mostly mtDNA haplotypes from a different clade (II), indicating strong
long-term isolation. Tagging studies have identified juveniles from
this population in waters off Brazil and Argentina, but we found no
evidence of movement of mature individuals.
The second clade within the Atlantic Ocean basin, Clade II,
includes haplotypes found in all South Atlantic nesting sites, some
eastern Caribbean turtles, and some turtles in the southwest Indian
Ocean. With a few exceptions, green turtles in the South Atlantic carry
an mtDNA haplotype that is found nowhere else, indicating strong
isolation of matrilines over evolutionary time periods. The exceptions
to this pattern are: (1) One nesting site from the eastern Caribbean,
which exhibits a low frequency of a haplotype from the North Atlantic/
Mediterranean clade (Clade I); (2) nesting sites from the Gulf of
Mexico/Central America, which have a low frequency of Clade II
haplotypes; and (3) two nesting sites from southeast Africa, which have
high frequencies of Clade II haplotypes. The presence of a shared
haplotype in South Atlantic and southwest Indian Ocean rookeries
demonstrates for the first time a recent matrilineal link between
Atlantic and Indian Ocean green turtle populations (Bourjea et al.,
2007b). However, the SRT believes all these exceptions reflect
historical events rather than contemporary connectivity. This
interpretation is supported by satellite telemetry, which reveals
extensive movements of turtles within the South Atlantic region but no
evidence for migrations into other areas, other than rare instances of
movement into foraging areas in the North Atlantic. Long stretches of
cold water along the coasts of Patagonia and southwest Africa serve to
isolate South Atlantic turtles from populations in the Indian and
Pacific Oceans.
Foraging ground studies in the Atlantic have generally shown
regional structuring with strong stock contribution from nearby
regional nesting sites, but little mixing over long distances (Bolker
et al., 2007). Overall, the distribution of the two genetic haplotype
lineages (Clade I and Clade II) is very similar to what is seen for the
nesting sites and indicates a strong regional structuring with little
overlap (Bolker et al., 2007). However, a recent study showed that a
large proportion of juvenile green turtles in the Cape Verde Islands in
the eastern Atlantic originated from distant nesting sites across the
Atlantic, namely Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island (12 percent)
and Guinea Bissau (19 percent), suggesting that, like loggerheads,
green turtles in the Atlantic undertake transoceanic developmental
migrations (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). The fact that
long distance dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles suggests that
larger adult-sized turtles return to forage within the region of their
natal nesting sites, thereby limiting the potential for gene-flow
across larger scales (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010).
In the South Atlantic, flipper tag recoveries have established
movement between feeding grounds and nesting sites in the Caribbean and
Brazil (Lima et al., 2003; Lima et al., 2008; Lima et al., 2012), and
telemetry data indicate that juvenile green turtles move from Argentina
to Uruguay and Brazil, from Uruguay to Brazil, and from the Guianas to
Brazil. Telemetry studies indicate that nesting females from the
eastern South Atlantic (west coast of Africa) are confined to the
eastern South Atlantic, and nesting females from the western South
Atlantic are confined to the western South Atlantic. In the eastern
South Atlantic, all tracked turtles remained in the general vicinity of
their release location. Nesting females from Ascension Island were
tracked to foraging grounds along the coast of Brazil.
Finally, demographic evidence for discreteness of South Atlantic
green turtles lies in the fact that the South Atlantic is home to the
largest green turtles in the world, with a mean nesting size of green
turtles at Atol das Rocas, Brazil of 118.6 cm CCL (n=738), compared
with 95 cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most other populations.
Based on the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete populations exist in the Atlantic Ocean/
Mediterranean: (1) North Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, and (3) South
Atlantic. These three populations are markedly separated from each
other and from populations within the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean
basins as a consequence of physical (including both oceanographic
basins and currents), ecological, and behavioral factors. Information
supporting this conclusion includes genetic analysis, flipper tag
recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
2. Indian Ocean
Green turtles from the Indian Ocean exhibit haplotypes from Clades
II, III, IV, VI, and VII. In the southwest Indian Ocean, Bourjea et al.
(2007b) genetically assessed the population structure among 288 nesting
green turtles from 10 nesting sites. Overall, the southwest Indian
Ocean appears to have at least two genetic stocks: (1) The South
Mozambique Channel (Juan de Nova and Europa); and (2) the North
Mozambique Channel. As stated earlier, the authors recorded a high
presence of a common and widespread South Atlantic Ocean haplotype (CM-
A8) in the South Mozambique Channel. However, the observation that only
a single Atlantic haplotype has been observed and that it occurs in
high frequency among South Mozambique Channel rookeries suggests that
gene flow is not ongoing (Bourjea et al., 2007b). Nesting sites in the
North Mozambique Channel share several haplotypes (including CmP47 and
CmP49) with nesting sites in the eastern Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia
and the Western Pacific, indicating strong-connectivity with the
eastern Indian Ocean population. However, tagging and tracking data
document movements within the Southwest Indian Ocean but not between it
and the eastern Indian and western Pacific Oceans. Although there is
some evidence of trans-boundary movement between the southwest Indian
Ocean and the population in the North Indian Ocean, evidence from tag
returns indicates that most remain in the southwest Indian Ocean.
Indeed, some green turtles in Tanzania are probably resident, and
others are highly migratory, moving to and from nesting and feeding
grounds within the southwest Indian Ocean in Kenya, Seychelles,
Comoros, Mayotte, Europa Island and South Africa (Muir, 2005). From
2009 to 2011, 90 satellite transmitters deployed on nesting green
turtles at five nesting sites in the southwest Indian Ocean showed that
nearly 20 percent of the tracked turtles used Madagascar coastal
foraging grounds while more than 80 percent
[[Page 15281]]
used the east African coasts, including waters off north Mozambique and
south Tanzania. The SRT determined that spatial separation between the
southwest Indian Ocean and other Indo-Pacific populations, as well as
an apparent nesting gap, the lack of trans-boundary recoveries in
tagging, and localized telemetry, indicate discreteness from other
populations in the Indo-Pacific.
In the North Indian Ocean, limited information from only a single
nesting site (Jana Island, Saudi Arabia, n=27) exists on the genetic
structure (M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013). Nonetheless, four mtDNA
haplotypes never reported from any other nesting site were identified
from Jana Island, and are highly divergent from other haplotypes in the
Indian Ocean. This population also appears to be isolated from other
Indian populations by substantial breaks in nesting habitat along the
Horn of Africa and along the entire eastern side of the Indian
subcontinent.
Tagging of turtles on nesting beaches of the North Indian Ocean
started in the late 1970s and indicates that some turtles in the North
Indian Ocean migrate long distances from distant feeding grounds to
nesting beaches while others are quite sedentary, but all stay within
the North Indian Ocean. Tagging studies have revealed that some turtles
nesting on Ras Al Hadd and Masirah, Oman can be found as far away as
Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the upper Gulf, and Pakistan
(Ross, 1987; Salm, 1991), and a green turtle tagged in Oman was found
in the Maldives (Al-Saady et al., 2005). No tagging has been carried
out on feeding grounds (Al-Saady et al., 2005).
A few green turtles in the North Indian Ocean have been fitted with
satellite transmitters and reported at www.seaturtle.org, but no data
have been published. One telemetered female green turtle remained in
the coastal areas of the Persian Gulf for 49 days (N. Pilcher, Marine
Research Foundation, pers. comm., 2013), and two nesting turtles were
telemetered at Masirah Island, Oman, both of which moved southward
along the Arabian Peninsula and were found in the Red Sea when the
transmissions ceased (Rees et al. 2012). Telemetry data for captive-
hatched and reared green turtles at Republic of Maldives (Vabbinfaru
Island, Male Atoll) have indicated wide movement patterns within the
Indian Ocean (N. Pilcher, Marine Research Foundation, pers. comm.,
2013).
In the eastern Indian Ocean, turtles mix readily with those in the
western Pacific. Genetic sampling in the eastern Indian and western
Pacific Ocean regions has been fairly extensive with more than 22
nesting sites sampled although, because there are a high number of
nesting sites in this region and there is complex structure, there
remain gaps in sampling relative to distribution (e.g., Thailand,
Vietnam, parts of Indonesia, and the Philippines). Most nesting sites
are dominated by haplotypes from Clade VII, but with some overlap of
Clades III and IV throughout the Indian Ocean--evidence of a complex
colonization history in this region. While one common haplotype is
shared across the Indian Ocean, substantial gaps in nesting sites along
the east coast of India and in the southern Indian Ocean serve to
isolate the eastern Indian-western Pacific population from those in the
north and southwest Indian Ocean. The Wallace Line (a boundary drawn in
1859 by the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace that separates the
highly distinctive faunas of the Asian and Australian biogeographic
regions) and its northern extension separate this population from
populations to the east, which carry haplotypes primarily from Clade
IV. Nesting sites to the northern extreme (Taiwan and Japan) show more
complex patterns of higher mixing of divergent haplotypes, and the
placement of individual nesting sites within this area is somewhat
uncertain and may become better resolved when additional genetic data
are available.
Significant population substructuring occurs among nesting sites in
this area. Mixed-stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that green
turtles from multiple nesting beaches commonly mix at feeding areas
across northern Australia (Dethmers et al., 2006) and Malaysia (Jensen,
2010), with higher contributions from nearby large nesting sites.
Satellite tracking also shows green turtle movement throughout the
eastern Indian and western Pacific (Cheng, 2000; Dermawan, 2002;
Charuchinda et al., 2003; Wang, 2006).
Given the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that three discrete populations exist in the Indian Ocean, with
the third overlapping with the Pacific: (1) Southwest Indian, (2) North
Indian, and (3) East Indian-West Pacific. These three populations are
markedly separated from each other and from populations within the
Atlantic Ocean as a consequence of physical, ecological, and behavioral
factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic
analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
3. Pacific Ocean
The central west Pacific encompasses most of the area commonly
referred to as Micronesia as well as parts of Melanesia. Genetic
sampling in the central west Pacific has recently improved, but remains
challenging, given the large number of small island and atoll nesting
sites. At least five management units have been identified in the
region (Palau, Independent State of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Yap, CNMI/
Guam, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (Marshall Islands);
Dethmers et al., 2006; M. Jensen, NRC, pers. comm., 2013; Dutton et
al., 2014). The central west Pacific carries haplotypes from Clade IV,
while the populations to the west carry haplotypes predominantly from
Clade VII, so any mixing presumably reflects foraging migrations rather
than interbreeding. The boundary between the central west Pacific and
the East Indian-West Pacific populations is congruent with the northern
portion of the Wallace Line. Wide expanses of open ocean separate the
central west Pacific from the central north Pacific, and genetic data
provide no evidence of gene flow between the central west Pacific and
the central north Pacific over evolutionary time scales. Tagging
studies also have not found evidence for migration of breeding adults
to or from adjacent populations.
In the southwest Pacific, genetic sampling has been extensive for
larger nesting sites along the GBR, the Coral Sea and New Caledonia
(Dethmers et al., 2006; Jensen, 2010; Dutton et al., 2014). However,
several smaller nesting sites in this region have not been sampled
(e.g., Solomon Islands, Republic of Vanuatu (Vanuatu), Tuvalu, PNG,
etc.). The southwest Pacific population is characterized by haplotypes
from Clade V, which have been found only at nesting sites in this
population. It also has a high frequency of haplotypes from Clades III
and IV, as well as low frequency of haplotypes from Clades VI and VII,
making this area highly diverse (haplotypes from the widespread Clade
IV differ from those found in the central west and central south
Pacific).
Traditional capture-mark-recapture studies (Limpus, 2009) and
genetic mixed-stock analysis (Jensen, 2010) show that turtles from
several different southwest Pacific nesting sites overlap on feeding
grounds along the east coast of Australia. This mixing in foraging
areas might provide mating opportunities between turtles from different
stocks as evidenced by the lack of differentiation found between the
northern and southern GBR nesting sites
[[Page 15282]]
for nuclear DNA (FitzSimmons et al., 1997). However, tagging,
telemetry, and genetic studies show movement of breeding adults occurs
mainly within the southwest Pacific.
In the central South Pacific, genetic sampling has been limited to
two nesting sites (American Samoa and French Polynesia) among the many
small isolated nesting sites that characterize this region, but they
both contain relatively high frequencies of Clade III haplotypes, which
are not found in the central west and southwest Pacific populations.
Nesting sites from this area share some haplotypes with surrounding
nesting sites, but at low frequency. There are also limited data on
mixed-stock foraging areas from this region. Flipper tag returns and
satellite tracking studies demonstrate that post-nesting females travel
the complete geographic breadth of this population, from French
Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, and sometimes even slightly
beyond (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 2004; Maison et
al., 2010; White, 2012), as far as the Philippines (Trevor, 2009). The
complete extent of migratory movements is unknown. The central South
Pacific is isolated by vast expanses of open ocean from turtle
populations to the north (Hawai`i) and east (Galapagos), and in both of
these areas all turtle haplotypes are from an entirely different clade
(Clade VIII), indicating lack of genetic exchange across these
barriers.
The central North Pacific, which includes the Hawaiian Archipelago
and Johnston Atoll, is inhabited by green turtles that are
geographically discrete in their genetic characteristics, range, and
movements, as evidenced by genetic studies and mark-recapture studies
using flipper tags, microchip tags, and satellite telemetry. The key
nesting aggregations within the Hawaiian Archipelago have all been
genetically sampled. Mitochondrial DNA studies show no significant
differentiation (based on haplotype frequency) between FFS and Laysan
Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). While the Hawaiian Islands
do share haplotypes with Revillagigedos Islands (CmP1.1 and CmP3.1) at
low frequency, the populations remain highly differentiated, and there
is little evidence of significant ongoing gene flow. The Frey et al.
(2013) analysis of mtDNA and nDNA in scattered nesting sites on the
main Hawaiian Islands (MHI; Molokai, Maui, Oahu, Lanai, and Kauai)
showed that nesting in the MHI might be attributed to a relatively
small number of females that appear to be related to each other and
demographically isolated from FFS.
Turtles foraging in the MHI originate from Hawaiian nesting sites,
with very rare records of turtles from outside the central North
Pacific (Dutton et al., 2008), and there is a general absence of
turtles from the Hawaiian breeding population at foraging areas outside
the central North Pacific. From 1965-2013, 17,536 green turtles
(juvenile through adult stages) were tagged. With only three
exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures of these tagged turtles have been
within the Hawaiian Archipelago. The three outliers involved recoveries
in Japan, the Marshall Islands, and the Philippines (G. Balazs, NMFS,
pers. comm., 2013).
Information from tagging at FFS, areas in the MHI, the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) to the northwest of FFS, and at Johnston Atoll
shows that reproductive females and males periodically migrate to FFS
for seasonal breeding from the other locations. At the end of the
season they return to their respective foraging areas. The reproductive
migrations of 19 satellite tracked green turtles (16 females and 3
males) all involved movements between FFS and the MHI. Conventional
tagging using microchips and metal flipper tags has resulted in the
documentation of 164 turtles making reproductive movements from or to
FFS and foraging pastures in the MHI, and 58 turtles from or to FFS and
the foraging pastures in the NWHI (G. Balazs, NMFS, unpubl. data).
Hawaiian green turtles also exhibit morphological features that may
make them discrete from other populations, possibly reflecting genetic
as well as ecological adaptations. In the Hawai`i population, and in
Australian populations, green turtles have a well-developed crop, which
has not been found in Caribbean or eastern Pacific populations of green
turtles (Balazs et al., 1998; J. Seminoff, NMFS, unpubl. data). In
addition, juvenile green turtles in Hawai`i have proportionally larger
rear flippers than those in the western Caribbean (Wyneken and Balazs,
1996; Balazs et al., 1998). These anatomical differences may reflect
adaptive variation to different environmental conditions. A crop that
holds food material in the esophagus would permit more food to be
ingested during each foraging event in a more dynamic feeding
environment, which is helpful along wind-swept rugged coastlines where
large waves crash ashore. Larger flippers would also aid in making them
stronger swimmers in this feeding environment, and during reproductive
migrations across rough pelagic waters, as opposed to calmer coastal
waters (Balazs et al., 1998).
The central North Pacific population and those in the central South
Pacific and central west Pacific appear to be separated by large
oceanic areas, and the central North Pacific and the eastern Pacific
populations are separated by the East Pacific Barrier, an oceanographic
barrier that greatly restricts or eliminates gene flow for most marine
species from a wide range of taxa (Briggs, 1974).
In the eastern Pacific, genetic sampling has been extensive and the
coverage in this region is substantial, considering the relatively
small population sizes of most eastern Pacific nesting sites, which
include both mainland and insular nesting. This sampling indicates
complete isolation of nesting females between the eastern and western
Pacific nesting sites. Recent efforts to determine the nesting stock
origins of green turtles assembled in foraging areas have found that
green turtles from several eastern Pacific nesting stocks commonly mix
at feeding areas in the Gulf of California and along the Pacific coast
in San Diego Bay, U.S. (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data).
In addition, green turtles of eastern Pacific origin have been found,
albeit very rarely, in waters off Hawai`i (LeRoux et al., 2003; Dutton
et al., 2008), Japan (Kuroyanagi et al., 1999; Hamabata et al., 2009),
and New Zealand (Godoy et al., 2012). A recent study of juvenile green
turtles foraging at Gorgona Island in the Republic of Colombia
indicated a small number (5 percent) of turtles with the haplotype
CmP22, which was recently discovered to be common in nesting green
turtles from the Marshall Islands and American Samoa (Dutton et al.,
2014). This shows that, despite the isolation of nesting females
between the eastern and western Pacific, a small number of immature
turtles successfully cross the Pacific during developmental migrations
in both directions. However, it is important to point out that there is
no evidence of mature turtles inhabiting foraging or nesting habitat
across the Pacific from their region of origin.
Recent nDNA studies provide insights that are consistent with
patterns of differentiation found with mtDNA in the eastern Pacific.
Roden et al. (2013) found significant differentiation between FFS and
two eastern Pacific populations (the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, Ecuador
and Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico) and greater connectivity between
Galapagos and Michoac[aacute]n than between FFS and either of the
eastern Pacific nesting sites.
Flipper tagging and satellite telemetry data show that dispersal
and reproductive migratory movements of
[[Page 15283]]
green turtles originating from the eastern Pacific region are generally
confined to that region. Long-term flipper tagging programs at
Michoac[aacute]n (Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa, 1992) and in the
Gal[aacute]pagos Islands (Green, 1984; P. Zarate, University of
Florida, pers. comm., 2012) produced 94 tag returns from foraging areas
throughout the eastern Pacific (e.g., Seminoff et al., 2002b). There
were two apparent groupings, with tags attached to turtles nesting in
the Gal[aacute]pagos largely recovered along the shores from Costa Rica
to Chile in the southeastern Pacific, and long-distance tag returns
from the Michoac[aacute]n nesting site primarily from foraging areas in
Mexico to Nicaragua. However, there was a small degree of overlap
between these two regions, as at least one Michoac[aacute]n tag was
recovered as far south as Colombia (Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa,
1992).
Satellite telemetry efforts with green turtles in the region have
shown similar results to those for flipper tag recoveries. A total of
23 long-distance satellite tracks were considered for the Status Review
(Seminoff, 2000; Nichols, 2003; Seminoff et al., 2008). Satellite data
show that turtles tracked in northeastern Mexico (Nichols, 2003; J.
Nichols, California Academy of Sciences, unpubl. data) and California
(P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2010) all stayed within the region,
whereas turtles tracked from nesting beaches in the Gal[aacute]pagos
Islands all remained in waters off Central America and the broader
southeastern Pacific Ocean (Seminoff et al., 2008).
Demographic evidence of discreteness is also found in morphological
differences between green turtles in the eastern Pacific and those
found elsewhere. The smallest green turtles worldwide are found in the
eastern Pacific, where mean nesting size is 82.0 cm CCL in
Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico (n=718, (Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa,
1992) and 86.7 cm CCL in the Gal[aacute]pagos (n=2708; (Z[aacute]rate
et al., 2003), compared to the 95 cm to 110 cm CCL size range for most
green turtles. In addition, Kamezaki and Matsui (1995) found
differences in skull morphology among green turtle populations on a
broad global scale when analyzing specimens representing west and east
Pacific (Japan and Gal[aacute]pagos), Indian Ocean (Comoros and
Seychelles), and Caribbean (Costa Rica and Guyana) populations. The
eastern Pacific was different from others based on discriminant
function analysis (used to discriminate between two or more naturally
occurring groups).
Given the information presented above, the SRT concluded, and we
concur, that there are five discrete populations entirely within the
Pacific Ocean: (1) Central West Pacific, (2) Southwest Pacific, (3)
Central South Pacific, (4) Central North Pacific, and (5) East Pacific.
These five populations are markedly separated from each other and from
populations within the Atlantic Ocean and Indian Oceans as a
consequence of physical, ecological, behavioral, and oceanographic
factors. Information supporting this conclusion includes genetic
analysis, flipper tag recoveries, and satellite telemetry.
Collectively, all observations above led the SRT to propose that
green turtles from the following geographic areas might be considered
``discrete'' according to criteria in the joint DPS policy:
(1) North Atlantic Ocean
(2) Mediterranean Sea
(3) South Atlantic Ocean
(4) Southwest Indian Ocean
(5) North Indian Ocean
(6) East Indian Ocean-West Pacific Ocean
(7) Central West Pacific Ocean
(8) Southwest Pacific Ocean
(9) Central South Pacific Ocean
(10) Central North Pacific Ocean
(11) East Pacific Ocean
B. Significance Determination
In accordance with the DPS Policy, the SRT next reviewed whether
the population segments identified in the discreteness analysis were
biologically and ecologically significant to the taxon to which they
belong, which is the taxonomic species C. mydas. Data relevant to the
significance question include ecological, behavioral, genetic and
morphological data. The SRT considered the following factors, listed in
the DPS Policy, in determining whether the discrete population segments
were significant: (1) Evidence that loss of the discrete segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (2) evidence
that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of
the species in its genetic characteristics; and (3) persistence of the
discrete segment in an unusual or unique ecological setting. The DPS
policy also allows for consideration of other factors if they are
appropriate to the biology or ecology of the species, such as unique
morphological or demographic characteristics, and unique movement
patterns.
1. North Atlantic
Green turtles in the North Atlantic differ markedly in their
genetic characteristics from other regional populations. They are
strongly divergent from the Mediterranean population (the only other
population within Clade I), and turtles from adjacent populations in
the eastern Caribbean carry haplotypes from a different clade. The
North Atlantic population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore,
the loss of the population would result in significant genetic loss to
the species as a whole.
The green turtles within the North Atlantic population occupy a
large portion of one of the major ocean basins in the world; therefore,
the loss of this segment would represent a significant gap in the
global range of green turtles. Green turtles take advantage of the warm
waters of the Gulf Stream to nest in North Carolina at 34[deg] N.,
which is farther from the equator than any other nesting sites outside
the Mediterranean Sea. Tagging and telemetry studies show that the
North Atlantic green turtle population has minimal mixing with
populations in the South Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. The mean
size of nesting females in the North Atlantic, which could reflect the
ecological setting and/or be genetically based, is larger (average
101.7-109.3 cm CCL; (Guzm[aacute]n-Hern[aacute]ndez, 2001, 2006) than
those in the adjacent Mediterranean Sea (average 88-96 cm CCL), and
smaller than those at varying locations in the South Atlantic, such as
those at Isla Trindade, Brazil (average 115.2 cm CCL; Hirth, 1997;
Almeida et al., 2011), Atol das Rocas, Brazil (112.9-118.6 cm CCL;
Hirth, 1997; Bellini et al., 2013), and Ascension Island (average 116.8
cm CCL; Hirth, 1997).
Another factor indicating uniqueness of the North Atlantic
population is a typical 2-year remigration interval, as compared to 3-
year or longer intervals that are more common elsewhere (Witherington
et al., 2006).
2. Mediterranean
Mediterranean turtles differ markedly in their genetic
characteristics from other regional populations, with globally unique
haplotypes and strong divergence from the other population within Clade
I (the North Atlantic population). Therefore, the loss of the
population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a
whole. Given this genetic distinctiveness and the distinctive
environmental conditions, it is likely that turtles from the eastern
Mediterranean have developed local adaptations that help them persist
in this area. Mediterranean females are smaller than those in any other
regional population except the Eastern Pacific, averaging 92.0 cm CCL
(Broderick et al., 2003) compared to the global average of 95 cm-110 cm
CCL.
The loss of the population would result in a significant gap in the
range
[[Page 15284]]
of the taxon. The population encompasses a large region, separated from
other regional populations by large expanses of ocean, and with an
apparent biogeographic boundary formed by the western Mediterranean.
Finally, the Mediterranean Sea appears to be a unique ecological
setting for the species. It is the most saline marine water basin in
the world (38 parts per thousand (ppt) or higher), is nearly enclosed,
and is outside the normal latitudinal range for the species, being the
farthest from the equator of any green turtle population. Although
similar information is not available for green turtles, it has been
postulated that the high salinity of sea water in the Mediterranean
acts as a ``barrier'' preventing loggerhead sea turtles from moving
among the areas of the Western Mediterranean, explaining why they do
not mix between the north and south Mediterranean as juveniles
(Revelles et al., 2008). All nesting sites within the Mediterranean are
between latitudes 31-40[deg] N., which not only affects temperature but
results in more seasonal variation in day length and environmental
conditions, which may have fostered local adaptations in green turtles
living there.
3. South Atlantic
The South Atlantic population has globally unique haplotypes.
Therefore, the loss of the population would result in significant
genetic loss to the species as a whole. The South Atlantic population
contains the only nesting site in the world associated with a mid-ocean
ridge. This unique ecological setting at Ascension Island, one of the
largest nesting sites within this population, ensures diverse nesting
habitats and promotes resilience for the species. This population spans
an entire hemispheric ocean basin, and its loss would result in a gap
of at least 12,000 km between populations off southeast Africa and
those in Florida, clearly a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Brazil and Guinea Bissau may have acted as a refuge for Atlantic green
turtles during the Pleistocene period (Reece et al., 2005). The average
size of nesting females is larger here than in any other populations,
ranging from 112.9-118.6 cm CCL (Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011)
compared to 95-110 cm CCL worldwide, which could reflect an adaptation
to local environmental conditions such as habitat, availability of
food, water temperature, and population dynamics.
4. Southwest Indian
Within the Southwest Indian Ocean, strong upwelling in the
Mozambique Channel produces distinctive areas of high productivity that
support a robust turtle population, and complex current patterns in the
area create a distinctive ecological setting for green turtles.
Madagascar is one of the largest islands in the world and its proximity
to the African coast, along with a proliferation of nearby islands,
creates a complex series of habitats suitable for green turtles. Loss
of this population would leave a gap of over 10,000 km between
populations in southern India and those in west-central Africa. Nesting
turtles from this population are the largest within the Indian Ocean,
ranging from 103 cm (SCL)-112.3 cm (CCL) (Frazier, 1971; 1985) which
could reflect growth due to presence of a network of foraging areas and
localize migratory movements.
5. North Indian
The ecological setting for this region is unique for green turtles
in that it contains some of the warmest and highly saline waters in the
world, indicative of the partially enclosed marine habitats within this
system. The salinity in the North Indian Ocean varies from 32 to 37 ppt
comparable only to the Mediterranean Sea. Salinity in this region
varies with local and seasonal differences particularly in the Arabian
Sea (dense, high-salinity) and the Bay of Bengal (low-salinity).
Although genetic data are very limited for this population, with the
only sample being from the Persian Gulf, it has two groups of highly
divergent haplotypes that are not found anywhere else in the world
(i.e., markedly different genetic characteristics). The loss of this
population, and its globally unique haplotypes, which are not found in
any other population, would result in significant genetic loss to the
species as a whole. This population is isolated from other Indian Ocean
populations which would render its loss a significant gap in the range
of the species. Nesting turtles are smaller here than in other Indian
Ocean regions, possibly reflecting genetic adaptations to local
environmental conditions.
6. East Indian-West Pacific
This area of complex habitats at the confluence of the tropical
Indian and Pacific Oceans is a well-known hotspot for speciation and
diversification of both terrestrial and marine taxa. It is unique in
that it contains the most extensive continental shelf globally, and
particularly low salinity waters in the northeastern Indian Ocean. Loss
of green turtles from this vast area would create a substantial gap in
the global distribution and, because this population is located at the
center of the species' range, would strongly affect connectivity within
the species as a whole. Connectivity is important for the maintenance
of genetic diversity and resilience of the species. Genetic data
indicate the presence of ancestral haplotypes with significant mtDNA
diversity. The loss of this population, and its ancestral haplotypes,
would represent a significant genetic loss to the species. The wide
size range of nesting females within this population (82.1 cm-105.6 cm;
Charuchinda and Monanunsap, 1998; Cheng, 2000) is also an indication of
the high level of diversity within this population.
7. Central West Pacific
The Central West Pacific population is genetically significant in
that it has both globally unique haplotypes and ancestral haplotypes.
The Central West Pacific has no continental shelf habitats, with all
nesting occurring on small islands or atolls that are volcanic or
coralline limestone. There is an apparent oceanic boundary between the
Central West Pacific and the Central North Pacific population and an
apparent biogeographic boundary between the Central West Pacific and
the East Indian-West Pacific population. Loss of turtles from this
population would create a large gap near the center of the geographic
range of the species.
8. Southwest Pacific
Clade V haplotypes have only been found at nesting sites in the
Southwest Pacific population. In addition to these globally unique
haplotypes, the presence of the ancestral haplotypes and significant
mtDNA diversity make this population genetically significant.
Unlike most other populations in the Pacific Ocean, this population
includes island nesting sites in close proximity to coastal foraging
areas. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef system in
the world and was periodically isolated over geological time. It
provides expansive, year-round foraging habitat for green turtles and
supports one of the largest nesting sites in the world.
9. Central South Pacific
This population has globally unique haplotypes. Therefore, the loss
of the population would result in significant genetic loss to the
species as a whole. To a greater extent than in any other regional
population, nesting sites are widely dispersed among a large number of
small habitats on islands and atolls. Foraging areas are mostly coral
reef ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable
exception.
[[Page 15285]]
There is an apparent oceanic boundary with the Central North Pacific
population. Although turtles in this area are poorly studied, they may
have evolved adaptations to persist with this very diffuse
metapopulation structure. If green turtles were lost from this entire
area, it would create a significant gap in the range across the
southern Pacific Ocean.
10. Central North Pacific
Mitochondrial DNA in this extensively sampled region includes
globally unique haplotypes. Although two haplotypes are shared with
individuals in the Revillagigedos Islands in the East Pacific, there is
little evidence of significant ongoing gene flow. The loss of this
population would result in significant genetic loss to the species as a
whole.
This population has no continental-shelf habitat and all nesting
occurs on mid-basin pinnacles. Turtles in this population are known to
bask, a rare behavior for modern-day sea turtles, and have unique
morphological traits such as unusually large flippers, possibly
reflecting adaptations to their ecological setting. This is the most
isolated of all populations, with an apparent biogeographic boundary
with the Eastern Pacific population and oceanic boundaries with the
Central West and Central South Pacific populations. If all turtles were
lost from this vast geographic area, it would create a significant gap
in the global range of the species.
11. East Pacific
The two cold-water currents on the east side of the Pacific Ocean
(the Humboldt Current in the south and the California Current in the
north) leave a distinctive region of tropical ocean along the west
coasts of Mexico, Central America, and northern South America that is
known as the Eastern Pacific Zoogeographic Region (Briggs, 1974).
Perhaps as a result, some turtles in this area exhibit a unique
overwintering behavior similar to hibernation. This area also has a
very narrow continental shelf and low levels of seagrass, resulting in
a unique diet for green turtles (e.g., tunicates and red mangrove
fruits; Amorocho and Reina, 2007). This population has globally unique
haplotypes. Therefore, the loss of the population would result in
significant genetic loss to the species as a whole. Mean size of
nesting turtles in the East Pacific is smaller, at approximately 82 cm
CCL (Pritchard, 1971) than in any other population, which could reflect
an adaptation to local ecological conditions, as could the distinctive
``black'' phenotype. The Galapagos Island chain is one of the few areas
where green turtles bask (Hawai`i being the other). Loss of all turtles
from this population would leave a significant gap in the range of the
species as it occurs along much of the eastern boundary of the world's
largest ocean.
C. Summary of Discreteness and Significance Determinations
In summary, the 11 discrete populations identified in the
Discreteness Determination section were also determined to be
significant to the species, C. mydas. Each is genetically unique, and
many are identified by unique mtDNA haplotypes which could represent
adaptive differences. Some populations exist in unique or unusual
ecological settings influenced by local ecological and physical factors
which may also lead to adaptive differences and represent adaptive
potential. Some also possess unique morphological or other demographic
characteristics that render them significant. Most populations
represent a large portion of the species' range, and their loss would
result in a significant gap in the range of the species.
Based on the information provided in the Discreteness Determination
and Significance Determination sections above, the SRT identified the
following 11 potential green turtle DPSs (Figure 2): (1) North
Atlantic, (2) Mediterranean, (3) South Atlantic, (4) Southwest Indian,
(5) North Indian, (6) East Indian-West Pacific, (7) Central West
Pacific, (8) Southwest Pacific, (9) Central South Pacific, (10) Central
North Pacific, and (11) East Pacific. We concur with the findings of
the SRT and conclude that the 11 potential DPSs identified by the SRT
warrant delineation as DPSs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MR15.001
[[Page 15286]]
VI. Listing Evaluation Process
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Eleven Green Turtle DPSs
In these sections, we describe the geographic range of each DPS. We
discuss its population parameters, which are derived from population
data and influence the persistence of the DPS. These population
parameters include: Abundance, growth rates or trends, spatial
structure, and diversity or resilience (McElhany et al., 2000). NMFS
has used this approach in numerous status reviews. USFWS uses a similar
approach, based on Shaffer and Stein (2000), to evaluate a species'
status in terms of its representation, resiliency, and redundancy; this
methodology has also been a widely accepted approach (Tear et al.,
2005). Though expressed differently, these two approaches rely on the
same conservation biology principles. Though this information is
presented separately from the assessment of threats under section
4(a)(1) of the ESA, population dynamics represent one aspect of the
other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of
the species that we consider under Factor E.
Complete population abundance and trend estimates do not exist for
any of the 11 DPSs. The data used in the Status Review and summarized
here represent the best scientific information available. The data are
more robust for some areas than for others. For 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 and often non-existent, primarily
because these data are, relative to nesting beach studies, logistically
difficult and expensive to obtain. Therefore, the primary and best
available information source for directly evaluating status and trends
of the DPSs is nesting data.
Nesting female abundance estimates for each nesting site or nesting
beach are presented in the Status Review for each potential DPS.
Accompanying this information is trend information in the form of bar
plots and Population Viability Analysis (PVA) models extending 100
years into the future for the 33 sites that met the criteria for
depicting the data this way, i.e., recent (<10 year old) data over a
given period of time (10 years for bar plots, 15 years for PVA) with
consistent protocols and effort during that time.
With regard to spatial structure, the SRT used information from
genetic, tagging, telemetry, and demographic data to identify
structuring and substructuring within each DPS. This informed the SRT
of metapopulation dynamics in order that it might consider these
dynamics in considerations about the future of the species, including
whether source populations and genetic diversity are being maintained.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the SRT considered the
extent of ecological variation, including the overall nesting spatial
range, diversity in nesting season, and diversity of nesting site
structure and orientation, e.g., whether nesting sites are insular or
continental, have a high or low beach face, and whether there are a
variety of types of sites. The SRT also considered demographic and
genetic diversity of the DPS which may indicate its ability to adapt
and thus its resilience. One of the considerations when looking at
diversity was the DPS's ability to adapt to climate change including,
but not limited to, sea level rise and warming of nesting beaches.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Eleven Green Turtle 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 Wildlife Species. Under
section 4(a) of the ESA, the Services must determine whether a species
is threatened or endangered because of any of the following 5 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.
In this rulemaking, information regarding the status of each of the
11 green turtle DPSs is considered in relation to the five factors
provided in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That information presented here
is a summary of the information in the Status Review. The reader is
directed to the subsection within each DPS section of the Status Review
titled ``Analysis of Factors Listed Under ESA Section 4(a)(1)'' for a
more detailed discussion of the factors.
C. Conservation Efforts
In evaluating the efficacy of protective efforts not yet
implemented or not yet proven to be effective, we rely on the Policy on
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(``PECE''; 68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), issued jointly by the
Services. Information on conservation efforts for each DPS is
summarized from the Status Review. For a more detailed description of
conservation efforts, please see that document. When assessing
conservation efforts, the SRT assumed that all conservation efforts
would remain in place at their current levels. In our final
determinations, we considered the conservation benefits of continued
protections under the ESA.
D. Extinction Risk Assessments and Findings
To analyze the extinction risk of each DPS, the SRT collected and
presented information on the six critical assessment elements: (1)
Abundance, (2) growth rates/trends, (3) spatial structure, (4)
diversity/resilience, (5) five factor analysis/threats, and (6)
conservation efforts. Shortly after each presentation, the SRT voted
twice: A vote on the contribution of each critical assessment element
to extinction risk, and a vote on the overall risk of extinction to the
DPS (see section 3.3.4 of the Status Review for a more detailed
discussion of this process).
In the first vote, SRT members ranked the importance of each of the
four population parameters (Abundance, Trends, Spatial Structure,
Diversity/Resilience) by assigning them a value from 1 to 5 for each
DPS, with 1 indicating a very low risk and 5 indicating a very high
risk. SRT members then ranked the influence of the section 4(a)(1)
factors (threats) on the status of each DPS by assigning a value of 0
(neutral effect on status--this could mean that threats are not
sufficient to appreciably affect the status of the DPS, or that threats
are already reflected in the population parameters), -1 (threats
described in the 5-factor analysis suggest that the DPS will experience
some decline (<5 percent decline) in abundance within 100 years), or -2
(threats described in the 5-factor analysis suggest that the DPS will
experience significant decline (>=5 percent decline) in abundance
within 100 years). They then ranked the influence of conservation
efforts on the status of each DPS by assigning a value of 0 (neutral
effect on status--this could mean that conservation efforts are not
sufficient to appreciably affect the status of the DPS, or that
conservation efforts are already reflected in the population
parameters), +1 (activities described in Conservation Efforts suggest
that the DPS will experience <5 percent increase in abundance within
100 years), or +2 (activities described in Conservation Efforts suggest
that the DPS will experience >=5 percent increase in
[[Page 15287]]
abundance within 100 years). The SRT did note in discussions that none
of these elements is entirely independent. Abundance, growth rates,
spatial structure, and diversity/resilience are linked and often
dependent on each other. Past threats and conservation efforts affect
these four population parameters. To minimize ``double counting,'' the
SRT considered only those threats and conservation measures that are
unlikely to be reflected in the population parameters.
In the second vote, SRT members provided their expert opinion (via
vote) on the likelihood that each DPS would reach a critical risk
threshold (quasi-extinction) within 100 years. In the Status Review,
the SRT defined the critical risk threshold (quasi-extinction) as
follows: ``A DPS that has reached a critical risk threshold has such
low abundance, declining trends, limited distribution or diversity,
and/or significant threats (untempered by significant conservation
efforts) that the DPS would be at very high risk of extinction with
little chance for recovery.'' Generally, DPSs were considered to have
higher viability if they were composed of a number of relatively large
populations, distributed throughout the geographic range of the DPS,
and exhibited stable or increasing growth rates. DPSs were considered
to be at higher risk if they were composed of fewer robust populations
or with robust populations all concentrated in a small geographic area,
where they might be susceptible to correlated catastrophes. Any DPS
with low phenotypic and/or habitat diversity were also considered to be
at higher risk because the entire DPS could be vulnerable to persistent
environmental conditions (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000; Saba et al., 2008;
Van Houtan and Halley, 2011) or stochastic catastrophic events (Hawkes
et al., 2007; Van Houtan and Bass, 2007; Fuentes et al., 2011).
Each member was given 100 points to spread across risk categories,
reflecting their interpretation of the information for that DPS; the
voting results are available in the Status Review. The spread of points
is meant to reflect the amount of uncertainty in the risk threshold
bins. Risk categories were <1 percent, 1-5 percent, 6-10 percent, 11-20
percent, 21-50 percent, and >50 percent. We note that, presumably
because this species is such a long-lived species and, as such, it is
unlikely that it would go extinct within 100 years even if it was lost
in many places, every DPS received numerous points in the <1 percent
category, including those with the most depressed numbers and that face
the highest threats.
As noted above, the SRT estimated the likelihood that a population
would fall below a critical risk threshold within 100 years. The SRT
did not define the critical risk threshold quantitatively but instead
provided the following definition: ``A DPS that has reached a critical
risk threshold has such low abundance, declining trends, limited
distribution or diversity, and/or significant threats (untempered by
significant conservation efforts) that the DPS would be at very high
risk of extinction with little chance for recovery.''
While the SRT's review of the DPSs' statuses was rigorous and
extensive, the framework used does not allow us to easily or clearly
translate a particular critical risk category to an ESA listing status.
Structured expert opinion is a valid and commonly used method of
evaluating extinction risk and forms a useful starting point for our
analysis. However, in our judgment, the critical risk threshold
approach used for this status review does not directly correlate with
the ESA's definitions of endangered and threatened. The ESA defines an
``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The
critical risk threshold, as defined by the SRT, is a condition worse
than endangered, because it essentially precludes recovery. Thus, while
the SRT votes informed our listing determinations, we did not equate a
particular critical risk category with an ESA listing status, and
therefore the votes were not the basis for those determinations.
However, to make our proposed listing determinations, we applied the
best available science that was compiled by the SRT in examining the
definitions of endangered and threatened species under section 3 of the
ESA.
After considering the extinction risk, the Services then reviewed
the present threats and threats anticipated in the foreseeable future
for each DPS. We examined the significant threats to each DPS, how
these threats affected that DPS, and how they were predicted to affect
the DPS in the foreseeable future. Our analysis weighed each factor
within the scope of the ESA's definitions of threatened and endangered
for each DPS.
Among other things, the Services also carefully considered where
current conditions or protections are present specifically because
green turtles are listed under the ESA, and whether those conditions
would likely exist absent such a listing. We note that the latter was
not considered by the SRT, meaning the SRT conducted all risk analyses
assuming all protections would remain in place.
VII. North Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Atlantic DPS
The range of the North Atlantic DPS extends from the boundary of
South and Central America north along the coast to the northern extent
of the green turtle's range to include Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua,
Honduras, Belize, Mexico, and the United States. It then extends due
east across the Atlantic Ocean at 48[deg] N.; follows the coast south
to include the northern portion of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania
(Mauritania; to 19[deg] N.) on the African continent; and west along
the 19[deg] N. latitude to the Caribbean basin, turning south and west
at 63.5[deg] W., 19[deg] N., and due south at 7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W.
to the boundary of South and Central to include Puerto Rico, the
Bahamas, Cuba, Turks and Caicos Islands, Republic of Haiti (Haiti),
Dominican Republic, Cayman Islands, and Jamaica. The North Atlantic DPS
includes the Florida breeding population, which was originally listed
as endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978). Critical habitat was
previously designated for areas within the range of this DPS (i.e.,
coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico; 63 FR 46693,
September 2, 1998).
Green turtle nesting sites in the North Atlantic are some of the
most studied in the world, with time series exceeding 40 years in Costa
Rica and 35 years in Florida. Seventy-three nesting sites were
identified within the North Atlantic DPS, although some represent
numerous individual beaches. For instance, Florida nesting beaches were
listed by county with the numerous beaches in each county representing
one site and, for other U.S. beaches (from Texas to North Carolina),
each state's nesting beaches were represented as one site. There are
four regions that support high density nesting concentrations for which
data were available: Tortuguero, Costa Rica; Mexico (Campeche, Yucatan,
and Quintana Roo); Florida, United States; and Cuba. There is one
nesting site with >100,000 nesting females (Tortuguero at 131,751;
Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Sea Turtle Conservancy, 2013), one with
10,001-100,000 (Quintana Roo, Mexico at 18,257; Julio Zurita, pers.
comm. 2012) and six with 1,001-5,000: Cayo Largo, Cuba; Campeche,
Yucatan, and Veracruz, Mexico; and Brevard and Palm Beach Counties, FL,
United States. There are four with 501-1,000; Tamaulipas, Mexico;
Vieques, Puerto Rico; Martin and Indian River Counties,
[[Page 15288]]
FL, United States; nine with 101-500; 26 with <50; and 26 with numbers
unquantified. Seventy-nine percent of the nesting turtles in this DPS
nest at Tortuguero.
Of the nesting sites with long-term data sets, both Tortuguero and
the index beaches in Florida exhibit a strong positive trend in the
PVAs that were conducted on them, as does Isla Aguada, Mexico (one
beach in the Campeche group). Three beaches in Cuba (total of 489
nesting females) either showed no trend or a modest positive trend. One
beach in Mexico (El Cuyo, Yucatan) exhibited no trend.
Genetic sampling in the North Atlantic DPS has been generally
extensive with good coverage of large populations in this region;
however, some smaller Caribbean nesting sites are absent and coastal
nesting sites in the Gulf of Mexico are under-represented. Genetic
differentiation based on mtDNA indicated that there are at least four
independent nesting subpopulations in the North Atlantic DPS
characterized by shallow regional substructuring: (1) Florida
(Hutchinson Island; Lahanas et al., 1994), (2) Cuba (Guanahacabibes
Pen[iacute]nsula and Cayer[iacute]a San Felipe; Ruiz-Urquiola et al.,
2010), (3) Mexico (Quintana Roo; Encalada et al., 1996), and (4) Costa
Rica (Tortuguero; Lahanas et al., 1994). These nesting sites are
characterized by common and widespread haplotypes dominated by CM-A1
and/or CM-A3. A relatively low level of spatial structure is detected
due to shared common haplotypes, although there are some rare/unique
haplotypes at some nesting sites. Connectivity may indicate recent
shared common ancestry.
Green turtles nest on both continental and island beaches
throughout the range of the DPS (Witherington et al., 2006). Major
nesting sites are primarily continental with hundreds of lower density
sites scattered throughout the Caribbean. Green turtles nesting in
Florida seem to prefer barrier island beaches that receive high wave
energy and that have coarse sands, steep slopes, and prominent
foredunes. The greatest nesting is on sparsely developed beaches that
have minimal levels of artificial lighting. A high-low nesting pattern
for Florida and Mexico occurs during the same years; however, nesting
in Tortuguero, Costa Rica is not always in sync with Florida and Mexico
(e.g., 2011 was a high nesting year in Florida, but for Tortuguero the
high nesting year was 2010). The nesting season is similar throughout
the range of the DPS, with green turtles nesting from June to November
in Costa Rica (Bjorndal et al., 1999), and May through September in the
United States, Mexico, and Cuba (Witherington et al., 2006).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Within the range of the North Atlantic DPS, nesting beaches
continue to be degraded from a variety of activities. Destruction and
modification of green turtle nesting habitat results from coastal
development, coastal armoring, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand
extraction, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic on nesting beaches
(Witherington and Bjorndal, 1991; Witherington, 1992; Witherington et
al., 1996; Lutcavage et al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1998; Mosier, 1998;
Witherington and Koeppel, 2000; Mosier and Witherington, 2002; Leong et
al., 2003; Roberts and Ehrhart, 2007). In addition, sea level rise
resulting from climate change poses a threat to all nesting beaches.
Portions of the Southern United States and Caribbean are found be to
highly vulnerable to sea level rise (Melillo et al., 2014). For
instance, along the southern portion of the Florida coastline, one
climate change model predicted one meter of sea level rise by 2060,
resulting in the inundation of more than 50 percent of coastal wildlife
refuges (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). Most green turtle nesting in
the United States is concentrated along the southeastern coast of
Florida with more than 90 percent of nesting occurring from Brevard to
Broward counties (http://ocean.floridamarine.org/SeaTurtle/nesting/FlexViewer/). Loss of nesting habitat as a result of sea level rise
poses a threat to the population. Sea level rise is exacerbated by
coastal development and armoring, which prevents the beach from
migrating and causes nesting green turtles to abandon their nesting
attempts more frequently as a result of their encounter with such
structures (Mosier, 1998; Mosier and Witherington, 2000; Rizkalla and
Savage, 2011). Females might nest in sub-optimal habitats, where nests
are more vulnerable to erosion or inundation (Rizkalla and Savage
2011). As a result, nests would be subject to more frequent inundation,
exacerbated erosion, and increased moisture from tidal overwash, which
can potentially alter thermal regimes, an important factor in
determining the sex ratio of hatchlings.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Green turtles in the post-hatchling and early-juvenile stages are
closely associated with Sargassum algae in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico (Witherington et al., 2012), and vulnerable to ingesting
contaminants such as tar balls and plastics that aggregate in
convergent zones where Sargassum aggregates (Witherington, 2002).
Juvenile and adult green turtles and their nearshore foraging habitats
are also exposed to high levels of pollutants, such as agricultural and
residential runoff, and sewage which result in degraded foraging
habitat (Smith et al., 1992). Further, increased nutrient load in these
coastal waters causes eutrophication. Eutrophication is linked to
harmful algal blooms that result in the loss and degradation of
seagrass beds, and possibly fibropapilloma tumors in green turtles
(Milton and Lutz, 2003).
In Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Panama, water quality is also
affected by sewage and industrial and agricultural runoff. Pollution
remains a major threat in the waters of Jamaica. Major sources of
pollution are industrial and agricultural effluent, garbage dumps and
solid waste, and household sewage (Greenway, 1977; Green and Webber,
2003).
Nearshore foraging habitats such as seagrass beds are affected by
propeller scarring, anchor damage, dredging, sand mining, and marina
construction throughout the range of the DPS (Smith et al., 1992; Dow
et al., 2007; Patr[iacute]cio et al., 2011). Sand placement projects
along the Florida coastline affect nearshore reefs as a result of
direct burial of portions of the reef habitat and loss of food sources
available to green turtles (Lindeman and Snyder, 1999).
The SRT found, and we concur, that the North Atlantic DPS of the
green 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. The increasing threats to
the terrestrial and marine habitats are not reflected in the current
trend for the North Atlantic DPS, as it was based on nesting numbers
and not on all current life stages. These increasing threats to the
population will become apparent when those life stages affected by the
threats return to nest, as the trend information is based solely on
numbers of nests. This lag time was considered in our analysis. For
example, a threat that affects the oceanic juvenile phase would not be
detected until those turtles return to nest, approximately 15 to 20
years later. The SRT also found, and we concur, that coastal
development, beachfront lighting, erosion, sand extraction, and sea
level rise increasingly impact nesting beaches of
[[Page 15289]]
this DPS and are increasing threats to the DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
A partial list of the countries within the range of the North
Atlantic DPS where ongoing intentional capture of green turtles occurs,
includes Costa Rica (Mangel and Tro[euml]ng, 2001; Gonzalez Prieto and
Harrison, 2012), Mexico (Seminoff, 2000; Gardner and Nichols, 2001;
Dirado et al., 2002; Guzm[aacute]n-Hern[aacute]ndez and Garc[iacute]a
Alvarado, 2011), Cuba (Fleming, 2001; F. Moncado, Ministerio de la
Industria Pesquera, pers. comm., 2013), Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998;
Humber et al., 2014), the Bahamas (Fleming, 2001), Jamaica (Haynes-
Sutton et al., 2011), and the Cayman Islands (Fleming, 2001). Harvest
remains legal in several of these countries (Humphrey and Salm, 1996;
Wamukoya et al., 1996; Fleming, 2001; Fretey, 2001; Br[auml]utigam and
Eckert, 2006).
The commercial artisanal green turtle fishery in Nicaragua
continues to be a threat to the Tortuguero nesting population, the
largest remaining green turtle population in the Atlantic (Campbell and
Lagueux, 2005). Local demand for turtle meat in coastal communities
continues (Garland and Carthy, 2010). There is a legal turtle fishery
on the Caribbean coast that is located in the most important
developmental and foraging habitat for Caribbean green turtles
(Fleming, 2001; Campbell and Lagueux, 2005). The hunting of juvenile
and adult turtles continues both legally and illegally in many foraging
areas where green turtles originating from Florida nesting beaches are
known to occur (Chac[oacute]n, 2002; Fleming, 2001).
Direct take of eggs is also an ongoing threat in Panama (Evans and
Vargas, 1998). Green turtles nesting on Belize's beaches and foraging
along its coast are harvested in the Robinson Point area and sold in
markets and restaurants (Searle, 2003). Large numbers of green turtles
are captured in the area southeast of Belize, an area which may be an
important migratory corridor (Searle, 2004). There are important
feeding grounds in the Banc d'Arguin, Mauritania. While the frequency
of green turtle nesting in Mauritania is not known, green turtle nests
are reported as being harvested there (Fretey, 2001; Fretey and Hama,
2012).
Commercial harvest of green turtles was a factor that contributed
to the historic decline of this DPS. Current harvest of green turtles
and eggs, in a portion of this DPS, continues to be significant threat
to the persistence of this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Fibropapillomatosis (FP) has been found in green turtle populations
in the United States (Hirama, 2001; Ene et al., 2005; Foley et al.,
2005; Hirama and Ehrhart, 2007), the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic,
Puerto Rico (Dow et al., 2007; Patr[iacute]cio et al., 2011), Cayman
Islands (Wood and Wood, 1994; Dow et al., 2007), Costa Rica
(Tortuguero; Mangel and Tro[euml]ng, 2001), Cuba (Moncada and Prieto,
2000), Mexico (Yucatan Peninsula; K. Lopez, pers. comm., as cited in
MTSG, 2004), and Nicaragua (Lagueux, 1998).
FP continues to be a major problem in some lagoon systems and along
the nearshore reefs of Florida. It is a chronic, often lethal disease
occurring predominantly in green turtles (Van Houtan et al., 2014). A
correlation appeared to exist between these degraded habitats and the
prevalence of FP in the green turtles that forage in these areas but no
direct link was established (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004; Foley et al.,
2005). Indeed, across green turtle populations, it is widely observed
that FP occurs most frequently in eutrophied and otherwise impaired
waterways (Herbst, 1994; Van Houtan et al., 2010). A recent study
establishes that eutrophication substantially increases the nitrogen
content of macroalgae, thereby promoting the latent herpes virus which
causes FP tumors in green turtles (Van Houtan et al., 2014) although it
is argued that there is no inferential framework to base this
conclusion (Work et al., 2014). Despite the high incidence of FP among
foraging populations, there is no conclusive evidence on the effect of
FP on reproductive success (Chaloupka and Balazs, 2005).
Harmful algal blooms, such as a red tide, also affect green turtles
in the North Atlantic DPS. In Florida, the species that causes most red
tides is Karenia brevis, a dinoflagellate that produces a toxin (Redlow
et al., 2002). Since 2007, there were two red tide events, one in 2007
along the east coast of Florida, and one in 2012 along the west coast
of Florida. Sea turtle stranding trends indicated that these events
were acting as a mortality factor (A. Foley, Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 2013). These events may impact a
population's present and future reproductive status.
Predators such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus
scrofa), foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), and
coyotes (Canis latrans) may take significant numbers of turtle eggs
(Stancyk, 1982; Allen et al., 2001). Nest protection programs are in
place at most of the major nesting beaches in the North Atlantic DPS,
although they are managed at varying levels and degrees of
effectiveness (Engeman et al., 2005). Predator species that are
particularly difficult to manage include red fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta) and jaguars (Panthera onca) (Wetterer, 2006; Prieto and
Harrison, 2012).
Although FP disease is of major concern, with increasing levels in
some green turtle populations in this DPS, it should be noted there is
uncertainty of the long-term survivability and effect on the
reproductive effort of the population. Predation is known to occur
throughout this DPS, and we find it to be a significant threat to this
DPS in the absence of well managed nest protection programs.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
At least 15 regulatory mechanisms that apply to green turtles
regionally (e.g., U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act) or globally (e.g., Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) apply to green turtles
within the North Atlantic Ocean. The analysis of these existing
regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their
current levels.
In the United States, regulatory mechanisms that protect green
turtles are in place and include State, Federal, and international
laws. The green turtle was listed under the ESA in 1978, providing
relatively comprehensive protection and recovery activities to minimize
the threats to green turtles in the United States. Considering the
dependence of the species on conservation efforts, significant concerns
remain regarding the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. The
development and implementation of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in the
shrimp trawl fishery was likely the most significant conservation
accomplishment for North Atlantic green turtles in the marine
environment since their 1978 ESA listing. In the southeast United
States and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs have been mandatory in shrimp and
flounder trawls for over a decade. These regulations are implemented
and enforced to varying degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Southeast
Atlantic. For example, the State of Louisiana prohibits enforcement of
TED regulations and tow time limits. In other States, enforcement of
TED regulations depends on available
[[Page 15290]]
resources, and illegal or improperly installed TEDs continue to
contribute to mortality of green turtles. Further, TEDs are not
required in all trawl fisheries, and green turtle mortality continues
in the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp trawling is the highest (Lewison et
al., 2014). There are also regulatory mechanisms in place that address
the loss of nesting habitat, such as the Florida Administrative Code
Rule 62B-33.0155, which addresses threats from armoring structures.
However, these regulatory mechanisms allow for variances and armoring
permits continue to be issued along nesting beaches.
Other threats, such as light pollution on nesting beaches, marine
debris, vessel strikes, and continued direct harvest of green turtles
in places like Nicaragua, are being addressed to some extent by
regulatory mechanisms, although they remain a problem. In addition,
other regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles
(often all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. The
extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts
is difficult to ascertain. When the SRT assessed conservation efforts,
it assumed that all conservation efforts would remain in place at their
current levels. The following countries have laws to protect green
turtles: The Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, Canary Islands, Cayman Islands,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Jamaica, Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and the United States
(including the commonwealth of Puerto Rico).
With regard to the United States, the key law currently protecting
green turtles is the ESA. This law has been instrumental in conserving
sea turtles, eliminating directed take of turtles in U.S. waters unless
authorized by permit and reducing indirect take. In addition, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act has been
effective at mandating responsible fishing practices and bycatch
mitigation within fleets that sell fisheries products to the United
States, and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act authorizes a dedicated
fund to support marine turtle conservation projects in foreign
countries, with emphasis on protecting nesting populations and nesting
habitat. In addition, at least 12 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the
North Atlantic DPS.
Outside of the United States, there are some national regulations
that address the harvest of green turtles as well as the import and
export of turtle parts. These regulations allow for the harvest of
green turtles of certain sizes, months, or for ``traditional'' use.
Gear restrictions and TED requirements exist in a few countries,
although the compliance level is unknown. Our Status Review did not
reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address marine
pollution, sea level rise, and other effects of climate change that
continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Fisheries bycatch in artisanal and industrial fishing gear
continues to be a major threat to green turtles in the North Atlantic
DPS. The adverse impacts of bycatch on sea turtles has been documented
in marine environments throughout the world (National Research Council,
1990b; Epperly, 2003; Lutcavage et al., 1997). The lack of
comprehensive and effective monitoring and bycatch reduction efforts in
many pelagic and near-shore fisheries operations throughout the range
of the North Atlantic DPS still allows substantial direct and indirect
mortality (NMFS and USFWS, 2007).
i. Gill Net and Trawl Fisheries
Gill net fisheries may be the most ubiquitous of fisheries
operating in the neritic range of the North Atlantic DPS. In the United
States, some states (e.g., South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
and Texas) have prohibited gill nets in their waters, but there remain
active gill net fisheries in other U.S. states, in U.S. Federal waters,
Mexican waters, Central and South America, and the Northeast Atlantic.
Finfish fisheries accounted for the greatest proportion of turtle
bycatch (53 percent) in Cuba. In Jamaica, fish traps and gill nets are
the gear primarily identified in sea turtle bycatch. Purse seine and
gill nets are used commonly in the waters of the Dominican Republic
(Dow et al., 2007). In Costa Rica, gill nets, hook and line, and trawls
are the main gear types deployed (Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, 2004). Shark-netting operations in Panama are known
to capture green turtles (Meylan et al., 2013).
The development and implementation of TEDs in the U.S. shrimp trawl
fishery was likely the most significant conservation accomplishment for
North Atlantic green turtles in the marine environment since their 1978
ESA listing. In the southeast United States and Gulf of Mexico, TEDs
have been mandatory in shrimp and flounder trawls for over a decade.
However, compliance varies throughout the States, and green turtle
mortality continues in the Gulf of Mexico, where shrimp trawling is the
highest (Lewison et al., 2014). With the current regulations in place,
an estimated 3,000 green turtles are captured (1,400 killed) by shrimp
trawls each year in the Gulf and U.S. Southeast Atlantic (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/section_7/freq_biop/documents/fisheries_bo/shrimp_biop_2014.pdf). These regulations are implemented
and enforced to varying degrees throughout the Gulf and U.S. Southeast
Atlantic (see discussion in Factor D).
ii. Dredge Fishing
Dredge fishing gear is the predominant gear used to harvest sea
scallops off the mid- and northeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. Sea scallop
dredges are composed of a heavy steel frame and cutting bar located on
the bottom part of the frame and a bag made of metal rings and mesh
twine attached to the frame. Turtles can be struck and injured or
killed by the dredge frame and/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.
b. Channel Dredging
In addition to the destruction or degradation of habitat as
described in Factor A above, periodic dredging of sediments from
navigational channels can also result in incidental mortality of sea
turtles. Direct injury or mortality of green turtles by dredges has
been well documented in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S.
(National Research Council, 1990b). From 1980 to 2013, 105 green
turtles were impacted as a result of dredging operations in the U.S
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Solutions, including modification of
dredges, have been successfully implemented to reduce mortalities and
injuries to sea turtles in the United States (73 FR 18984, April 8,
2008; 77 FR 20728, April 6, 2012), and NMFS imposes annual take limits
based on the expected number of green turtles impacted that will not,
directly or indirectly, appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival
and recovery of the green turtle in the wild.
c. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
Boat strikes have been shown to be a major mortality source in
Florida (Singel et al., 2003). Vessel strikes are a growing concern
and, as human populations increase in coastal areas,
[[Page 15291]]
vessel strikes are likely to increase (NMFS and FWS, 2008). From 2005
to 2009, 18.2 percent of all stranded green turtles (695 of 3,818) in
the U.S. Atlantic (Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf of Mexico) were
documented as having sustained some type of propeller or collision
injuries (L. Belskis, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). It is quite likely that
this is a chronic, albeit unreported, problem near developed coastlines
in other areas as well, such as Panama (e.g., Or[oacute]s et al.,
2005).
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly,
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect green
turtles significantly in the North Atlantic DPS. North Atlantic turtle
populations could be affected by the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), resulting in
the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Increased sea surface temperatures may
alter the timing of nesting for some stocks (Weishampel et al., 2004),
although the implications of changes in nesting timing are unclear.
Changes in sea temperatures will also likely alter seagrass,
macroalgae, and invertebrate populations in coastal habitats in many
regions (Scavia et al., 2002). Further, a significant rise in sea
level, as is projected for areas within the range of the North Atlantic
DPS (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno, 2011), could significantly restrict
green turtle nesting habitat due to coastal development. Structures on
the landward side of the beach can effectively prevent access to
nesting habitat and reduce available nesting habitat (Mosier, 1998).
The increasing interaction between the structures and the hydrodynamics
of tide and current, due to sea level rise, often results in the
alteration of the beach profile seaward and in the immediate vicinity
of the structure (Pilkey and Wright, 1988; Terchunian, 1988; Tait and
Griggs, 1990; Plant and Griggs, 1992), increased longshore currents
that move sand away from the area, loss of interaction between the dune
and the beach berm, and concentration of wave energy at the ends of the
structure (Schroeder and Mosier, 1996). Impacts from global climate
change induced by human activities are likely to become more apparent
in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Periodic hurricanes and other weather events are generally
localized and rarely result in whole-scale losses over multiple nesting
seasons. However, storm intensity and frequency are predicted to
increase as a result of climate change (Melillo et al., 2014). The
negative effects of hurricanes on low-lying and/or developed shorelines
may be longer-lasting and a greater threat to the DPS overall when
combined with the effects of climate change, and particularly sea level
rise.
e. Effects of Cold Stunning
Cold stunning is the hypothermic reaction that occurs when sea
turtles are exposed to prolonged cold water temperatures. Cold stunning
of green turtles regularly occurs 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 Lagoon system and the panhandle of Florida
(Mendon[ccedil]a and Ehrhart, 1982; Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989;
Foley et al., 2007); and Texas inshore waters (Hildebrand, 1982;
Shaver, 1990). Cold-stunning events at these foraging areas
(Witherington and Ehrhart, 1989; McMichael et al., 2006) leads to
mortality of juvenile and adult green turtles, which may affect the
present and future green turtle population trend.
f. Contaminants and Marine Debris
Several activities associated with offshore oil and gas production,
including oil spills, operational discharge, seismic surveys, explosive
platform removal, platform lighting, and drilling and production
activities, are known to affect sea turtles (National Research Council,
1996; Davis et al., 2000; Viada et al., 2008; Conant et al., 2009; G.
Gitschlag, NMFS, pers. comm., 2007, as cited in Conant et al., 2009).
Oil spills near nesting beaches just prior to or during the nesting
season place nesting females, incubating egg clutches, and hatchlings
at significant risk from direct exposure to contaminants (Fritts and
McGehee, 1982; Lutcavage et al., 1997; Witherington, 1999), and have
negative impacts on nesting habitat. The Deepwater Horizon (Mississippi
Canyon 252) oil spill, which started April 20, 2010, discharged oil
into the Gulf of Mexico through July 15, 2010. Witherington et al.
(2012) note that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was particularly
harmful to pelagic juvenile green turtles. Due to their size, turtles
in these stages are more vulnerable as a result of ingesting
contaminants (Witherington, 2002).
Green turtles are affected by anthropogenic marine debris
(including discarded fishing gear) and plastics throughout the North
Atlantic DPS. Juvenile green turtles in pelagic waters are particularly
susceptible to these effects as they feed on Sargassum in which there
is a high occurrence of debris (Wabnitz and Nichols, 2010; Witherington
et al., 2012). In recent decades, there has been an increase in
stranded green turtles reported as affected by discarded fishery gear
throughout the southeastern United States (Teas and Witzell, 1996;
Adimey et al., 2014).
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Atlantic DPS
In the North Atlantic, nest protection efforts have been
implemented on two major green turtle nesting beaches, Tortuguero
National Park in Costa Rica and Florida, and progress has been made in
reducing mortality from human-related impacts on other nesting beaches.
Tortuguero National Park was established in 1976 to protect the nesting
turtles and habitat at this nesting beach, which is by far the largest
in the DPS and the western hemisphere. Since that time, the harvest of
nesting turtles on the beach has been reduced by an order of magnitude
(Bjorndal et al., 1999). At Tortuguero, Sea Turtle Conservancy
researchers and volunteers regularly monitor green turtle nesting
trends, growth rates and reproductive success, and also conduct sea
turtle lighting surveys, education, and community outreach.
In Florida, a key effort was the acquisition of the Archie Carr
National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in 1991 by Federal, State, Brevard
and Indian River counties, and a non-governmental organization, where
nesting densities range from 36 nests/km (22 nests/mi) to 262 nests/km
(419 nests/mi) (D. Bagley, University of Central Florida, pers. comm.,
2014; K. Kneifl, USFWS, pers. comm., 2014). 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, Hobe
Sound National Wildlife Refuge, as well as coastal national seashores
such as the Dry Tortugas National Park and Canaveral National Seashore,
military installations such as Patrick Air Force Base and Canaveral Air
Force Station, and State parks where green turtles regularly nest,
provide protection for nesting turtles. However, despite these efforts,
alteration of the coastline continues and, outside of publicly-owned
lands,
[[Page 15292]]
coastal development and associated coastal armoring remain serious
threats.
Considerable effort has been expended since the 1980s to document
and reduce commercial fishing bycatch mortality. In the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico, measures (such as gear modifications, changes to
fishing practices, and time/area closures) are required to reduce sea
turtle bycatch in pelagic longline, mid-Atlantic gill net, Virginia
pound net, scallop dredge, and southeast shrimp and flounder trawl
fisheries. However, enforcement of regulations depends on available
resources, and bycatch continues to contribute to mortality. Since
1989, the United States has prohibited the importation of shrimp
harvested in a manner that adversely affects sea turtles.
As a result of conservation efforts, many of the intentional
impacts directed at sea turtles have been lessened. For example,
harvest of eggs and adults has been reduced at several nesting areas,
including Tortuguero, and an increasing number of community-based
initiatives are in place to reduce the take of turtles in foraging
areas. However, despite these advances, human impacts continue
throughout the North Atlantic. The lack of effective monitoring in
pelagic and near-shore fisheries operations still allows substantial
direct and indirect mortality, and the uncontrolled development of
coastal and marine habitats threatens to destroy the supporting
ecosystems of long-lived green turtles.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North Atlantic DPS
In the North Atlantic DPS, there are several regions that support
high density nesting concentrations, including possibly the largest in
the world at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Green turtle nesting population
trends have been encouraging, exhibiting long-term increases at all
major nesting sites, including Tortuguero (Tro[euml]ng, 1998; Campbell
and Lagueux, 2005; Tro[euml]ng and Rankin, 2005) and Florida (Chaloupka
et al., 2008; B. Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, pers. comm., 2013). The North Atlantic DPS is characterized
by geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites, both
mainland and insular. The increasing threats are not reflected in the
current trend for the North Atlantic DPS as it was based on nesting
numbers and not all current life stages. These increasing threats to
the population will become apparent when those life stages affected by
the threats return to nest as the trend information is based solely on
numbers of nests. This lag time was considered in our analysis.
However, the 5-factor (section 4(a)(1) of the ESA) analysis revealed
continuing threats to green turtles and their habitat that affect all
life stages.
On nesting beaches, many portions of the DPS continue to be exposed
to, and are negatively impacted by, coastal development and associated
beachfront lighting, coastal armoring, and erosion as described in
Factor A above. Impacts from such development are further exacerbated
by existing and planned shoreline development and shoreline
engineering. The current and anticipated increase in armored shoreline
along high density nesting beaches, particularly in Florida, is a
substantial unresolved threat to the recovery and stability of this DPS
as it will result in the permanent loss of nesting habitat.
Nests and hatchlings are susceptible to predation which is
prevalent throughout the beaches within the range of the North Atlantic
DPS. Predation would be an increasing threat without nest protection
and predatory control programs in place.
Nesting beaches are also extremely susceptible to sea level rise,
which will exacerbate some of the issues described above in addition to
leading to the potential loss of nesting beaches. Along the
southeastern United States, one climate change model predicted a 1-
meter sea level rise by 2060, resulting in the inundation of more than
50 percent of coastal wildlife refuges (Flaxman and Vargas-Moreno,
2011). Green turtle nesting in Florida is concentrated along coastal
wildlife refuges in southern Florida such as Hobe Sound National
Wildlife Refuge and the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge, with more
than 90 percent of nesting occurring along southeast Florida. This
increase in sea level will result in the permanent loss of current
green turtle nesting habitat. Loss of beach is expected to be worse as
a result of the increase in hurricane frequency and intensity (Flaxman
and Vargas-Moreno, 2011). The increasing threat of coastal erosion due
to climate change and sea level rise is expected to be exacerbated by
increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas (IPCC, 2007).
In the water, fisheries bycatch, habitat degradation, direct
harvest, and FP are major threats to green turtles in the North
Atlantic DPS. Artisanal and industrial fishing gear, including drift
nets, set nets, pound nets, and trawls, still cause substantial direct
and indirect mortality of green turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In
addition, degradation and loss of foraging habitat due to pollution,
including agricultural and residential runoff, anchor damage, dredging,
channelization, and marina construction remains a threat to both
juvenile and adult green turtles. Many green turtles in this DPS remain
susceptible to direct harvesting. Current legal and illegal harvest of
green turtles and eggs for human consumption continues in the eastern
Atlantic and the Caribbean. A remaining threat is the directed harvest
of turtles in Nicaragua that nest at Tortuguero and thus belong to the
largest and arguably the most important population within the DPS
(although this population continues to increase in spite of the
harvest). However, potential degradation or loss of other, smaller
populations is also of concern, as these contribute to the diversity
and resilience of the DPS. Finally, the prevalence of FP has reached
epidemic proportions in some parts of the North Atlantic DPS. The
extent to which this will affect the long-term outlook for green
turtles in the North Atlantic DPS is unknown. Nesting trends across the
DPS continue to increase despite the high incidence of the disease.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in
many of the critical population parameters (abundance, population
trends, spatial structure, and diversity/resilience), as indicated
above, numerous threats continue to act on the DPS, including habitat
degradation (coastal development and armoring, loss of foraging
habitat, and pollution), bycatch in fishing gear, continued turtle and
egg harvesting, FP, and climate change. Importantly, the analysis of
threats in the Status Review was conducted assuming current management
regimes would continue.
Many of the gains made by the species over the past few decades are
a direct result of ESA protections in the United States, as well as
protections by U.S. States and local jurisdictions and other countries
within the DPS range that are influenced by the species' ESA status.
Because the green turtle is currently listed under the ESA, take
can only be authorized in the United States through the processes
provided in sections 7 and 10 of the ESA and their implementing
regulations. In the southeastern United States, threats to nesting
beaches and nearshore waters include: Sand placement on nesting beaches
and associated impacts to nearshore hardbottom habitat; groin, jetty
and dock construction; and other activities. Any such activities that
are currently funded, permitted and/or authorized by Federal agencies
are subject to consultation with USFWS and NMFS,
[[Page 15293]]
and therefore are subject to reasonable and prudent measures to
minimize effects of these activities as well as conservation
recommendations associated with those consultations. Federally-managed
fisheries are also subject to interagency consultation under section 7
of the ESA. During the consultation process NMFS and USFWS have an
opportunity to work with the action agency to design practices to
minimize effects on green turtles, such as when the activity occurs in
areas or habitats used mostly by green turtles (i.e., seagrass beds and
nesting beaches). Activities that affect green turtles and do not
involve Federal agencies, such as beach driving, some beach armoring,
and research, must comply with section 10 of the ESA to avoid violating
the statute. Section 10 permits require avoiding, minimizing, and
mitigating impacts to green turtles to the extent possible. In addition
to the above requirements, the requirement for use of TEDs in fisheries
within the United States and in fisheries outside of the United States
that export wild-caught shrimp to the United States is tied to listing
under the ESA.
This DPS has exhibited increases at major nesting sites, and has
several stronghold populations. Green turtles in the U.S. Atlantic have
increased steadily since being protected by the ESA (Suckling et al.,
2006). ESA driven programs such as land acquisition, nest protection,
development of the TEDs, and educational programs provide a
conservation benefit to green turtles. The species is conservation
dependent or conservation-reliant in that even when biological recovery
goals are achieved, maintenance of viable populations will require
continuing, species-specific intervention (Scott et al., 2010). Without
alternate mechanisms in place to continue certain existing conservation
efforts and protections, threats would be expected to increase and
population trends may be curtailed or reversed. Considering the
conservation dependence of the species, significant concerns remain
regarding the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (one of the five
section 4(a)(1) factors (Factor D), especially when we evaluate the
status of the DPS absent the protections of the ESA.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the North Atlantic DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of the increasing nesting population trends and
geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however,
continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
VIII. Mediterranean DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Mediterranean DPS
The Mediterranean Sea is a virtually enclosed basin occupying an
area of approximately 2.5 million square kilometers. The Mediterranean
DPS is bounded by the entire coastline of the Mediterranean Sea,
excluding the Black Sea. The westernmost border of the range of this
DPS is marked by the Strait of Gibraltar (Figure 2).
Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs mostly in the eastern
Mediterranean, with three nesting concentrations in Turkey, Cyprus, and
Syria. Currently, approximately 452 to 2,051 nests are laid in the
Mediterranean each year--about 70 percent in Turkey, 15 percent in
Cyprus, and 15 percent in Syria, with trace nesting in Israel, Egypt,
the Hellenic Republic (Greece), and Lebanon (Kasparek et al., 2001;
Rees et al., 2008; Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). There are no sites
with greater than 500 nesting females. These numbers are depleted from
historical levels (Kasparek et al., 2001). In terms of distribution of
nesting sites in the Mediterranean, there are 32 sites, with Akyatan,
Turkey being the largest nesting site, hosting 25 percent of the total
annual nesting (35-245 nesting females; T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska, 2010).
There are seven sites for which 10 years or more of recent data are
available for annual nesting female abundance (a criterion for
presenting trends in a bar graph). Of these, only one site--West Coast,
Cyprus--met our standards for conducting a PVA. Of the seven sites,
five appeared to be increasing, although some only slightly, and two
had no apparent trend. However, while the Mediterranean DPS appears to
be stable or increasing, it is severely depleted relative to historical
levels. This dynamic is particularly apparent along the coast of
Palestine/Israel, where 300-350 nests were deposited each year in the
1950s (Sella, 1995) compared to a mean of eight nests each year from
1993 to 2008 (Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the
Mediterranean has been extensive and the coverage in this region is
substantial. Within the Mediterranean, rookeries are characterized by
one dominant haplotype CM-A13 and a recent study showed no population
substructuring between several rookeries in Cyprus and Turkey (Bagda et
al., 2012). However, analysis using unpublished data from additional
rookery samples in Cyprus shows evidence for two stocks: Cyprus
(Karpaz, North Cyprus and Lara Bay; Bagda et al., 2012; Dutton
unpublished data, 2013); and Turkey (Akayatan, Alata, Kazanli, Samandag
and Yumurtal[inodot]k; Bagda et al., 2012). The demography of green
turtles in the Mediterranean appears to be consistent among the various
nesting assemblages (Broderick and Godley, 1996; Broderick et al.,
2002a). This consistency in parameters such as mean nesting size,
inter-nesting interval, clutch size, hatching success, nesting season,
and clutch frequency suggests a low level of population structuring in
the Mediterranean. Mediterranean turtles have not been detected
foraging outside the Mediterranean (e.g., Lahanas et al., 1998;
Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). Despite years of flipper
tagging (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 1995, 2010; Y. Kaska,
Pamukkale University, pers. comm., 2013), few tag recoveries have been
reported. However, satellite tracking revealed that post-nesting
turtles migrate primarily along the coast from their nesting beach to
foraging grounds, increasing the likelihood of interacting with
fisheries (Broderick et al., 2002a).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall spatial range
of the DPS is limited. Green turtle nesting is found primarily in the
eastern Mediterranean (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, and
Egypt: Kasparek et al., 2001). The nesting season is consistent
throughout the range of this DPS (June to August; Broderick et al.,
2002a), thus limiting the temporal buffering against climate change in
terms of impacts due to storms and other seasonal events. The fact that
turtles nest on both insular and continental sites suggests some degree
of nesting diversity, but with the sites so close together, the
benefits of this diversity may be minimal.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Mediterranean DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the Mediterranean, destruction and modification of green turtle
nesting habitat result from coastal development and construction,
beachfront lighting, sand extraction, beach erosion, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, and beach pollution (Kasparek et al., 2001; Casale
and Margaritoulis, 2010). These activities may directly affect the
amount and suitability of nesting habitat available to nesting females
and thus affect the nesting success of green turtles, as well as the
survivability of
[[Page 15294]]
eggs and hatchlings. In Turkey, coastal construction on Samanda[gbreve]
and Kazanli beaches is of concern, particularly from associated
lighting and human activities on the beach (T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska,
2010). In Cyprus, the increased construction of beachfront hotels and
other properties in some areas in recent years, as well as the
associated increase in beachfront lighting and human activity on the
beach, is decreasing the quality of nesting habitat (Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 2010). In Turkey and Latakia
beach in Syria, beach erosion and sand extraction also pose a problem
to green turtle nesting habitat (T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska, 2010; Rees et
al., 2010).
Nesting beaches in the eastern Mediterranean are exposed to high
levels of pollution and marine debris, in particular the beaches of
Cyprus, Turkey, and Egypt (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). In Turkey, marine
debris washing ashore is a substantial problem and has degraded nesting
beaches, especially Akyatan and Samanda[gbreve] beaches. In Syria, Jony
and Rees (2008) reported that beaches contain a large amount of plastic
litter that washes ashore or is blown in from dumps located in the
beach dunes; this litter has been documented as accumulating in such
large amounts that it can hinder nesting females from locating suitable
nesting sites and cause emergent hatchlings to have difficulty crawling
to the sea (Rees et al., 2010). In Cyprus, marine debris has also been
a significant problem on some beaches, although organized beach clean-
ups in recent years have greatly reduced the amount of litter on the
beach (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Dynamite fishing and boat anchors affect green turtles and their
habitat in the Mediterranean. Khalil et al. (2009) reported that
dynamite fishing offshore of nesting beaches is a common problem in
Lebanon. Illegal dynamite fishing also occurs year round in Libya
(Hamza, 2010), and, although illegal, explosions at sea that are likely
due to dynamite fishing have been reported off the coast of Syria
(Saad, unpubl. data, as cited in Rees et al., 2010). Further, the
Mediterranean is a site of intense tourist activity, and corresponding
boat anchoring also may affect green turtle foraging habitat in the
neritic environment.
Because 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 (International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), in which deliberate petroleum
discharges from vessels are banned, but numerous repeated offenses are
still thought to occur (Pavlakis et al., 1996).
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Egg collection and
turtle harvest for individual consumption still occurs in Egypt (Clarke
et al., 2000; Nada and Casale, 2008). 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). Several hundred turtles are currently estimated to be
slaughtered each year in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2008). In Syria and
Egypt, as reported for other countries, green turtles incidentally
captured by fishers are sometimes eaten (Nada and Casale, 2008; Rees et
al., 2010). Small quantities of stuffed turtles and juvenile turtle
carapaces, presumably of Syrian origin, have been observed for sale in
Latakia and Damascus (Rees et al., 2010).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Nest and hatchling predation likely was a factor that contributed
to the historical decline of the Mediterranean DPS. There have been no
records of FP or other diseases in green turtles in this DPS. In this
DPS, green turtle eggs and hatchlings are subject to depredation by
wild canids (i.e., foxes (Vulpes vulpes), golden jackals (Canis
aureus), feral and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), and ghost
crabs (Ocypode cursor; van Piggelen and Strijbosch, 1993; Brown and
MacDonald, 1995; Aureggi et al., 1999, 2005; Simms et al., 2002;
Akcinar et al., 2006; Jony and Rees, 2008; Khalil et al., 2009; Aureggi
and Khalil, 2010; Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et
al., 2010; Rees et al., 2010).
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 13 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms that pertain to the Mediterranean, and nearly all countries
lining the Mediterranean have some level of national legislation
directed at sea turtle protection. The SRT analysis of these existing
regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their
current levels.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS
that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the
countries within this DPS. Most Mediterranean countries have developed
national legislation to protect sea turtles and nesting habitats
(Casale and Margaritoulis, 2010). The following countries have laws to
protect green turtles: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel,
Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. In addition, at
least 13 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to
the conservation of green turtles in the Mediterranean DPS. National
protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing,
harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these (Margaritoulis et
al., 2003). In addition, some countries have site-specific legislation
or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection. These are
implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the DPS. There
are some national regulations, within this DPS, that specially address
the harvest of green turtles.
In western Cyprus, Lara-Toxeftra beaches have been afforded
protection through the Fisheries Law and Regulations since 1989
(Margaritoulis, 2007). In northern Cyprus, four beaches (Alagadi Beach,
Karpaz Peninsular, South Karpaz, and Akdeniz) have been designated as
Special Protected Areas (Fuller et al., 2010). These four areas include
the third and fifth most important green turtle nesting beaches in the
Mediterranean (Kasparek et al., 2001). In Syria, establishment of a
protected area at Latakia beach, the most important green turtle
nesting beach in the country, is being sought but is facing strong
opposition from the tourism sector (Rees et al., 2010). While it is
important to recognize the success of these protected areas, we must
also note that 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 protective measures discussed here
are sufficient for the conservation of the species in the
Mediterranean.
Regulatory mechanisms are not in place in many countries within
this DPS to address the major threat of sea turtle bycatch. Some of the
countries in which this DPS is located limit the number and type of
fishing licenses issued but sea turtle bycatch is not considered in
these authorizations. It is unlikely that bycatch mortality can be
sufficiently reduced across the range of the DPS in
[[Page 15295]]
the near future because of the diversity and magnitude of the fisheries
operating in the 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. Our Status Review did not reveal
regulatory mechanisms in place to specifically address coastal
development, marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of climate
change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture of sea turtles in artisanal and commercial
fisheries is a significant threat to the survival of green turtles in
the Mediterranean. Fishing practices alone have been estimated to
result in over 150,000 sea turtle captures per year, with approximately
50,000 mortalities (Lucchetti and Sala, 2009; Casale, 2011) and sea
turtle bycatch in multiple gears in the Mediterranean is considered
among the most urgent conservation priorities globally (Wallace et al.,
2010).
i. Longline Fisheries
In the Mediterranean, surface longline fisheries are a source of
green turtle bycatch (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). Incidental captures have
been reported from Cyprus (Godley et al., 1998), Turkey (Godley et al.,
1998), Italy (Laurent et al., 2001), and Egypt (Nada, 2001;
Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). In Egypt, based on fleet data and catch rates
reported by fishers during the 2000s, the total number of sea turtles
(i.e., all species) bycaught in longlines was estimated to be over
2,200 per year (Nada and Casale, 2008). Fishers also reported that some
of the caught turtles are dead, and the incidence of mortality is
particularly high in longlines and gill nets.
ii. Set Net (Gill Net) Fishing
Casale (2008) considered mortality by set nets to be 60 percent,
with a resulting estimate of 16,000 turtles killed per year. However, a
breakdown of these estimates by turtle species is not available. Most
of these turtles are likely juveniles, with an average size of 45.4 cm
CCL (n=74, Casale, 2008).
iii. Trawl Fisheries
Green turtles have been reported as incidentally captured in bottom
trawls in Egypt (Nada and Casale, 2011), Greece (Margaritoulis et al.,
2003), Tunisia (Laurent et al., 1990), Turkey (Laurent et al., 1996;
Oru[ccedil], 2001), Syria, Israel, and Libya (Casale et al., 2010), but
are likely also captured by bottom trawlers in other neritic foraging
areas in the eastern Mediterranean (Casale et al., 2010). Laurent et
al. (1996) estimated that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 sea turtles
were being captured annually by bottom trawling in the eastern
Mediterranean. Although most of the turtles taken were loggerheads,
they estimated that the number of green turtles taken was 1,000 to
3,000 annually in Turkey and Egypt alone. More recently, Casale (2011)
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, Libya, Greece, and Egypt each have an
estimated 1,900 or more sea turtle captures per year. Further, Albania,
Algeria, Cyprus, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, and Syria may each capture a
few hundred sea turtles per year (Casale, 2011). Available data suggest
the annual number of sea turtle captures by all Mediterranean trawlers
may be greater than 39,000 (Casale, 2011). Although most of the turtles
reported by Casale (2011) as taken by bottom trawlers were undoubtedly
loggerheads, a few thousand were likely green turtles based on earlier
reports (Laurent et al., 1990; Laurent et al., 1996; Oru[ccedil], 2001;
Margaritoulis et al., 2003; Nada and Casale, 2008).
b. Vessel Strikes and Boat Traffic
Propeller and collision injuries from boats and ships are becoming
more common for sea turtles in the Mediterranean, although it is
unclear as to whether the events, or just the reporting of the
injuries, are increasing. Speedboat and jet-ski impacts are of
particular concern in areas of intense tourist activity, such as
Greece, Turkey, and Syria. Boats operating near sea turtle nesting
beaches during the nesting season are likely to either cause females to
abandon nesting attempts or cause their injury or death
(Cami[ntilde]as, 2004). Males may also be affected in high-use boating
areas where sea turtle mating occurs (Demetropoulos, 2000; Rees et al.,
2010).
c. Pollution
Unattended or discarded nets, floating plastics and bags, and tar
balls are of particular concern in the Mediterranean (Cami[ntilde]as,
2004; Margaritoulis, 2007). Monofilament netting appears to be the most
dangerous waste produced by the fishing industry (Cami[ntilde]as,
2004).
The discharge of chemical substances, including highly toxic
chromium compounds from a soda-chromium factory close to the Kazanli
nesting beach in Turkey, is cause for concern (Kasparek et al., 2001;
Venizelos and Kasparek, 2006).
d. Effects of Climate Change
Both the marine and terrestrial realms will be influenced by
temperature increases and will likely undergo alterations that will
adversely affect green turtles. Mediterranean turtle populations could
be affected by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from
global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of male
hatchling production (Kasparek et al., 2001; Cami[ntilde]as, 2004;
Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). In northern Cyprus,
green turtle hatchling sex ratios are already thought to be highly
female biased (approximately 95 percent female; Wright et al., 2012).
This, in tandem with predicted future rises in temperatures, is cause
for concern (Fuller et al., 2010). As temperatures increase, there is
also concern that incubation temperatures will reach levels that exceed
the thermal tolerance for embryonic development, thus increasing embryo
and hatchling mortality (Fuller et al., 2010). Further, a significant
rise in sea level would restrict green turtle nesting habitat in the
eastern Mediterranean. While sea turtles have survived past eras that
have included significant temperature fluctuations, future climate
change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles
cannot adapt quickly they may face local to widespread extirpations
(Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from global climate change induced by
human activities are likely to become more apparent in future years
(IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch and
marine pollution that occurs throughout the range of the Mediterranean
DPS are significant threats to this DPS. In addition, boat strikes and
changes likely to result from climate change are an increasing threat
to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts
Regional and national efforts are underway to conserve green
turtles (often all sea turtles) throughout the range of the DPS. The
extent to which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts
is difficult to ascertain.
Green turtle nesting primarily occurs in Turkey, Cyprus, and Syria,
and a
[[Page 15296]]
notable proportion of nesting in those areas is protected through
various mechanisms. In Turkey, three important green turtle nesting
beaches (Alata, Kazanli, and Akyatan) were all designated as protected
areas by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, while two other beaches
(Belek and G[ouml]sku Delta) also have some level of protected status
(Kasparek et al., 2001; Fuller et al., 2010). These five protected
beaches represent approximately 60 percent of nesting in Turkey (see
Canbolat et al., 2009 and Fuller et al., 2010).
There has been success within 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 protective measures discussed here are sufficient for
the conservation of the species in the Mediterranean.
Marine debris is also a significant problem on many green turtle
nesting beaches in the eastern Mediterranean, in particular the nesting
beaches of Cyprus and Turkey (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Demetropoulos and
Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al., 2010; T[uuml]rkozan and Kaska,
2010). Although organized beach clean-ups in recent years on some
beaches in Cyprus have greatly reduced the amount of litter on the
beach (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 2010; Fuller et al.,
2010), it is still an overall pervasive problem.
Protection of marine habitats is in the early stages in the
Mediterranean, as in other areas of the world. Off the Lara-Toxeftra
nesting beaches in western Cyprus, a marine protection zone extends to
the 20-m isobath (i.e., 20-m depth line) as delineated by the Fisheries
Regulation (Margaritoulis, 2007; Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou,
2010). As mentioned above, establishment of a protected area at Latakia
beach in Syria is being sought and would include protection of a
section of sea offshore; however, it is facing strong opposition from
the tourism sector (Serra, 2008; Rees et al., 2010).
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings
The Mediterranean DPS is characterized by low green turtle nesting
abundance at 32 different locations, with many of these sites having
only one or two known nesting females and none having greater than 245
nesting females. While some of these sites show stable or increasing
trends, the extremely low nesting abundance of this DPS compared to
historical abundance creates an intrinsically high risk to the long-
term stability of the population. The spatial range of the population
is limited to the eastern Mediterranean, and the nesting season is
consistent throughout this DPS (June to August; Broderick et al.,
2002a), thus limiting the temporal buffering against climate change in
terms of impacts due to storms and other seasonal events. The fact that
turtles nest on both insular and continental sites suggests some degree
of nesting diversity but, with the sites so close together, the
benefits of this diversity may be minimal. Mitochondrial DNA studies
have identified two stocks but, in general there is low population
substructuring in the Mediterranean.
The five-factor analysis in the Status Review reveals numerous
significant threats to green turtles within the range of the DPS.
Coastal development, beachfront lighting, erosion resulting from sand
extraction, illegal harvest, detrimental fishing practices, and marine
pollution both at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are
continuing concerns across the Mediterranean DPS, and are
insufficiently tempered by conservation efforts. Current illegal
harvest of green turtles for human consumption continues as a moderate
threat to this DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the Mediterranean
Sea, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles in pelagic
longline, set net, and trawl fisheries. Additional threats from boat
strikes, which are becoming more common, and changes likely to result
from climate change will negatively affect this DPS.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Mediterranean DPS as
endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance, limited spatial
distribution, and exposure to increasing threats, we find that this DPS
is presently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
IX. South Atlantic DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the South Atlantic DPS
The South Atlantic DPS's range boundary begins at the border of
Panama and Colombia at 7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W., heads due north to
10.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W., then northeast to 19[deg] N., 63.5[deg] W.,
and along 19[deg] N. latitude to Mauritania in Africa, to include the
U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. It extends along the coast of
Africa to South Africa, with the southern border being 40[deg] S.
latitude.
Green turtle nesting occurs on beaches along the western coast of
Africa from southern Mauritania to South Africa, in the middle of the
South Atlantic on Ascension Island, in the Caribbean portion of the
South Atlantic including Caribbean South America, and along eastern
South America down through Brazil (Figure 2). In the eastern South
Atlantic, significant sea turtle habitats have been identified,
including green turtle feeding grounds in Corisco Bay, Equatorial
Guinea/Gabon (Formia, 1999); Congo (Bal et al., 2007; Girard et al.,
2014); Mussulo Bay, Angola (Carr and Carr, 1991); and Principe Island
(SWOT, 2010). In the western South Atlantic, juvenile and adult green
turtles utilize foraging areas throughout the Caribbean areas of the
South Atlantic, often resulting in interactions with fisheries
occurring in those same waters (Dow et al., 2007). While no nesting
occurs as far south as Uruguay and Argentina, both countries have
important foraging grounds for South Atlantic green turtles (Lopez-
Mendilaharsu et al., 2006; Lezama, 2009; Gonz[aacute]lez Carman et al.,
2011; Prosdocimi et al., 2012; Rivas-Zinno, 2012). Within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS, there are a total of 51 nesting sites (some
being individual beaches and others representing multiple nesting
beaches) that can be roughly divided into four regions: western Africa,
Ascension Island, Brazil, and the South Atlantic Caribbean (including
Colombia, the Guianas, and Aves Island in addition to the numerous
small, insular nesting sites). Much of the South Atlantic is data poor
with only occasional or incomplete nesting surveys. Therefore, for 37
of the 51 identified nesting areas of this DPS, we were not able to
estimate nesting female abundance, even for relatively large nesting
sites such as French Guiana. Of the nesting sites for which an estimate
could be derived, three account for the bulk of the nesting:
Poil[atilde]o, Guinea-Bissau (29,016 nesting females; Catry et al.,
2009); Ascension Island, UK (13,417 nesting females; S. Weber,
Ascension Island Government, pers. comm., 2013); and the Galibi
Reserve, Suriname (9,406 nesting females; Schulz, 1975; Weijerman et
al., 1998). There are two sites with >10,000 nesting females
(Poil[atilde]o and Ascension Island); one site with 5,001-10,000
nesting females (Suriname); three sites with 1,001-5,000 nesting
females (Trindade Island, Brazil (2,016; Almeida et al., 2011; Projecto
Tamar, 2011); Aves Island, Venezuela (2,833; Prieto et al., 2012); and
Matapica Reserve, Suriname (3,661; A. Turney, pers. comm., 2012). There
are three sites with 501-1,001 nesting females, three sites with 101-
500, two sites with 51-100, and 37 unquantified sites. Poil[atilde]o
[[Page 15297]]
accounts for almost 46 percent of the total number of nesting females.
Long-term monitoring data for this DPS are relatively scarce. There
are three sites for which 10 or more years of recent data are available
for annual nesting female abundance (a criterion for presenting trends
in a bar graph in the Status Review): (1) Ascension Island, UK; (2)
Galibi and Matapica Reserves, Suriname; and (3) Atol das Rocas, Brazil.
Together, the first two sites represent approximately 26,759 nesting
females (42 percent of the population), while the third site has only
275 nesting females (Bellini et al., 2013). Ascension Island, and
Galibi and Matapica Reserves have exhibited substantial increases since
the 1970s. Although they did not meet the criteria for presenting bar
graphs, there are indications of trends at other beaches in the South
Atlantic, such as increasing trends at Isla Trindade, Brazil, and Aves
Island, Venezuela, and decreasing trends at Bioko Island, Equatorial
Guinea.
With regard to spatial structure, the phylogenic relationship of
the eastern Caribbean nesting sites indicates that, despite the close
proximity of other Caribbean nesting sites, they are more closely
related to the nesting sites in the South Atlantic (M. Jensen, NRC,
unpubl. data). Green turtle nesting sites found in Brazil, Ascension
Island, and West Africa have shallow structuring and are dominated by a
common and widespread haplotype, CM-A8, that is found in high frequency
across all nesting sites in the South Atlantic (Bjorndal et al., 2006;
Formia et al., 2006). A recent study showed that a large proportion of
juvenile green turtles foraging in Cape Verde in the eastern Atlantic
originated from distant nesting sites across the Atlantic, namely
Suriname (38 percent), Ascension Island (12 percent), and Guinea Bissau
(19 percent), suggesting that, like the loggerheads, green turtles in
the Atlantic undertake transoceanic developmental migrations
(Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). The fact that long distance
dispersal is only seen for juvenile turtles suggests that larger adult-
sized turtles return to forage within the region of their natal nesting
sites, thereby limiting the potential for gene flow across larger
scales (Monz[oacute]n-Arg[uuml]ello et al., 2010). Important foraging
grounds in the western South Atlantic, such as those off of Brazil,
Uruguay and Argentina, are shared by turtles from various nesting
assemblages in the western South Atlantic and Ascension Island.
Important foraging grounds in the eastern South Atlantic, such as the
Gulf of Guinea, are shared by turtles from the eastern South Atlantic
as well as juveniles from Suriname and Ascension Island.
Overall, many demographic parameters of green turtles in the South
Atlantic appear to vary widely among the various nesting assemblages.
However, this variability in parameters such as remigration interval,
clutch size, hatching success, sex ratio, and clutch frequency is not
separated out regionally within the range of the DPS and therefore does
not necessarily suggest a high level of population structuring. Average
sizes of nesting females are the largest reported for females globally
(Hirth, 1997; Almeida et al., 2011; Bellini et al., 2013).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall range of the
DPS is extensive and varied, with both insular and continental nesting.
Ascension Island, one of the largest nesting sites, is isolated and
protected in the middle of the South Atlantic, and appears to have
migratory connections to nesting sites on the eastern and western ends
of the DPS's range. The insular sites vary quite a bit in terms of
potential impacts from sea level rise and tropical weather. Aves
Island, one of the largest Caribbean nesting sites within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise as
it is a very low-lying island.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the South Atlantic DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
At continental sites in the South Atlantic DPS destruction and
modification of sea turtle nesting habitat (for green turtles and other
species) 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 dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Naro-Maciel et
al., 1999; Broderick et al., 2002b; Marcovaldi et al., 2002; Formia et
al., 2003; Tanner, 2013).
In very low-lying islands such as Aves, rising sea levels and
increased storms could result in a loss of nesting habitat, thus
potentially eliminating their functionality as nesting beaches.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
On the western side of the South Atlantic, the Brazil Current Large
Marine Ecosystem (LME) region is characterized by the Global
International Waters Assessment (GIWA) 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). In the Canary Current LME, the
area is characterized by the GIWA 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]z-Gonz[aacute]lez and Ram[iacute]rez-Bautista,
2002). The Gulf of Guinea has been characterized as severely impacted
in the area of solid wastes by the GIWA; this and other pollution
indicators are increasing (http://www.lme.noaa.gov). On the eastern
side of the South Atlantic, the Benguela Current LME has been
moderately impacted by overfishing, with future conditions expected to
worsen by the GIWA (Prochazka et al., 2005).
In Brazil, green turtles in degraded coastal areas that have
ingested plastic debris have been found to have diets that are lower in
diversity and quality (Santos et al., 2011). Off the northwestern coast
of Suriname run-off from rice production and other agricultural
activities is a problem (Reichart and Fretey, 1993) and likely would
have similar impacts. The reduction of carrying capacity for green
turtles in seagrass beds impacted by anchor damage in popular bays in
the U.S. Virgin Islands has also been documented (Williams, 1988).
Likewise, sediment contamination from coastal and upstream industrial
sites has been recognized in the Caribbean, including St. Croix (Ross
and DeLorenzo, 1997), and has the potential to impact green turtle
habitat as well as the turtles themselves. Such coastal degradation has
been seen throughout the Caribbean areas that fall within the range of
the South Atlantic DPS (Dow et al., 2007).
In summary, we find that the South Atlantic DPS of the green 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, sufficient data are not
available to assess the significance of
[[Page 15298]]
these threats to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial purposes likely was a factor that
contributed to the historical declines of this DPS. Although legal and
illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles persists as a threat
to this DPS, it does not appear to be a significant threat to its
resilience. Eggs are taken for human consumption in Brazil, but the
amount is considered minor when compared to historical rates of egg
collection (Marcovaldi and dei Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al.,
2005; Almeida and Mendes, 2007). Use of sea turtles, including green
turtles, for medicinal purposes occasionally occurs in northeastern
Brazil (Alvez and Rosa, 2006; Braga-Filho and Schiavetti, 2013). Egg
harvest occurred in the Galibi area until 1967 when a ban was enacted.
Subsequently, a controlled harvest was allowed until the early 2000s
via permit with poaching continuing at approximately 100 to 450 nests
per year (Reichart and Fretey, 1993).
Throughout the Caribbean areas of the South Atlantic DPS, harvest
of green turtle eggs and turtles, both illegal and legal, continues
(Dow et al., 2007). Among the British Caribbean territories within the
South Atlantic DPS (including Anguilla, Turks and Caicos, the British
Virgin Islands, and Montserrat) there are legal sea turtle fisheries,
with anywhere from a few (Montserrat) to over a thousand (Turks and
Caicos) green turtles taken per year (Godley et al., 2004).
Turtles are harvested along the west African coast and, in some
areas, are considered a significant source of food and income due to
the poverty of many residents (Formia et al., 2003; Tom[aacute]s et
al., 2010). In the Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago (Guinea-Bissau), all sea
turtles are protected by national law, but enforcement is limited and
many turtles are killed by locals for consumption (Catry et al., 2009).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP is highly variable in its presence and severity throughout the
range of the DPS, with areas of lower water quality, especially due to
nutrient enrichment, often being the sites with the most prevalent and
most severe cases of FP. In Brazilian waters, FP has been documented
but is highly variable among sites (Williams and Bunkley-Williams,
2000). FP has been confirmed among green turtles of Africa's Atlantic
coast, from Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (Formia et al., 2013), Guinea-
Bissau (Catry et al., 2009), Gambia, and Senegal (Barnett et al.,
2004), the Congo and Principe Island (Girard et al., 2013). The
prevalence varies greatly among locations.
Eggs and nests in Brazil experience depredation, primarily by foxes
(Dusycion vetulus; Marcovaldi and Laurent, 1996). Nests laid by green
turtles in the southern Atlantic African coastline experience predation
from local wildlife and feral animals, such as jackals (Canus sp.; Weir
et al., 2007). Shark predation on green turtles, especially by tiger
sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), has been documented off northeastern Brazil
at a frequency high enough to indicate that green turtles may be an
important food source for tiger sharks off Brazilian waters
(Bornatowski et al., 2012). Predation on nesting females can also occur
from large predators, such as jaguars (Panthera onca) in Suriname
(Autar, 1994). On Ascension Island predation by domestic and feral cats
(Felus sp.) and dogs (Canus sp.), frigate birds (Fregata minor), land
crabs (subphylum Crustacea), and fish (class Osteichthyes) have all
been cited as mortality sources for hatchling green turtles (Broderick
et al., 2002a). On the Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago nest predation by
monitor lizards (Varanus sp.) was highly variable, with green turtle
nests experiencing 76 percent predation rates on Jo[atilde]o Vieira (da
Silva Ferreira, 2012). On the southern beaches of Bioko in the Gulf of
Guinea, predation on eggs and hatchlings can come from a wide variety
of species, such as ghost crabs (family Ocypodidae), ants (family
Formicidae), monitor lizards, monkeys (suborder Haplorrhini),
porcupines (order Rodentia), vultures (family Accipitridae) and crows
(Corvus sp.), in addition to village dogs (Tom[aacute]s et al., 1999).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 20 national and international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the South Atlantic DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green turtles
for most of the countries within this DPS are implemented to various
degrees throughout the range of the DPS, with some countries having no
commitment to the implementation of the regulation. The main threats to
South Atlantic green turtles include fishery bycatch, marine debris and
pollution, habitat destruction affecting eggs and hatchlings at nesting
beaches, and nest and hatchling predation. Most South Atlantic
countries, including those in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa,
have developed national legislation and have various projects sponsored
by governments, local communities, academic institutions, and non-
governmental organizations to protect sea turtles and nesting and
foraging habitats to varying degrees (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al.,
2003). The consistency and effectiveness of such programs likely vary
greatly across countries and over time based on resource availability
and political stability. In addition, some countries have site specific
legislation or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection.
Regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often all
sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. The extent to
which threats have been reduced as a result of these efforts is
difficult to ascertain. The following countries have laws to protect
green turtles: Angola, Argentina, Ascension Island, Benin, Brazil,
British Virgin Islands, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, French Guiana,
Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Ivory Coast,
Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, St. Helena, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,
Sierra-Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks
and Caicos Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The Status Review described limited regulatory mechanisms to
address bycatch, such as TED requirements; however, there are no
widespread regulations to address bycatch as a result of the gill net
fisheries. A variety of countries operate industrial trawling off
Guinea-Bissau. The national government does not have any requirements
for TED use in their waters. There is also extensive illegal fishing
occurring (Catry et al., 2009). While the Bolama-Bijag[oacute]s
Biosphere Reserve covers the entire archipelago and provides some
protection through the management of the reserve and the survey work
patrolling the areas, limited enforcement and resource shortages limit
the effectiveness of the reserve. It is unlikely that bycatch
mortality, discussed in more detail in Factor E, 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 DPS, the lack
of comprehensive information on fishing distribution and effort,
[[Page 15299]]
limitations on implementing demonstrated effective conservation
measures, geopolitical complexities, limitations on enforcement
capacity, and lack of availability of comprehensive bycatch reduction
technologies.
The Status Review did not reveal any regulatory mechanisms in place
to specifically address coastal development, marine pollution, sea
level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute
to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Green turtles are incidentally captured throughout the South
Atlantic DPS in pelagic and demersal longlines, drift and set gill
nets, bottom and mid-water trawls, fishing dredges, pound nets and
weirs, haul and purse seines, pots and traps, and hook and line gear.
There is also substantial documentation of the interaction of
small-scale artisanal gill net fisheries with green turtles in their
foraging grounds along the western South Atlantic, with green turtles
documented as the most common species stranded throughout the coast of
Brazil (Marcovaldi et al., 2009); Lima et al., 2010; Barata et al.,
2011; L[oacute]pez-Barrera et al., 2012). Similarly, artisanal gill net
fisheries in the coastal waters of the Rio de la Plata area of Uruguay
were estimated to have captured 1,861 green turtles over the 13-month
duration of a study, despite a time-area closure during the ``peak''
season identified in Lezama (2009).
Incidental captures of juvenile green turtles have also been
documented on important foraging grounds off Argentina, especially
Samboromb[oacute]n Bay and El Rinc[oacute]n, primarily from gill nets
used by the artisanal fisheries, but also from shrimp nets and other
artisanal fishing gear (Gonz[aacute]lez Carman et al., 2011). Green
turtles utilizing foraging grounds off Argentina have been demonstrated
to be primarily from the Ascension Islands nesting beaches, although
individuals from Trindade Island, Suriname, and Aves Island nesting
assemblages were also utilizing the Argentine foraging grounds
(Prosdocimi et al., 2012). Therefore impacts to green turtles off
Argentina affect a variety of nesting assemblages within the western
and central South Atlantic.
A variety of countries operate industrial trawling off Guinea-
Bissau. The national government does not have any requirements for TED
use in their waters. There is also extensive illegal fishing occurring
(Catry et al., 2009). While the Bolama-Bijag[oacute]s Biosphere Reserve
covers the entire archipelago and provides some protection through the
management of the reserve and the survey work patrolling the areas,
limited enforcement and resource shortages limit the effectiveness of
the reserve.
In Ghana and the Ivory Coast, fish stocks have been reduced through
overfishing and environmental degradation, and many fishers that
incidentally catch sea turtles will keep and kill the turtle to feed
their families (Tanner, 2013). Since 2001, a push has been made to
generate alternative sources of income for the local populations of the
Ivory Coast and to employ ex-poachers to patrol the beaches
(Pe[ntilde]ate et al., 2007).
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Various studies have shown high prevalence of marine debris
ingestion by green turtles in the western South Atlantic, in some cases
occurring in 100 percent of the individuals examined (Bugoni et al.,
2001; Tourinho et al., 2010; Guebert-Bartholo et al., 2011; Murman,
2011).
Oil exploration and extraction within the Gulf of Guinea rapidly
increased since the discovery of oil reserves in the 1980s and 1990s
(Formia et al., 2003), with the associated activities and potential for
oil spills and other pollution creating a threat to the important
foraging areas and nesting beaches for green turtles in the area.
c. Effects of Climate Change
As in other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise
have the potential to affect green turtles in the South Atlantic.
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased sea
surface temperature, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics of
beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the
reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting habitat. In
very low-lying islands such as Aves, rising sea levels and increased
storms could potentially eliminate its functionality as a nesting
beach. Some beaches will likely experience lethal incubation
temperatures that will result in losses of complete hatchling cohorts
(Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011; Glen and Mrosovsky, 2004).
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that bycatch that occurs
throughout the South Atlantic, particularly bycatch mortality of green
turtles from nearshore gill net fisheries, continues to be a
significant threat to this DPS. In addition, changes likely to result
from climate change are also an increasing threat to this DPS and
likely a significant threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the South Atlantic DPS
The main in-water threat to green turtles in the South Atlantic DPS
is incidental capture in fisheries, although marine debris and
pollution are also threats. The main threat on beaches is habitat
destruction, followed by hatchling predation. Most South Atlantic
countries, including those in South America, the Caribbean, and Africa,
have developed national legislation and have various projects sponsored
by governments, local communities, academic institutions, and non-
governmental organizations to protect sea turtles, and nesting and
foraging habitats to varying degrees (Dow et al., 2007; Formia et al.,
2003). The consistency and effectiveness of such programs likely vary
greatly across countries and over time based on resource availability
and political stability. In addition, some countries have site specific
legislation or conservation designation for turtle habitat protection.
When assessing conservation efforts, we assumed that all conservation
efforts would remain in place at their current levels.
Conservation through education is a widely-used and valuable tool
throughout nations within the range of the South Atlantic DPS and
around the world. Such education initiatives can be highly successful.
In Akassa, Nigeria, a dedicated, intensive conservation education
program by the Akassa Community Development Project resulted in sea
turtles being recognized locally as an essential part of the area's
natural heritage. This has resulted in the majority of the nests in
Akassa being protected, and when live stranded turtles are found, they
are released (Formia et al., 2003). However, in areas where the
utilization of sea turtles is deeply ingrained in the local culture,
such as the La Guajira region of
[[Page 15300]]
Colombia (Patino-Martinez et al., 2012), changing people's attitudes
about the use of sea turtles can be a long, slow process.
In the Caribbean, green turtle conservation on the nesting beach
varies widely among the 22 nations and territories. However, programs
at the three largest nesting sites--Aves Island, French Guiana, and
Suriname--with over 500 crawls per year (Dow et al., 2007), provide
protection to a significant proportion of nesting in the area.
In South America, outside of the Caribbean, Brazil is the only
nation with substantial green turtle nesting. In Brazil, the primary
nesting areas are monitored by Projeto TAMAR, the national sea turtle
conservation program, and many detrimental human activities are
restricted by various state and Federal laws (Marcovaldi and dei
Marcovaldi, 1999; Marcovaldi et al., 2002; 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; Marcovaldi 2011). Since 1990, TAMAR has worked along green
turtle foraging areas such as Almofala and Ubatuba (Marcovaldi et al.,
2002).
The South Atlantic Association is a multinational group that
includes representatives from Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina that meets
bi-annually to share information and develop regional action plans to
address threats, including bycatch. In 2001, the Brazilian Plan for
Reduction of Incidental Sea Turtle Capture in Fisheries was created to
address incidental capture of the five species in the country
(Marcovaldi et al., 2002, 2006). This national plan includes various
activities to mitigate bycatch, including time-area restrictions of
fisheries, use of bycatch reduction devices, and working with fishers
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 marine turtles for several years (see http://cicmar.org/proyectos/promacoda), with the objective of developing mitigation plans
in the future. In Argentina, various conservation organizations are
working toward assessing bycatch of green turtles and other sea turtle
species in fisheries, with the objective of developing mitigation plans
for this threat (http://www.prictma.com.ar).
Green turtle nesting occurs on many beaches along the western coast
of Africa, and there have been, and continue to be, sea turtle projects
in many of the nations in the area ranging from research to public
awareness to government conservation efforts (see Formia et al., 2003
for a regional synopsis). The largest nesting assemblages occur on
Poil[atilde]o, Bijag[oacute]s Archipelago, Guinea Bissau, and on Bioko
Island, Equatorial Guinea. While conservation efforts on the beaches
have been established, issues with enforcement capabilities and
resources make consistent protection problematic (Catry et al., 2009;
Formia et al., 2003; Tom[aacute]s et al., 2010). Since 2001, a push has
been made to generate alternative sources of income for the local
populations of the Ivory Coast and to employ ex-poachers to patrol the
beaches (Pe[ntilde]ate et al., 2007).
Green turtle conservation efforts on Ascension Island have involved
extensive monitoring, outreach, and research. The group Turtles in the
UK Overseas Territories promotes the conservation, research, and
management of marine turtle populations and their habitats, and has
worked extensively on Ascension Island (http://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/ascension.shtml). Additionally, there are legal
prohibitions protecting sea turtles on Ascension.
Overall, conservation efforts for green turtles in the South
Atlantic DPS are inconsistent. While there are numerous and varied
conservation efforts, especially on the primary nesting beaches, many
issues remain due to limited enforcement of existing laws and marine
protected areas as well as extensive fishery bycatch, especially in
coastal waters. The effectiveness and consistency of conservation
measures will need to be increased substantially to prevent the further
decline, and allow the recovery, of this DPS in the future.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the South Atlantic DPS
Nesting abundance for this DPS is relatively high, with large
rookeries spread out geographically, the two largest at Poil[atilde]o,
Guinea-Bissau, and Ascension Island, UK. Population trends within
rookeries are inconsistent and, in many cases, the data are limited and
a trend could not be determined, even for major rookeries. While some
nesting beaches such as Ascension Island, Aves Island, and Galibi
appear to be increasing, others such as Poil[atilde]o, Trindade, and
Atol das Rocas seem to be stable or do not have sufficient data to make
a determination. Bioko, Equatorial Guinea, appears to be in decline.
The diversity/resilience of the DPS is bolstered by the widespread
nature of the rookeries, but a potential concern is the domination of
the DPS by insular nesting sites, which has the potential to reduce the
resilience of the DPS in the face of sea level rise and increasing
tropical storm activity.
The 5-factor analysis in the Status Review revealed numerous
continuing threats to green turtles within the South Atlantic DPS.
Habitat destruction and degradation both at nesting beaches and
important foraging grounds is a continuing concern, though inconsistent
across the DPS. Overutilization (harvest) of green turtles within the
South Atlantic was likely a primary factor in past declines. While
reduced from those levels due to increased legal protections, harvest
is still thought to be fairly extensive in some areas of western
Africa. Fishery bycatch also continues to be a major concern throughout
the range of the DPS, near nesting beaches and foraging areas as well
as on the high seas. Despite increasing legal protections for sea
turtles within the DPS, the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is a noted issue. While many international and national laws
purporting to protect sea turtles exist, limitations in resources and
political will create a situation of inconsistent or sometimes
nonexistent practical measures to enforce those laws. Increasing
awareness and conservation efforts by governments, local communities,
non-governmental organizations, and industries have helped to reduce
threats, but efforts remain inconsistent and often resource limited.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in
many of the critical population parameters, there are still concerns
about the impacts of ongoing threats. The increasing threats are not
reflected in the current trend for the South Atlantic DPS as it was
based on nesting numbers and not all current life stages. These
increasing threats to the population will only become apparent when
those life stages affected by the threats return to nest and the
beaches are consistently monitored, as the trend information is based
solely on numbers of nests. This lag time and nesting data were
considered in our analysis.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the South Atlantic DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance and
[[Page 15301]]
geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
X. Southwest Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Southwest Indian DPS
The range of the Southwest Indian DPS has as its western boundary
the shores of continental Africa from the equator, just north of the
Kenya-Somalia border, south to the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa),
and extends south from there along 19[deg] E. longitude to 40[deg] S.,
19[deg] E. Its southern boundary extends along 40[deg] S. latitude from
19[deg] E. to 84[deg] E., and its eastern boundary runs along 84[deg]
E. longitude from 40[deg] S. latitude to the equator. Its northern
boundary extends along the equator from 84[deg] E. to the continent of
Africa just north of the Kenya-Somalia border (Figure 2). Nesting
occurs along the east coast of Africa as far south as 25[deg] S., the
north, west, and south coasts of Madagascar, and scattered offshore
islands in the southwest Indian Ocean (Figure 8.1 in the Status
Review). Foraging occurs along the east coast of Africa, around
Madagascar where numerous seagrass beds are found, and on shallow banks
and shoals throughout the region, including those associated with
virtually every island in Seychelles (Mortimer, 1984; Mortimer et al.,
1996). Small and immature turtles are also concentrated in Mozambique
around Bazaruto and Inhassoro and in Maputo Bay (Bourjea, 2012). Along
the coast of Kenya, an aerial survey in 1994 indicated that sea turtles
are widely distributed within the 20-m isobaths mainly within seagrass
beds and coral reefs (Frazier, 1975; Wamukoya et al., 1996; Okemwa et
al., 2004). The eastern seaboard of South Africa serves as a feeding
and developmental area for green turtles (Bourjea, 2012).
For the DPS, there are 14 nesting sites with some measure of
abundance, four of which have more than 10,000 nesting females: Europa
(Eparses Islands, France; 25,500; Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; Bourjea,
2012), Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles; 16,000 (Mortimer et al., 2011;
Mortimer, 2012; J. Mortimer unpubl. data)), Moh[eacute]li (Comoros;
15,000 (Bourjea, 2012), and Mayotte (France; 12,000; Bourjea et al.,
2007a; Bourjea, 2012). Les Glorieuses has 5,001-10,000 nesting females
(6,000; Lauret-Stepler et al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012). Five sites have
1,001-5,000 nesting females: Tromelin Island; 4,500 (Lauret-Stepler et
al., 2007; Bourjea, 2012); Kenya; 1,500 (Okemwa et al., 2004);
Tanzania; 1,500 (Muir, 2005; Bourjea, 2012); Mauritius; 1,800 (Bourjea,
2012); and Assumption, Cosmoledo, Astove, and Farquhar in the
Seychelles; ~2,000 (J. Mortimer unpubl. data). There are four sites
with <500 nesting females: Madagascar; Mozambique; Amirantes Group,
Seychelles; and Inner Islands of the Seychelles; and 23 more sites with
unquantified numbers of nesting females. The largest nesting site,
Europa, accounts for approximately 30 percent of all nesting.
Green turtles in the Southwest Indian Ocean were exploited for many
decades (Hughes, 1974; Frazier, 1980, 1982; Mortimer et al., 2011);
however, the species has successfully recovered at some nesting beaches
in the recent years and trend data show increasing trends, albeit
largely at protected sites (Bourjea, 2012). At protected nesting sites
with long-term monitoring, five out of six monitoring sites have shown
increase in nesting activities (Europa, Glorieuses, Mayotte,
Moh[eacute]li, and Aldabra), whereas a declining trend has been
reported for Tromelin Island (Bourjea, 2012). There are three nesting
sites with greater than 10 years of recent monitoring data: Les
Glorieuses, Europa and Tromelin, Eparses Islands, the trends of which
are discussed above. No sites met our standards for conducting a PVA.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Southwest
Indian DPS has been fairly extensive and nesting sites are relatively
well represented, with the exception of the northern nesting sites.
Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate a moderate degree of spatial
structuring within this DPS, with connectivity between proximate
nesting sites (see below). Overall, the Southwest Indian DPS appears to
have at least two genetic stocks: (1) The South Mozambique Channel
consisting of Juan de Nova and Europa; and (2) the numerous nesting
sites in the North Mozambique Channel consisting of Nosy Iranja,
Mayotte, Moh[eacute]li, Glorieuses, Cosmoledo, Aldabra, Farquhar, also
including Tromelin located east of Madagascar (Bourjea et al., 2006).
Satellite telemetry data are available for green turtles that nest at
some nesting beaches within the range of this DPS. Green turtles
nesting along the East African coast confine their migration to along
the coast. This is in contrast to those nesting on islands (e.g.,
Comoros, Eparses, and Seychelles), which reach the East African or
Malagasy coast via `migration corridors' or along mid-oceanic seagrass
beds. This behavior is believed to be mainly attributable to the fact
that those areas are characterized by a network of large seagrass beds
(Bourjea, 2012).
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting in the Southwest
Indian DPS occurs throughout the range of this DPS on islands, atolls,
and on the main continent of Africa in Kenya. The nesting substrate can
be variable as some of the nesting beaches are volcanic islands and the
atolls are made of coralline sand. Nesting occurs throughout the year
with peaks that vary among nesting sites (Dalleau et al., 2012;
Mortimer, 2012). The fact that turtles nest on both insular and
continental sites, in variable substrates and at different peak seasons
suggests a high degree of nesting diversity and indicates some
resiliency.
The genetic structure of this DPS is characterized by high
diversity and a mix of unique and rare haplotypes, as well as common
and widespread haplotypes. These common and widespread haplotypes (CM-
A8, CmP47 and CmP49) make up the majority of the haplotypes present in
the Southwest Indian DPS and appear to be ancestral haplotypes (based
on presence in the South Atlantic and Southwest Pacific DPSs). The
Southwest Indian Ocean represents a genetic hotspot with 0.3 to 6.5
percent (mean = 4.2 percent) estimated sequence divergence among the
seven haplotypes identified. These haplotypes belong to three highly
diverged genetic clades of haplotypes and highlights the complex
colonization history of the region. There have been no nDNA studies
from this region, nor are there studies published on genetic stock
composition at foraging areas within the range of the Southwest Indian
DPS.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Habitat degradation is reported as an important source of
additional mortality for this DPS, although the exact scale of habitat
destruction at nesting beaches often is undocumented (Bourjea, 2012).
In particular, habitat destruction due to development of the coastline
and dredging or land-fill in foraging areas is a threat to green
turtles throughout the Seychelles (Mortimer et al., 1996). Increases in
tourism and human population growth on Mayotte Island may lead to
further negative impacts upon this coastal environment (Bourjea et al.,
2007). The possible negative effects of artificial lighting at a main
nesting beach on Aldabra are of concern at the Seychelles (Mortimer et
al., 2011), although it is currently being addressed
[[Page 15302]]
(J. Mortimer, Seychelles Dept. of Environment, pers. comm., 2014).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
In Moh[eacute]li, Comoros Islands, habitat degradation due to
sedimentation, sand extraction, and coral reef/seagrass bed degradation
is also a concern (Ahamada, 2008). Similar situations are reported for
Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012) and Madagascar (Ciccione et al., 2002;
Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994 as cited in Bourjea, 2012).
For both the terrestrial and the neritic/oceanic zones, we believe
that sufficient data are not available to assess the significance of
these threats to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
throughout the Southwest Indian DPS for human consumption persists as a
threat to this DPS. Egg poaching has been reported for Comoros Islands
(Ahamada, 2008; Bourjea, 2012); Mozambique (Costa et al., 2007; Videira
et al., 2008); Tanzania (Bourjea, 2012); Madagascar (Rakotonirina and
Cooke, 1994; Ciccione et al. 2002 as cited in Bourjea, 2012; Lilette,
2006 as cited in Bourjea, 2012); and Kenya (Bourjea, 2012). Egg
exploitation has affected green turtle populations in the Maldives
(Seminoff et al., 2004). Illegal egg collection in Mauritius seems to
be an important source of mortality but no data are available.
Nesting green turtle numbers in the Seychelles have increased at
protected sites, but declined where there has been heavy poaching, as
on the developed islands of Mah[eacute], Praslin, and La Digue
(Bourjea, 2012). On Assumption Island and Aldabra, the number of
nesting females was known to have decreased due to overharvesting
(Mortimer, 1984), but they have been protected at Aldabra since 1968
(J. Mortimer, pers. comm., Seychelles Dept. of Environment, 2014).
Areas of particularly heavy exploitation of green turtles include
foraging locations in the Western Indian Ocean such as Madagascar
(Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Mbindo, 1996; Bourjea, 2012). Artisanal
fisheries, such as beach seines and gill nets, have been reported to
take tens of thousands of turtles annually (Hughes, 1981; Rakotonirina,
1987; Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Lilette, 2006; Humber et al.,
2010). This exploitation affects turtles nesting in the Eparses
Islands, where poaching and illegal trade at international foraging
grounds are also a threat (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994; Lauret-Stepler
et al., 2007). Similarly, commercial and small-scale fisheries at
foraging grounds along the east African coast, mainly Tanzania and
Kenya, affect green turtles nesting on Mayotte, Comoros Islands
(Bourjea et al., 2007). Intentional capture of green turtles continues
in the Seychelles (Seminoff et al., 2004) and in the east coast of
Africa (Baldwin et al., 2003; Louro et al., 2006).
In summary, current legal and illegal collection of eggs and
harvest of turtles persists as a threat throughout this DPS. The
killing of nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green
turtle populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult
abundance and egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The prevalence of FP in the Southwest Indian DPS is not known. FP
is extremely rare among green turtles in Seychelles (J.A. Mortimer,
unpublished data). Side striped jackals (Canis adustus) and honey
badgers (Melivora capensis) are known to depredate nests on the
mainland coast of East Africa (Baldwin et al., 2003).
However, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess the degree
of impact of these threats on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are at least 15 national and international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the Southwest Indian DPS. The
analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would
remain in place at their current levels; however, some are not
realizing their full potential because they are not adequately
enforced.
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green
turtles are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the
DPS with some countries having no commitment to the implementation of
the regulation. Existing regulatory mechanisms to address bycatch and
coastal development are not implemented adequately as evident by the
high level of bycatch within this DPS.
In addition to broad-reaching international instruments, the
following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Mozambique,
Republic of Seychelles, Comoros Islands, Mayotte Island, and the French
Eparses Islands. However, these regulatory mechanisms are not range-
wide and do not address the loss of the nesting beach, overutilization,
and bycatch that are significant threats to this DPS. The Status Review
revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address sea level
rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Quantifying the magnitude of the threat of fisheries on green
turtles in the Southwest Indian DPS is very difficult given the low
level of observer coverage and dearth of investigations into bycatch
conducted by countries that have large fishing fleets. Sea turtles are
caught in demersal and pelagic longlines, trawls, gill nets, and seines
(Peterson, 2005; Louro et al., 2006; Costa et al., 2007; Fennessy and
Isaksen, 2007; Peterson et al., 2007; 2009). Bycatch is a concern along
the east coast of Africa and in many island Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZs), including the Seychelles, Mayotte, Comoros, Tanzania, Kenya,
and South Africa. (Mortimer et al., 1996; Bourjea et al., 2007a;
Bourjea, 2012).
b. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise
in sea level, which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat. In the Southwest Indian DPS, climate change could have
profound long-term impacts on nesting populations because much of the
nesting occurs in low-lying islands and atolls. The pending sea level
rise from climate change is a potential problem, as this will inundate
nesting sites and decrease available nesting habitat (Daniels et al.,
1993). While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that
occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch of green
turtles from long lining operations, small
[[Page 15303]]
prawn trawl fishery, and coastal gill nets, can affect juvenile to
adult size turtles. In addition, climate change and natural disasters
are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Indian DPS
Nine countries of the southwest Indian Ocean developed and signed
the Indian Ocean Southeast Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of
Understanding (IOSEA; www.ioseaturtles.org): Comoros in June 2001,
United Republic of Tanzania in June 2001, Kenya in May 2002, Mauritius
in July 2002, Madagascar in January 2003, Seychelles in January 2003,
South Africa in February 2005; and Mozambique and France (Indian Ocean)
in December 2008. IOSEA aims to develop and assist countries of the
region in the implementation of the IOSEA regional strategy for
management and conservation of sea turtles and their habitats.
Accordingly, IOSEA has been successfully coordinating and closely
monitoring region-wide conservation efforts in the Indian Ocean for
years. This has included the development of a state-of-the-art online
reporting facility, satellite tracking, genetic regional database,
flipper tag inventory, and a global bibliographic resource.
Also within the Southwest Indian DPS, the Western Indian Ocean-
Marine Turtle Task Force plays a role in sea turtle conservation. This
is a technical, non-political working group comprised of specialists
from eleven countries: Comoros, France (La R[eacute]union), Kenya,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa,
United Kingdom and Tanzania, as well as representatives from
intergovernmental organizations, academic, and non-governmental
organizations within the region.
The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) is playing an increasingly
constructive role in turtle conservation. In 2005, the IOTC adopted
Resolution 05/08, superseded by Resolution 09/06 on Sea Turtles, which
sets out reporting requirements on interactions with sea turtles and
accordingly provides an executive summary per species for adoption at
the Working Party on Ecosystem and By-catch and then subsequently at
the Scientific Committee. In 2011, IOTC developed a ``Sea Turtle
Identification Card'' to be distributed to all long-liners operating in
the Indian Ocean (http://www.iotc.org/).
Although there is considerable uncertainty in anthropogenic
mortalities, especially in the water, the DPS may have benefitted from
conservation efforts at the nesting beaches.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest Indian DPS
The Southwest Indian DPS is characterized by relatively high levels
of green turtle nesting abundance and increasing trends. The overall
nesting range for the Southwest Indian DPS occurs throughout the range
of this DPS on islands, atolls, and on the main continent of Africa in
Kenya. The fact that turtles nest on both insular and continental
sites, and nesting substrate can be variable as some of the nesting
beaches are volcanic islands and the atolls are made of coralline sand,
suggests a high degree of nesting diversity. Nesting also occurs
throughout the year with peaks that vary among rookeries (Dalleau et
al., 2012; Mortimer, 2012). The genetic structure of this DPS is
characterized by high diversity and a mix of unique and rare
haplotypes, as well as common and widespread haplotypes. However, the
five-factor analysis in the Status Review revealed continuing threats
to green turtles and their habitat within the range of the DPS.
Nesting beaches throughout the range of this DPS are susceptible to
coastal development and associated beachfront lighting, erosion, and
sea level rise. Coral reef and seagrass bed degradation continues in
portions of the range of the DPS affecting foraging turtles. Direct
capture of juvenile and adult turtles continues to take place using a
variety of gear types in artisanal and industrial fisheries.
The Southwest Indian DPS is protected by various international
treaties and agreements as well as a few national laws, and there are
protected beaches throughout the range of this DPS. As a result of
these designations and agreements, many of the intentional impacts
directed at sea turtles have been lessened, such as the harvest of eggs
and adults in several nesting areas, although the extent to which they
are reduced is not clear.
While the Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in
many of the critical population parameters, there are still concerns
about threats to the DPS from fisheries interactions, direct harvest
(eggs and adults), and climate change.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Southwest Indian DPS
as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of the high nesting abundance and geographically
widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued
threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XI. North Indian DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the North Indian DPS
The range of the North Indian DPS begins at the border of Somalia
and Kenya north into the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and east
to the Gulf of Mannar off the southern tip of India and includes a
major portion of India's southeastern coast up to Andra Pradesh. The
southern and eastern boundaries are the equator (0[deg]) and 84[deg]
E., respectively, which intersect in the southeast corner of the range
of the DPS. It is bordered by the following countries (following the
water bodies from west to east): Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan,
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates,
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka
(Figure 2).
Nesting is concentrated primarily in the northern and western
region of the range of the North Indian DPS from the Arabian Peninsula
to the Pakistani-Indian border, with smaller but significant nesting
colonies occurring in Sri Lanka, India's Lakshadweep Island group, and
the Red Sea. Nesting in the Arabian Gulf occurs in low numbers.
Seagrass beds are extensive within the range of the DPS, although a
comprehensive understanding of juvenile and adult foraging areas is
lacking. There are extensive foraging areas in the Arabian Gulf, on the
coasts of Oman and Yemen, Gulf of Aden, and in the Red Sea (Ross and
Barwani, 1982; Salm, 1991; Salm and Salm, 2001). Barr al Hickman, along
the Sahil al Jazit coastline in Oman, is one of the most important
known foraging grounds for green turtles. Although development of dense
seagrass beds is limited seasonally due to monsoons, the Arabian Sea
coast's foraging areas are extensive (Jupp et al., 1996 as cited in
Ferreira et al., 2006). Juvenile green turtles have been sighted and
captured year-round in the lagoons in Agatti and Kavaratti. These
Lakshadweep lagoons are known to be important developmental habitat for
green turtles in this DPS (Tripathy et al., 2002; Tripathy et al.,
2006).
Thirty-eight total nesting sites were identified by the SRT, some
being individual beaches and others representing multiple nesting
beaches, although nesting data is more than a decade old for the vast
majority of these sites. Nonetheless, our best estimates indicate that,
of the 38 sites, two have >10,000 nesting females (Ras Sharma,
[[Page 15304]]
Yemen; 18,000 (PERSGA/GEF, 2004) and Ras Al Hadd, Oman; 16,184 (Ross,
1979; AlKindi et al., 2008)); one has 5,001-10,000 nesting females
(Kamgar Beach at Ormara, Pakistan; 6,000 (Groombridge et al., 1988));
five have 1,001-5,000 nesting females (Saudi Arabian Gulf Islands;
2,410 (Al-Merghani et al., 2000; Pilcher, 2000); north coast of Ras Al
Hadd, Oman; 1,875 (Salm et al., 1993); Ra's Jifan to Ra's Jibsh, Oman;
1,500 (Ross, 1979; AlKindi et al., 2008); Masirah Island, Oman; 1,125
(Grobler et al., 2001); and Gujarat, India; 1,125 (Sunderraj et al.,
2006a, 2006b; K. Shanker pers. comm., 2013); 15 sites have 101-500
nesting females; 10 have fewer than 50; and one is unquantified. The
largest site, Ras Sharma in Yemen, accounts for 33 percent of the
nesting females. Daran Beach, Jiwani, Pakistan, with an estimated 371
nesting females (Waqas et al., 2011), and Zabargard Island, Egypt, with
an estimated 444 nesting females (Hanafy, 2012; El-Sadek et al., 2013),
are the only sites for which 10 or more years of recent data are
available for annual nesting female abundance (the standards for
representing trends in bar plot in this report). It is difficult to
ascertain any trend from these data. No sites met the standards for
PVA. However, some other sites were examined, with caveats, as follows.
Nesting at Ras Al Hadd appears to have increased from approximately
6,000 females nesting each year for the period 1977 to 1979 (Ross and
Barwani, 1982) through the late 1980s (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989),
to the estimate of 16,184 nesting females, as calculated from 21,578
nests found in 2007 (AlKindi et al., 2008). Declines are evident at
Hawkes Bay and Sandspit, Pakistan, where a mean of approximately 1,300
nests were deposited annually from 1981 to 1985 (Groombridge and
Luxmoore, 1989) and a mean of approximately 600 nests were laid from
1994 to 1997 (Asrar, 1999). At Gujarat, India, 866 nests were deposited
in 1981 (Bhaskar, 1984) and 461 nests in 2000 (Sunderraj et al., 2006);
however, because there are only two data points, it is not possible to
determine a trend. At Ras Sharma, counts of nightly nesting females
during peak nesting season in 1966 and 1972 (30-40 females; Hirth,
1968; Hirth and Hollingsworth, 1973) versus the same index during the
peak of the 1999 nesting season (15 females; Saad, 1999) are suggestive
of a decline. Again the lack of multiple-year data sets for both
Gujarat and Ras Sharma preclude trend assessment.
With regard to spatial structure, only one stock from this DPS (in
Saudi Arabia) has been characterized genetically based on limited
sampling; however, it was found to be very distinct from other nesting
sites elsewhere in the Indian Ocean based on mtDNA analysis. There are
no studies of foraging grounds within the range of the North Indian DPS
to provide information on the distribution or the mixing of turtles
outside of this DPS. A few flipper tag recoveries have been reported
with no reported recoveries outside of the range of the North Indian
DPS. Adult females from Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Oman were satellite
tagged and tracked during post-nesting migrations, and all remained
within the range of the North Indian DPS. The satellite telemetry data
for nesting females in Sri Lanka provided some information on possible
foraging locations which were within the inshore waters of southern Sri
Lanka and the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, although sample size
was limited (Richardson et al., 2013). Satellite telemetry for nesting
females in Kuwait verified nesting in Qaru Island. These turtles
migrated to the shallow seas in Saudi Arabia (Rees et al., 2013).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the demography of green
turtles in the North Indian DPS appears to vary among nesting
assemblages, suggesting a complex population structuring in the North
Indian DPS. The population is moderately dispersed within the range of
the North Indian DPS, although the greatest nesting is concentrated in
the northern and western region of the DPS's range, with about 72
percent of the nesting concentrated in Oman and Yemen. The nesting
season varies widely within the range of the DPS. The peak nesting
season in Ras Sharma, Yemen is July, in Gujarat, India, it is from
August to March (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and in Oman, nesting occurs
year-round.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the North Indian DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
One of the largest green turtle nesting populations within this DPS
is concentrated on the nesting beaches of Ras Al Hadd, Oman (Ross,
1979). Ras Al Hadd, Ras al Jinz, and the numerous smaller nesting
beaches south of it are protected from development as part of the Ras
Al Hadd Nature Reserve. However, upland light pollution is negatively
impacting these otherwise suitable nesting habitats (E. Possardt,
USFWS, pers. comm., 2013). The most important green turtle nesting
beaches in Yemen fall within the Ras Sharma Protected Area, and this
nesting habitat is secure from beach development threats.
Light pollution is increasing near the Karan Island, Saudi Arabia
site from oil rig developments, but the impact on hatchlings and
nesting females is unknown (J. Miller, Biological Research and
Education Consultants, pers. comm., 2013). At Ras Baridi, one of the
main nesting beaches in Saudi Arabia, uncontrolled particulate
emissions from a large cement factory has coated the beaches at times
and poses a threat to hatchlings because they are unable to emerge from
the nest due to the hardened sand (PERSGA/GEF, 2004; Pilcher, 1999).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Trawling occurs throughout much of the range of the North Indian
DPS and has the potential to destroy bottom habitat in these areas.
Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural habitat
degradation, affects green turtle neritic and oceanic habitat. The most
dramatic example of the threats to sea turtles and their habitat from
oil pollution in the region is the Gulf War oil spill in the Arabian
Gulf in 1991, which is estimated to be the largest oil spill in history
at the time of the 2010 report (ABC, 2010).
In the Arabian Gulf, extensive seagrass beds provide important
foraging sites for green turtles within waters of Bahrain, United Arab
Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, but these are being degraded and
lost from the continual threat of dredging, siltation, and land
reclamation (Pilcher, 2000, 2006; Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005; Abdulqader,
2008; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008).
In the waters surrounding the Lakshadweep islands in India, there
exist high densities of green turtles that, without the natural level
of control from the top predators such as tiger sharks, can cause an
increase in grazing pressure and reduce the amount of healthy seagrass
beds available (Kelkar et al., 2013).
In summary, we find that the North Indian DPS of the green turtle
is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its terrestrial and
marine habitats as a result of land and water use practices. Beach and
marine pollution are an increasing threat to this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Directed take of eggs and turtles by humans occurs at the primary
green
[[Page 15305]]
turtle nesting beaches and in waters off of Saudi Arabia (Al-Merghani
et al., 1996; Pilcher, 2000), Yemen (K. Nasher, Sana'a University,
pers. comm., 2013), Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, pers. comm.,
2013), Djibouti and Somalia (PERSGA 2001; van de Elst, 2006; Galair,
2009; van de Giessen, 2011; Witsen, 2012), Eritrea (Howe et al., 2004;
Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et al., 2009), the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011), India (Sunderraj et al., 2006), and Sri
Lanka (Rajakaruna et al., 2009; Turtle Conservation Project, 2009).
Directed take of nesting females is also still common at nesting
beaches in Yemen (K. Nasher, Sana'a University, pers. comm., 2013). In
spite of wildlife protection laws, green turtles are still killed
opportunistically for food in Oman (R. Baldwin, Five Oceans LLC, pers.
comm., 2013).
Illegal and legal capture of sea turtles and the collection of
turtle eggs is fairly widespread in the Djibouti and Somalia region of
the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, and turtle meat, oil and eggs are an
important source of subsidiary food for artisanal fishers (PERSGA,
2001; van de Elst, 2006; Galair, 2009; van de Giessen, 2011; Witsen,
2012). Harvesting of sea turtle eggs and meat for consumption by local
communities and fishers occurs at a subsistence level in Eritrea (Howe
et al., 2004; Pilcher, 2006; Teclemariam et al., 2009); however, the
pressure on green turtle populations is reported to be high because
they are prized for their meat products (Teclemariam et al., 2009). Egg
harvesting has also been reported as a threat impacting green turtles
in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with eggs being used for both
consumption (in some cases as an aphrodisiac) and for use in
traditional medicines (Mobaraki, 2004; 2007; 2011).
In spite of wildlife protection laws, green turtles are still
killed opportunistically for trade in the Bay of Mannar between India
and Sri Lanka (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In India, green turtle
export was banned in the 1980s; however, subsistence harvesting
continues (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). An increase in the number of
green turtles killed by fishers has been reported in Agatti Island,
Lakshadweep, India. The cause for the killing has been linked to
increases in green turtles within the area. The perception is that
green turtles damage fishing gear and overgraze seagrass thereby
reducing catch levels (Arthur et al., 2013).
In summary, current legal and illegal collection of eggs and
harvest of turtles throughout the range of the North Indian DPS for
human consumption persists as a threat to this DPS. The harvest of
nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle
populations in many areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance
and egg production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The prevalence of FP in the North Indian DPS is not known.
Predation of hatchlings and eggs by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes arabica)
is common at the Ras al Jinz, Oman green turtle nesting beach
(Mendon[ccedil]a et al., 2010), and depredation by feral dogs has been
identified as a major threat at sea turtle nesting beaches in Pakistan
(Asrar, 1999; Firdous, 2001) and the main green turtle nesting beach at
Ras Sharma (Stanton, 2008). On two Egyptian Red Sea beaches (Ras
Honkorab and Om Al-Abath beaches, which are both within Wadi Gimal
National Park limits), predation is reported to be very high with only
a few nests surviving (Mancini, 2012). The most common predators
observed on these two beaches in Egypt were desert foxes (V. zerda) and
dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), but ghost crabs were regularly observed
near nests as well. In Qatar, depredation of eggs and hatchlings by
foxes has been identified as a key source of turtle mortality (Al-
Muraikhi et al., 2005; Pilcher, 2006). Along the beaches of Gujarat in
India, dogs, jackals, monitor lizards, crabs, crows, and possibly
hyenas and feral pigs depredate nests and eat hatchings (Sunderraj et
al., 2006).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are several international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms that pertain to the North Indian DPS, and nearly all
countries lining the North Indian DPS have some level of national
legislation directed at sea turtle protection. The following countries
have laws to protect green turtles: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea,
India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. In
addition, at least 14 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the North
Indian DPS.
Within the last decade, since the establishment of the Jeddah
Convention (The Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden Environment), there is more of an effort to strengthen
participation in international and regional agreements (PERSGA, 2010).
The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all
would remain in place at their current levels. The overall
effectiveness and enforcement of these laws varies among the countries
and relies on each country's priorities. Often the enforcement of these
laws is done in collaboration with non-governmental agencies such as
HEPCA in the Red Sea (http://www.hepca.org/).
Regulatory mechanisms that address the direct capture of green
turtles are implemented to various degrees throughout the range of the
DPS with some countries having no regulation in place. Our Status
Review reported no widespread regulations for the gill net and trawl
fisheries to address the threat of bycatch. The Status Review revealed
a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms to address coastal
development, sea level rise, and effects of climate change that
continue to contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Sea turtle bycatch from gill nets, trawls, and longline fisheries
is a significant cause of sea turtle mortality for the North Indian
DPS, although there are fewer bycatch data than for other regions of
the world (Wright and Mohanty, 2002; Project GloBAL, 2007; Bourjea et
al., 2008; Abdulqader, 2010; Wallace et al., 2010). The magnitude of
trawl, gill net, and longline fisheries within the range of the North
Indian DPS is great with no substantive sea turtle protection measures
in place to reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality. Along the coast of Ras
Al Hadd, one of the densest nesting beaches of this DPS, fishery
related mortality is particularly high where green turtles are
incidentally caught in fishing gear (Salm, 1991).
i. Gill Net Fisheries
Gill nets are widely deployed and used throughout the region and
known to kill thousands of sea turtles in some regions (Project GloBAL,
2007). Two member Indian Ocean Tuna Commission parties, Iran and Kenya,
alone reported the use of 12,023 gill nets in the Indian Ocean in 2012.
In Lakshadweep and Tamil Nadu, India, the most common net fisheries
(i.e., gill net, shore seine, anchor net and drag nets) are known to
incidentally catch green turtles (Tripathy et al., 2006; Bhupathy and
Saravanan, 2006).
[[Page 15306]]
Incidental capture of sea turtles in fishing nets (presumably in
gill nets or set nets) has been identified as the main cause of
mortality of juvenile green turtles within Iranian and the United Arab
Emirates foraging areas (Mobaraki, 2007; Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008).
In Qatar, entrapment of turtles in fishing nets has been identified as
a key source of mortality (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005).
ii. Trawl Fisheries
Shrimp trawling occurs in many countries throughout the range of
the North Indian DPS including Pakistan, India, Bahrain, and Saudi
Arabia. In Yemen, trawling is believed to be a significant threat to
sea turtles, mainly hawksbill and greens; however, no data are
available (Bourjea et al., 2008). Pakistan and India require the use of
TEDs to meet the requirements of U.S. Public Law 101-162, section 609
for exporting shrimp to the United States, but the level of compliance
is unclear (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. obs. 2013). Nowhere else within
the range of the North Indian DPS are TEDs being used and it can be
assumed that significant sea turtle bycatch occurs. One documented
assessment of the impact of trawling on sea turtles in this region is
from Bahrain where trawls were reported to capture over 300 sea turtles
annually, mostly greens (Abdulqader and Miller, 2012; Abdulqader,
2010).
b. Vessel Strikes
Boat strikes have been identified as a major cause of sea turtle
mortality in the United Arab Emirates (Al-Abdessalaam et al., 2008) and
Qatar (Al-Muraikhi et al., 2005). Boat strikes of sea turtles also have
been identified as a regular occurrence in Iran and seem to be
increasing in some areas (Mobaraki, 2011). Boat strikes are undoubtedly
a regular occurrence throughout the Arabian Gulf and other important
green turtle foraging grounds within the range of the North Indian DPS
and, cumulatively, are likely significant, but quantification is
lacking.
c. Beach Driving
Beach driving by fishers who haul and launch boats from Ras al Jinz
beach in Oman is highly problematic, and hatchling turtles are likely
being caught in ruts, struck or run over. However, no assessment has
been conducted to determine the extent of impacts on nesting turtles
and hatchlings (E. Possardt, USFWS, pers. comm., 2013).
d. Pollution
Pollution has been identified as a main threat to sea turtles in
Iran (Mobaraki, 2007) and Pakistan (Firdous, 2001); however, no
specific information about the type of pollution was provided. In Sri
Lanka, Kapurusinghe (Kapurusinghe, 2006) stated that polluted inland
water flows into Beira Lake and subsequently the sea, and that garbage,
including polythene and plastics, dumped on beaches in some areas is
washed into the sea, where it can be lethal to sea turtles. In Gujarat,
India, the increase in ports and shipping traffic results in problems
from oil spills, garbage, and other pollutants such as fertilizers and
cement (Surderraj et al., 2006).
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Similar to other areas of the world, climate change and sea level
rise have the potential to affect green turtles in the North Indian
DPS. Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise
in sea level, which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat. In addition, cyclones such as those occurring in consecutive
years in 1998 and 1999 in Kachchch, India, cause severe erosion of the
nesting beach (Surderraj et al., 2006) and, when combined with the
effects of sea level rise, may have increased cumulative impacts in the
future. While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch (longline, gill net,
and trawl fishing) occurs throughout the range of the DPS and is a
significant threat to this DPS. In addition, pollution, vessel strikes,
climate change and natural disasters are expected to be an increasing
threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the North Indian DPS
In 2012, the IOTC began requiring its 31 contracting Parties to
report sea turtle bycatch and to use safe handling and release
techniques for sea turtles on longline vessels. The IOTC and IOSEA also
recently completed an ``Ecological Risk Assessment and Productivity--
Susceptibility Analysis of sea turtles overlapping with fisheries in
the IOTC region.'' One conclusion was that green turtles account for 50
88 percent of artisanal and commercial gill nets bycatch. Two methods
of estimating total bycatch were used, and resulted in an annual gill
net bycatch estimate of 29,488 sea turtles within the IOTC region.
While conservation efforts for the North Indian DPS are extensive
and expanding, they still remain inadequate to ensure the long-term
viability of the population. Efforts have been largely focused on the
nesting beaches, and there are only recent efforts underway to
understand the extent of green turtle interactions with gill nets and
trawlers and the resulting cumulative effects from bycatch--one of the
major threats to this DPS. Concerted efforts to identify and protected
critical foraging grounds is also lacking.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the North Indian DPS
The North Indian DPS has a high level of green turtle nesting
abundance with two of the largest nesting assemblages of green turtles
in the world nesting in Yemen and Oman. The North Indian DPS also has
expansive, largely undeveloped nesting beaches, and many of these
beaches are protected from development as nationally designated
reserves or protected areas, although threats still remain. The North
Indian DPS also features extensive coastal seagrass beds distributed
throughout the region, which provide abundant foraging grounds for this
species. Nesting beaches are distributed broadly throughout the region.
Coastal development, beachfront lighting, fishing practices, and
marine pollution at nesting beaches and important foraging grounds are
continuing concerns across the DPS. Current illegal harvest of green
turtles and eggs for human consumption is a continuing but limited
threat to this DPS. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the North Indian
DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from gill nets and
trawl fisheries, and the cumulative mortality from these fisheries is
probably the greatest threat to this DPS. Additional threats from boat
strikes, which are becoming more common, and expected impacts of
climate change, will negatively affect this DPS.
Conservation efforts are substantial but uneven in the range of the
North Indian DPS and focused almost entirely on nesting beaches. The
ability for some countries to sustain or develop needed
[[Page 15307]]
conservation programs in the context of political instability within
the region is of concern. Further, our analysis did not consider the
scenario in which current laws or regulatory mechanisms were not
continued. Given the conservation dependence of the species, without
mechanisms in place to continue conservation efforts in this DPS, some
threats could increase and population trends could be affected.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the North Indian DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance in protected areas;
however, the continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within
the foreseeable future.
XII. East Indian-West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS
The western boundary for the range of the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS is 84[deg] E. longitude from 40[deg] S. to where it coincides with
India near Odisha, northeast along the shoreline and into the West
Pacific Ocean to include Taiwan extending east at 41[deg] N. to
146[deg] E. longitude, south and west to 4.5[deg] N., 129[deg] E., then
south and east to West Papua in Indonesia and the Torres Straits in
Australia. The southern boundary is 40[deg] S. latitude, encompassing
the Gulf of Carpentaria (Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed throughout the range of
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, with important nesting sites
occurring in Northern Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak
Turtle Islands), Peninsular Malaysia, and the Philippine Turtle
Islands. The in-water range of the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is
similarly widespread with shared foraging sites throughout the range of
the DPS. The largest nesting site lies within Northern Australia, which
supports approximately 25,000 nesting females (Limpus, 2009).
Nonetheless, populations are substantially depleted from historical
levels.
There are 58 known nesting sites, although we note that the nesting
female estimates for many of these sites are over a decade old. The
largest, Wellesley Group, lies in northern Australia and supports
approximately 25,000 nesting females (EPA Queensland Turtle
Conservation Project unpublished data cited in Limpus, 2009). Five
sites have 5,001-10,000 nesting females: Bilang-Bilangan, Indonesia
(7,156; Reischig et al., 2012); Sabah Turtle Island Park, Malaysia
(7,011; de Silva, 1982; Basintal, 2002; P. Bastinal pers. comm., 2011);
Ningaloo, North West Cape, Australia (6,269; Prince, 2003; Markovina,
2008; Bool et al., 2009; Gourlay et al., 2010; Kelliher et al., 2011);
Baguan Island, Philippines (5,874; Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013);
and Pangumbahan, Indonesia (5,199; Muhara and Herlina, 2012). Seven
sites have 1,001-5,000 nesting females: Sangalaki (2,740; Reischig et
al., 2012), Enu (2,048; Dethmers, 2010), Mataha (1,652; Reischig et
al., 2012), and Belambangan Island, Indonesia (1,736; Dermawan, 2002);
Terranganu (1,875; Chan, 2010) and Sarawak Turtle Island, Malaysia
(1,155; Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989; Chan 2006; Chan, 2010); and
Lihiman, Philippines (1,217; Pawikan Conservation Project, 2013). Eight
sites have 501-1,000 nesting females, 30 have <500 nesting females, and
seven are unquantified.
Green turtle populations within the range of the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS have experienced apparent declines at some nesting sites,
and increases at others in the past several decades. For instance, in
Southeast Asia, data suggest that populations have declined in the Gulf
of Thailand, Vietnam, and the Berau Islands, Meru Betiri National Park,
Pangumbahan, Thamihla Kyun, and perhaps Enu Island, all in Indonesia,
although the lack of recent and/or multiple year data prevents an
assessment of the current trends at these sites. At Sipadan, Sarawak
and Terengganu in Malaysia, nesting appears to be stable, although
Terengganu might be decreasing. Nesting has remained stable in the
Philippine Turtle Islands and may have increased at the Sabah Turtle
Islands, Malaysia. In Western Australia, data are not sufficient to
draw any conclusions regarding long-term trends, although these sites,
together with the Wellesley Group in Northern Australia (the largest
nesting site), may constitute the most important green turtle nesting
concentration in the Indian Ocean.
When examining spatial structure for the East Indian-West Pacific
DPS, the SRT examined three lines of evidence: genetic data, flipper
and satellite tagging, and demographic data. Genetic sampling in the
East Indian-West Pacific DPS has occurred at 22 nesting sites. There
appears to be a complex population structure, even though there are
gaps in sampling relative to distribution. Overall, this region is
dominated by a few common and widespread haplotypes and has varying
levels of spatial structure characterized by the presence of rare/
unique haplotypes at most nesting sites. There is significant
population substructuring.
Tagging and tracking studies have been geared to studying
internesting migrations, and defining the range of internesting
habitats and post-nesting migrations. Green turtles that were satellite
tracked from Pulau Redang, Terengganu indicate migrations to the South
China Sea and Sulu Sea areas (Liew, 2002). Cheng (2000) reported
movements of eight post-nesting green turtles from Wan-An Island,
Taiwan that were satellite tracked, and which distributed widely on the
continental shelf to the east of mainland China. Satellite telemetry
studies conducted from 2000 to 2003 demonstrated that the green turtles
nesting at Taipin Tao are a shared natural resource among the nations
in the southern South China Sea. Female green turtles tracked in the
same area travelled long distances in a post-nesting migration, ending
in the Sulu Sea in the Philippines and the Malaysia Peninsula with
distances that ranged from 456 to 2,823 km (Charuchinda et al., 2002)
and in the coastal region of Japan (Wang, 2006). Waayers and
Fitzpatrick (2013) found that in the Kimberly region of Australia, the
green turtle appears to have a broad migration distribution and
numerous potential foraging areas.
Mixed stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that green turtles
from multiple nesting beach origins commonly mix at feeding areas in
foraging grounds across northern Australia (Dethmers et al., 2010) and
Malaysia (Jensen, 2010) with higher contributions from nearby large
nesting sites. There is evidence of low frequency contribution from
nesting sites outside the range of the DPS at some foraging areas.
The demography of green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
varies throughout the nesting assemblages. This variation in parameters
such as mean nesting size, remigration interval, internesting interval,
clutch size, hatching success, and clutch frequency suggests a high
level of population structuring in this DPS.
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting and foraging areas
are widespread within the range of this DPS, providing a level of
population resilience through habitat diversity. The nesting season
varies throughout the range of the DPS, with nesting from June to
August in the inner Gulf of Thailand, peak nesting from March to July
on Derawan Island (Charuchinda and Monanunsap, 1998; Abe et al., 2003;
Aureggi et al., 2004; Adnyana et al., 2008), year-round nesting in
Thameela Island, Myanmar and Aru, Indonesia (although peaking from
November to March; (Dethmers, 2010; Lwin, 2009),
[[Page 15308]]
and peak nesting from November to March in Aru, Indonesia (Dethmers,
2010), Sukamade, southeastern Java (Arinal, 1997), Barrow Island, and
western Australia (Pendoley, 2005). Nesting occurs on both insular and
continental sites, yielding a degree of nesting diversity. Limited
information also suggests that there are two types of nesting females
within the DPS: Those with high site fidelity which nest regularly at
one site, such as the Sabah Turtle Islands; and those with low site
fidelity such as at Ishigaki Island which select different nesting
sites allowing for increased diversity and resilience for the DPS
(Basintal, 2002; Abe et al., 2003).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, the majority of green turtle
nesting beaches are extensively eroded. Nesting habitat is degraded due
to a variety of human activities largely related to tourism. Coastal
development and associated artificial lighting, sand mining, and marine
debris affect the amount and quality of habitat that is available to
nesting green turtles. However, there are sanctuaries and parks
throughout the region where nests are protected to various degrees.
Most of the beaches in Vietnam have a large amount of marine
debris, which includes glass, plastics, polystyrenes, floats, nets, and
light bulbs. This debris can entrap turtles and impede nesting
activity.
In Australia, the majority of green turtle nesting along the
beaches of the Gulf of Carpentaria occurs outside of the protection of
the National Park. Other minor nesting sites lie within the protected
lands of the Indigenous Protected Areas (Limpus, 2009). In Western
Australia, the impacts to nesting and hatchling green turtles by
independent turtle watchers as well as off-road vehicles has increased
in the Ningaloo region as the number of visitors has increased over the
years (Waayers, 2010). Nesting turtles and hatchlings are routinely
disturbed by people with their cars and flashlights (Kelliher et al.,
2011). Burn-off flares associated with oil and gas production on the
Northwest shelf of Australia are in sufficiently close proximity to the
green turtle nesting beaches to possibly cause hatchling disorientation
(Pendoley, 2000)
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Green turtles forage in the seagrass beds around the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands in India. Some of these seagrass beds in the South
Andaman group are no longer viable foraging habitat because of
siltation and degradation due to waste disposal, a byproduct of the
rapid increase in tourism (Andrews, 2000). Green turtles that forage
off the waters of the Bay of Bengal in south Bangladesh also face
depleted foraging habitat from divers collecting seagrass for
commercial purposes and by anchoring of commercial ships, ferries, and
boats in this habitat (Sarkar, 2001). In the nearshore waters of
Thailand, seagrass beds are partially protected since fishing gear such
as trawls are prohibited (Charuchinda et al., 2002). In the waters
surrounding the islands of Togean and Banggai in Indonesia, the use of
dynamite and potassium cyanide are common, and this type of fishing
method destroys green turtle foraging habitat (Surjadi and Anwar,
2001).
Seagrass beds are found throughout the nearshore areas of Vietnam's
mainland coast and islands (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003). Destructive
fishing practices have been and possibly continue to be a major threat
to this habitat in 21 of Vietnam's 29 provinces (Asia Development Bank,
1999 as cited in the Ministry of Fisheries, 2003) and in the waters of
Indonesia (Cruz, 2002; Dethmers, 2010). Although these destructive
fishing practices are prohibited by legislation passed in 1989,
enforcement may not be sufficient to prevent these practices from
occurring. Green turtle foraging habitat is under increased threat from
decreased water quality through river run-off and development (Ministry
of Fisheries, 2003).
In summary, within Factor A, we find that coastal development,
beachfront lighting, erosion resulting from sand mining, and sea level
rise, are a significant threat to a large portion of this DPS. The
extent of fishing practices, depleted seagrass beds, and marine
pollution is broad with high levels occurring in waters where high
numbers of green turtles are known to forage and migrate are
significant threats to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
The green turtle populations within this DPS have been declining
throughout their range. Populations throughout Asia have been depleted
by long-term harvests of eggs and adults, and by by-catch in the ever-
growing fisheries (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). On St. Martins Island,
Bangladesh, over-exploitation has brought the nesting turtles to near
extinction (Hasan, 2009). Nesting females continue to be killed in
countries within Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean (Fleming, 2001;
Fretey, 2001; Cruz, 2002). Despite substantial declines in green turtle
nesting numbers, egg harvest remains legal in several of the countries
within the range of this DPS. Some countries have protections in place;
however, harvest continues due to lack of enforcement.
In Myanmar and Thailand, hatcheries are set up to protect a portion
of the eggs. However, these hatcheries retain hatchlings for several
days for tourism purposes, thus reducing the likelihood of hatchling
survival (Charuchinda et al., 2002).
Turtle nesting numbers have decreased in peninsular Malaysia and
the Philippines due to more than 40 years of overharvesting of eggs and
females (Siow and Moll, 1982; de Silva, 1982; Limpus, 1995; Cruz,
2002). In order to provide some protection for turtles, all three Sabah
Turtle Islands were acquired and protected by the Sabah State
Government in the 1970s (de Silva, 1982). After more than 20 years of
conservation efforts (1970-1990), the population had still not shown
signs of recovery (Limpus et al., 2001).
Local islanders in Indonesia have traditionally considered turtles,
especially green turtles, as part of their diet (Hitipeuw and Pet-
Soede, 2004 as cited in FAO, 2004). Illegal egg harvesting continues,
but there is an increased effort to fully protect green turtles from
harvest on the islands of Bilang-Bilangan and Mataha in Indonesia
(Reischig et al., 2012).
Despite legal protections for sea turtles, at-sea poaching of
turtles is a continuing problem in Southeast Asia, especially by
Hainanese and Vietnamese vessels. The poaching occurs in a wide-ranging
area of the region, and has moved as turtle stocks have been depleted,
with vessels being apprehended off Malaysia, Indonesia, and the
Philippines (Pilcher et al., 2009 as cited in Lam et al., 2011).
In Australia, green turtles are harvested by Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders for subsistence purposes. There is a widespread use of
motorized aluminum boats in contrast to the traditional dugout canoes
powered by paddles or sail. The total harvest of green turtles by
indigenous people across northern and Western Australia is probably
several thousand annually (Kowarsky, 1982; Henry and Lyle, 2003 as
cited in Limpus, 2009).
[[Page 15309]]
The indigenous harvest of eggs may be unsustainable in northeast Arnhem
Land (Kennett and Yunupingu, 1998).
Current legal and illegal collection of eggs and harvest of turtles
occur throughout the East Indian-West Pacific DPS and persists as a
significant threat to this DPS. The harvest of nesting females
continues to threaten the stability of green turtle populations in many
areas affecting the DPS by reducing adult abundance and reducing egg
production.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP has been found in green turtles in Indonesia (Adnyana et al.,
1997), Japan (Y. Matsuzawa, Japanese Sea Turtle Association, pers.
comm., 2004), the Philippines (Nalo-Ochona, 2000), Western Australia
(Raidal and Prince, 1996; Aguirre and Lutz, 2004), and on PhuQuoc in
Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003). Epidemiological studies indicate
rising incidence of this disease (George, 1997), thus the above list
will likely grow in the future.
The best available data suggest that current nest and hatchling
predation on the East Indian-West Pacific DPS is prevalent and may be
an increasing threat without nest protection and predatory control
programs in place. Depredation of nests by feral animals is also
widespread in many South Asian areas (Sunderraj et al., 2001; Islam,
2002). Nest predation by feral pigs and dogs is a major threat on the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India (Fatima et al., 2011). Monitor
lizards are also a significant and widespread predator in some areas
(Andrews et al., 2006). Dog predation is a major threat to the green
turtle nests on Sonadia Island in Bangladesh (Islam et al., 2011).
Jackals, foxes, wild boars, and monitor lizards also predate green
turtle nests and hatchlings along the beaches of Bangladesh, and dogs
also kill or injure nesting females in Bangladesh (Andrews et al.,
2006). Lizards and ghost crabs are the natural predators of green
turtle nests in Thailand (Chantrapornsyl, 1993). In Malaysia, crabs
(Ocypode spp.) predate green turtle eggs (Ali and Ibrahim, 2000), and
gold-ringed cat snakes or mangrove snakes (Boigadendrophila), (Asiatic)
reticulated pythons (Python reticulatus), monitor lizards (Varanus
sp.), and house mice (Mus musculus) predate hatchlings (Hendrickson,
1958). Monitor lizards, crabs, and ants predate eggs and hatchlings on
the beaches of Vietnam (as cited in ``Sea Turtle Migration-Tracking and
Coastal Habitat Education Program--An Educator's Guide'' http://www.ioseaturtles.org/Education/seaturtlebooklet.pdf). In Japan, raccoon
dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and weasels (Mustela itatsi) are a
threat to nests (Kamezaki et al., 2003). In Taiwan, snakes predate the
nests (Cheng et al., 2009). 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 historically 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; Kelliher
et al., 2011).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting beaches and
marine habitat are underway, more widespread and consistent protection
is needed. There are at least 16 national and international treaties
and/or regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS. The analysis of these existing regulatory mechanisms
assumed that all would remain in place at their current levels. The
following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Australia,
Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and
Vietnam. In addition, at least 17 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the
East Indian-West Pacific DPS. However, some regulatory mechanisms,
including laws and international treaties, are not realizing their full
potential because they are not enforced, or do not apply in all
countries occupied by the DPS.
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS
that address the direct capture of green turtles for most of the
countries within this DPS. These are implemented to various degrees
throughout the range of the DPS. There are some national regulations
within this DPS that specially address the harvest of green turtles,
while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to certain
size classes, or times of year, or allowed for traditional use.
Fishery bycatch throughout the range of the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS (see Factor E), as well as anthropogenic threats to nesting
beaches and foraging grounds (Factor A) and eggs/turtles and foraging
(Factors A, B, C, and E), are substantial. Although national and
international governmental and non-governmental entities in the East
Indian-West Pacific DPS are currently working toward reducing green
turtle bycatch as well as egg and turtle harvest, it is unlikely that
this source of mortality can be sufficiently reduced across the range
of the DPS in the near future. This is due to 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. Beaches and in-water habitat throughout
the range of the DPS are under various levels of protection, depending
in part on the clarity of regulations and consistency of funding for
enforcement.
In summary, although regulatory mechanisms are in place that should
address direct and incidental take of green turtles within this DPS,
these regulatory mechanisms are not implemented throughout the range of
this DPS. These mechanisms are not sufficiently implemented to address
the direct harvest of green turtles and are insufficient to address the
major threat of bycatch which remains a significant risk to this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green turtles in the East Indian-
West Pacific DPS. Green turtles may be caught in drift and set gill
nets, bottom and mid-water trawling, fishing dredges, pound nets and
weirs, and haul and purse seines.
Bycatch in fisheries using gears such as trawlers, drift nets, and
purse seines is thought to be one of the main causes of decline in the
green turtle population in Thailand and Malaysia. The rapid expansion
of fishing operations is largely responsible for the increase in adult
turtle mortality due to bycatch (Settle, 1995). The most used fishing
gears in the waters of Thailand are trawling and drift gill nets. Heavy
fishing is the main threat to foraging sea turtles (Chan et al., 1988;
Chantrapornsyl, 1993; Liew, 2002).
Gill nets and set bag nets are the two major fishing gears used in
the Bay of Bengal, and green turtles are likely captured during these
fishing operations (Hossain and Hoq, 2010). Along the
[[Page 15310]]
coast of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the main type of fishery is gill
nets and purse seines with thousands of turtles killed annually by
fisheries operations including the shark fishery (Chandi et al., 2012;
Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). In 1994, Bhaskar estimated at least 600
green turtles were killed as a result of the shark fishery in this
area. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the large
predator fishing industry. Green turtle mortality can be expected to be
much higher than that estimated in the 1990s as a result of these
current operations (Namboothri et al., 2012).
Trawl fishing is also common in Bangladesh. No green turtle
stranding information is available to determine the fishery threat
level to the green turtle population; however, it is expected to be
high as TEDs are not used and the population has declined (Ahmed et
al., 2006; Khan et al., 2006). On the Turtle Islands in the
Philippines, there have been an increased number of dead turtles as a
result of fishing activities, such as shrimp trawlers and demersal nets
(Cruz, 2002).
One of the main threats to green turtles in Vietnam and Indonesia
is the incidental capture from gill and trawl nets and the
opportunistic capture by fishers. Hundreds of green turtles are
captured by fisheries per year in Vietnam (Ministry of Fisheries, 2003;
Hamann et al., 2006a; Dethmers, 2010).
In Indonesia, green turtles were recorded as one of the main
species caught in the longline fisheries. Trawl gear is still allowed
in the Arafura Sea, posing a major threat to green turtles (Dethmers,
2010). Shrimp trawl captures in Indonesia are high because of the
limited use of TEDs (Zainudin et al., 2008).
The estimated bycatch of the Japanese large-mesh drift net fishery
in the North Pacific Ocean in 1990-1991 was 1,501 turtles, of which 248
were estimated to be green turtles (Wetherall et al., 1993). Wetherall
et al. (1993) report that the actual mortality of sea turtles taken in
the Japanese and Taiwanese large-mesh fisheries may have been between
2,500 and 9,000 per year.
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Pollution from oil spills, as well as from agricultural and organic
chemicals, is a major threat to the waters used by green turtles in the
Bay of Bengal (Sarkar, 2001). The result of human population growth in
China has been an increased amount of pollutants in the coastal system.
Discharges from untreated sewage have occurred in Xisha Archipelago (Li
et al., 2004 as cited in Chan et al., 2007). Concentrations of nine
heavy metals (iron, manganese, zinc, copper, lead, nickel, cadmium,
cobalt, and mercury) and other trace elements were found in liver,
kidney, and muscle tissues of green turtles collected from Yaeyama
Islands, Okinawa, Japan (Anan et al., 2001). The accumulation of
cadmium found in the green turtles is likely due to accumulations of
this heavy metal in the plant materials on which they forage (Sakai et
al., 2000).
In the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, discarded fishing nets have
been found to cause a high number of turtle deaths with the majority
being green turtles (Chatto et al., 1995).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Effects of climate change include, among other things, increased
sea surface temperatures, the alteration of thermal sand
characteristics of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could
result in the reduction or cessation of male hatchling production
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise
in sea level, which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting
habitat. While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
Natural environmental events, such as cyclones and hurricanes, may
affect green turtles in the East Indian-West Pacific DPS. Typhoons have
been shown to cause severe beach erosion and negatively affect hatching
success at green turtle nesting beaches in Japan, especially in areas
already prone to erosion.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch,
particularly from drift net and purse seine fisheries, occur throughout
the East Indian-West Pacific DPS, with localized high levels of
mortality in waters where juvenile to adult turtles are known to forage
and migrate are a persistent risk to this DPS. In addition, vessel
collisions, marine pollution, changes likely to result from climate
change, and natural disasters are expected to be an increasing threat
to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Indian-West Pacific DPS
There are numerous ongoing conservation efforts in this region.
Hatcheries have been set up throughout the region to protect a portion
of the eggs laid and prevent complete egg harvesting. In addition,
bycatch reduction efforts have been made in some areas, protected areas
are established throughout the region, and monitoring, outreach and
enforcement efforts have made progress in sea turtle conservation.
Despite 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.
In India, since 1978, the Centre for Herpetology/Madras Crocodile
Bank Trust has conducted sea turtle surveys and studies in the islands.
In a bilateral agreement, the Governments of the Philippines and
Malaysia established The Turtle Island Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA),
made up of nine islands (six in the Philippines and three in Malaysia).
The TIHPA is one of the world's major nesting grounds for green
turtles. Management of the TIHPA is shared by both countries. One of
the 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 green turtles and their eggs. Conservation efforts on nesting
beaches have included invasive predator control.
Illegal trade of turtle parts continues to be a problem in the East
Indian-West Pacific DPS. In order to reduce this threat, the Vietnamese
Government, with assistance from IUCN, WWF, TRAFFIC and the Danish
Government, formulated a Marine Turtle Conservation Action Plan in 2010
to expand awareness to fishers and enforcement officers, and to
confiscate sea turtle products (Stiles, 2009; Ministry of Fisheries
2010). The level of effectiveness and progress of this program is not
known.
TEDs are now in use in Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Indonesia and Brunei, expanded by initiatives of the South East Asian
Fisheries Development Center (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2004). In 2000, the use of TEDs in the Northern
Australian Prawn Fishery was made mandatory. Prior to the use of TEDs,
this fishery took between 5,000 and 6,000 sea turtles as bycatch
annually, 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 Northern
[[Page 15311]]
Australian Prawn Fishery has dropped to fewer 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
assessments.
As in other DPSs, persistent marine debris poses entanglement and
ingestion hazards to green turtles. 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 (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4-914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-threat-abatement-plan.pdf).
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS
The East Indian-West Pacific DPS is characterized by a relatively
large geographic area with widespread nesting reported in 58 different
locations throughout the range of the DPS. Although the numerous
nesting sites have relatively high abundance of nesting females,
decades of harvesting and habitat degradation have led to a drastic
decline in the sea turtle populations within this DPS in the last
century. Population trends at many of the higher abundance rookeries
are decreasing, though there appears to be an increasing trend on Sabah
in Malaysia and on Baguan in the Philippines, presumably due to
effective conservation efforts.
Continued harvest, coastal development, beachfront lighting,
erosion, fishing practices, and marine pollution both at nesting
beaches and important foraging grounds are all continuing concerns
across the range of the DPS. Harvest of turtles and eggs for human
consumption continues as a high threat to this East Indian-West Pacific
DPS. Coastal development, largely due to tourism, is an increasing
threat in many areas. Fishery bycatch occurs throughout the range of
the DPS, particularly bycatch mortality of green turtles from pelagic
longline, set net, and trawl fisheries. Additional threats due to
climate change, such as loss of habitat due to sea level rise and
increased ratio of female to male turtles, negatively impact this DPS.
Conservation efforts have been effective in a few areas but are lacking
or not effective in most.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the East Indian-West
Pacific DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of
extinction presently because of high nesting abundance and
geographically widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the
continued threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
XIII. Central West Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central West Pacific DPS
The range of the Central West Pacific DPS has a northern boundary
of 41[deg] N. latitude and is bounded by 41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in the
northeast corner, going southeast to 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W., then
southwest to 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E., west and slightly north to the
eastern tip of Papua New Guinea, along the northern shore of the Island
of New Guinea to West Papua in Indonesia, northwest to 4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. then to West Papua in Indonesia, then north to 41[deg] N.,
146[deg] E. It encompasses the Republic of Palau (Palau), FSM, New
Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam, the CNMI, and a
portion of Japan (Ogasawara; Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting occurs at low levels throughout the geographic
distribution of the DPS (approximately 51 sites), with isolated
locations having higher nesting activity. Only two populations are
known to have >1,000 nesting turtles, with all the rest having fewer
than 400 nesting females, for a total number of known nesting females
of approximately 6,500. The highest numbers of females nesting in this
DPS are located in Gielop and Iar Island, Ulithi Atoll, Yap, Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM; 1,412) or 22 percent of the population
2013); Chichijima (1,301) and Hahajima (394), Ogasawara, Japan; Bikar
Atoll, Marshall Islands (300); and Merir Island, Palau (441; (NMFS and
USFWS, 1998; Bureau of Marine Resources, 2005; Barr, 2006; Palau Bureau
of Marine Resources, 2008; Maison et al., 2010; H. Suganuma,
Everlasting Nature of Asia, pers. comm., 2012; J. Cruce, Ocean Society,
pers. comm., 2013). There are numerous other populations in the FSM,
Solomon Islands, Palau, Guam, and the CNMI. Historical baseline nesting
information in general is not widely available in this region, but
exploitation and trade of green turtles throughout the region is well-
known (Groombridge and Luxmoore, 1989).
Green turtles departing nesting grounds within the range of this
DPS travel throughout the western Pacific Ocean. Green turtles are
found in coastal waters in low to moderate densities at foraging areas
throughout the range of the DPS. Aerial sea turtle surveys show that an
in-water population exists around Guam (Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources, 2011). In-water green turtle density in the
Marianas Archipelago is low and mostly restricted to juveniles (Pultz
et al., 1999; Kolinski et al., 2005; Kolinski et al., 2006; Palacios,
2012a). In-water information in this DPS overall is particularly
limited.
There is insufficient long-term and standardized monitoring
information to adequately describe abundance and population trends for
many areas of the Central West Pacific DPS. The available information
suggests a nesting population decrease in some portions of the DPS like
the Marshall Islands, or unknown trends in other areas such as Palau,
Papua New Guinea, the Marianas, Solomon Islands, or the FSM (Maison et
al., 2010). There is only one site for which 15 or more years of recent
data are available for annual nesting female abundance, one of the
standards for performing a PVA. This is at Chichijima, Japan, one of
the major green turtle nesting concentrations in Japan (Horikoshi et
al.,1994). Although the PVA has limitations, it shows a continuing
upward trend for the population. The population has increased in
abundance from a mean of approximately 100 annual nesting females in
the late 1970s/early 1980s to a mean of approximately 500 annual
nesting females since 2000. Chaloupka et al. (2008a) reports an
estimated annual population growth rate of 6.8 percent per year for the
Chichijima nesting site.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central
West Pacific has recently improved, but remains challenging given the
large number of small islands and atoll nesting sites. Stock structure
analysis indicated that nesting sites separated by more than 1,000 km
were significantly differentiated from each other while neighboring
nesting sites within 500 km showed no genetic differentiation (Dutton
et al., 2014). Based on mtDNA analyses, there are four independent
stocks within the DPS (Dethmers et al. 2006; Jensen 2010; Dutton et al.
2014).
With respect to tagging and telemetry, there are records of turtles
flipper tagged in the Philippines nesting in the FSM; a turtle tagged
in Japan was recorded nesting in the FSM; turtles tagged in the Japan
Archipelago and China were recorded nesting in the Ogasawara islands
(Suganuma, pers. comm., Ogasawara Marine Center, Everlasting Nature of
Asia, unpublished data); and turtles tagged in the FSM were recaptured
in the Philippines, Marshall
[[Page 15312]]
Islands, and Papua New Guinea (Palau BMR, 2008; Cruce, 2009). Satellite
telemetry shows that nesting females migrate to areas both within and
outside of the range of the Central West Pacific DPS. For example,
satellite tracks show turtles moving from the Mariana Islands to the
Philippines and Japan, and others moving from the Chichijima Islands of
Ogasawara to the main islands of Japan (Hatase et al., 2006; Japan
Fisheries Resource Conservation Association, 1999). Green turtles have
also been shown to move from the FSM to the Philippines and to the west
(G. Balazs, NMFS, unpublished data; Kolinski, et al., unpublished
data.)
Demographic data availability is limited and somewhat variable for
many nesting sites in the range of this DPS. Variability in parameters
such as remigration interval, clutch size, hatching success, and clutch
frequency is not separated out regionally within the DPS and,
therefore, does not necessarily suggest a high level of population
structuring.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the overall range of the
DPS is relatively widespread, which lends some resilience. However,
nesting generally occurs at what appear to be low numbers, except in
several locations, and only on islands and atolls throughout the range
of the DPS. Nesting information is limited for some areas, but occurs
from November to August in Palau; from March through September in the
FSM; and May to August in Ogasawara, Japan. Some turtles travel outside
the bounds of the range of this DPS, into the East Indian/West Pacific
DPS presumably to forage.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central West Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In the Central West Pacific Ocean, some nesting beaches have become
severely degraded from a variety of activities. Destruction and
modification of green turtle nesting habitat results from coastal
development and construction, placement of barriers to nesting,
beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, sand extraction,
beach erosion, beach pollution, removal of native vegetation, and
presence of non-native vegetation.
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular
Pacific and this expansion is exerting increased pressure on limited
island resources. The most valuable land on most Pacific islands is
often located along the coastline, particularly when it is associated
with a sandy beach. For instance, construction (and associated
lighting) on the islands of Saipan, Tinian, and Rota in the CNMI, is
occurring at a rapid rate in some areas and is resulting in loss or
degradation of green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
In the FSM, construction of houses and pig pens on Oroluk beaches
in Pohnpei State interferes with turtle nesting by creating barriers to
nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Buden, 1999). Nesting habitat
destruction is also a major threat to Guam turtles and has resulted
mainly from construction and development due to increased tourism (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Project GloBAL, 2009a). Coastal construction is a
moderate problem on Majuro Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall
Islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998); however, it is unknown to what extent
nesting beaches are being affected. On the outer atolls of the Marshall
Islands, beach erosion has been aggravated by airfield and dock
development, and by urban development on Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls.
In the Republic of Palau, increasing nesting habitat degradation from
tourism and coastal development has been identified as a threat to sea
turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008; Isamu and Guilbeaux, 2002), although
the extent and significance of the impacts are unknown.
Also in the CNMI, the majority of the nesting beaches on Tinian are
on military-leased land, where the potential for construction impacts
exists (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Increased
public use of nesting beaches is a threat to sea turtle nesting habitat
throughout the CNMI. Public use of beaches includes a variety of
recreational activities, including picnicking, swimming, surfing,
playing sports, scuba diving and snorkeling access (CNMI Coastal
Resources Management Office, 2011). Beach driving is a pastime on
Saipan and could threaten green turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and USFWS,
1998; Palacios, 2012a; Wusstig, 2012).
Expected U.S. military expansion plans for this region are likely
to include relocation of thousands of military personnel to Guam and
increased training exercises in the CNMI (CNMI Coastal Resources
Management Office, 2011).
In the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, nighttime tourist and resident
activity on beaches to view and photograph nesting turtles is a
problem, resulting in harassment of nesting turtles and increased
aborted nesting attempts (Ishizaki et al., 2011).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Fishing methods not only incidentally capture green turtles and
destroy bottom habitat (including seagrasses) but may also deplete
invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter ecosystem dynamics.
Dynamite fishing occurs in the FSM (NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Government of
the Federated States of Micronesia, 2004) and the Marshall Islands (Hay
and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005). Dynamite fishing, as well as use of fish
poisons, occurs in Papua New Guinea, although these practices are small
scale and relatively isolated (Berdach and Mandeakali, 2004). Coral
reefs and seagrass beds within the urban centers of the four states of
the FSM (Pohnpei, Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae; NMFS and USFWS, 1998) and
Saipan have been reported as being degraded by hotels, golf courses,
and general tourist activities (Project GloBAL, 2009b), presumably as a
result of runoff and other impacts. Coastal development in Guam has
resulted in sedimentation, which has damaged Guam's coral reefs and,
presumably, food sources for turtles (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Coral
reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon shoreline of the Kwajalein
Atoll islands and Majuro Atoll have been degraded by coastal
construction, dredging, boat anchoring, and/or eutrophication from
sewage and runoff from landfills, grave sites, and pig and chicken pens
(NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005).
Dredging and filling as well as sand extraction have contributed to
changes to longshore processes and coastal erosion in the Marshall
Islands, FSM, Kiribati's Gilbert Islands chain, and Palau (Smith et
al., 1997; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Government of the Federated States of
Micronesia, 2004; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; Pacific News Center,
2012).
Marine pollution, including direct contamination and structural
habitat degradation, can affect green turtle neritic and oceanic
habitat. In Palau, environmental contamination in the form of sewage
effluent is a problem around Koror State, particularly Malakal Harbor,
and nearby urban areas (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). In the Solomon Islands,
sewage discharges from land and discharges of garbage, bilge water, and
other pollutants from ships have been identified as sources of
pollution to the coastal and marine environments (Solomon Islands
Ministry of Environment Conservation and Meteorology, 2008). Land-based
activities, including logging, plantation
[[Page 15313]]
development, and mining, often cause excessive sedimentation of
nearshore waters (Sulu et al., 2000).
Environmental contamination was identified as a minor problem in
the Marshall Islands in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS, 1998) and around Wake
Island (Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange,
undated). Rudrud et al. (2007) found that there is a high probability
of green turtles being exposed to toxicants remaining in the Marshall
Islands from past wars and weapons testing (e.g., foraging on algae
growing on toxic surfaces, resting near irradiated shipwrecks).
In summary, we find that the Central West Pacific DPS of the green
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. Destruction and modification
of green turtle nesting habitat resulting from coastal development and
construction, beachfront lighting, vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
beach erosion, and pollution are significant threats to the persistence
of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Directed take of eggs is a known ongoing problem in the Central
West Pacific in the CNMI, FSM, Guam, Kiribati (Gilbert Islands chain),
Papua, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, and Palau (Eckert, 1993;
Guilbeaux, 2001; Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002; Philip, 2002). In
addition to the collection of eggs from nesting beaches, the killing of
nesting females continues to threaten the stability of green turtle
populations. Ongoing harvest of nesting adults has been documented in
the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a), FSM (Cruce, 2009), Guam (Cummings, 2002),
Papua (Hitipeuw and Maturbongs, 2002), Papua New Guinea (Maison et al.,
2010), and Palau (Guilbeaux, 2001). Mortality of turtles in foraging
habitats is also problematic for recovery efforts. Ongoing intentional
capture of green turtles in their marine habitats has been documented
in southern and eastern Papua New Guinea (Limpus et al., 2002) and the
Solomon Islands (D. Broderick, 1998; Pita and Broderick, 2005).
Green turtles have long been harvested for their meat in the
Ogasawara Islands, and records show a rapid decline in the sea turtle
population between 1880 and 1920 (Horikoshi et al., 1994; Ishizaki,
2007). Currently, sea turtle harvest is strictly regulated with a
harvest limit of 135 mature turtles per year (Ishizaki, 2007).
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The potential effects of FP and endoparasites also exist for green
turtles found in the Central West Pacific Ocean, but the impacts to the
population are unknown.
The loss of eggs to non-human predators is a severe problem in some
areas. These predators include domestic animals, such as cats, dogs,
and pigs, as well as wild species such as rats, mongoose, birds,
monitor lizards, snakes, and crabs, ants, and other invertebrates
(Suganuma et al., 1996; NMFS and USFWS, 1998; Maturbongs, 2000;
Cummings, 2002; Wilson et al., 2004; Cruce, 2008).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regional and national legislation to conserve green turtles (often
all sea turtles) exists throughout the range of the DPS. National
protective legislation generally prohibits intentional killing,
harassment, possession, trade, or attempts at these; however, a lack of
or inadequate enforcement of these laws appears to be pervasive. The
following countries have laws to protect green turtles: CNMI, FSM,
Guam, Japan (Ogasawara Islands), Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru,
Palau, Papua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and United States
(Wake Island). In addition, at least 17 international treaties and/or
regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the
Central West Pacific DPS. These are implemented to various degrees
throughout the range of the DPS. There are some national regulations,
within this DPS, that specially address the harvest of green turtles
while a few regulations are limited in that they only apply to turtles
of certain sizes, times of years, or allow for harvest for tradition
use.
On December 12, 2008, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission issued a Conservation and Management Measure (2008-03;
https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2008-03/conservation-and-management-sea-turtles) to reduce sea turtle mortality during fishing operations,
collect and report information on fisheries interactions with turtles,
and encourage safe handling and resuscitation of turtles. This measure
requires purse seine vessels to avoid encircling turtles and to release
entangled turtles. It also requires longline vessels to use line
cutters and dehookers to release turtles. However, enforcement
mechanisms are not explicit, and the level of compliance is uncertain.
Additional regulatory mechanisms are not in place in many countries
within this DPS to address the major threat of bycatch within this DPS.
It is unlikely that bycatch 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 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. Although conservation efforts to protect some nesting
beaches are underway, more widespread and consistent protection would
speed recovery. Some regulatory mechanisms, including laws and
international treaties, are not realizing their full potential because
they are not enforced adequately, or do not apply in all countries
occupied by the DPS.
The Status Review revealed a lack of existing regulatory mechanisms
to address coastal development, pollution, sea level rise, and effects
of climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of
this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
threat to the survival of green turtles in the Central West Pacific.
Sea turtles may be caught in longline, pole and line, and purse seine
fisheries.
Within the Marshall Islands, Palau, the FSM, and the Solomon
Islands, a purse-seine fishery for tuna and a significant longline
fishery operate, and sea turtles have been captured in both fisheries
with green turtle mortality occurring (Oceanic Fisheries Programme,
2001; McCoy, 2003; Hay and Sablan-Zebedy, 2005; McCoy, 2007a; McCoy,
2007b; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 2008).
Numerous subsistence and small-scale commercial fishing operations
occur along Saipan's western coast and along both the Rota and Tinian
coasts (CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). Incidental
catch of turtles in Guam's coastal waters by commercial fishing vessels
likely also occurs (NMFS
[[Page 15314]]
and USFWS, 1998). In 2007, 222 fishing vessels (200 purse-seiners and
22 longliners) had access to Papua New Guinea waters (Kumoru, 2008).
Although no official reports have been released on sea turtle bycatch
within these fisheries (Project GloBAL, 2009c), sea turtle interactions
with both fisheries have been commonly observed (Kumoru, 2008).
However, the level of mortality is unknown.
b. Vessel Strikes
The impacts of vessel strikes in the Central West Pacific are
unknown, but not thought to be of great consequence, except possibly in
Palau where high speed skiffs constantly travel throughout the lagoon
south of the main islands (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). However, green
turtles have been documented as occasionally being hit by boats in Guam
(Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, 2012).
c. Pollution
In the FSM, debris is dumped freely and frequently off boats and
ships (including government ships). Landfill areas are practically
nonexistent in the outer islands and have not been addressed adequately
on Yap proper or on Chuuk and Pohnpei. The volume of imported goods
(including plastic and paper packaging) appears to be increasing (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998). In Palau, entanglement in abandoned fishing nets has
been identified as a threat to sea turtles (Eberdong and Klain, 2008).
In the Marshall Islands, debris and garbage disposal in coastal waters
is a serious problem on Majuro Atoll and Ebete Island (Kwajalein
Atoll), both of which have inadequate space, earth cover, and shore
protection for sanitary landfills. This problem also exists to a lesser
extent at Daliet Atoll (NMFS and USFWS, 1998).
A study of the gastrointestinal tracts of 36 slaughtered green
turtles in the Ogasawara Islands of Japan in 2001 revealed the presence
of marine debris (e.g., plastic bag pieces, plastic blocks,
monofilament lines, Styrofoam pieces) in the majority of the turtles
(Sako and Horikoshi, 2003).
d. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Over the long term, Central West Pacific turtle populations could
be affected by the alteration of thermal sand characteristics (from
global warming), resulting in the reduction or cessation of male
hatchling production (Cami[ntilde]as, 2004; Hawkes et al., 2009;
Kasparek et al., 2001; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Further, a
significant rise in sea level would restrict green turtle nesting
habitat in the Central West Pacific. Coastal erosion has been
identified as a high risk in the CNMI due to the existence of
concentrated human population centers near erosion-prone zones, coupled
with the potential increasing threat of erosion from sea level rise
(CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office, 2011). In the FSM, Yap
State's low coralline atolls are extremely vulnerable to rises in sea
levels and will be adversely affected if rises occur (NMFS and USFWS,
1998). These risks are high for all beaches in the Central West
Pacific. Interestingly, Barnett and Adger (2003) identified projected
increases in sea-surface temperature, and not sea level rise, as the
greatest long-term risk of climate change to atoll morphology and thus
to atoll countries like those in the Central West Pacific. They state
that coral reefs, which are essential to the formation and maintenance
of the islets located around the rim of an atoll, are highly sensitive
to sudden changes in sea-surface temperature. Thus, climate change
impacts could have profound long-term impacts on green turtle nesting
in the Central West Pacific, but it is not possible to project the
impacts at this point in time.
Natural environmental events such as cyclones and hurricanes may
affect green turtles in the Central West Pacific DPS. These storm
events have been shown to cause severe beach erosion with likely
negative effects on hatching success at many green turtle nesting
beaches, especially in areas already prone to erosion. Shoreline
erosion occurs naturally on many islands in the atolls of the Marshall
Islands due to storms, sea level rise from the El Ni[ntilde]o-Southern
Oscillation, and currents (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). Some erosion of
nesting beaches at Oroluk was reported in 1990 after passage of Typhoon
Owen (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). However, effects of these natural events
may be exacerbated by climate change. While sea turtles have survived
past eras that have included significant temperature fluctuations,
future climate change is expected to happen at unprecedented rates, and
if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may face local to widespread
extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts from global climate change
induced by human activities are likely to become more apparent in
future years (IPCC, 2007).
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch continues
to threaten this DPS. In addition, changes likely to result from
climate change and natural disasters are increasing threats to this
DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central West Pacific DPS
Very few areas that host important green turtle nesting or foraging
aggregations have been designated as protected areas within the Central
West Pacific. However, at least one country, Palau, has site-specific
conservation for sea turtle habitat protection. Two nationally mandated
protected areas, Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve and Ngerumekaol
Spawning Area, exist within Koror State, and restrictions are placed on
entry and fishing within established boundaries.
Marine debris is a problem on some green turtle nesting beaches and
foraging areas in the Central West Pacific, in particular on the
nesting beaches of the CNMI (Palacios, 2012a; 2012b) and in the
nearshore foraging areas of the FSM, Marshall Islands, and Palau (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Eberdong and Klain, 2008). Organized beach clean-ups
on some CMNI beaches have been conducted to help mitigate this impact
(Palacios, 2012b).
Overall, it appears that international and national laws to protect
green turtles may be insufficient or not implemented effectively to
address the needs of green turtles in the Central West Pacific. This
minimizes the potential success of existing conservation efforts.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central West Pacific
DPS
The Central West Pacific DPS is characterized by a relatively small
nesting population spread across a relatively expansive area roughly
2,500 miles wide (Palau to the Marshall Islands) and 2,500 miles long
(Ogasawara, Japan to the Solomon Islands). This DPS is dominated by
insular nesting. Fifty-one known nesting sites were analyzed, although
many had very old data (20-30 years old). Sixteen sites were identified
but numbers of nesting females were ``unquantified,'' and another 21
had fewer than 100 nesting females. Only two sites had more than 1,000
nesting females (1,412 and 1,301). Further study of this DPS would
improve our understanding of it.
The limited available information on trends suggests a nesting
population decrease in some areas, an increase in one Japanese nesting
site, and unknown trends in others. The second largest nesting site in
this DPS (Chichijima, Japan) shows positive growth. The dispersed
location of nesting sites and lack of concentration of nesting provides
a level of habitat diversity and population resilience which reduces
[[Page 15315]]
overall extinction risk, as does widely varied nesting seasons;
however, the contribution of this characteristic to such diversity and
resilience is reduced by the small size of many of these sites and the
threats faced in each of the nesting and foraging areas.
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular
Pacific and this expansion is accompanied by threats to green turtle
nesting habitat resulting from coastal development and construction,
beachfront lighting, degradation of waters and seagrass beds off of
populated areas, and sand extraction. Destructive fishing methods (use
of dynamite and poisons) not only incidentally capture green turtles,
but also deplete invertebrate and fish populations and thus alter
ecosystem dynamics. Fishery bycatch, particularly bycatch mortality of
green turtles from longline, pole and line, and purse seine fisheries,
continue as threats to this DPS. In addition, legal and illegal harvest
of green turtles and eggs for human consumption remains a significant
threat in many areas of this DPS. Finally, changes likely to result
from climate change and natural disasters could have profound long-term
impacts on green turtle nesting in the Central West Pacific.
Although regulatory mechanisms are in place that should address
direct and incidental take of Central West Pacific green turtles, these
regulatory mechanisms are insufficient or are not being implemented
effectively to address the population trajectories of green turtles.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central West Pacific
DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance and exposure to
increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its range.
XIV. Southwest Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters in the Southwest Pacific DPS
The range of the Southwest Pacific DPS extends from the western
boundary of Torres Strait, to the eastern tip of Papua New Guinea and
out to the offshore coordinate of 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E.; the eastern
boundary runs from this point southeast to 40[deg] S., 176[deg] E.; the
southern boundary runs along 40[deg] S. from 142[deg] E. to 176[deg]
E.; and the western boundary runs from 40[deg] S., 142[deg] E north to
Australian coast then follows the coast northward to Torres Strait
(Figure 2).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed throughout the Southwest
Pacific Ocean at 12 total nesting sites, although it should be noted
that, perhaps more so than in other DPSs, proximate nesting beaches
were grouped for analysis because nesting populations are small, with
the exception of a few sites, including Raine Island, where the
majority (>90 percent) of the nesting in the northern GBR occurs. While
it would be possible to split the nesting aggregations into more than
100 different sites, because many of the most recent estimates are
aggregated (Limpus, 2009), we followed this tendency and aggregated
nesting within broad regional areas. The bulk of this DPS nests within
Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and eastern Torres
Strait. The northern GBR and Torres Strait support some of the world's
highest concentrations of nesting (Chaloupka et al., 2008a). Nesting
abundance in the northern GBR is not directly counted throughout the
nesting season largely because of the remoteness of the site and the
sheer numbers of turtles that may nest on any given night. Raine
Island, with estimates of annual nesting females varying from 4,000-
89,000 (Seminoff et al., 2004; NMFS and U.S. FWS, 2007; Chaloupka et
al., 2008a; Limpus, 2009) (note the Status Review used an estimate of
25,000 nesting females), Moulter Cay, with 15,965 nesting females
(Limpus et al., 2003; Limpus, 2009), and the rest of the Capricorn
Bunker Group with 31,249 nesting females (Limpus, 2009) represent the
three sites with >10,000 nesting females. Heron Island is the index
nesting beach for the southern GBR, and nearly every nesting female on
Heron Island has been tagged since 1974 (Limpus and Nicholls, 2000).
Heron Island (4,891 nesting females; Chaloupka et al., 2008a; Limpus,
2009), Bramble Cay in the northern GBR (1,660; Limpus et al., 2003;
Limpus 2009), and Huon, Leleizour and Fabre in New Caledonia (1,777;
Limpus, 2009) represent the sites with 1,001-5,000 nesting females.
There are three sites with 501-1,000: The Coral Sea (all sites; 1,000;
Limpus, 2009), No. 8 Sandbank in northern GBR (637; Limpus et al.,
2003; Limpus 2009), and other northern GBR sites, including Murray
Islands, other outer islands, most inner shelf cays and the mainland
coast (535; Limpus 2009). Bamboo Bay in Vanuatu (165; MacKay and Petro,
2013) and No. 7 Sandbank in the northern GBR represent the two sites
with nesting females in the 101-500 category. The rest of the southern
GBR (represented here as one site) is unquantified.
The Raine Island and Heron Island sites both have high inter-annual
variability and slightly increasing linear trends. These were the only
two nesting areas for which 15 or more years of recent data are
available for annual nesting female abundance, one of the standards for
performing a PVA in the Status Review. Both show a continued increasing
trend, though the Raine Island PVA indicates that there is a 9.1
percent probability that this population will fall below the trend
reference point (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 years, and a 0.4
percent probability that it will fall below the absolute abundance
reference (100 females per year) at the end of 100 years. However,
extra caution must be used when interpreting results of the Raine
Island PVA, because it only represents females observed during one
sampling event on one night. The Heron Island PVA indicates that there
is a 17.5 percent probability that the magnitude of adult females
associated with Heron Island nesting will fall below the trend
reference point (50 percent decline) at the end of 100 years, and an
8.3 percent probability that this population will fall below the
absolute abundance reference (100 females per year) at the end of 100
years. It should be noted that PVA modeling has important limitations,
and does not fully incorporate other key elements critical to the
decision making process such as spatial structure or threats. It
assumes all environmental and anthropogenic pressures will remain
constant in the forecast period and it relies on nesting data alone.
Although long robust time series are not available for New
Caledonia, recent and historical accounts do not suggest a significant
decline in abundance of green turtles nesting in New Caledonia (Maison
et al., 2010). The trend at Vanuatu has not been documented (Maison et
al., 2010).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Southwest
Pacific DPS has been extensive for larger nesting sites along the GBR,
the Coral Sea, and New Caledonia; however, there are several smaller
nesting sites in this region that still need to be sampled (e.g.
Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Papua New Guinea). Within this
DPS, four regional genetic stocks have been identified in the Southwest
Pacific Ocean; northern GBR, southern GBR, Coral Sea (Dethmers et al.,
2006; Jensen, 2010), and New Caledonia (Dethmers et al., 2006; Dutton
et al., 2014). Mixed stock analysis of foraging grounds shows that
green turtles from multiple nesting beach origins commonly mix in
foraging grounds along the GBR and Torres Strait regions (Jensen,
2010), but with the vast majority originating from nesting sites within
the GBR. There is
[[Page 15316]]
evidence of low frequency contribution from nesting sites outside the
range of the DPS at some foraging areas.
With regard to diversity and resilience, nesting beach monitoring
along with flipper and satellite tagging show the spatial structure of
this DPS is largely consistent with viable populations. Nesting can
occur year-round in the most northerly nesting sites, but a distinct
peak occurs in late December to early January for all Australian
nesting sites. Foraging is widely dispersed throughout the range of
this DPS (Limpus, 2009). There are various factors that lead to
resilience in nesting in the Southwest Pacific DPS: it is widely
dispersed throughout the region, there is more than one major nesting
site, there is evidence of some connectivity between nesting sites
within each of the four regional stocks but no connectivity among
regional stocks, and there is continental and insular nesting. Nesting,
however, is not evenly distributed throughout the range of the DPS, and
some of the densest nesting occurs on Raine Island, which has habitat-
based threats.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Southwest Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Destruction and modification of green turtle nesting habitat in the
Southwest Pacific DPS result from beach erosion, beach pollution,
removal of native vegetation, and planting of non-native vegetation, as
well as natural environmental change (Limpus, 2009). Coastal
development and construction, placement of erosion control structures
and other barriers to nesting, and vehicular traffic minimally impact
green turtles in this DPS (Limpus, 2009). Artificial light levels have
increased significantly for green turtles in minor nesting sites of the
northern GBR and remained relatively constant for the mainland of
Australia (part of southern GBR) south of Gladstone (Kamrowski et al.,
2014). Most of the nests at the documented nesting sites within this
DPS occur within the protected habitat, but there is still concern
about the viability of nesting habitat (Limpus, 2009). Total
productivity is limited by reduced nesting and hatching success, which
at Raine Island appear to be depressed due to habitat issues. At Raine
Island, mean nesting success (i.e., probability that a clutch will be
laid when a turtle comes ashore for a nesting attempt) can be as low as
3.3 percent (Limpus et al., 2007). Reduced recruitment can be caused by
flooding of egg chambers by ground water, dry collapsing sand around
egg chambers, and underlying rock which prevents appropriately deep egg
chambers (Limpus et al., 2003). In the 1996 to 1997 breeding season,
for example, flooding of nests caused a near total loss of viable eggs,
and flooding has been a regular event in subsequent years (Limpus et
al., 2003; Limpus, 2009). Death of nesting females occurs on Raine
Island when they enter the elevated interior of the island due to
crowding on the beach and return along a different route, encountering
hazards such as small cliffs, over which they wander and roll onto
their backs. Nightly mortality ranges from 0 to over 70 per night and
is highest when nesting the previous night exceeds 1,000 (Limpus et
al., 2003). Understanding the root cause of changes to Raine Island
nesting habitat is challenging and is the aim of several Australian and
State Government research and monitoring projects. These habitat-based
threats (particularly related to hatchling production) constitute
serious threats to this DPS, given the large abundance of turtles
nesting in the northern GBR.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Threats to habitat in the neritic and/or oceanic zones in the
Southwest Pacific DPS include fishing practices, channel dredging, and
marine pollution, although the internesting habitat adjacent to the
nesting sites with the highest documented nesting levels in this DPS is
protected by the Great Barrier Reef Coastal Marine Park and the
adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Limpus, 2009). Protection for
marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area has been
increasing since the mid-1990s (Dryden et al., 2008).
In summary, we find that the Southwest Pacific DPS of the green
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. Groundwater intrusion on
high density beaches, artificial lighting, fishery practices, channel
dredging, and marine pollution are continual threats to the persistence
of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Southwest Pacific DPS turtles are vulnerable to harvest throughout
Australia and neighboring countries such as New Caledonia, Fiji,
Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia (Limpus, 2009). Cumulative
annual harvest of green turtles that nest in Australia may be in the
tens of thousands, and it appears likely that historical native harvest
may have been in the same order of magnitude (Limpus, 2009). The
Australian Native Title Act (1993) gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders a legal right to hunt sea turtles in Australia for
traditional, communal, non-commercial purposes (Limpus, 2009). Although
indigenous groups, governments, wildlife managers and scientists work
together with the aim of sustainably managing turtle resources (Maison
et al., 2010 citing K. Dobbs, Queensland Parks Authority, pers. comm.,
2010), traditional harvest remains a threat to green turtle
populations. However, quantitative data are not sufficient to assess
the degree of impact of harvest on the persistence of this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
Low levels of FP-associated turtle herpes virus is common in green
turtles in some but not all semi-enclosed waters like Moreton Bay and
Repulse Bay in Australia, more infrequent in nearshore open waters, and
rare in off-shore coral reef habitats (Limpus, 2009). Mortality and
recovery rates from this virus are not quantified but stranded,
infected turtles are regularly encountered in south Queensland (Limpus,
2009).
Primary hatchling and egg predators of this DPS include crabs,
birds, fish, and mammals. The magnitude of egg predation is not well
documented, but within Australia the highest levels of vertebrate
predation on eggs occur in other species, primarily loggerheads
(Environment Australia, 2003). In Vanuatu, nest predation by feral dogs
is a primary threat (Maison et al., 2010). Survivorship of hatchlings
in the southern GBR during the transition from nest to sea (accounting
for crab and bird predation) may be quite high (Limpus, 1971), but
survivorship of hatchlings as they transition across the reef flat from
the water's edge to deep water is likely considerably lower (Gyuris,
1994 as cited in Limpus, 2009). Similar survivorship estimates are not
available for the northern GBR, but survival during the nest to sea
transition is expected to be low and variable, depending on the
predator assemblage. Although many birds co-occur with sea turtle
hatchlings in the northern GBR, only some birds, like the rufous night
heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), are important predators (Limpus et al.,
2003). Terrestrial crabs that occur throughout the northern GBR have
been observed feeding on turtle hatchlings and eggs, but crabs are
generally of low density (Limpus et al., 2003). Shark
[[Page 15317]]
predation on hatchlings as well as adults has been documented (Limpus
et al., 2003).
Although disease and predation are known to occur, quantitative
data are not sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats
on the persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms are in place throughout the range of the DPS
that address the direct capture of green turtles within this DPS. There
are regulations, within this DPS, that specially address the harvest of
green turtles while a few regulations are limited in that they only
apply to certain times of year or allow for traditional use. Australia,
New Caledonia and Vanuatu, the only countries with nesting aside from
the Coral Sea Islands, which are a territory of Australia, have laws to
protect green turtles. National protective legislation generally
regulates intentional killing, possession, and trade (Limpus, 2009;
Maison et al., 2010). In addition, at least 17 international treaties
and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles
in the Southwest Pacific DPS.
The majority of nesting beaches (and often the associated
internesting habitat) are protected in Australia, which is the country
with the vast majority of the known nesting.
In Australia, the conservation of green turtles is governed by a
variety of national and territorial legislation. Conservation began
with 1932 harvest restrictions on turtles and eggs in Queensland in
October and November, south of 17[deg] S., and by 1968 the restriction
extended all year long for all of Queensland (Limpus, 2009). As
described in the preceding section, other conservation efforts include
sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction devices
and safer dredging practices, improvement of shark control devices, and
safer dredging practices, and the development of community based
management plans with Indigenous groups. Australia has undertaken
extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and
internesting habitat surrounding important nesting sites. The GBR's
listing on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization's World Heritage List in 1981 has increased the protection
of habitats within the GBR World Heritage Area (Dryden et al., 2008).
In New Caledonia, 1985 fishery regulations contained some regional
sea turtle conservation measures, and these were expanded in 2008 to
include the EEZ, the Main Island, and remote islands (Maison et al.,
2010). In Vanuatu, new fisheries regulations in 2009 prohibit the take,
harm, capture, disturbance, possession, sale, purchase of or
interference, import, or export of green turtles Maison et al., 2010).
There are several regulatory mechanisms in place that should
address incidental take of green turtles within this DPS; however,
these regulatory mechanisms are not realizing their full potential
because they are not enforced at the local level. The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels.
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address impacts
to nesting beach habitat and overutilization is a continuing concern
for this DPS. Other threats with inadequate regulatory mechanisms
include incidental bycatch in fishing gear, boat strikes, port
dredging, debris, national defense, and toxic compounds. Lack of
implementation or enforcement by some nations renders regulatory
mechanisms less effective than if they were implemented in a more
consistent manner across the target region. It is unlikely that bycatch
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 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.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address threats to nesting beaches, eggs, hatchlings,
juveniles, and adults through harvest and incidental harm occur
throughout the range of the Southwest Pacific DPS. Some threats, such
as inundation of nests at Raine Island and sea level rise, cannot be
controlled through individual national legislation and persist as a
threat to this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
threat to the survival of green turtles in the Southwest Pacific Ocean.
The primary gear types involved in these interactions include trawl
fisheries, longlines, drift nets, and set nets. These are employed by
both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target a wide variety of
species including prawns, crabs, sardines, and large pelagic fish.
Nesting turtles of the Southwest Pacific DPS are vulnerable to the
Queensland East Coast Trawl Fisheries and the Torres Strait Prawn
Fishery, and to the extent other turtles forage west of Torres Strait,
they are also vulnerable (Limpus, 2009). In 2000, the use of TEDs in
the Northern Australian Prawn Fishery became mandatory, due in part to
several factors: (1) Objectives of the Australian Recovery Plan for
Marine Turtles, (2) requirements 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., 2002).
Australian and international longline fisheries capture green
turtles. Precise estimates of international capture of Southwest
Pacific Ocean DPS green turtles by the international longline fleet are
not available, but they are thought to be larger than the Australian
component (DEWHA, 2010). In addition to threats from prawn trawls,
green turtles may face threats from other fishing gear (summarized from
Limpus, 2009). Take of green turtles in gill nets (targeting
barramundi, salmon, mackerel, and shark) in Queensland and the Northern
Territory has been observed but not quantified. Untended ``ghost''
fishing gear that has been intentionally discarded or lost due to
weather conditions may entangle and kill many hundreds of green turtles
annually.
b. Shark Control Programs
Green turtles are captured in shark control programs, but protocols
are in place to reduce the impact. The Queensland Shark Control Program
is managed by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries (Limpus, 2009) and has been operating since 1962 (Gribble et
al., 1998). In 1992, their operations began to be modified to reduce
mortality of non-target species (Gribble et al., 1998). Observed green
turtle annual mortality during 1998-2003 was 2.7 per year (Limpus,
2009). Green turtles have been captured in the New South Wales shark-
meshing program since 1937, but total capture for all turtle species
from 1950 through 1993 is roughly five or fewer turtles per year (Krogh
and Reid, 1996).
[[Page 15318]]
Post-release survival does not appear to have been monitored in any of
the monitoring programs.
c. Boat Strikes and Port Dredging
The magnitude of mortality from boat strikes may be in the high
tens to low hundreds per year in Queensland (Limpus, 2009). This threat
affects juvenile and adult turtles and may increase with increasing
high-speed boat traffic in coastal waters. The magnitude of mortality
from port dredging in Queensland may be in the order of tens of turtles
or less per year (Limpus, 2009).
d. Toxic Compounds and Marine Debris
Toxic compounds and bioaccumulative chemicals threaten green
turtles in the Southwest Pacific DPS. Poor health conditions
(debilitation and death) have been reported in the southern Gulf of
Carpentaria for green turtles, many of which had unusual black fat
(Kwan and Bell, 2003; Limpus, 2009). Heavy metal concentrations have
also been reported in Australia (Dight and Gladstone, 1994; Reiner,
1994; Gordon et al., 1998; Limpus, 2009), but the health impact has not
been quantified. The magnitude of mortality from ingestion of synthetic
material in Queensland is expected to be at least tens of turtles
annually (Limpus, 2009).
e. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Green turtle populations could be affected by the effects of
climate change on nesting grounds (Fuentes et al., 2011) as well as in
marine habitats (Hamann et al., 2007; Hawkes et al., 2009). Potential
effects of climate change include changes in nest site selection, range
shifts, diet shifts, and loss of nesting habitat due to sea level rise
(Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009). Climate change will
likely also cause higher sand temperatures leading to increased
feminization of surviving hatchlings (i.e., changes in sex ratio), and
some beaches will likely experience lethal incubation temperatures that
will result in losses of complete hatchling cohorts (Glen and
Mrosovsky, 2004; Fuentes et al., 2010; Fuentes et al., 2011). While sea
turtles have survived past eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen
at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may
face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts
from global climate change induced by human activities are likely to
become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
In a study of the northern GBR nesting assemblages, Bramble Cay and
Milman Islet were vulnerable to sea-level rise, and almost all sites in
the study were expected to be vulnerable to increased temperatures by
2070 (Fuentes et al., 2011). Similar data are not available for other
nesting sites.
The Southwest Pacific DPS contains some atolls, as well as coral
reef areas that share some ecological characteristics with atolls.
Barnett and Adger (2003) state that coral reefs, which are essential to
the formation and maintenance of the islets located around the rim of
an atoll, are highly sensitive to sudden changes in sea-surface
temperature. Thus, climate change impacts could have long-term impacts
on green turtle ecology in the Southwest Pacific DPS, but it is not
possible to project the impacts at this point in time.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that
occurs throughout the range of the DPS, particularly bycatch mortality
of green turtles from pelagic longline, drift nets, set net, and trawl
fisheries, is a continued risk to this DPS. Additional threats from
boat strikes, marine pollution, changes likely to result from climate
change, and cyclonic storm events are pose an increasing risk to the
persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS
Conservation efforts for the Southwest Pacific DPS have resulted in
sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of bycatch reduction
devices, improvement of shark control devices, and safer dredging
practices. Australia, in particular, has undertaken extensive marine
spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and internesting habitat
surrounding some of the largest and most important nesting sites in the
DPS.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Southwest Pacific
DPS
The Southwest Pacific DPS is characterized by relatively high
levels of green turtle nesting abundance (>80,000 nesting females) and
contains the GBR, the largest coral reef system in the world, as well
as continental coastline, islands, and atolls. The trends in nesting
female abundance at the two index beaches (Raine Island and Heron
Island, Australia) are stable or increasing. The spatial structure of
this DPS extends over a large geographic area, with several large
nesting sites spread within the range of this DPS, and includes both
continental and insular nesting, thereby providing a level of habitat
diversity and population resilience. This region has high genetic
diversity resulting from a mix of highly divergent lineages, some of
which are among the oldest lineages found in C. mydas. There are
concerns about climate change in general and the nesting habitat at
Raine Island in particular, where nests are sometimes flooded and
nesting female mortality can range from 1-70 per night due to
overcrowding.
The threats to this Southwest Pacific DPS include directed harvest,
incidental bycatch in fisheries, shark control programs, boat strikes,
port dredging, debris, activities associated with national defense,
disease, predation, toxic compounds, and climate change. Conservation
efforts have resulted in sweeping take prohibitions, implementation of
bycatch reduction devices, improvement of shark control devices, and
safer dredging practices. Australia, in particular, has undertaken
extensive marine spatial planning to protect nesting turtles and
internesting habitat surrounding important nesting sites. In the
southern GBR threats are well managed, harvest is low, and the
population increasing; however, in the northern GBR there are concerns
for Raine Island and harvest is a cause for concern. In the Coral Sea
there are few known threats and it is remote and well managed from
human threats. Although the DPS shows strength in many of the critical
elements, there are still concerns about numerous threats including
climate change and habitat degradation.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Southwest Pacific DPS
as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance and geographically
widespread nesting at a diversity of sites; however, the continued
threats are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XV. Central South Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central South Pacific
DPS
The range of the Central South Pacific DPS extends north and east
of New Zealand to include a longitudinal expanse of 7,500 km--from
Easter Island, Chile in the east to Fiji in the west, and encompasses
American Samoa, French Polynesia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati,
Tokelau, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Its open ocean polygonal boundary endpoints
are (clockwise from the northwest-most extent): 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W.
to 9[deg] N., 125[deg] W. to 40[deg] S., 96[deg] W. to 40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E., to 13[deg] S., 171[deg] E., and back to 9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. (Figure 2).
Nesting occurs sporadically throughout the geographic distribution
[[Page 15319]]
of the DPS at low levels. Green turtles departing nesting grounds
within the range of this DPS travel throughout the South Pacific Ocean.
Post-nesting green turtles tagged in the early 1990s from Rose Atoll
returned to foraging grounds in Fiji and French Polynesia (Craig et
al., 2004). Nesting females tagged in French Polynesia migrated west
after nesting to various sites in the western South Pacific (Tuato'o-
Bartley et al., 1993). In addition to nesting beaches, green turtles
are found in coastal waters (White and Galbraith, 2013; White, 2013),
but in-water information for this DPS is particularly limited.
Based on available data, we estimate there are approximately 2,800
nesting females in this DPS at 59 nesting sites. The most abundant
nesting area was Scilly Atoll, French Polynesia, which in the early
1990s was estimated to host 300-400 nesting females annually (Balazs et
al., 1995), and has an estimated total nesting female abundance of
1,050 breeding females, roughly one-third of all nesting females in the
DPS (although this number is dated, it is used in the Status Review as
it is the most recent data and the best available). However, Scilly
Atoll was last monitored in the early 1990s (Balazs et al., 1995), and
abundance has reportedly declined as a result of commercial
exploitation (Conservation International Pacific Islands Program,
2013). There are six other sites with 101-500 nesting females according
to the best available data, although the estimate for Nukunonu, Tokelau
is from the 1970s. Many nesting areas (21 of 58, or 36 percent) only
have qualitative information that nesting is present, indicating that
there is still much to learn about green turtle nesting in this region.
As these unquantified nesting sites most likely each have a female
abundance in the 1-100 range, their collective sum is probably fewer
than 700 nesting females. Historical baseline nesting information in
general is not widely available in this region, but exploitation and
trade of green turtles throughout the region is well-known (Groombridge
and Luxmoore, 1989).
No long-term monitoring programs are currently available at beaches
in this population, and no single site has had standardized surveys for
even 5 continuous years. Most nesting areas are in remote, low-lying
atolls that are logistically difficult to access. Partial and
inconsistent monitoring from the largest nesting site in this DPS,
Scilly Atoll, suggests significant nesting declines from persistent and
illegal commercial harvesting (Petit, 2013). Historically, 100-500
females nested annually at Canton Island, Kiribati (Balazs, 1975b) but,
as of 2002, it had an estimated 29 nesting females. Nesting abundance
is reported to be stable to increasing at Tongareva Atoll (White and
Galbraith, 2013). It is also reported to be stable to increasing at
Rose Atoll, Swains Atoll, Tetiaroa, Tikehau, and Maiao. However, these
sites are of relatively low abundance and in sum represent less than 16
percent of the population abundance at Scilly Atoll alone.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central
South Pacific is limited and many of the small isolated nesting sites
that characterize this region have not been covered. Mitochondrial DNA
studies indicate there are at least two genetic stocks in American
Samoa and French Polynesia (Dutton et al., 2014), which have unique
haplotypes (Dutton et al., 2014). Flipper tag returns and satellite
tracking studies demonstrate that post-nesting turtles travel the
complete geographic breadth of the range of this DPS, from French
Polynesia in the east to Fiji in the west, and sometimes even slightly
beyond (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et al., 2004; Maison et
al., 2010; White, 2012), even as far as the Philippines (Trevor, 2009).
Limited demographic information suggests a low level of population
structuring within this DPS (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; Craig et
al., 2004; White, 2012; White and Galbraith, 2013).
With regard to diversity and resilience, the Central South Pacific
has a broad geographical area, but the nesting sites themselves exhibit
little diversity. Most nesting sites are located in low-lying coral
atolls or oceanic islands and thus are subject to loss of habitat due
to sea level rise. Local nesting density is sparse spatially, typically
spread over >10 km stretches of beach and is also low in terms of
abundance. Only one nesting site (Scilly Atoll with 1,050 females;
Balazs et al., 1995) has a nesting female abundance exceeding 250, and
this estimate is 20 years old. Foraging areas are mostly coral reef
ecosystems, with seagrass beds in Tonga and Fiji being a notable
exception.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central South Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
Nesting in the Central South Pacific DPS is geographically
widespread with the majority of nesting sites being remote and not
easily accessed, and at low-lying oceanic islands or coral atolls. The
largest nesting site for this DPS is believed to be at Scilly Atoll in
French Polynesia. Balazs et al. (1995) report that the earliest human
settlement at Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia appears to have occurred
around 1952. It is unclear how much of an effect human habitation of
the atoll has had, or is having, on the nesting habitat for the turtle.
In the populated islands of American Samoa, such as Tutuila,
continuous incremental loss of habitat has occurred due to varied
activities of human populations (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; NMFS and
USFWS, 1998; Saili, 2005). Indeed, human population growth and
attendant village expansion and development on Tutuila Island have
resulted in decreasing usage of some Tutuila beaches by nesting turtles
and pre-emption of some green turtle nesting beaches (Tuato'o-Bartley
et al., 1993). Turtles on Tutuila, possibly disoriented by land-based
lights, are subject to mortality from cars (A. Tagarino, American Samoa
DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). Lighting is a potential problem affecting the
quality of the nesting habitat on Ofu nesting beach as well (Tagarino,
2012). The main nesting site in American Samoa is Rose Atoll, which is
uninhabited and therefore without current threats to terrestrial
habitat.
In Samoa, degradation of habitat through coastal development and
natural disasters as cited in SPREP (SPREP, 2012) remains a threat (J.
Ward, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa, pers.
comm., 2013).
In Kiribati, historical destruction (bulldozing) of the vegetation
zone next to the nesting beach on Canton Island in the Phoenix Islands
occurred during World War II and may have negatively affected the
availability of a portion of nesting beach area (Balazs, 1975). The
remoteness of these islands and minimal amount of study of sea turtles
in this area makes recent information on nesting beach condition and
threats difficult to obtain.
In the Cook Islands, the major nesting site for green turtles,
Tongareva Atoll, is uninhabited and there are not likely threats
related to development or human disturbance (White, 2012b). However,
elsewhere in the Cook Islands, sand extraction (for building purposes)
and building developments are reported as potential threats to sea
turtles; for instance, the best potential site at Tauhunu motu on
Manihiki appears to be no longer used for nesting (White, 2012a).
Weaver (1996) notes that sea turtles are negatively affected in Fiji by
modification of nesting beaches. Coastal erosion in Tonga and Tuvalu is
reported
[[Page 15320]]
as a major problem for turtle nesting (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Bell
et al., 2010).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Little is known regarding the status of the foraging habitat and
threats found in French Polynesia (Balazs et al., 1995). NMFS and USFWS
(1998) noted that degradation of coral reef habitats on the south side
of Tutuila Island, American Samoa is occurring due to sedimentation
from erosion on agricultural slopes and natural disasters. Ship
groundings are also potential threats to habitat in American Samoa. For
example, a ship grounded at Rose Atoll in 1993, damaging reef habitat
and spilling 100,000 gallons of fuel and other contaminants (USFWS,
2014). In the nearby neighboring country of Samoa, coastal and marine
areas have been negatively impacted by pollution (Government of Samoa,
1998).
Fiji appears to be an important foraging area for green turtles of
this DPS. Sea turtles have been negatively affected by alteration and
degradation of foraging habitat and to some extent pollution or
degradation of nearshore ecosystems (Batibasaga et al., 2006). Jit
(2007) also suggests that sea turtles in Fiji are threatened by
degradation of reefs and seagrass beds. Given that turtles outside of
Fiji appear to use this foraging habitat, negative effects to this
foraging area have important implications for the entire DPS. Tourism
development on the eastern coast of Viti Levu could negatively impact
sea turtle foraging sites (Jit, 2007).
In Tonga, marine habitat is being affected by anthropogenic
activities. Heavy sedimentation and poor water quality have killed
patch reefs; high nutrients and high turbidity are negatively impacting
seagrasses; and human activities are negatively impacting mangroves
(Prescott et al., 2004).
Although Palmyra Atoll is now protected, it was altered by U.S.
military activities during World War II through dredging, connection,
and expansion of islets (Sterling et al., 2013).
In summary, as to Factor A, we find that the Central South Pacific
DPS of the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in
both its terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water
use practices. Pollution persists and loss of beach due to coastal
development is significant threats to this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Human consumption has had a significant impact on green turtles in
the Central South Pacific DPS. Hirth and Rohovit (1992) report that
exploitation of green turtles for eggs, meat, and parts has occurred
throughout the South Pacific Region, including American Samoa, Cook
Islands, Fiji Islands, French Polynesia, and Kiribati. Allen (2007)
notes that in Remote Oceania (which includes this DPS) sea turtles were
important in traditional societies but, despite this, have experienced
severe declines since human colonization approximately 2,800 years ago.
At western contact, some of the islands supported sizable human
populations resulting in intense pressures on local coastal fisheries.
At Scilly Atoll in French Polynesia local residents (approximately
20 to 40 people) are allowed to take 50 adults per year from a nesting
population that could be as low as 300-400 (M. S. Allen, 2007; Balazs
et al., 1995). Balazs et al. (1995) reported that declines in nesting
green turtles at the important areas of Scilly, Motu-one, and Mopelia,
among the highest density nesting sites in the DPS, have occurred due
to commercial exploitation for markets in Tahiti, as well as
exploitation due to human habitation. Illegal harvest of sea turtles
has been reported for French Polynesia by Te Honu Tea (2007). Brikke
(2009) conducted a study on Bora Bora and Maupiti islands and reported
that sea turtle meat remains in high demand and that fines are rarely
imposed.
Directed take in the marine environment has been a significant
source of mortality in American Samoa, and turtle populations have
seriously declined (Tuato'o-Bartley et al., 1993; NMFS and USFWS,
1998). Although take of sea turtle eggs or sea turtles is illegal (the
ESA applies in this territory), turtles from American Samoa migrate to
other countries (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, French Polynesia) where turtle
consumption is legal or occurs illegally (Craig, 1993; Tuato'o-Bartley
et al., 1993).
Turtles have been traditionally harvested for food and shells in
the country of Samoa, and over-exploitation of turtles has negatively
affected local populations (Government of Samoa, 1998). Unsustainable
harvest (direct take for meat) remains a major threat to green turtles
in Samoa (J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm. 2013).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified the contemporary harvest and
consumption of turtles by humans for eggs, meat, and shells as a
significant threat for sea turtles. This includes commercial harvest,
as well as subsistence and ceremonial harvest. In Kiribati (e.g.,
Phoenix Islands), an unknown number of turtles are caught as bycatch on
longlines and eaten (Obura and Stone, 2002). Poaching has been reported
for Caroline Atoll, but to what extent it currently occurs is unknown
(Teeb'aki, 1992).
In Tonga, Bell et al. (1994) report that collection of eggs for
subsistence occurs. Prescott et al. (2004) and Havea and MacKay (2009)
also note that it is still a practice on islands where turtles nest.
Bell et al. (2009) report that in Tonga sea turtles are harvested and
live turtles are often seen transported from outer islands to the main
island, Tongatapu. It is unclear if this harvest is sustainable,
especially given the increased catch rates in Tungua for the commercial
market (Havea and MacKay, 2009).
In Tuvalu, harvest of sea turtles for their meat has been cited as
a major threat (Alefaio and Alefaio, 2006; Ono and Addison, 2009). In
the Cook Islands, turtles are sometimes killed during nesting at
Palmerston and Rakahanga, while nesting and fishing on Nassau, and
while nesting at Manihiki, Tongareva, and probably at other atolls
(White, 2012). In Tokelau, Balazs (1983) reported human take of both
sea turtle eggs from nests and adult males and females while
copulating, nesting, or swimming (by harpoon).
In summary, within Factor B current legal and illegal collection of
eggs and harvest of turtles throughout the Central South Pacific DPS
persist as a threat to this DPS. The threat to the stability of green
turtle populations posed by harvesting nesting females is particularly
significant due to the small number of nesting females within this DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
While FP is recorded elsewhere in the Pacific, it does not appear
to be a threat in the Central South Pacific DPS (Utzurrum, 2002; A.
Tagarino, American Samoa DMWR, pers. comm., 2013). The best available
data suggest that current nest and hatchling predation on several
Central South Pacific DPS nesting beaches and in-water habitats is a
potential threat to this DPS.
Predation of green turtles (e.g., by sharks) occurs in French
Polynesia; however, the extent of such predation is unknown. In
American Samoa, Polynesian rats (Rattus exultans) were an issue at Rose
Atoll prior to a 1993 eradication (USFWS, 2014), but no longer appear
to be a problem. Crabs are
[[Page 15321]]
reported to eat hatchlings at Rose Atoll (Ponwith, 1990; Balazs, 1993;
Pendleton pers. comm., USFWS, 2013). On Swains Island, feral pig
activity has been documented and may be a threat to nests on the island
(Tagarino and Utzurrum, 2010). Predation of green turtles by sharks has
been reported at Rose Atoll and Palmyra Atoll; however, the extent of
such predation is unknown (Graeffe, 1873; Sachet, 1954; Balazs, 1999;
Sterling et al., 2013). The main threat to wildlife on Rose Atoll is
thought to be the introduction (or possible reintroduction) of exotic
species (K. Van Houtan, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013).
In Samoa, feral animal predation on turtle nests and eggs remains a
threat (SPREP, 2012; J. Ward, Government of Samoa, pers. comm., 2013).
In other areas, predation is likely a contributing threat to green
turtles. Introduced animals, including feral cats, rats, and feral
pigs, are reported problems for wildlife (Teeb'aki, 1992) and may
threaten green turtles on certain islands in Kiribati such as
Kiritimati. In Tokelau, identified predators that may constitute a
terrestrial threat to turtles include hermit crabs, ghost crabs,
Polynesian rats, frigate birds (Fregata ariel, F. minor), and reef
herons (Egretta sacra; Balazs, 1983). Feral pigs, rats, crabs, possibly
some sea birds, and large fish are potential predators of sea turtles
(eggs and hatchlings) in the Cook Islands (White, 2012). Pigs are
reported on Mauke, although their impact on sea turtles is unquantified
(Bradshaw and Bradshaw, 2012).
Although predation is known to occur, quantitative data are not
sufficient to assess the degree of impact of these threats on the
persistence of this DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Lack of regulatory mechanisms and/or adequate implementation and
enforcement is a threat to the Central South Pacific DPS. The analysis
of these existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain
in place at their current levels. Regulatory mechanisms that address
the direct capture of green turtles for most of the countries within
this DPS specifically address the harvest of green turtles, while a few
regulations are limited in that they only apply during certain times of
the year or allow for traditional harvest.
Numerous countries have reserves (French Polynesia, Kiribati,
Samoa, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument),
national legislation, and/or local regulations protecting turtles.
These include the foreign Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia,
Kiribati, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and the U.S.
territories of Wake, Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef
and Palmyra Atoll. In some places such as Tokelau and Wallis and
Futuna, information on turtle protection was either unclear or could
not be found. At least 17 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central
South Pacific DPS.
Green turtles in American Samoa are fully protected under the ESA.
Green turtles are also protected by the Fishing and Hunting Regulations
for American Samoa (24.0934), which prohibit the import, export, sale,
possession, transport, or trade of sea turtles or their parts and take
(as defined by the ESA) and carry additional penalties for violations
at the local government level (Maison et al., 2010). Additionally, an
American Samoa Executive Order in 2003 established the territorial
waters of American Samoa as a sanctuary for sea turtles and marine
mammals, in 2003; American Samoa declared its submerged lands a Whale
and Turtle Sanctuary. It is not known how effective implementation of
these protections is in American Samoa. The NOAA National Marine
Sanctuary of American Samoa is comprised of six protected areas,
covering 35,175 km\2\ of nearshore coral reef and offshore open ocean
waters across the Samoan Archipelago. Additionally, Rose Atoll Marine
National Monument was established in 2009 and encompasses the Rose
Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. These protected areas should provide
some level of protection for green turtles and their habitat; however
the effectiveness of these monuments for this species is unknown.
Regulatory mechanisms are apparently inadequate to curb a continued
loss of nesting habitat and degradation of foraging habitat due to
human activities and coastal development on populated islands of
American Samoa, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Cook Islands.
Turtles continue to be harvested for food and shells, and are used in
commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial capacities. Rudrud (2010)
suggests that traditional laws in Polynesia may have historically
limited green turtle consumption to certain people (chiefs, priests) or
special ceremonies. However, as the societies of this region have been
affected by Western culture and modernization of traditions have been
altered; traditional laws have lost their effectiveness in limiting
negative effects of harvest on sea turtles.
There are protected areas, within this DPS, that should provide
some level of protection for green turtles and their habitat; however
the effectiveness of these monuments for this species is unknown. The
Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address coastal development, marine pollution, sea level
rise, and effects of climate change that continue to contribute to the
extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green sea turtles throughout the
Central South Pacific DPS. The primary gear types involved in these
interactions include longlines and nets.
Incidental capture in line, trap, or net fisheries presents a
threat to sea turtles in American Samoa (Tagarino, 2011). Subsistence
gill nets have been known to occasionally catch green turtles.
Additionally, longline fishing is considered a threat to Central South
Pacific green turtles. In 2010, the American Samoa longline fishery was
estimated to have interacted with an average of 33 green turtles
annually, with a 92 percent mortality rate, triggering reinitiation of
a section 7 consultation; the current incidental take statement allows
45 green sea turtle interactions (41 mortalities) every three years
(http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PUBDOCs/biological_opinions/622-NMFS-ASLL_Am_to_Pelagics_FMP_Biop_FINAL_9-16-10.pdf).
In Fiji, green turtles are killed in commercial fishing nets;
however, the exact extent and intensity of this threat is unknown
(Rupeni et al. 2002). Jit (2007) and McCoy (2008) report that green
turtle bycatch is occurring in longline tuna fisheries in Fiji. The
exact level of interaction with green turtles is unclear.
In the Cook Islands, longline fishery regulations require fishers
to adopt the use of circle hooks and to follow ``releasing hooked
turtles'' guidelines (Goodwin, 2008), although it is unclear how
effective these regulations are. McCoy (2008) suggests that sea turtle
bycatch is occurring in tuna fisheries in the Cook Islands; however, no
information is provided on possible extent of sea turtle take or the
species that are possibly taken.
[[Page 15322]]
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
Direct or indirect disposal of anthropogenic waste introduces
potentially lethal materials into green turtle foraging habitats. Green
turtles will ingest plastic, monofilament fishing line, and other
marine debris (Bjorndal et al., 1994), and the effects may be lethal or
non-lethal, resulting in varying effects that may increase the
probability of death (Balazs, 1985; Carr, 1987; McCauley and Bjorndal,
1999). Marine debris presents a threat to green turtles in American
Samoa (Aeby et al., 2008; USFWS, 2014; Tagarino et al., 2008). It is
potentially hazardous to adults and hatchlings and is present at Rose
Atoll (USFWS, 2014). It is also a threat at nearby inhabited islands.
Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa is seriously polluted, and
uncontrolled effluent contaminants have impaired water quality in some
coastal waters (Aeby et al., 2008). Effects to coastal habitat (e.g.,
reefs) from sedimentation related to development and runoff are
significant potential threats in American Samoa, and human population
pressures place strains on shoreline resources (Aeby et al., 2008).
Ship groundings (e.g., at Rose Atoll in 1993) that damage reef
habitat and spill fuel and other contaminants, degradation of coastal
waters due to silt-laden runoff from land and nutrient enrichment from
human discharges and wastes, and contamination by heavy metals and
other contaminants are threats to green turtles in American Samoa (NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; USFWS, 2014).
In Fiji, Weaver (1996) identified potential threats to sea turtles
from heavy metals and industrial waste, organic loadings in coastal
areas, plastic bags, and leachate poisoning of seagrass foraging areas.
In the Cook Islands, White (2012) noted possible issues with oil, tar,
or toxic chemicals and terrestrial run-off into lagoons at Rarotonga,
and Bradshaw and Bradshaw (2012) note pollution (e.g., accumulation of
plastics on the beach) on Mauke (M.White, unpubl. data,
www.honucookislands .com).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Climate change has the potential to greatly affect green turtles.
Potential impacts of climate change on green turtles include loss of
beach habitat 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 (Fish et
al., 2005, 2008; Hawkes et al., 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
A recent study of 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific
(including Kiribati and Tuvalu), demonstrated that 14 percent of
islands decreased in area over a 19-60 year time span (Webb and Kench,
2010). This occurred in a region considered most vulnerable to sea-
level rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010) during a period in which sea-
levels rose 2 mm per year.
Catastrophic natural environmental events, such as cyclones or
hurricanes, may affect green turtles in the Central South Pacific
Ocean, and may exacerbate issues such as decreased available habitat
due to sea level rise. These types of events may disrupt green turtle
nesting activity (Van Houtan and Bass, 2007), even if just on a
temporary scale.
In summary, within Factor E, we find that incidental fishery
bycatch, interactions with recreational and commercial vessels, marine
pollution as well as the increasing threat of climate change, and major
storm events are expected to be an increasing threat to the persistence
of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central South Pacific DPS
There are many islands and atolls in the range of this DPS spread
across an expansive area. Conservation efforts, such as establishment
of protected areas, exist that are beneficial to green turtles.
It is unclear how well conservation efforts such as protected areas
and the national legislation relating to green turtles are working. It
appears that the remoteness of some of the areas is providing the most
conservation protection for certain threats.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central South
Pacific DPS
The Central South Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically
widespread nesting at very low levels of abundance, mostly in remote
low-lying oceanic atolls. Nesting is reported in 57 different
locations, although some abundance numbers are 20 years old or older.
By far the highest nesting abundance estimate is from Scilly Atoll,
French Polynesia (1,050 nesting females), but this estimate is from
1991 data and abundance of nesting females has reportedly significantly
declined in the past 30 years as a result of commercial exploitation.
There are also no long-term monitoring programs that have been active
in this DPS for even a 5-year period. While the dispersed location of
nesting sites might provide a level of habitat diversity and population
resilience which reduces overall extinction risk, this contribution is
reduced by the low population size of these sites (only Scilly Atoll
has over 225 nesting females) and overall population size of fewer than
3,000 nesting females.
Chronic and persistent illegal harvest is a concern in the Central
South Pacific DPS, and sea level rise is a threat that is expected to
increase in the future. Indeed, climate change may affect this DPS more
than any other because nearly all nesting sites exist on low-lying
atolls. Sea level rise is expected to exacerbate beach erosion,
inundations, and storm surge on small islands (IPCC, 2007). The loss of
habitat as a result of climate change could be accelerated due to a
combination of other environmental and oceanographic changes such as an
increase in the intensity of storms and/or changes in prevailing
currents, both of which could lead to increased beach loss via erosion
(Kennedy et al., 2002; Meehl et al., 2007).
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central South Pacific
DPS as endangered. Based on its low nesting abundance and exposure to
increasing threats, we find that this DPS is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its range.
XVI. Central North Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the Central North Pacific
DPS
The range of the Central North Pacific DPS covers the Hawaiian
Archipelago and Johnston Atoll. It is bounded by a four-sided polygon
with open ocean extents reaching to 41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in the
northwest corner, 41[deg] N., 143[deg] W. in the northeast, 9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in southeast, and 9[deg] N., 175[deg] W. in the southwest
(Figure 2). The Hawaiian Archipelago is the most geographically
isolated island group on the planet. From 1965 to 2013, 17,536 green
turtles were tagged, including all post-pelagic size classes from
juveniles to adults. With only three exceptions, the 7,360 recaptures
of these tagged turtles have been made within the Hawaiian Archipelago.
The three outliers involved a recovery in Japan, one in the Marshall
Islands and one in the Philippines.
The principal nesting site for green turtles in the Central North
Pacific DPS is FFS, where 96 percent of the population (3,710 of 3,846
nesting females) currently nests (Balazs, 1980; Lipman and Balazs,
1983). However, nesting was historically abundant at
[[Page 15323]]
various sites across the archipelago as recently as 1920 (Kittinger et
al., 2013), and remnant nesting aggregations may have existed in the
MHIs as recently as the 1930s, but were no longer present in the 1970s
(Balazs, 1976). Current nesting by green turtles occurs in low numbers
(3-36 nesting females at any one site) throughout the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) at Laysan, Lisianski, Pearl and Hermes Reef,
and very uncommonly at Midway. Since 2000, green turtle nesting on the
MHI has been identified in low numbers (1-24) on seven islands (Frey et
al., 2013; Kittinger et al., 2013; NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center, unpublished data, 2013). Green turtles in the Central
North Pacific DPS bask on beaches throughout the NWHI and in the MHI.
Since nesting surveys were initiated in 1973, there has been a
marked increase in annual green turtle nesting at East Island, FFS,
where approximately 50 percent of the nesting on FFS occurs (Balazs and
Chaloupka, 2004, 2006). During the first 5 years of monitoring (1973-
1977), the mean annual nesting abundance was 83 females, and during the
most recent 5 years of monitoring (2009-2012), the mean annual nesting
abundance was 464 females (Balazs and Chaloupka, 2006; G. Balazs, NMFS,
unpublished data). This increase over the last 40 years corresponds to
an annual increase of 4.8 percent.
Information on in-water abundance trends is consistent with the
increase in nesting (Balazs, 2000; Balazs et al., 2005; Balazs et al.,
1996). This linkage is to be expected since genetics, satellite
telemetry, and direct observation show that green turtles from the
nesting beaches in the FFS nesting site remain resident to foraging
pastures throughout the archipelago (Balazs, 1976; Craig and Balazs,
1995; Keuper-Bennett and Bennet, 2000; P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm.,
2013). The number of immature green turtles residing in foraging areas
of the eight MHI has increased (Balazs et al., 1996). In addition,
although the causes are not totally clear, there has been a dramatic
increase in the number of basking turtles in the Hawaiian Islands over
the last 2 decades, both in the southern foraging areas of the main
islands (Balazs et al., 1996) as well as at northern foraging areas at
Midway Atoll (Balazs et al., 2005).
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the Central
North Pacific DPS has been extensive and representative, given that
there are few nesting populations in this region. Results of mtDNA
analysis indicate a low level of spatial structure with regard to minor
nesting around the MHI and the NWHI, and the same haplotypes occur
throughout the range of the DPS. Within the NWHI, studies show no
significant differentiation (based on mtDNA haplotype frequency)
between FFS and Laysan Island (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2013). An
analysis by Frey et al. (2013) of the low level of scattered nesting on
the MHI (Moloka`i, Maui, O`ahu, Lana`i and Kaua`i; mtDNA and nDNA)
showed that nesting in the MHI might be attributed to a relatively
small number of females that appear to be related to each other, and
demographically isolated from FFS. Frey et al. (2013) suggest that the
nesting population at the MHI may be the result of a few recent
founders that originated from the FFS breeding population. Demographic
studies of green turtles do not reveal any structuring of traits within
the DPS.
With regard to diversity and resilience, because nesting in the
Central North Pacific DPS is unusually concentrated at one site, there
is little diversity in nesting areas. Balazs (Balazs, 1980) reported
that the distribution of green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago has
been reduced within historical times, and Kittinger et al. (2013)
suggest that a significant constriction in the spatial distribution of
important reproduction sites presents a challenge to the population's
future and makes this DPS highly vulnerable. Further, the primary
nesting site, FFS, is a low-lying coral atoll that is susceptible to
erosion, geomorphological changes and sea level rise, and has already
lost significant nesting area (Baker et al., 2006).
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the Central North Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
In Hawai`i, most nesting currently occurs in the NWHI, although
nesting is increasing in the MHI, as is basking of green turtles.
Coastal development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
beach pollution, tourism, and other human related activities are
current threats to nesting and basking habitat in the MHI. These
threats will affect more green turtles in this DPS if nesting increases
in the MHI. Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the
insular Pacific, including Hawai`i, and this expansion is exerting
increased pressure on limited island resources.
Climatic changes in the NWHI pose threats through reduction in area
of nesting beaches critical to this DPS (Baker et al., 2006). Baker et
al. (2006) examined the potential effects of sea level rise in the NWHI
and found that the primary nesting area for the Central North Pacific
population will be negatively impacted by sea level rise through
possible loss of nesting habitat. For example, Whale-Skate Island at
French Frigate Shoals was formerly a primary green turtle nesting site
for this DPS, but the island has subsided and is no longer available
for nesting (Kittinger et al., 2013). Trig, Gin, and Little Gin could
lose large portions of their area, concentrating nesting even further
at East Island (Baker et al., 2006).
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
Impacts to the quality of coastal habitats in the MHI are a threat
to this DPS and are expected to continue and possibly increase with an
increasing human population and annual influx of millions of tourists.
Loss of foraging habitat or reduction in habitat quality in the MHI due
to nearshore development is a threat to this DPS. Marina construction,
beach development, siltation of forage areas, contamination of forage
areas from anthropogenic activities, resort development or activities,
increased vessel traffic, and other activities are all considered
threats to this population and its habitat (Bowen et al., 1992; NMFS
and USFWS, 1998; Friedlander et al., 2006; Wedding and Friedlander,
2008; Wedding et al., 2008; Van Houtan et al., 2010). Seagrass and
coral reef habitat of Moloka`i has been degraded from upland soil
erosion and siltation, and coral reefs of Hawai`i, Kaua`i, Lana`i,
Maui, and O`ahu have been degraded by sedimentation, sewage, or coastal
construction (NMFS and USFWS, 1998). In general, MHI coral reefs have
suffered from land-based sources of pollution, overfishing,
recreational overuse, and alien and invasive species (Friedlander et
al., 2005). Vessel groundings (mechanical damage to habitat and reef-
associated organisms) and related release of contaminants (e.g., fuel,
hazardous substances, etc.) are a threat to Central North Pacific green
turtle habitat (Keller et al., 2009). It is difficult to predict the
exact number or severity of vessel groundings expected in any future
year, but key nesting and foraging habitat for green sea turtles occurs
in the areas of the MHI and the NWHI where commercial and recreational
boating occurs (Keller et al., 2009).
During the last century, habitat on Johnston Atoll was affected by
military activities such as nuclear testing and chemical weapons
incineration. The lingering effects of these activities
[[Page 15324]]
include water contamination from nutrients, dioxins, plutonium, and a
subsurface plume of PCB-contaminated petroleum product (Balazs, 1985).
In summary, within Factor A, we find that the loss of nesting beach
habitat is a threat to the DPS in the NWHI. We find that coastal
development and construction, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, beach
pollution, tourism, and other human related activities are threats in
the MHI. Climate change, marina construction, contamination of forage
areas from anthropogenic activities, resort development or activities,
increased vessel traffic are significant, increasing threats posing a
risk to the persistence of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
Harvest of green turtles has been illegal since green turtles were
listed under the ESA in 1978. It is possible that human take today is
underreported, as anecdotal information suggests that some degree of
illegal take occurs throughout the MHI. The extent of such take is
unknown; however, it is believed that current illegal harvest of green
turtles for human consumption continues in a limited way, although
Federal and State cooperative efforts and existing legislation appear
to be minimizing the threat.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
The FP disease affects green turtles found in the Central North
Pacific Ocean (Francke et al., 2013). This disease results in internal
and/or external tumors (fibropapillomas) that may grow large enough to
hamper swimming, vision, feeding, and potential escape from predators.
FP appears to have peaked in some areas of Hawai`i, remained the same
in some regions, and increased in others (Van Houtan et al., 2010).
Environmental factors may be significant in promoting FP, and
eutrophication (increase in nutrients) of coastal marine ecosystems may
promote this disease (Van Houtan et al., 2010). FP remains an important
concern in some green turtle populations. This is particularly true
given the continued, and possibly future increasing, human impacts to,
and eutrophication of, coastal marine ecosystems that may promote this
disease. However, its effects on reproductive effort are uncertain.
Ghost crabs (Ocypode spp.) prey on hatchlings at FFS (Niethammer et
al., 1997) at approximately 5 percent (Balazs, 1980). Large grouper
(Epinephelus tauvina), sea birds, and sharks are documented natural
predators of green turtles in Hawai`i; however, the extent of predation
is unknown (Balazs, 1995; Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Francke, 2013).
Mongoose, rats, dogs, feral pigs, and cats--all introduced
species--that exist on the MHI are known to prey on eggs and
hatchlings, although the impact on the current low level of nesting is
unclear (nesting in the MHI is extremely low compared to historical
levels). If nesting in the MHI increases, the importance of the threat
from these potential predators would increase.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Regulatory mechanisms that protect green turtles are in place and
include State, Federal, and international laws. The analysis of these
existing regulatory mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place
at their current levels. Numerous Federal and State governmental and
non-governmental efforts at public education, protection and monitoring
of green turtles contribute to the conservation of the Central North
Pacific DPS. At least 16 international treaties and/or regulatory
mechanisms apply to the conservation of green turtles in the Central
North Pacific.
Nesting occurs exclusively within the United States. Monitoring and
protective efforts are ongoing for both nesting areas (in the NWHI and
where nesting is occurring in the MHI) and in nearshore waters.
Regulatory mechanisms in U.S. jurisdiction are in place through the
ESA, MSA and the State of Hawai`i that currently address direct and
incidental take of Central North Pacific green turtles, and these
regulatory mechanisms have been an important factor in the encouraging
trend in this DPS.
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was established
in January 2009, and is cooperatively managed by the Secretary of
Commerce (NOAA) and the Secretary of the Interior (USFWS), with the
exception of Wake Island and Johnston Atoll, which are currently
managed by the Department of Defense. The areas extend 92.6 km from the
mean low water lines around emergent islands and atolls and include
green turtle habitat. Commercial fishing is prohibited within the
limits of the Monument, and recreational fishing requires a permit. On
September 27, 2014, President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation
9173 to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Monument to incorporate
waters and submerged lands at Jarvis Island, Wake Island, and Johnston
Atoll to the seaward limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Proclamation 9173 prohibits commercial fishing in expanded areas of the
Monument, and directs the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to
ensure that recreational and non-commercial fishing continue to be
managed as sustainable activities in the Monument. The protected areas
provide some protection to sea turtles and their habitat through
permitted access and its remoteness.
A commercial ban on turtle harvest was put into place by the State
of Hawai`i in 1974, 4 years before the green turtle was listed under
the ESA. Since 1978, green turtles have been protected by the ESA. They
are also protected by the Hawai`i Revised Statutes, Chapter 195D
(Hawai`i State Legislature, accessed Sept. 10, 2010) and Hawai`i
Administrative Rules, 13-124 (Hawai`i Administrative Rules, accessed
Sept. 10, 2010), which adopt the same definitions, status designations,
and prohibitions as the ESA and carry additional penalties for
violations at the State government level. These two statutes have been,
and currently are, key tools in efforts to recover and protect this
DPS, and both have provided for comprehensive protection and recovery
activities that have been sufficiently effective to improve the status
of green turtles in Hawai`i significantly. The ESA and Hawai`i statutes
are not, however, redundant. For example, the ESA requires Federal
agencies to consult with the Services on their actions that may affect
green turtles.
Current monitoring, conservation efforts, and legal enforcement
have been effective and promote the persistence of the Central North
Pacific DPS, which occurs almost exclusively in U.S. waters. It is
important to note, however, that the analysis by the SRT did not
consider the scenario in which current laws or regulatory mechanisms
were not continued. Under the ESA, regulatory measures provide
protections that are not provided entirely by State protections. For
instance, if the DPS was delisted and the protections of the ESA were
no longer in place, many on-the-ground conservation and monitoring
actions and, importantly, financial resources that are afforded by the
ESA (e.g., section 6) would not continue. In addition, the taking of
green turtles in the United States requires authorization under
sections 7 or 10 of the ESA and their implementing regulations. For
example, activities that affect green turtles and do not involve
Federal agencies, such as coastal development, construction, and
research, must comply with section 10 of the ESA to avoid violating the
statute. Section 10
[[Page 15325]]
permits require avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to green
turtles to the extent possible. Federal actions (i.e., those
authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies), are subject to
consultation with the Services under section 7 of the ESA; those
resulting in take of green turtles are required to minimize effects.
These actions include, but are not limited to, federally regulated
fisheries and management and research activities within the federally-
protected Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument in the
NWHI.
The threat of bycatch in international fisheries is not adequately
regulated, although bycatch in domestic Federal fisheries has been
addressed to a greater extent. In addition, some threats to the
species, such as climate change, are either not able to be regulated
under the ESA, or not regulated sufficiently to control or even slow
the threat.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address marine pollution, sea level rise, and effects of
climate change that continue to contribute to the extinction risk of
this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
The SRT identified incidental capture in fisheries as a significant
threat to green turtles of the Central North Pacific DPS. The primary
gear types involved in these interactions include longlines and nets.
These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets, and target
a variety of species.
i. Longline Fisheries
Pacific longline fisheries capture green turtles as bycatch in
longline gear (line, hooks), and these interactions can result in
mortality (NMFS, 2012). U.S. longline fisheries are required to comply
with sea turtle mitigation measures (50 CFR 665.812), including the use
of circle hooks, dehookers, line clippers, and crewmember training,
that have reduced green sea turtle interactions to negligible levels.
However, while exact numbers are not available, it is estimated that,
at a minimum, 100 green turtles from the Central North Pacific DPS are
captured and killed annually by foreign longlines (NMFS, 2012).
ii. Gillnet Fisheries
Interactions between Central North Pacific green turtles and
nearshore fisheries in the MHI can result in entanglement, injury, and
mortality. Balazs et al. (1987) documented sea turtle mortality
resulting from bycatch in fishing gear over 25 years ago in Hawai`i.
While gill nets are regulated by the state of Hawai`i, fishers are only
required to inspect them completely every two hours, so entanglement
and drowning does occur (NMFS, 2012). Each year green sea turtles are
incidentally entangled in net gear, some of these resulting in
mortality (e.g., Francke, 2013); however the reported strandings in the
MHI are believed to be a smaller subset of the actual level of
interaction with this gear.
iii. Other Gear Types
Hook-and-line fishing from shore or boats also hooks and entangles
green turtles (Francke et al., 2013; NMFS, 2012). Interactions with
nearshore recreational fisheries are identified in the NMFS stranding
database as those turtles that strand as a result of interactions with
fish hooks and fishing line. Nearshore fishery interactions have
increased over time (Francke, 2013; Francke et al., 2013; Ikonomopoulou
et al., 2013). While current public outreach efforts by NMFS and its
partners attempt to reduce the magnitude of impact on green turtles
from hook-and-line fishing, injury or mortality from the hooking or
from the effects of line remaining on turtles that are cut free or
break the line remains an issue (http://pifscblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/marine-turtle-response-achieves-significant-milestone/).
b. Marine Debris and Pollution
The ingestion of and entanglement in marine debris is another
anthropogenic threat to Central North Pacific green turtles throughout
their range. Marine debris is common in the MHI and a direct threat to
sea turtles (Wedding and Friedlander, 2008). Stranding information for
this DPS shows that entanglement in lost or discarded fishing line is
one of the causes of green turtle strandings and mortality in the MHI.
In the NWHI, marine debris is also a threat in the terrestrial and
marine environment. In 1996, it was estimated that between 750 and
1,000 tons of marine debris were on reefs and beaches in the NWHI, and
the source of much of the debris is fishing nets discarded or lost in
the northeastern Pacific Ocean (Keller et al., 2009). Turtles in the
MHI encounter pollution as a result of coastal development, runoff, and
waste water (point source and non-point source pollution; Friedlander
et al., 2008).
c. Vessel Interactions
As in other parts of the world, boating activities are a threat to
turtles within this DPS (Francke et al., 2013). Chaloupka et al.
(2008b) report that 2.5 percent of green turtle strandings (N = 3,745)
were caused by boat strike in the Hawaiian Archipelago from 1982 to
2003. Additionally, boat traffic has been shown to exclude green
turtles from preferred coastal foraging pastures (Seminoff et al.,
2002c), which may negatively affect their nutritional intake.
Vessel groundings (mechanical damage to habitat and reef-associated
organisms) and related release of contaminants (e.g., fuel, hazardous
substances, etc.) are a threat not only to Central North Pacific green
turtle habitat, but directly to the turtles themselves. Thirteen
reported vessel groundings have occurred in the NWHI in the last 60
years (Keller et al., 2009). Vessel traffic and presence can also have
negative effects through habitat damage from anchors, waste discharge,
light and noise (Keller et al., 2009).
d. Effects of Climate Change
As in other areas of the world, climate change and sea level rise
have the potential to negatively affect green turtles in the Central
North Pacific DPS. Climate change influences on water temperatures,
ocean acidification, sea level and related changes in coral reef
habitat, wave climate and coastal shorelines are expected to continue
(Friedlander et al., 2008). Keller et al. (2009) suggest that sea level
rise, changing storm dynamics, sea surface temperatures, and ocean
acidification are key threats for the NWHI, and that evidence of sea
level rise has already begun to adversely affect terrestrial and ocean
habitat. Tiwari et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself is still
not yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of crude nesting area and
current nesting densities. Yet entire islands have been submerged in
recent history (i.e., Whale-Skate in the late 1990s), resulting in the
loss of a primary nesting site at FFS (Baker et al., 2006). It is
likely that sea level rise will lead to increased erosion of nesting
beaches and significant loss of habitat (Baker et al., 2006; IPCC,
2007); however, it remains unclear how nesting habitat loss and natal
homing traits will influence future nesting in this DPS.
As temperatures increase, there is concern that incubation
temperatures could reach levels that exceed the thermal tolerance for
embryonic development, thus increasing embryo and hatchling mortality
(Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Fuller et al., 2010). Niethammer et al.
(Niethammer 1997) note that given that the FFS nesting colony is on the
northern extreme of green turtle breeding range, small changes in beach
conditions (e.g., microhabitats of nests) may have severe
[[Page 15326]]
consequences on nesting. Changes in global temperatures could also
affect juvenile and adult distribution patterns. Possible changes to
ocean currents and dynamics may result in negative effects to natural
dispersal during a complex life cycle (Van Houtan and Halley, 2011),
and possible nest mortality linked to erosion may result from increased
storm frequency (Van Houtan and Bass, 2007) and intensity (Keller et
al., 2009).
While sea turtles have survived past eras that have included
significant temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected
to happen at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly
they may face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009).
Impacts from global climate change induced by human activities are
likely to become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007).
e. Effects of Spatial Structure
While the nesting population trajectory in the Central North
Pacific DPS is positive and encouraging, the DPS exhibits moderately
low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females), and more than 96
percent of nesting occurs at one site in the NWHI (FFS). Therefore,
survival of this DPS is currently highly dependent on successful
nesting at FFS (Niethammer et al., 1992). The concentrated nature and
relatively small size of the nesting population make it vulnerable to
random variation and stochasticities in the biological and physical
environment, including natural catastrophes, as well as changes in
climate and resulting effects such as sea level rise. This increases
its risk of extinction, even though the DPS may currently have positive
population growth (e.g., Meffe et al., 1994; Primack, 1998; Balazs and
Kubis, 2007; Hunter and Gibbs, 2007). That said, aside from sea level
rise, FFS is relatively isolated from anthropogenic threats, as it
occurs within the Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National
Monument, a remote Monument that has controlled access for activities
that occur within it. The regional range expansion into nesting areas
in the MHI provide increased spatial diversity and may buffer against
the loss of nesting sites at FFS; however, nesting areas in the MHI are
exposed to anthropogenic threats.
Within Factor E, we find that incidental bycatch in fishing gear,
marine pollution, interactions with recreational and commercial
vessels, climate change, beach driving, and major storm events all
negatively affect green turtles in the Central North Pacific DPS. The
consideration of climate change, and the fact that the one isolated
atoll, where approximately 96 percent of green turtles within this DPS
nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, increase the risk of
extinction for this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the Central North Pacific DPS
The State of Hawai`i's efforts to conserve green turtles include:
Wildlife regulations; coordination of stranding response and specimen
storage on the islands of Maui, Hawai`i, and Kaua`i; issuance and
management of special activity permits; statewide outreach and
education activities; and nest monitoring on Maui (Department of Land
and Natural Resources, 2013). Hawai`i Division of Aquatic Resources
staff responds to stranded turtle reports and issues special use
permits to researchers and educators. The Division of Conservation and
Resources Enforcement investigates reports of illegal poaching,
provides support and security at some nest sites and strandings, and
addresses complaints from the public regarding turtle disturbances.
With regard to conservation areas, the
Papah[amacr]naumoku[amacr]kea Marine National Monument in the NWHI is a
conservation area established in 2006 that encompasses coral reefs,
islands and shallow water environments. It comprises several previously
existing Federal conservation areas, including the NWHI Coral Reef
Ecosystem Reserve, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaiian
Islands National Wildlife Refuge, NWHI Marine Refuge, State Seabird
Sanctuary at Kure Atoll and the Battle of Midway National Memorial. The
Monument is administered jointly by three co-trustees: NOAA, the USFWS,
and the State of Hawai`i. The Monument's mission is to carry out
seamless integrated management to ensure ecological integrity and
achieve strong, long-term protection and perpetuation of NWHI
ecosystems, Native Hawaiian culture, and heritage resources for current
and future generations. Commercial fishing is prohibited in the
Monument and all other human activities require a permit.
Overall, conservation efforts have been successful in this DPS, as
exhibited by the increasing trend in the green turtle population.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the Central North
Pacific DPS
The Central North Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically
concentrated nesting (96 percent of nesting occurs at one location) and
moderately low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting females). Such a low
number is the result of chronic historical exploitation, which
extirpated 80 percent of historically major nesting grounds (Kittinger
et al., 2013). The DPS is geographically and chronologically well-
sampled, with no sites where nesting is unquantified, and very little
chance there are undocumented nesting locations. Time series analysis
of nesting female abundance over 40 years at FFS shows a marked
increase in nesting since surveys were initiated in 1973, with an
encouraging annual rate of increase of 4.8 percent. However, 96 percent
of nesting now occurs at one atoll (FFS)--where sea level rise is a
significant concern--and no more than 40 females nest at any of the
other 11 sites. Information on in-water abundance trends is consistent
with the increase in nesting.
The Status Review indicates that the DPS shows strength in its
population trend, but that there are concerns about overall abundance,
spatial structure, and diversity/resilience. Indeed, in spite of the
positive trends in the last few decades, the unprecedented
concentration of nesting at one site and moderately low population size
raise serious concerns about the resilience of this DPS, particularly
its ability to adapt to future climate scenarios. Ninety-eight percent
of the population nests are low lying atolls (96 percent nesting in a
single low-lying atoll), making them extremely vulnerable to sea level
rise--some effects of which have already been witnessed. Keller et al.
(2009) suggest that sea level rise, changing storm dynamics, sea
surface temperatures, and ocean acidification are key threats for the
NWHI. Current and projected maps of four islands in the NWHI predicted
a sea level rise ranging from 9 cm to 88 cm by 2100, with a projected
loss of nesting beach at approximately 15 to 26 percent (IPCC, 2001).
Further, sea level rise is expected to continue at a rate exceeding
that observed during 1971-2010 as a result of increased ocean warming
and increased loss of glacier and ice sheet mass (IPCC, 2013). Baker et
al. (2006) examined the potential effects of sea level rise in the NWHI
and found that the primary nesting area for the Central North Pacific
population is threatened by sea level rise through possible loss of
nesting habitat. They note that one formerly significant nesting site--
Whale-Skate Island--is now completely submerged. They further note that
the islets of Trig, Gin and Little Gin could lose large portions
[[Page 15327]]
of their area, concentrating nesting even further at East Island. In
contrast, Tiwari et al. (2010) argued that East Island itself is still
not yet at carrying capacity, in the sense of crude nesting area and
current nesting densities. It remains unclear how catastrophic nesting
habitat loss and natal homing traits will influence future nesting in
this DPS. Habitat degradation resulting from the release of
contaminants contained in landfills and other areas of the NWHI could
also occur as the islands erode or are flooded from sea level rise
(Keller et al., 2009). Other effects of climate change include
increasing temperatures at nesting beaches that may affect hatchling
sex ratios and embryonic development (Balazs and Kubis, 2007; Fuller et
al., 2010b). Making this an even greater concern is that climate change
and the resultant sea level rise are difficult to regulate and
certainly cannot be sufficiently regulated through the ESA to slow its
effects.
In summary, despite an upward trend in population abundance, the
Central North Pacific DPS is characterized by geographically
concentrated nesting and low levels of abundance (3,846 nesting
females). The lack of redundancy in nesting sites and the low nesting
numbers at these sites lead to low resilience within this DPS. The
consideration of climate change, and the fact that the one isolated
atoll, where approximately 96 percent of green turtles within this DPS
nest, is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise, increase the risk of
extinction.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the Central North Pacific
DPS as threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of the increasing nesting trend; however, the
continued threats coupled with a small and narrowly distributed nesting
population are likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable
future.
XVII. East Pacific DPS
A. Discussion of Population Parameters for the East Pacific DPS
The range of the East Pacific DPS extends from the California/
Oregon border (41 [deg]N) southward along the Pacific coast of the
Americas to central Chile (40 [deg]S). Green turtles originating from
this DPS regularly strand along the shoreline of Oregon and Washington.
The northern and southern boundaries of this DPS extend from the
aforementioned locations in the United States and Chile to 142 [deg]W
and 96 [deg]W, respectively. The offshore boundary of this DPS is a
straight line between these two coordinates. This DPS encompasses the
Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico and the Gal[aacute]pagos
Archipelago, Ecuador (Figure 2). The East Pacific DPS also includes the
Mexican Pacific coast breeding population, which is currently listed as
endangered (43 FR 32800, July 28, 1978).
Green turtle nesting is widely dispersed in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean. We identified 40 total nesting sites for which abundance
information is available, although there are sporadic nesting events in
other areas with undocumented abundance. The largest nesting
aggregation is found in Colola, Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, with 11,588
nesting females, or nearly 58 percent of the total nesting population
(Delgado-Trejo and Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012). The second largest site is
in the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, Ecuador, where nesting at the four
primary nesting sites (Quinta Playa and Barahona (Isabela Island), Las
Bachas (Santa Cruz Island), and Las Salinas (Baltras Island)) has been
stable to slightly increasing since the late 1970s, and was last
estimated at 3,603 nesting females in 2005 (Z[agrave]rate et al., 2006;
Z[agrave]rate, unpubl. data). Other nesting areas are found in
Micho[aacute]can, including Bahia Maruata (1,149; Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012) and Motin de Oro (240; Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012); Clarion and Socorro Islands in the
Revillagigedos Archipelago, Mexico (500; Blanco and Santidri[aacute]n,
2011); and 26 sites throughout the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica,
including Playa San Jose in the Bat Islands (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl.
data), Playa Colorada (498; L. Fonseca, unpubl. data), Nombre Jesus
(450; Blanco and Santidri[aacute]n, 2011), Playa Cabuyal (273; P.
Santidri[aacute]n-Tomillo, Leatherback Trust, pers. comm., 2013), Playa
Zapotillal (150; Blanco and Santidri[aacute]n, 2011) and Playa Nancite
(123; Fonseca et al., 2011). Low level nesting (fewer than 100 nesting
females) occurs elsewhere in Mexico, Costa Rica, mainland Ecuador,
Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru, although the last two are unquantified
(G. Tiburcios-Pintos, Minicipio de Los Cabos, pers. comm., 2012; S.
Kelez, ecOceanica, pers. comm., 2012).
Nesting at the largest beach in the range of this DPS (Colola,
Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico) has shown an upward trend since 1996. The
observed increase at Colola may have resulted from the onset of nesting
beach protection in 1979--as is suggested by the similarity in timing
between the onset of beach conservation and the age-to-maturity for
green turtles in Pacific Mexico. The initial upward turn in annual
nesting was seen in 1996, about 17 years after the initiation of a
nesting beach protection program (Cliffton et al., 1982; Alvarado-
D[iacute]az et al., 2001), and growth data from the Gulf of California
suggest that green turtles in this DPS mature at 15-25 years (Seminoff
et al., 2002a). Although not a clear cause of the increasing nesting
trend, the consistency in timing is nonetheless compelling. The
presidential decree protecting all sea turtles of Mexico (Pesca, 1990)
certainly helped the situation, but this occurred much later than the
start of nesting beach conservation. It is more likely that this
national legislation has had its greatest positive impact at the
foraging areas, where green turtle hunting was once rampant.
With regard to spatial structure, genetic sampling in the eastern
Pacific has been extensive and the coverage in this region is
substantial considering the relatively low population sizes of most
eastern Pacific nesting sites. Within this DPS there is significant
population substructuring. Four regional genetic stocks have been
identified in the eastern Pacific (P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data):
Revillagigedos Archipelago (Mexico), Michoac[aacute]n (Mexico), Costa
Rica, and the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands (Ecuador). There is a relatively
high level of spatial structure and the presence of rare/unique
haplotypes at each nesting site stock. Green turtles from multiple
nesting beach origins commonly mix at feeding areas in the Gulf of
California (Nichols, 2003; P. Dutton, NMFS, unpubl. data). A recent
study using nuclear single nucleotide polymorphisms (a DNA sequence
variation occurring commonly within a population) and microsatellite
markers investigated the genetic stock structure among five Pacific
green turtle nesting populations. They found significant structure
between their two eastern Pacific sample sites (Gal[aacute]pagos and
Mexico), suggesting that male-mediated gene flow between regional
nesting stocks is limited (Roden et al., 2013).
Flipper tag recoveries show 94 tag returns from foraging areas that
were applied at two primary nesting sites, Michoac[aacute]n Mexico and
the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, Ecuador. Two apparent groupings suggest
some North/South structure. Forty-nine satellite tracks of green
turtles in the eastern Pacific show apparent track clustering in
Northwest Mexico to Southern United States, and in the Southeast
Pacific, from the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands to the high seas and to the
Central American mainland. There are too few satellite tracks to
provide solid information on spatial structure. Within-region variation
in demographic features also suggests a level of spatial structure for
the East Pacific DPS. Among all nesting
[[Page 15328]]
assemblages in the East Pacific DPS, the Revillagigedos Islands stands
out as uniquely different from the remaining areas.
With regard to diversity and resilience, the East Pacific DPS has
substantial nesting at both insular and continental nesting sites. The
presence of year round nesting at some sites, and non-overlapping
nesting seasons at others, suggest that the nesting phenology of green
turtles in this DPS may help buffer in geologic time against climate
change, both in terms of increased mean incubation temperatures on
beaches and in terms of impact to storms and other seasonal events. The
nesting season in Michoac[aacute]n runs from October through January
(Alvarado-D[iacute]az and Figueroa, 1990); in the Revillagigedos
Islands nesting occurs from March through November with a peak in
April/May (Awbrey et al., 1984; Brattstrom, 1982) and in the
Gal[aacute]pagos, nesting occurs year-round with a peak from January to
March (Z[aacute]rate et al., 2013). Year-round nesting has also been
confirmed for some areas in Costa Rica.
There is a range of beach shade levels depending on the nesting
beach. At some sites such as those in the Revillagigedos Islands and
beaches in Mexico, the beaches have little vegetation and nests are
commonly laid in full-sun areas. On the other hand, the beaches in
Costa Rica are highly shaded and nests are commonly deposited deep in
the coastal scrub bushes and trees. There are also intermediate sites,
such as those in the Gal[aacute]pagos, which have a mix of full sun and
shade sites on any given beach. While the exposed beaches are more
likely to suffer from the impacts of climate change, those in shaded
areas may be subjected to less heating.
B. Summary of Factors Affecting the East Pacific DPS
1. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
a. Terrestrial Zone
The largest threat on nesting beaches in the East Pacific DPS is
reduced availability of habitat due to heavy armament and subsequent
erosion. In addition, while nesting beaches in Costa Rica,
Revillagigedos Islands, and the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands are less
affected by coastal development than green turtle nesting beaches in
other regions around the Pacific, several of the secondary green turtle
nesting beaches in M[eacute]xico suffer from coastal development. For
example, effects of coastal development are especially acute at
Maruata, a site with heavy tourist activity and foot traffic during the
nesting season (Seminoff, 1994). Nest destruction due to human presence
is also a threat to nesting beaches in the Galap[aacute]gos Islands
(Z[aacute]rate et al., 2006). However, such threats vary by site
(Z[aacute]rate, 2012). Insular sites have very low levels of human
interference at nesting beaches, although turtles may be affected in
foraging areas. The low impacts at insular nesting sites suggest that
these areas may serve as nesting refugia if management regimes change
and/or poaching at continental sites increases.
b. Neritic/Oceanic Zones
With respect to environmental degradation in the marine
environment, coastal habitats along the continental and insular shores
of the eastern Pacific are relatively pristine, although green turtles
in San Diego Bay, at the north edge of their range, have high levels of
contaminants (Komoroske et al., 2011; 2012). However, the nutrient flow
and structure within seagrass communities in many coastal areas are
likely modified today due to the depletion of green turtles which,
during times of higher abundance, would have been keystone consumers in
these habitats (Bjorndal, 1980; Thayer et al., 1992; Seminoff et al.,
2012b). Although the impacts of ongoing and proposed human activities
are difficult to quantify, recent human population increases in many
areas underscore the need to develop and implement management
strategies that balance development and economic activities with the
needs of green turtles.
In summary, within Factor A we find that the East Pacific DPS of
the green turtle is negatively affected by ongoing changes in both its
terrestrial and marine habitats as a result of land and water use
practices. We also find that coastal development, beachfront lighting,
and heavy foot traffic consistently affect hatchlings and nesting
turtles on a small portion of this DPS.
2. Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific,
or Educational Purposes
In some countries and localities within the range of the East
Pacific DPS, harvest of green turtle eggs is legal, while in others it
is illegal but persistent due to lack of enforcement. The impact of egg
harvest is exacerbated by the high monetary value of eggs, consistent
market demand, and severe poverty in many of the countries in the
Eastern Pacific Region where sea turtles are found. Egg harvest is a
major conservation challenge at several sites in Costa Rica, including
Nombre de Jesus and Zapotillal Beaches, where 90 percent of the eggs
were taken by egg collectors during one particular study (Blanco,
2010). Egg harvest is also believed to occur at unprotected nesting
sites in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua (NMFS and USFWS,
2007). Indeed, green turtles are hunted in many areas of northwest
Mexico despite legal protection (Nichols et al., 2002; Seminoff et al.,
2003; J. Seminoff, NMFS, pers. obs., 2012). Mancini and Koch (2009)
describe a black market that killed tens of thousands of green turtles
each year in the Eastern Pacific Region.
Sea turtles were, and continue to be, harvested primarily for their
meat, although other products have served important non-food uses. Sea
turtle oil was for many years used as a cold remedy and the meat, eggs
and other products have been highly-valued for their aphrodisiacal
qualities, beliefs that strongly persist in the countries bordering the
East Pacific DPS.
3. Factor C: Disease or Predation
FP is virtually non-existent in green turtles within the East
Pacific DPS (Koch et al., 2007), and predation occurs at low levels. In
the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands there is depredation on eggs and
hatchlings by feral pigs (Sus sp.) and beetles (order Coleoptera),
although predation levels are not reported (Z[aacute]rate et al., 2003;
2006). There are accounts of jaguars (Panthera onca) killing adult
female green turtles (L. Fonseca, National University of Costa Rica,
unpubl. data, 2009) at beaches in Costa Rica, but this is not a major
problem for the DPS.
4. Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The following countries have laws to protect green turtles: Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and the United States. In addition, at
least 10 international treaties and/or regulatory mechanisms apply to
the conservation of green turtles in the East Pacific DPS. Overall,
regulatory mechanisms for green turtles in the East Pacific DPS are
inconsistent. While there are numerous substantive and/or improving
conservation efforts, especially on the primary nesting beaches, and
this may be reflected in the recent increases in the number of nesting
females, many concerns remain due to limited enforcement of existing
laws and marine protected areas as well as extensive fishery bycatch,
especially in coastal waters. The analysis of existing regulatory
mechanisms assumed that all would remain in place at their current
[[Page 15329]]
levels; however, some regulatory mechanisms, including laws and
international treaties, are not realizing their full potential because
they are not enforced adequately in all countries occupied by the DPS.
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 beaches, 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. 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 1978 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.
Bycatch has not been thoroughly evaluated but it is largely known
that most fishermen either improperly implement TEDs or remove them
entirely from their trawls. As was the case with sea turtle meat and
egg collection, an almost total lack of enforcement of bycatch
mitigation measures by local authorities only helps to confound the
problem. Additionally, TEDs are not a requirement for artisanal
shrimping boats which, with today's technology, are becoming more
`industrial' in ability and have been reported to catch large numbers
of sea turtles. It is unlikely that bycatch 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 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.
The Status Review did not reveal regulatory mechanisms in place to
specifically address impacts to the nesting beach, marine pollution,
sea level rise, and effects of climate change that continue to
contribute to the extinction risk of this DPS.
5. Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
a. Incidental Bycatch in Fishing Gear
Incidental capture in artisanal and commercial fisheries is a
significant threat to the survival of green turtles throughout the
Eastern Pacific Ocean. The primary gear types involved in these
interactions include longlines, drift nets, set nets, and trawl
fisheries. These are employed by both artisanal and industrial fleets,
and target a wide variety of species including tunas (Thunnus sp.),
sharks (class Chondrichthyes), sardines (Sardinella sp.), swordfish
(Xiphias gladius), and mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus).
In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly areas in the southern
portion of the range of this DPS, significant bycatch has been reported
in artisanal gill net and longline shark and mahi mahi fisheries
operating out of Peru (Kelez et al., 2003; Alfaro-Shigueto et al.,
2006) 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. During an observer program in 2003/2004, 588 sets were
observed during 60 trips, and 154 sea turtles were taken as bycatch.
Green turtles were the second most common sea turtle species in these
interactions. In many cases, green turtles 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.
Koch et al. (2006) reported green turtle bycatch-related dead
strandings numbering in the hundreds in Bahia Magdalena. In Baja
California Sur, Mexico, from 2006-2009 small-scale gill-net fisheries
caused massive green turtle mortality at Laguna San Ignacio, where
Mancini et al. (2012) estimated that over 1,000 turtles were killed
each year in nets set for guitarfish.
Bycatch in coastal areas occurs principally in shrimp trawlers,
gill nets and bottom longlines (e.g., Orrego and Arauz, 2004). However,
since 1996, all countries from Mexico to Ecuador declared the use of
TEDs as mandatory for all industrial fleets to meet the requirements to
export shrimp to the United States under the U.S. Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Helvey and Fahy, 2012). Since
then, bycatch has not been thoroughly evaluated but it is widely
believed that most fishers either improperly implement TEDs or remove
them entirely from their trawls.
Additionally, TEDs are not required for artisanal shrimping boats,
which with today's technology, are becoming more `industrial' in
ability and have been reported to catch large numbers of sea turtles
(A. Zavala, Universidad de Sinaloa, pers. comm., 2012). Bottom-set
longlines and gill nets, both artisanal and industrial, also interact
frequently with sea turtles, and can have devastating mortality rates,
such as has been the case in artisanal fisheries of Baja California,
Mexico (Peckham et al., 2007). In purse seine fisheries, which
typically target tuna and other large pelagic fish species, the highest
rate of turtles are captured with ``log sets'' around natural floating
objects or Fish Aggregation Devices (Hall, 1998).
b. Pollution
Other threats such as debris ingestion (Seminoff et al., 2002c) and
boat strikes (P. Dutton, NMFS, pers. comm., 2012; NMFS stranding
records, unpubl.) also affect green turtles in the Eastern Pacific. Red
tide poisoning is also a threat to this species (Delgado-Trejo and
Alvarado-Figueroa, 2012).
c. Effects of Climate Change and Natural Disasters
Effects of climate change include, among other things, sea surface
temperature increases, the alteration of thermal sand characteristics
of beaches (from warming temperatures), which could result in the
reduction or cessation of male hatchling production (Hawkes et al.,
2009; Poloczanska et al., 2009), and a significant rise in sea level,
which could significantly restrict green turtle nesting habitat. While
sea turtles have survived past eras that have included significant
temperature fluctuations, future climate change is expected to happen
at unprecedented rates, and if turtles cannot adapt quickly they may
face local to widespread extirpations (Hawkes et al., 2009). Impacts
from global climate change induced by human activities are likely to
become more apparent in future years (IPCC, 2007). However, at the
primary nesting beach in Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico (Colola), the beach
slope aspect is extremely steep and the dune surface at which the vast
majority of nests are laid is well-elevated. This site is likely
buffered against short-term sea level rise as a result of climate
change. In addition, many nesting sites are along protected beach
faces, out of tidal surge pathways. For example, multiple nesting sites
in Costa Rica and in the Gal[aacute]pagos Islands are on beaches that
are protected from major swell coming in from the ocean.
[[Page 15330]]
Within Factor E, we find that fishery bycatch that occurs
throughout the eastern Pacific Ocean, particularly bycatch mortality of
green turtles from nearshore gill net fisheries, is a significant
threat to the persistence of this DPS.
C. Conservation Efforts for the East Pacific DPS
There are a multitude of NGOs and conservation networks whose
efforts are raising awareness about sea turtle conservation.
Protection of green turtles is provided by local marine reserves
throughout the region. In addition, sea turtles may benefit from the
following broader regional efforts: (1) The Eastern Tropical Pacific
(ETP) Marine Corridor (CMAR) Initiative supported by the governments of
Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador, which is a voluntary
agreement to work towards sustainable use and conservation of marine
resources in these countries' waters; (2) the ETP Seascape Program
managed by Conservation International that supports cooperative marine
management in the ETP, including implementation of the CMAR; (3) the
IATTC and its bycatch reduction efforts that are among the world's
finest for regional fisheries management organizations; (4) the IAC,
which is designed to lessen impacts on sea turtles from fisheries and
other human impacts; and (5) the Permanent Commission of the South
Pacific (Lima Convention), which has developed an ``Action Plan for Sea
Turtles in the Southeast Pacific.''
There are indications that wildlife enforcement branches of local
and national governments are stepping up their efforts to enforce
existing laws, although successes in stemming sea turtle exploitation
through legal channels are few and far between.
D. Extinction Risk Assessment and Findings for the East Pacific DPS
The East Pacific DPS is characterized by moderate levels of green
turtle nesting abundance (>20,000 nesting females) occurring in three
primary regions, with Mexico having the largest number of nesting
females at several sites (13,664 nesting females), followed by the
Gal[aacute]pagos, Ecuador (3,603 nesting females), and Costa Rica
(2,826 nesting females distributed among 26 nesting sites). Although
trend information is lacking for the vast majority of sites, 25 years
of monitoring at Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico--the largest nesting
aggregation in this DPS--shows an increasing trend since the
population's low point in the mid-1980s. In addition to Mexico, data
from the Gal[aacute]pagos Archipelago suggest a stable trend, and the
largest-ever nesting numbers reported in Costa Rica suggest this site
may be on the increase as well.
Genetic and demographic data show some substructuring among the
populations, and nesting is well-distributed in the East Pacific DPS,
occurring from the tip of the Baja California Peninsula to northern
Peru. Such a broad latitudinal range may be advantageous to green
turtles in this DPS in the face of global climate change. Likewise,
with year round nesting at several sites and non-overlapping nesting
seasons at others, it appears that this DPS may benefit from nesting
season temporal diversity in relation to population resilience. Lastly,
nesting at both continental and insular sites provides a degree of
diversity as well as resilience, with some insular sites providing
relatively threat-free nesting refugia within this DPS's range.
Nevertheless, green turtles continue to be affected by a variety of
threats within the range of the East Pacific DPS. These include harvest
of eggs and turtles for food and non-food uses, bycatch in coastal and
offshore marine fisheries gear, coastal development, beachfront
lighting, and heavy foot traffic. Although the situation has improved
to some extent, the harvest of turtles and their eggs continues
throughout much of the range, although more problematic outside of the
Gal[aacute]pagos Islands, particularly in Central America (egg harvest)
and Mexico (harvest of foraging turtles). Mortality from diseases such
as FP is not a problem in the Eastern Pacific, but depredation by
natural predators is a very large concern, particularly in the
Gal[aacute]pagos and, to a lesser extent, in Costa Rica. Green turtle
interactions and mortalities with coastal and offshore fisheries in the
eastern Pacific region are of concern and are considered an impediment
to green turtle recovery in the East Pacific DPS. Yet despite these
concerns, the largest nesting sites appear to be increasing.
Conservation actions, national laws, and international instruments
have provided the foundation for what appears to be an ongoing
population recovery in the region, particularly in Mexico, although
work remains to ensure continued recovery. Further, our analysis did
not consider the scenario in which current laws or regulatory
mechanisms were not continued. Given the conservation dependence of the
species, without mechanisms in place to continue conservation efforts
and funding streams in this DPS, some threats could increase and
population trends could be affected.
For the above reasons, we propose to list the East Pacific DPS as
threatened. We do not find the DPS to be in danger of extinction
presently because of high nesting abundance and increasing trends;
however, the continued threats from coastal and offshore fisheries are
likely to endanger the DPS within the foreseeable future.
XVIII. Proposed Determinations
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the Services make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)). We have reviewed the best
available scientific and commercial information, including information
included in the petition, the status review report, and other published
and unpublished information; and we have consulted with species experts
and individuals familiar with green turtles and their habitat.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we identify 11 green turtle DPSs: Central North Pacific, North
Atlantic, Mediterranean, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North
Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Central West Pacific, Southwest
Pacific, Central South Pacific, and East Pacific. We find that the
purposes of the Act would be furthered by managing this wide-ranging
species as separate units under the DPS authority, in order to allow
for enhanced protections where needed. Based on a review of the five
factors contained in ESA section 4(a)(1), we find that the best
available science supports the listing status of ``endangered'' for
three of the DPSs and therefore conclude that the species as a whole no
longer meets the definition of a ``threatened species'' throughout its
range. We propose to remove the current species-wide listing and to
list 11 DPSs as threatened or endangered. We propose to list the North
Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-
West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs as threatened, and the Mediterranean, Central West
Pacific, and Central South Pacific DPSs as endangered for the reasons
described above for each DPS.
Regarding the February 16, 2012 petition from the Association of
Hawaiian Civic Clubs to identify the Hawaiian green turtle population
as a DPS and ``delist'' the DPS under the
[[Page 15331]]
ESA, as described above we conclude that the petitioned entity
qualifies as a DPS (Central North Pacific DPS), but that the DPS should
be listed as threatened for the reasons discussed above. We therefore
deny the petition seeking its delisting.
XIX. Significant Portion of the Range
Under the ESA and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. See the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). Under that policy,
we only need to consider whether listing may be appropriate on the
basis of the ``significant portion of its range'' language if the
rangewide analysis does not lead to a determination to list as
threatened or endangered. Because we have determined that each DPS of
green turtle is either threatened or endangered throughout all of its
range, no portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of
the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.''
XX. Effects of Listing
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include, but are not limited to, recovery
plans and actions (prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1536(f)) and the
actions recommended in them; designation of critical habitat if prudent
and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)); Federal agency
requirements to consult with the Services and to ensure its actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)); and prohibitions on taking (16
U.S.C. 1538). Recognition of the species' plight through listing
promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign
entities, private groups, and individuals. Should the proposed listings
be made final, a recovery plan or plans may be developed, unless we
find that such plan would not promote the conservation of the species.
A. Identifying Section 7 Conference and Consultation Requirements
Section 7(a)(4) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(4)) of the ESA and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR 402) require Federal agencies to
confer with the Services on actions likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of species proposed for listing, or that result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
proposed species is ultimately listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal
agencies to consult with the Services on any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out if those actions may affect the listed species or
its critical habitat; Federal agencies must insure that such actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2); 50 CFR 402). Because green turtles are
currently listed throughout their range, requirements for initiating
consultation will not change if the current listing is reclassified and
revised to reflect recognition of multiple DPSs. Examples of Federal
actions that affect green turtles include, but are not limited to:
Dredging and channelization, beach and nearshore construction, pile-
driving, water quality standards, power plants, vessel traffic,
military activities, and fisheries management practices.
B. 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 Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)).'' Section 3(3) of the
ESA 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 Act are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).''
Section 4(a)(3)(A)(i) of the ESA, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Designations of critical habitat must be based on
the best scientific data available and must take into consideration the
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). The
Services' regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation
of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
The identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected
to increase the degree of threat from human activity, such as take of
turtles or eggs. In the absence of finding that the designation of
critical habitat would increase threats to a species, a finding that
designation may be prudent is warranted if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation. Here, the potential benefits of
designation would include (1) Triggering consultation under section 7
of the ESA for Federal actions in unoccupied designated critical
habitat; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential
features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or
county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may
provide some measure of benefit, we determine that designation of
critical habitat may be prudent for the green turtle, subject to review
of information in connection with the designation.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat
is not determinable when one or both of the following situations
exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the
impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the biological needs of
the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of
an area as critical habitat. At this point, we are still in the process
of acquiring the information needed to assess the critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat to be
not determinable at this time.
A final regulation designating critical habitat is generally due
concurrently with a final regulation listing a species as endangered or
threatened (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The statute does not mandate that
the proposed rule to designate critical habitat has to be published
concurrent with the proposed listing rule, and thus a proposed rule
designating critical habitat may be
[[Page 15332]]
published following the proposed listing rule (but at least 90 days
before the intended effective date of the rule (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(5)(A)). Upon a finding that designation of critical habitat is
not determinable, the Services have an additional year to finalize a
proposed critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). In
effect, then, the Services have up to one year following final listing
of the species to finalize a critical habitat designation where such
habitat is initially not determinable. To ensure that the Services may
make a timely proposal based on the best scientific and commercial
information available, we invite public input on features and areas
that may meet the definition of critical habitat for the DPSs proposed
for listing that occur in U.S. waters or its territories. These include
the North Atlantic (southeastern United States and Puerto Rico), South
Atlantic (U.S. Virgin Islands), Central South Pacific (American Samoa),
Central West Pacific (CNMI and Guam), Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs (California).
The Services previously designated critical habitat for green
turtles in waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico from the mean
high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6 km; 63 FR 46693,
September 2, 1998). These waters include Culebra's outlying Keys,
including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniqu[iacute], Isla
Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pe[ntilde]a, Las Hermanas,
El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los
Gemelos, and Piedra Steven, and are within the range of the North
Atlantic DPS.
The ESA does not speak directly to the status of designated
critical habitat when the agency later amends a species listing by
dividing it into constituent DPSs. Notably, critical habitat does not
lose its biological and conservation relevance to the relevant listed
DPS (here, the North Atlantic) simply because the species listing is
amended. Moreover, carrying forward an existing critical habitat
designation can enhance the protection provided to the listed DPS
because the carried-forward designation protects habitat features
essential to the species' recovery from destruction or adverse
modification in section 7 consultations. Given that Congress has not
spoken directly to this issue in the statute, we find that the benefits
of designated critical habitat, the ESA's broad purpose to conserve the
ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend, and
taking a reasonable precautionary approach, the ESA should be construed
to provide in these circumstances for keeping existing critical habitat
designation in place as a transitional matter until the designation is
re-promulgated or amended through a further rulemaking. Therefore,
critical habitat remains in effect for the listed North Atlantic DPS in
order to preserve its conservation value, as the designated critical
habitat continues to support the DPS's important biological functions
(e.g., foraging habitat, developmental habitat, and shelter/refuge from
predators). The Services have not designated critical habitat within
the range of the other ten green turtle DPSs.
C. Take Prohibitions
All of the take prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1538(a)(1)) will automatically apply to the three DPSs
proposed to be listed as endangered, the Mediterranean, Central West
Pacific and Central South Pacific, if the proposal to list them as
endangered is finalized. These include prohibitions against importing,
exporting, engaging in foreign or interstate commerce, or ``taking'' of
the species. ``Take'' is defined under the ESA as ``to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt
to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532(19)).'' These
prohibitions apply to any ``person'' (as defined by the ESA) subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States,
its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Certain exceptions apply to
employees of the Services, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies. In addition, 50 CFR part 224.104 would
apply to the proposed endangered DPSs. Some of the current provisions
apply only to areas in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic; however,
future provisions may apply to any endangered DPS, without regard to
its geographic boundaries.
In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) authorizes the
Secretary to issue regulations deemed necessary and appropriate for the
conservation of species. The Services already have in place take
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened species of sea
turtles, set forth at 50 CFR 17.42(b), 223.205, 223.206, and 223.207.
These existing take prohibitions and exceptions will continue to remain
in effect and apply to those DPSs listed as threatened, which are the
North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East
Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East
Pacific DPSs.
Pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, we may issue permits to carry
out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened
wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are
codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 223.206. With regard to endangered
wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the ESA.
D. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation
of Section 9 of the ESA
On July 1, 1994, the Services published a policy (59 FR 34272) that
requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time
a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. We will
identify, to the extent known at the time of the final rule, those
specific activities that, although they may appear to pose impacts to
the species, will not be considered likely to result in violation of
section 9, as well as activities that will be considered likely to
result in violation. Based on currently available information, we
conclude that the activities most likely to violate the section 9
prohibitions against ``take'' of endangered green turtle DPSs include,
but are not limited to, the following: (1) Importation or exportation
of any part of a green turtle or green turtle eggs; (2) directed take
of green turtles, including fishing for, capturing, handling, or
possessing green turtles, eggs, or parts; (3) sale of green turtles,
eggs, or parts; (4) destruction or modification of green turtle
habitat, including nesting beaches, beaches used for basking, and
developmental, foraging habitat, and migratory habitat that actually
kills or injures green turtles (50 CFR 222.102); and (5) indirect take
of green turtles in the course of otherwise lawful activities, such as
fishing, dredging, coastal construction, vessel traffic, and discharge
of pollutants. We emphasize that whether a violation results from a
particular activity depends upon the facts and circumstances of each
incident. The mere fact that an activity may fall within one of these
categories does not mean that the specific activity will cause a
violation; due to such factors as location and scope, specific actions
may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on the species.
Further, an
[[Page 15333]]
activity not listed may in fact result in a violation. We also
emphasize that because the green turtle is currently listed, we do not
anticipate changes in the activities that would constitute a violation
of section 9. Possible exceptions include those actions affecting the
breeding populations in Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico, which
were heretofore listed as endangered. Under the final rule, these
populations would become part of the threatened North Atlantic and East
Pacific DPSs, respectively, and therefore will be protected by the
existing protective regulations.
XXI. Peer Review
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings are
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. 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 Quality Act (Public Law
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. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we
obtained independent peer review of the status review report from 15
independent specialists in the academic and scientific community. All
peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to dissemination of the
final status review report and publication of this proposed rule.
XXII. Classification
A. National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir.
1981), NOAA has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6). Similarly, USFWS has
determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with
regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. USFWS published a
notice outlining its reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
B. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot 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 proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed
rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed
rule will be given to the relevant state agencies in each state in
which the species is believed to occur, and those states will be
invited to comment on this proposal. We have considered, among other
things, Federal, State, and local conservation measures. As we proceed,
we intend to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with the
State, and other affected local or regional entities, giving careful
consideration to all written and oral comments received.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
Dated: March 11, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Dated: February 25, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 17, 223, and
224 are proposed to be amended 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; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Sea turtle, green'', which
is in alphabetical order under REPTILES, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) The ``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' is provided
below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------- population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas Central North Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
North Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean. originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the Central PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
North Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded
by the following
coordinates:
41[deg] N.,
169[deg] E. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in
the northeast;
9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in
the southeast;
and 9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. in
the southwest.
[[Page 15334]]
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas Central South Green sea turtles E [INSERT FR NA 224.104
South Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean. originating from CITATION WHEN
the Central PUBLISHED AS A
South Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded
by the following
coordinates:
9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. in
the northwest;
9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in
the northeast;
40[deg] S.,
96[deg] W. in
the southeast;
40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E. in
the southwest;
and 13[deg] S.,
171[deg] E. in
the west.
Sea turtle, green (Central West Chelonia mydas Central West Green sea turtles E [INSERT FR NA 224.104
Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean. originating from CITATION WHEN
the Central West PUBLISHED AS A
Pacific Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following
coordinates:
41[deg] N.,
146[deg] E. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N.,
169[deg] E. in
the northeast;
9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W. in
the east;
13[deg] S.,
171[deg] E. in
the southeast;
along the
northern coast
of the island of
New Guinea; and
4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in
the west.
Sea turtle, green (East Indian- Chelonia mydas Eastern Indian Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
West Pacific DPS). and Western originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
Pacific Oceans. the Eastern PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Indian and FINAL RULE].
Western Pacific
Oceans, bounded
by the following
lines and
coordinates:
41[deg] N. Lat.
in the north,
41[deg] N.,
146[deg] E. in
the northeast;
4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in
the southeast;
along the
southern coast
of the island of
New Guinea;
along the
western coast of
Australia (west
of 142[deg] E.
Long.); 40[deg]
S. Lat. in the
south; and
84[deg] E. Long.
in the east.
Sea turtle, green (East Pacific Chelonia mydas East Pacific Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the East Pacific PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Ocean, bounded FINAL RULE].
by the following
lines and
coordinates:
41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N. Lat.
in the north;
along the
western coasts
of the Americas;
40[deg] S. Lat.
in the south;
and 40[deg] S.,
96[deg] W. in
the southwest.
Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Mediterranean Sea Green sea turtles E [INSERT FR NA 224.104
(Mediterranean DPS). originating from CITATION WHEN
the PUBLISHED AS A
Mediterranean FINAL RULE].
Sea, bounded by
5.5[deg] W.
Long. in the
west.
Sea turtle, green (North Chelonia mydas North Atlantic Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR 226.208 17.42(b),
Atlantic DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the North PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Atlantic Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines
and coordinates:
48[deg] N. Lat.
in the north,
along the
western coasts
of Europe and
Africa (west of
5.5[deg] W.
Long.); north of
19[deg] N. Lat.
in the east;
19[deg] N.,
63.5[deg] W. in
the south;
10.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W. in
the west; and
along the
eastern coasts
of the Americas
(north of
7.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W.).
Sea turtle, green (North Indian Chelonia mydas North Indian Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the North Indian PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Ocean, bounded FINAL RULE].
by: Africa and
Asia in the west
and north;
84[deg] E. Long.
in the east; and
the equator in
the south.
[[Page 15335]]
Sea turtle, green (South Chelonia mydas South Atlantic Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
Atlantic DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the South PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Atlantic Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines
and coordinates:
along the
northern and
eastern coasts
of South America
(east of
7.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W.);
10.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W. in
the west;
19[deg] N.,
63.5[deg] W. in
the northwest;
19[deg] N. Lat.
in the
northeast;
40[deg] S.,
19[deg] E. in
the southeast;
and 40[deg] S.
Lat. in the
south.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Chelonia mydas Southwest Indian Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
Indian DPS). Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the Southwest PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Indian Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines:
the equator to
the north;
84[deg] E. Long.
to the east;
40[deg] S. Lat.
to the south;
and 19[deg] E.
Long (and along
the eastern
coast of Africa)
in the west.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Chelonia mydas Southwestern Green sea turtles T [INSERT FR NA 17.42(b),
Pacific DPS). Pacific Ocean originating from CITATION WHEN 223.205,
the Southwestern PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207
Pacific Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following lines
and coordinates:
along the
southern coast
of the island of
New Guinea and
the Torres
Strait (east of
142[deg] E
Long.); 13[deg]
S., 171[deg] E.
in the
northeast;
40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E. in
the southeast;
and 40[deg] S.,
142[deg] E. in
the southwest.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(e) by revising the entry ``Sea
turtle, green'' under Sea Turtles to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(e) The threatened species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of Commerce are:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing Critical
Description of listed determination(s) habitat ESA Rules
Common name Scientific name entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sea Turtles \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea turtle, green (Central North Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
Pacific DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Central North Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded by the
following coordinates:
41[deg] N., 169[deg] E. in
the northwest; 41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in the
northeast; 9[deg] N.,
125[deg] W. in the
southeast; and 9[deg] N.,
175[deg] W in the
southwest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15336]]
Sea turtle, green (East Indian-West Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
Pacific DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Eastern Indian and Western FINAL RULE].
Pacific Oceans, bounded by
the following lines and
coordinates: 41[deg] N.
Lat. in the north, 41[deg]
N., 146[deg] E. in the
northeast; 4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in the
southeast; along the
southern coast of the
island of New Guinea;
along the western coast of
Australia (west of
142[deg] E. Long.);
40[deg] S. Lat. in the
south; and 84[deg] E.
Long. in the east.
Sea turtle, green (East Pacific DPS) Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
originating from the East WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Pacific Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following lines and
coordinates: 41[deg] N.,
143[deg] W. in the
northwest; 41[deg] N. Lat.
in the north; along the
western coasts of the
Americas; 40[deg] S. Lat.
in the south; and 40[deg]
S., 96[deg] W. in the
southwest.
Sea turtle, green (North Atlantic Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION 226.08 17.42(b), 2223.205,
DPS). originating from the North WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Atlantic Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following lines and
coordinates: 48[deg] N.
Lat. in the north, along
the western coasts of
Europe and Africa (west of
5.5[deg] W. Long.); north
of 19[deg] N. Lat. in the
east; 19[deg] N.,
63.5[deg] W. in the south;
10.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W.
in the west; and along the
eastern coasts of the
Americas (north of
7.5[deg] N., 77[deg] W.).
Sea turtle, green (North Indian DPS) Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
originating from the North WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Indian Ocean, bounded by: FINAL RULE].
Africa and Asia in the
west and north; 84[deg] E.
Long. in the east; and the
equator in the south.
Sea turtle, green (South Atlantic Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
DPS). originating from the South WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Atlantic Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following lines and
coordinates: along the
northern and eastern
coasts of South America
(east of 7.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W.); 10.5[deg] N.,
77[deg] W. in the west;
19[deg] N., 63.5[deg] W.
in the northwest; 19[deg]
N. Lat. in the northeast;
40[deg] S., 19[deg] E. in
the southeast; and 40[deg]
S. Lat. in the south.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Indian Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Southwest Indian Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the following
lines: the equator to the
north; 84[deg] E. Long. to
the east; 40[deg] S. Lat.
to the south; and 19[deg]
E. Long (and along the
eastern coast of Africa)
in the west.
Sea turtle, green (Southwest Pacific Chelonia mydas......... Green sea turtles [INSERT FR CITATION NA 17.42(b), 223.205,
DPS). originating from the WHEN PUBLISHED AS A 223.206, 223.207.
Southwestern Pacific FINAL RULE].
Ocean, bounded by the
following lines and
coordinates: along the
southern coast of the
island of New Guinea and
the Torres Strait (east of
142[deg] E Long.); 13[deg]
S., 171[deg] E. in the
northeast; 40[deg] S.,
176[deg] E. in the
southeast; and 40[deg] S.,
142[deg] E. in the
southwest.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 15337]]
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(h) by revising the entry for ``Sea turtle,
green'' under Sea Turtles to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(h) The endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of Commerce are:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Critical
Description of listed listing habitat ESA rules
Common name Scientific name entity determination(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sea Turtles \2\
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas.. Green sea turtles [INSERT FR NA 224.104
South Pacific DPS). originating from the CITATION WHEN
Central South PUBLISHED AS A
Pacific Ocean, FINAL RULE].
bounded by the
following
coordinates: 9[deg]
N., 175[deg] W. in
the northwest;
9[deg] N., 125[deg]
W. in the northeast;
40[deg] S., 96[deg]
W. in the southeast;
40[deg] S., 176[deg]
E. in the southwest;
and 13[deg] S.,
171[deg] E. in the
west.
Sea turtle, green (Central Chelonia mydas.. Green sea turtles [INSERT FR NA 224.104
West Pacific DPS). originating from the CITATION WHEN
Central West Pacific PUBLISHED AS A
Ocean, bounded by FINAL RULE].
the following
coordinates: 41[deg]
N., 146[deg] E. in
the northwest;
41[deg] N., 169[deg]
E. in the northeast;
9[deg] N., 175[deg]
W. in the east;
13[deg] S., 171[deg]
E. in the southeast;
along the northern
coast of the island
of New Guinea; and
4.5[deg] N.,
129[deg] E. in the
west.
Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas.. Green sea turtles [INSERT FR NA 224.104
(Mediterranean DPS). originating from the CITATION WHEN
Mediterranean Sea, PUBLISHED AS A
bounded by 5.5[deg] FINAL RULE].
W. Long. in the west.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement,
see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56
FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
\2\ Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
[FR Doc. 2015-06136 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P