C 55.302: R 24/7/ GREEN
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations
of the
Green Turtle
(Chelonia mydas)
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cover Photograph Courtesy of George Balazs
RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS OF THE
GREEN TURTLE
(Chelonia my das)
Prepared by the
Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team
for Pennsylvania State UnivefSity
Libraries
National Marine Fisheries Service
Silver Spring, Maryland
and
Pacific Region
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Portland, Oregon
Approved: (^ y<?&&u
Regional Director, U.S. Fish arid Wildlife Service
Date: /fJLz>23 zl2
Approve
(^Assistant Administrator for Fisheri
JON 1 7 1998
Documents Coitection
U.S. Depository Copy
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service
Date:
X
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover
and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and sometimes with the assistance of
recovery teams, contractors, State agencies and others. Objectives will only be attained and
funds expended contingently upon appropriations, priorities and other budgetary constraints.
Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of
any individuals or agencies, other than those of NMFS and the FWS which were involved in the
plan formulation. They represent the official positions of NMFS and the FWS only after they
have been approved by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries or the Regional Director.
Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in
species status and the completion of recovery tasks.
Literature citations should read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for
U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Additional copies of this plan may be purchased from:
Fish and Wildlife Reference Service
5430 Grosvenor Lane
Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
(301)492-6403 or
1-800-582-3421
The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Green)
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Geographic Scope 1
B. Historical and Cultural Background 4
C. Taxonomy 5
D. Description 5
E. Population Distribution and Size 6
Nesting Grounds 6
Insular and Pelagic Range 8
F. Status 11
G. Biological Characteristics 12
Migration and Movements 12
Foraging Biology and Diet 14
Growth 15
Reproduction 16
Offshore Behavior 17
Health Status 17
H. Threats 18
Pacific Synopsis 18
Regional Summaries 20
U.S. West Coast 20
American Samoa 20
Hawaii 20
Guam 21
Republic of Palau 21
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 22
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) 22
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) 23
Unincorporated Islands 24
General Threat Information 26
Nesting Environment 26
1 . Directed Take 26
2. Increased Human Presence 28
3. Coastal Construction 28
4. Nest Predation 29
5. Beach Erosion 30
i
6. Artificial Lighting 31
7. Beach Mining 32
8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches 33
9. Exotic Vegetation 33
10. Beach Cleaning 33
1 1 . Beach Replenishment 34
Marine Environment 34
12. Directed Take 34
13. Natural Disasters 35
14. Disease and Parasites 36
15. Algae, Seagrass, and Reef Degradation 36
16. Environmental Contaminants 37
17. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion) 39
18. Fisheries (Incidental Take) 40
19. Predation 41
20. Boat Collisions 41
21. Marina and Dock Development 41
22. Dredging 42
23. Dynamite "Fishing" 43
24. Oil Exploration and Development 43
25. Power Plant Entrapment 43
26. Construction Blasting 43
I. Conservation Accomplishments 44
Legislation 44
Traditional Controls 44
Protected Areas 45
Other Plans and Regulations 47
Headstart and Hatchery Programs 47
Sea Turtle Conservation and Management Plans 48
Research and Education 48
Effectiveness of Conservation Accomplishments 48
II. RECOVERY 50
A. Recovery Objectives 50
B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery 51
III. REFERENCES CITED 64
IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 73
PREFACE
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
share responsibilities at the Federal level for the research, management, and recovery of Pacific
marine turtle populations under U.S. jurisdiction. To accomplish the drafting of this recovery plan,
NMFS appointed a team of professional biologists experienced with marine turtles in the Pacific
region. This document is one of six recovery plans (one for each of the five species plus one for
the regionally important population of the East Pacific green turtle).
While similar in format to previously drafted sea turtle recovery plans for the Atlantic,
Caribbean, and Hawaii, the unique nature of the wider Pacific region required some modification
of the recovery plan format. The geographic scope of the present plan is much larger than any
previously attempted and considers areas from the western coastal United States extending to
Guam. Furthermore, the amount of jurisdictional overlap between nations, commonwealths,
territories and compact-of-free-association-states and their various turtle populations required a
broader management perspective than has been attempted previously. Finally, sea turtles have
not been studied as comprehensively in the Pacific as in other U.S. areas, and thus there are many
areas in the Pacific where basic biological and ecological information must be obtained for
management purposes. Thus, these plans have more extensive text on the general biology of the
turtles, so that they might act as a resource to managers seeking a handy reference to the species.
The plans are also subdivided into U.S. jurisdictional areas (i.e., the various territories and the
commonwealth), so that local managers can address issues within their respective regions more
easily.
Because of the previously noted aspects of marine turtle distribution in the Pacific (e.g., wide
geographic range, multiple jurisdictions), the Recovery Team relied on the input and involvement
of a large number of advisers, as can be noted by the lengthy Acknowledgments section. It is
hoped that the resulting document is one that acts as a pragmatic guide to recovering the
threatened and endangered sea turtle populations in the Pacific Ocean.
The members of the Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team and the authors of this document are:
Scott A. Eckert, Ph.D. (Team Leader) Karen Eckert, Ph.D.
Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation
Javier Alvarado, Ph.D.
Network (WIDECAST)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Universidad de Michoacan, Mexico John Engbrin
George Balazs
National Marine Fisheries Service James Maragos, Ph.D.
East-West Center
Richard Byles, Ph.D.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Robert Pitman
National Marine Fisheries Service
Peter Craig, Ph.D.
Office of Wildlife and Marine Resources, Susan Pultz
Government of American Samoa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Peter Dutton, Ph.D. James I. Richardson. Ph.D.
Texas A&M University University of Georgia
in
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The team wishes to thank and acknowledge the following technical advisors and contributors to
these recovery plans:
David Aldan, Department of Natural Resources, Saipan, MP
Pablo Arenas, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
Representative Mariano W. Carlos, Palau
Chuck Cook, The Nature Conservancy
Donald David, FSM
Gerry Davis, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, Dept. Agriculture, Guam
Oscar DeBrum, former Chief Secretary, RMI
Adrienne Farago, SPREP/RMTCP, Western Samoa
Michael Guilbeaux, Georgia Sea Turtle Cooperative
Vincent Hachiglou, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government
Heidi Hirsh, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Paul Holthus, IUCN Biodiversity Program
Luciana Honigman, The Nature Conservancy
Noah Idechong, Division of Marine Resources, Palau
John lou, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government
Bruce Jensen, Pacific Magazine
Harry Kami, Hilo, Hawaii
Angela Kay Kepler, Athens, Georgia
Steve Kolinski, Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State Government
Colin Limpus, Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia
Becky Madraisau, Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center, Republic of Palau
B. Rene Marquez-M.f P.N.I.T.M./INP, Mexico
Donna McDonald, Ocean Planet Research
Ken McDermond, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu
Jeffery Miller, Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage, Australia
Susan Miller, South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP)
Karen Miller McClune, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute
Moses Nelson, Marine Resources Division, FSM
Peter Oliver, RMI
Arnold Palacios, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Dept. of Natural Resources, CNMI
Peter Pritchard, Florida Audubon Society
Georgita Ruiz, Colonia Irrigacion, Mexico
Laura Sarti, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico
Fumihiko Sato, Ogasawara Marine Center, Japan
Katsufumi Sato, Kyoto University, Japan
Asterio Takesy, Secretary of Resources and Development, FSM
Natasha Tuato'o-Bartley, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa
Itaru Uchida, Port of Nagoya Public Aquarium, Japan
Richard Wass, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Phil Williams, National Marine Fisheries Service
IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CCL
CITES
CNMI
COE
DAWR
EEZ
ENSO
EPA
ESA
ETP
FENA
FSM
FWS
HSWRI
IATTC
INP
IUCN
MHI
MIMRA
MMDC
MRMD
mtDNA
NMFS
NOAA
NPS
NRCS
NWHI
PNG
RMI
SCL
SDG&E
SPREP
TAMU
TED
UNAM
USCG
USVI
WIDECAST
curved carapace length
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
Exclusive Economic Zone
El Nino - Southern Oscillation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
Eastern Tropical Pacific
females estimated to nest annually
Federated States of Micronesia
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
Instituto Nacional de Pesca
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Main Hawaiian Islands
Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority
Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center
Marine Resources Management Division, Yap State government
mitochondrial DNA
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service)
Northwest Hawaiian Islands
Papua New Guinea
Republic of the Marshall Islands
straight carapace length
San Diego Gas & Electric
South Pacific Regional Environment Program
Texas A & M University
Turtle Excluder Device
Universidad Nagional Autonoma de Mexico
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Virgin Islands
Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current Status: The green turtle is listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
throughout its Pacific Range, except for the Endangered population nesting on the Pacific coast
of Mexico which is covered under the Recovery Plan for the East Pacific green turtle. In reviewing
this species' current status, the Recovery Team found that, outside of Hawaii, the green turtle
populations have seriously declined and should probably be classified as Endangered. By far, the
most serious threat to these stocks is from direct take of turtles and eggs, both within U.S.
jurisdiction and on shared stocks that are killed when they migrate out of U.S. jurisdiction (e.g.,
nesting turtles from American Samoa migrate to Fiji and French Polynesia to feed). In Hawaii,
green turtle populations appear to have a somewhat less dire status, probably due to effective
protection at the primary nesting areas of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and better enforcement
of regulations prohibiting take of the species. However, the relatively recent increase in the
incidence of the tumorous disease, fibropapillomatosis, in the Hawaiian green turtle threatens to
eliminate improvements in the status of the stock. Another serious threat to green turtle
populations throughout the Pacific is associated with increasing human populations and
development. In particular, human development is having an increasingly serious impact on green
nesting beaches.
Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.
Recovery Criteria: To consider de-listing, all of the following criteria must be met:
1) All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on
reasonable geographic parameters.
2) Each stock must average 5,000 (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal of
maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) females estimated to nest annually (FENA) over
six years.
3) Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year
monitoring period.
4) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments.
5) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging
grounds within each stock region.
6) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented.
7) A management plan to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place.
8) International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks.
Actions Needed: Eight major actions are needed to achieve recovery (not in order of priority).
VI
1) Stop the direct harvest of green sea turtles and eggs, through education and law
enforcement actions.
2) Eliminate the threat of fibropapillomas to green turtle populations.
3) Reduce incidental harvest of green turtles by commercial and artisanal fisheries.
4) Determine population size and status through regular nesting beach and in-water censuses.
5) Identify stock home ranges using DNA analysis.
6) Support conservation and biologically viable management of green turtle populations in
countries that share U.S. green turtle stocks.
7) Identify and protect primary nesting and foraging areas for the species.
8) Eliminate adverse effects of development on green turtle nesting and foraging habitats.
9) Control non-native predators of eggs and hatchlings, e.g., mongoose, feral cats, and pigs,
in the Hawaiian population.
VII
RECOVERY PLAN FOR U.S. PACIFIC POPULATIONS OF THE
GREEN TURTLE {Chelonia mydas)
Written by the
U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery Team
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Geographic Scope
Defining the geographic range of a population of sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean is difficult.
Sea turtles are highly migratory, and the life histories of all species exhibit complex movements and
migrations through geographically disparate habitats. Because the U.S. Pacific Sea Turtle
Recovery Team is required to focus on sea turtle populations that reside within U.S. jurisdiction,
we must delineate what constitutes a population where individuals reside permanently or
temporarily within U.S. jurisdiction and what actions must be taken to restore that population. This
has proven to be quite challenging because sea turtles do not recognize arbitrary national
boundaries and in most cases we have only limited data on stock ranges and movements of the
various populations. In this recovery plan we have tried to make these judgements with the best
information available, and to suggest means by which the United States can promote population
recovery.
Geographic scope (from a U.S. jurisdictional perspective) for all six of the U.S. Pacific sea turtle
recovery plans (written for five species and one regionally important population) is defined as
follows: in the eastern Pacific, the west coast of the continental United States (Figure 1a); in the
central Pacific, the state of Hawaii and the unincorporated U.S. territories of Howland, Baker,
Wake, Jarvis, and Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef; in Oceania,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa (see
Figure 1b). The U.S. -affiliated but independent nations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
(RMI), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and the Republic of Palau are also included. The
FSM consists of the states of Yap, Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Kosrae. While independent, all retain
clearly defined administrative links to the United States in the areas of defense, natural resource
management, and some regulatory issues. Thus, we include them here in an advisory capacity.
Finally, where eastern Pacific sea turtles are held in common with Mexico, discussion of the status
and recovery of these stocks will also include discussion of the resource under Mexican jurisdiction.
In all cases where U.S. sea turtle stocks are held in common with other sovereign states, we have
tried to suggest means by which the United States can support efforts at management of those
stocks by those states. We recognize that other nations may have different priorities than the
United States and we have sincerely attempted to avoid establishing policy for those nations.
By virtue of the highly migratory behavior of the adult turtles, and the shifting habitat
requirements of post-hatchlings and juveniles, it is known that at least some of the populations of
green turtles in this vast region cross international boundaries. The adjacent ocean and
island-areas of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, and even the Philippines (including the South
China Sea), Indonesia, Taiwan, and possibly the Bonin islands of Japan, may constitute shared
habitats for green turtles. This is acknowledged in the following discussions.
1
Figure 1 a. Western coasts of the United States, Canada and Mexico (as well as Central and
northern South America) constitute a shared habitat for Pacific sea turtles.
o
to
c
S
o
a
Figure 1 b. The western Pacific constitutes a shared habitat for Pacific sea turtles.
A separate Recovery Plan has been prepared for the East Pacific green turtle (also called the
black turtle) Chelonia mydas whose geographic range extends along the coastal waters of the
North, Central and South American continents including the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador.
B. Historical and Cultural Background
Wherever and whenever available, green turtles and their eggs have been eaten and esteemed
for centuries by the native inhabitants of the insular Pacific region (Johannes 1978, 1986; Lessa
1984; McCoy 1974, 1982; Smith 1991; South Pacific Region Environment Programme [SPREP]
1 991 ). The red meat, viscera, and eggs of the green turtle have supplied a nutritious and succulent
alternative to the more common items usually available, such as fish, birds, shellfish, coconuts,
breadfruit and taro. The adult female turtles are especially prized due to their large quantities of fat.
The utilization of green turtles for food and other purposes was often under strict control,
usually by some form of an island council or tribal chief. In both Polynesia and Micronesia turtles
were considered the property of royalty, and harvest was often restricted to special occasions. In
the Samoan Islands, certain families in the village were designated turtle hunters, upon whom the
village chief would rely to catch turtles when requested. In other areas such as the RMI, only the
harvest of nesting females was regulated with a nesting turtle considered the property of the atoll
chief. Turtles caught in the water were the property of the fisherman who caught them (Glen
Lokjohn, Wotje Atoll resident pers. comm.). In some areas the green turtle was reserved for feasts
which were attended exclusively by men. In the Hawaiian Islands, in ancient times, women were
entirely prohibited from eating turtles (Balazs 1980). Certain parts of the green turtle, such as the
fat, were also used for medicinal purposes to treat burns and other skin disorders. In addition,
dried carapaces of the green turtle were used as containers, and the disarticulated bones were
used for kitchen utensils, sewing needles, fish hooks and agricultural tools. While green turtle
scutes are also known to have been fashioned into ornaments and utensils, the thicker and more
attractive plates of the hawksbill were preferred for this purpose whenever available. Live
hatchlings were (and in some places still are) commonly raised as pets where they eventually died
or were released or eaten when they grew to a certain size.
Religious, ceremonial, and other traditional restrictions on the capture, killing, distribution and
consumption of green turtles played an important role in their utilization. For example, in the
Hawaiian Islands there were families that considered the green turtle to be a personal family deity
or "aumakua", not to be eaten or harmed. One legendary turtle in particular named Kauila was
believed to be able to change at will into human form to watch over village children playing along
the shoreline. Artistic elements of green turtles have also been featured prominently in some
cultures of the region, such as in petroglyphs and tattoo designs.
The green turtle's decline combined with significant alteration and modernization of nearly all
island cultures within the region has reduced the cultural importance of green turtles. Green turtles
have declined in many areas due to an increased ability to hunt them locally and more efficiently
with modern fishing gear, and to travel great distances with motorized vessels to gather mating and
nesting turtles at formerly remote breeding sites. At the same time, canned foods, refrigeration,
and associated modern technologies have been imported and embraced by most if not all island
societies. Family and village social structures have been altered by immigration, emigration, the
introduction of cash and commercial market economies, and the institution of state or federal
government control of natural resources. Nevertheless, green turtles retain some level of cultural
and culinary importance throughout the Pacific (for example, see Smith 1991).
Additional information on the historical and cultural significance of green turtles in the region
can be found in Tuato'o-Bartley et al. (1993), Balazs (1982c, 1983a, 1983b, 1985c), Hiatt (1951),
Johannes (1981), Lessa (1962), Tobin (1952), and Tobin et al. (1957).
C. Taxonomy
The green turtle was first described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Testudo mydas, with Ascension
Island in the Atlantic as the type locality. Schweigger in 1812 first applied the binomial Chelonia
mydas in use today.
The current taxonomic status of the green turtle is uncertain. Mitochondrial DNA research
conducted by Bowen et al. (1 992) showed a fundamental phylogenetic split distinguishing all green
turtles in the Atlantic-Mediterranean from those in the Indian-Pacific Oceans. There is no evidence
for genetic distinctiveness of the often-recognized taxonomic form in the east Pacific called the
East Pacific green, or the black turtle, Chelonia mydas (agassizii) (Bowen et al. 1 992; Dutton et al.
1 996). Although trinomials have been applied to various populations in the past, they are generally
not in use today with the exception of the East Pacific green turtle. Hirth (1971a) concluded that
"it is best to use the binomial, Chelonia mydas, for all green turtles until a detailed taxonomic study
is made." Until additional morphological and genetic research is conducted, Hirth's advice remains
valid.
A geographic population substructure within each ocean basin involves fixed or nearly fixed
genotypic differences between nesting populations. This suggests a strong propensity for natal
homing by the females (see also Meylan et al. 1990). MtDNA data suggest that the global
matriarchal phylogeny of Chelonia mydas has been shaped by the ocean basin separations and
regionally by the natal homing behavior. The shallow evolutionary structure of Chelonia
populations within ocean basins likely resulted from extinction and colonization of rookeries over
time-frames that are short by evolutionary standards, but long by ecological standards (Bowen et
al. 1992). Consequently, in terms of conservation and management, the available evidence
indicates that breeding sites must be considered as demographically independent units. For
additional discussions of the systematics of the green turtle see Hirth (1980), Pritchard and
Trebbau (1984) and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989).
D. Description
The green turtle is the largest of the cheloniids, with adults that can exceed one meter in
carapace length and 100 kg in body mass. Green turtles nesting at French Frigate Shoals in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) average 92 cm in straight carapace length (SCL; range
81 -1 06 cm, n=379) (Balazs 1 980). At Olimarao Atoll, Yap, FSM, 27 adult females handled during
1 990 averaged 1 04 cm in curved carapace length (CCL; range 93-1 1 7 cm), and approximately 1 40
kg in body mass (range 97 to greater than 181 kg) (Kolinski 1 991 ). Hatchlings average about 4.7
to 5.4 cm in carapace length, and 22 to 31 g in weight (Marquez 1990 in Eckert 1993).
Characteristics that distinguish the green from other species of sea turtles include a smooth
carapace with four pairs of lateral scutes, a single pair of prefrontal scales, and a lower jaw-edge
that is coarsely serrated, corresponding to strong grooves and ridges on the inner surface of the
upper jaw (Carr 1952; Hirth 1971a; Pritchard and Trebbau 1984).
The term "green" refers not to the external coloration, but to the color of the turtle's subdermal
fat. The carapace of adult green turtles is light to dark brown, sometimes shaded with olive, with
radiating wavy or mottled markings of a darker color or with large blotches of dark brown (Carr
1 952). The carapace coloration changes as the turtle grows from a hatchling to an adult. Juveniles
measuring 35-65 cm in the insular Pacific region have streaked or radiating sunburst patterns of
yellowish-gold, olive, light and dark brown, reddish brown, and black. Dorsal coloration of the
green turtle likely has adaptive significance as camouflage from chief predators (e.g., tiger sharks)
while the turtle rests motionlessly on the bottom amongst coral and other benthic substrate. The
adult plastron ranges from yellowish to orange, although in the East Pacific form there is
considerable grayish pigment. All hatchling green turtles have a black dorsal surface and a pure
white venter. However, in some Pacific populations such as at French Frigate Shoals NWHI,
(Balazs 1986) and Mopelia in French Polynesia, post-hatchlings go through a radical pigment
transformation of the plastron from white to nearly all black, and then returning to white again. This
occurs during the period of growth between 5-15 cm in carapace length. The adaptive significance
of this ontogenetic switch and just how widespread it may be throughout the Pacific region and
elsewhere worldwide, are unknown.
E. Population Distribution and Size
The green turtle is a circumglobal species found in tropical seas and, to a lesser extent, in
subtropical waters with temperatures above 20°C. Worldwide distribution has been described at
length by Hirth (1971b), Groombridge (1982), and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989). Insular
populations of the Pacific are summarized by Forsyth and Balazs (1989).
Nesting Grounds
Groombridge (1982) estimates that there are approximately 150 extant nesting colonies
(demographically independent units) worldwide for the green turtle. However, only 1 0-1 5 of these
are large enough to involve 2,000 or more nesting females per year. None of these large colonies
occur within the insular Pacific region, although Australia's Great Barrier Reef does serve as such
a site (see Limpus 1978, 1982).
Nesting by ten or fewer females each year takes place at scattered, but probably not very
numerous locations throughout this vast oceanic region (e.g., in Guam and CNMI) (see Balazs
1 982a; Pritchard 1 977, 1 982b). A review of critical nesting habitats for green turtles at certain U.S.
sites in the Pacific has been presented by Dodd (1978) and Balazs (1978).
The patterns of green turtle exploitation, both historically and more recently at an accelerated
pace, have affected the present distribution of the remaining breeding sites. This distribution
illustrates the historical decline of the species by the fact that the only extant island-breeding sites
of any consequence are those that have not been permanently inhabited by humans, or have not
been visited frequently for exploitation. The recognition of this important demographic point serves
to emphasize what has happened to the green turtle in the past. It also highlights the fact that
more effective, intensive, and sustained conservation measures are needed in the near future to
prevent this valued resource from declining even further.
Because sea turtles remain faithful to their natal beaches, the excessive harvesting of turtles
at a nesting site will not be replenished by the recruitment of turtles from other nesting sites. This
view is consistent with the distributional pattern of remaining nesting sites in relation to human
exploitation, as noted in the previous section.
It should be stressed that, with the exception of French Frigate Shoals, all of the following
estimates are based on very limited and fragmentary data that require verification by additional
research spanning at least three, and preferably five or more, consecutive years of monitoring and
tagging at each site. Nevertheless, based on the information presently available, at least the
orders of magnitude of these estimates are believed to be reasonably correct (Balazs 1 991 ; Edson
and Curren 1987; Hendrickson 1972; Hirth 1971a; Kolinski 1991; Smith 1991; Tuato'o-Bartley et
al. 1993; Thomas 1989; Holthus et al. 1993; and various unpublished information from
correspondents including S. Kolinski, A. Smith, T. Herring, D. Itano and others).
U.S. West Coast
No known nesting.
Hawaii
Nesting occurs throughout the Hawaiian archipelago, but over 90% occurs at French Frigate
Shoals, Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), where 200-700 females are estimated to nest
annually (FENA = Females Estimated to Nest Annually) (see Balazs et al. 1 992). Low level nesting
(less than 25 FENA) is known or is likely to occur at Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, and Pearl and
Hermes Reef.
American Samoa
The major nesting site for this area is Rose Atoll, with an estimated 25-35 FENA (Tuato'o-
Bartley et al. 1993). Low level nesting may occur at Tutuila and the Manua Group.
Guam
There is some regular low-level nesting of green turtles on Guam (Pritchard 1982a; Gerry
Davis, Guam, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), pers. comm.).
Republic of Patau
Helen Reef was until recently uninhabited and may have supported 100-500 nesting females.
A 1 991 survey found eight residents on the island and only a few turtles nesting (Geermans 1 992)
and there is concern that this colony may be in the process of being extirpated (J. Maragos, East-
West Center, pers. comm.). Merir had 100 FENA in 1991 and is the most important nesting area
of Palau (Geermans 1992). Sonsorol, Fanna, Tobi and Pulo Anna have less than 25 FENA
(Geermans 1992; Maragos et al. 1994). There are also a few green turtles nesting at Kayangel
Atoll and at the uninhabited Ngeruangal Atoll (Maragos 1994) and also at Anguar, Peleliu, and
coastal Babeldaob (M. Guilbeaux, University of Georgia, pers. comm.).
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
Fewer than ten green turtles nest on the islands of Saipan, Tinian and Rota each year. The
extent of nesting on the northern islands is unknown.
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)
Bikar Atoll may have 100-500 nesting females. During one short stay (11 nights) late in the
nesting season 48 turtles were tagged in 1992 (Puleloa and Kilma 1992). Breeding colonies in
Erikub and Jemo may each consist of 25 - 1 00 FENA (Puleloa and Kilma 1 992). Low level nesting
(less than 25 FENA) occurs at Enewetak and Bikini.
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)
Sites thought to host breeding colonies of 100-500 FENA include Oroluk Atoll, Pohnpei;
Olimarao Atoll, Yap; and Gielop, Yap (322 were tagged in 1991). Elato, Lamotrek, Pikelot, West
Fayu and Gaferut in Yap may have 25 to 100 FENA during most years (S. Kolinski, Marine
Resources Management Division [MRMD], Yap State govt., pers. comm. to G. Balazs). Harvesting
pressure on greens at Pikelot and West Fayu has increased in recent years corresponding to a
decline in nesting turtles, based upon observations and interviews of M. McCoy and J. Maragos
at Satanal (Yap State) in June-July 1995.
Information compiled by Fosberg (1 969), Johannes (1 978), McCoy (1 974, 1 982), and Pritchard
(1977, 1982a,b) on the sea turtles of Micronesia provides valuable background information for
several of these sites, lar, an islet close to Gielop just outside Ulithi Atoll in Yap, may host several
hundred nesting females annually and is clearly a priority site (along with Gielop) for future
research in the FSM (S. Kolinski, pers. comm.).
Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories
Low density nesting was recorded along the west coast of Jarvis Island in the 1930s (Bryan
1974 in Balazs 1982a) as well as a low level of nesting on Palmyra Atoll in 1987 (pers. comm.
Stewart Feffer to James Maragos), other areas are unknown.
Insular and Pelagic Range
The pelagic range of post-hatchling and juvenile green turtles in the insular Pacific region is not
known. A similar situation exists for all sea turtle populations worldwide. There are three inherent
problems which impede research of pelagic-phase turtles. First, the whereabouts of the turtles are
not known, although they are generally assumed to be at, or near, the ocean surface along drift
lines where surface waters are brought together by advection and downwelling (Carr 1987a).
Secondly, once the pelagic locations of the turtles have been identified, there are problems in
devising an efficient and safe sampling technique so that statistically significant numbers of turtles
8
can be captured. Lastly, a means to determine the origin of the turtles with respect to the nesting
beaches where they were hatched will be needed. Some advances in genetics research have
already been made in this area (see Bowen et al. 1992).
Pelagic-dwelling juvenile green turtles have been captured during recent years, albeit in
relatively low numbers, by commercial driftnet vessels fishing in international waters to the north
and west of the Hawaiian Islands (Balazs and Wetherall 1 991 ; Wetherall et al. 1 993). These turtles
may originate from nesting beaches in Hawaii, the Bonin Islands (Suganuma 1991), or possibly
even the RMI. Juvenile green turtles have also been observed by research vessels operating
thousands of miles from land in the southeastern Pacific (Eckert 1993).
U.S. West Coast
Stranding reports (Cordaro, NMFS, pers. comm.) indicate that Chelonia is a regular visitor in
waters off the southwest coast of the United States. A small (30-50) group resident in San Diego
Bay, California shows physical characteristics of both the Mexican and the Hawaiian breeding
populations (Dutton and McDonald 1990). The turtles appear to remain as residents in the area
because of the warm water effluent from a power generating station. A northern record of a
stranding in Homer, Alaska, was reported in 1993 (Loshbaugh 1993), although this turtle may have
died in waters further south and drifted north with the current.
Hawaii
Green turtles inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands are among the best known in the Pacific in terms
of their nearshore benthic foraging pastures and associated underwater habitats. Important
resident areas have been identified and are under study along the coastlines of Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, Lanai, Hawaii, as well as at Lisianski Island and Pearl and Hermes Reef (Balazs et al. 1987;
Balazs 1 979, 1 980, 1 982b). The shallow waters within French Frigate Shoals have been identified
as inter-nesting habitat for adult females and also adult males that migrate to breed at this key site
(Dizon and Balazs 1982). The available evidence indicates that the range of adult green turtles
using French Frigate Shoals is confined to the 2,400 km expanse of the Hawaiian Archipelago
(Balazs 1976, 1983b) and to Johnston Atoll immediately to the South, where algal foraging
pastures occur (Balazs 1985a).
American Samoa
Green turtles occur in the waters off Tutuila and the Manua Group of American Samoa, but
apparently not in great numbers. The green turtles that nest at Rose Atoll likely feed elsewhere
in the central South Pacific where sea grasses and algae are abundant. Distant recoveries of two
turtles tagged at Rose Atoll were made in Fiji, where they were taken by net and eaten (Balazs
1991; Tuato'o-Bartley et al. 1993) and one other was taken at Vanuatu (G. Balazs, NMFS, pers.
comm.). Three satellite-tagged females migrated to Fiji after nesting at Rose Atoll (Balazs 1994),
and one other migrated to French Polynesia (Craig and Balazs 1 995). All four turtles were believed
to have returned to their resident foraging pastures.
Guam
Green turtles have been sighted throughout the area during all months of the year, particularly
during December to February and May to June. There was a total of 783 turtle sightings during
surveys from 1975 through 1979 (Pritchard 1982a).
Republic of Palau
Very little information exists on the range of green turtles foraging at Palau, although Helen
Reef provides an important foraging area (Jim Maragos, pers. comm.). Because Palau contains
excellent sea grass and algal beds (Maragos et al. 1994) green turtles are probably found
throughout the area. Specific foraging areas have been at Helen Atoll, Angaur Island, Peleliu
Island, off the Southern Lagoon, and off major seagrass beds at Babeldaob, south of Oreor and
Sar Passage.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Green turtles are caught by divers in the Northern Marianas (Pritchard 1982a) and according
to Honigman (1994) green turtles are found commonly in the waters of Tinian.
Republic of the Marshall Islands
Very little information exists on the range of green turtles foraging in the RMI. According to
fisheries officers of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA), Arno Atoll provides
an important area for feeding green turtles of various size classes (V. Alfred, MIMRA, pers.
comm.). Green turtles have also been caught in the waters of Wotje Atoll and probably occur
around most of the islands and the Atolls in the RMI.
Federated States of Micronesia
Very little information exists on the range of numerous green turtles foraging in the FSM.
Benthic foraging habitats for green turtles nesting in the FSM appear to include coastal waters of
neighboring nations to the west and north as indicated by long-distance tag returns.
SCUBA divers have reported green turtles feeding in the lagoon at Oroluk Atoll (Naughton
1 991 ; Holthus et al. 1 993). There are undoubtedly many other feeding sites throughout the region,
but diving surveys have not been undertaken and the existing local knowledge has not been
comprehensively collected and reported upon.
Unincorporated U.S. Island Territories
Aggregations of resident green turtles are known to occur at Wake Island and Palmyra Atoll,
but only a few turtles have been seen in the waters around Howland, Baker, Jarvis, and Kingman
Reef during recent years (Balazs 1982a and unpubl. data).
10
F. Status
The green turtle is listed as Endangered worldwide by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (Groombridge 1982), and the species
appears on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). In 1978, under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the
green turtle was listed and classified as Threatened, except for breeding populations in Florida and
on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which were classified as Endangered. Both categories afford
substantial protection under rules promulgated at the time of listing (50 CFR 17.1 1) .
When green turtles were listed under the Act in 1978, a provision was included for their
"subsistence use" by native peoples living within the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. At
that time, the FSM, RMI, CNMI, and the Republic of Palau comprised the Trust Territories of the
Pacific. Under this regulatory exemption only green turtles less than 30 inches could be taken and
only from below the high-tide mark for non-commercial sustenance purposes. During 1984 a
comprehensive review of this subsistence exemption was undertaken by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine its validity, and whether or not there was justification to
expand it to other U.S. areas of the Pacific, such as Guam, American Samoa and the State of
Hawaii. The original subsistence exemption, along with its original geographical restriction of the
Trust Territory, was subsequently reaffirmed (Johannes 1986; NMFS 1985a, 1985b). However,
none of these island nations remain a part of the trust territory today.
Green turtles were originally listed under the ESA because of overexploitation for commercial
and other purposes, the lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms and effective enforcement,
evidence of declining numbers, and habitat loss and degradation. Overall, the survival status of
green turtles throughout the insular Pacific region has likely continued to decline due to directed
harvest (both illegal and legal) and negative impacts to essential habitats. For example, when
interviewed by a member of the Recovery Team, turtle fishermen and biologists from the Marshall
Islands suggested that turtle populations have declined 50% in the last 20 years due to
uncontrolled harvest of nesting turtles.
While green turtles in the Hawaiian Islands (Figure 2) have demonstrated some encouraging
signs of population recovery after 17 years of protective efforts, the conservation outlook for the
future is seriously compromised by the mortality of turtles from poaching, capture in nearshore
gillnets, and the increasing scope and magnitude of a tumor affliction disease known as
fibropapilloma (Balazs et al. 1992; Balazs and Pooley 1991).
11
5,
CO
500
400
N = total nesters seen ■*■ sighting probability
1973
1978
1983 1988
Year
1993
1998
Figure 2. Green turtle nesting at East Island, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, has tripled since enactment
of the Endangered Species Act.
Additional up-to-date information on the status of sea turtles and their historical decline can be
found in National Research Council (1990) and Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989).
G. Biological Characteristics
Several valuable reviews covering the biological characteristics of the green turtle have been
published during recent years, including ones by Hirth (1 980), Groombridge (1 982), Ogren (1 984),
and Pritchard and Trebbau (1984). Similar reviews containing more specific information on green
turtles in the Pacific Basin can found in Limpus (1978), Balazs (1980), Forsyth and Balazs (1989)
and Eckert(1993).
The following sections discuss in synoptic form the basic biological characteristics of the green
turtle with particular relevance to the insular Pacific region. As previously indicated, many facets
of the green turtle's life history and ecology remain unknown. This absence of essential information
constitutes a serious impediment to the long-term conservation and recovery of the affected
populations.
Migration and Movements
Adult green turtles periodically undertake reproductive migrations between resident foraging
pastures and distant sites where copulation and egg laying take place. These migrations are
12
carried out by members of nearly all populations worldwide, even though in many cases there
would appear to be acceptable sites for nesting much closer to the turtles' home range. The
reason for migrating is therefore something of an evolutionary enigma, although the proper
dispersal of hatchlings by ocean currents off a particular nesting beach may be a crucial factor
(Collard and Ogren 1990). The oceanic routes taken by the adults on their migrations, whether or
not they travel together, and the navigational techniques employed while migrating, are generally
unknown. Adult females migrate to breed once every two or more years, while the adult males
often migrate on an annual basis, at least in the Hawaiian islands (Balazs 1983b). Sufficient
evidence exists to show that the turtles return to the same resident foraging areas following their
time spent at the breeding grounds.
Some important migrations by green turtles in the Pacific have been documented by tag and
recapture studies and satellite telemetry studies. In the Hawaiian Islands green turtles migrate to
French Frigate Shoals from foraging pastures located both to the northwest and the southeast,
involving one-way distances up to 1300 km. In 1991, three females were satellite-tracked from
their nesting grounds at French Frigate Shoals to foraging grounds in Kaneohe Bay and Johnston
Atoll. All three traveled beyond sight of land in water thousands of meters deep, two of them
against prevailing winds and currents (Balazs 1994). In American Samoa, five green turtles
migrated to Fiji, one to Vanuatu and another to French Polynesia after nesting at Rose Atoll (Balazs
et al. 1994b). At Scilly Atoll north of Tahiti in French Polynesia, green turtles tagged during the
nesting season have been recovered (i.e., captured and eaten) at several island groups far to the
west, including Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia (see Pritchard 1982b; Meylan 1982; and
Forsyth and Balazs 1989; Balazs et al. 1995). Scilly Atoll is over 4000 km from New Caledonia.
A nesting turtle tagged during 1991 at Gielop in Yap was recovered in the Philippines. Another
turtle tagged while nesting at Oroluk in Pohnpei during 1986 was recovered (and released) in
healthy condition in Nan-way Bay on the western side of the southern tip of Taiwan (Edson and
Curren 1987). The turtle's capture and its release on a certain date, determined by numerical
considerations of the local religion, was believed to be a sign of good luck (G. Balazs, pers.
comm.).
The movements of immature green turtles are less well known. This is because tagging to
document the movements of the immature life stages requires that turtles be captured in marine
benthic habitats or, even more difficult, their pelagic habitats. Nevertheless, the tagging that has
been done in the Hawaiian Islands (including Johnston Atoll) and in Australia suggests that the
immature turtles reside for many years at the same location, provided there is suitable food,
shelter, and environmental stability. The movement to a different foraging and resting location may
only occur when the turtle grows to a size where the existing habitat can no longer fulfill its needs.
The pelagic movements of post-hatchling and young juveniles are undocumented. Once they
emerge from the nest, hatchling green turtles move directly to the ocean and swim vigorously
seaward well beyond the nearshore environment. Their subsequent movements are presumably
influenced by ocean currents, winds, and other surface conditions until the turtles are large enough
for self-directed swimming (see section on Offshore Behavior).
The dispersal of green turtle hatchlings from natal beaches in the insular Pacific region has only
been considered for one nesting site, French Frigate Shoals, NWHI. Surface drift trajectories were
computed from composite oceanographic data to estimate the theoretical dispersal of hatchlings
13
for the principal months of emergence (July-October) and for each subsequent month thereafter
while adrift (Balazs 1 976, 1 980). These trajectories predicted a general movement to the west, with
pronounced hatchling dispersal to the north of French Frigate Shoals over a two month period for
those hatchlings departing during August (the peak month for nest emergence). However, serious
limitations of this preliminary analysis include the unknown influence of localized eddies and gyres,
and to what extent the turtles engage in self-directed swimming as they grow.
Foraging Biology and Diet
Green turtles that have grown large enough (ca. 30-35 cm) to reside in the nearshore benthic
environment have a nearly exclusive herbivorous diet consisting of selected macroalgae and sea
grasses. The diets of post-hatchlings and juveniles living in pelagic habitats appear to be entirely
carnivorous (e.g., invertebrates and fish eggs), but records are only known from the occasional
turtles encountered. Information on the diet and nutrition of the green turtle has been
comprehensively reviewed by Mortimer (1982) and Bjorndal (1985). Algae and sea grasses occur
in the insular Pacific region, but their distribution, abundance, and utilization by green turtles are
only known for a few areas.
Seagrass beds are abundant in the high islands of the FSM (Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk, Yap) and
the Republic of Palau (Koror, Babeldaob), concentrated on mostly fringing reef flats especially in
lagoons and a few barrier reef flats. Seagrasses are also present on some low coral islands and
atolls in the FSM and Marshalls. Exceptionally large seagrass meadows occur off northern
Babeldaob and northeast of Peliliu Island in Palau. The Palau Southwest Islands and Kayangel
Atoll in Palau also support small seagrass flats. Sea grasses are also present on some low coral
islands and atolls in the FSM and Marshalls.
Seagrasses are rare in the Mariana, Marshalls and Hawaiian Islands and absent in American
Samoa and the unincorporated islands. Guam supports well-developed seagrass beds on many
reef flats but only a few seagrass beds are found in the CNMI. Likewise only a few seagrass beds
have been reported on the atolls of the Marshall Islands (Arno, Kwajalein, Majuro).
At certain nearshore habitats of the Hawaiian Islands, green turtles feed heavily on benthic
algae of the genera Codium, Amansia, Pterocladia, Ulva, and Gelidium. In addition, two ubiquitous
species of exotic algae, Acanthophora spicifera and Hypnea musciformis, are widely consumed.
The former was believed to have been accidentally introduced from Guam on the hull of a barge
during the early 1950s. The latter species was intentionally brought from Florida in 1974 to the
island of Oahu (and subsequently spread on its own elsewhere) as part of a seaweed farming
experiment (see Balazs et al. 1987; Russell and Balazs 1994). Green turtles in the Hawaiian
Islands also forage on hila hawaiiana, the endemic and only sea grass that occurs there. However,
it is not widespread nor abundant except for a few localized sites such as in Kaneohe Bay on Oahu,
South Molokai, and Anini on Kauai.
Green turtles resident to Johnston Atoll feed almost exclusively on the green algae, Caulerpa
racemosa and Bryopsis pennata. These two species grow in abundance along the south shore of
the main islet (Johnston Island) where an untreated human sewage outfall and chemical weapons
incineration plant are located (Balazs 1985a).
14
Analysis of stomach samples from 518 turtles from eastern Australia showed that algae
(various species of Rhodophyta, Cholorohyta and Phaeophyta) comprised over 99% of the diet in
most cases, although the hydrozoan jelly, Physalia sp., and unidentified gelatinous mollusk egg
cases were also consumed (Forbes 1 994). The same study showed that the algal turf assemblage
was "heavily exploited by the Heron Reef green turtles", and that the turtles undertook dietary shifts
when certain algae became available.
Growth
Green turtles living in the wild exhibit slow growth and delayed sexual maturity. The growth
rates of immature green turtles have been studied by in-water tag and recapture techniques
conducted in the Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Atoll, Australia, and at several sites in the western
Atlantic. Except for the first two locations, no research on growth of green turtles has been
undertaken anywhere else in the insular Pacific region.
Growth rates have been found to vary considerably at several discrete foraging sites in the
Hawaiian Islands located between the archipelago's extremities of latitudes 19°-28° North, and
longitudes 155°-178° West. The growth rates here ranged from about 1-5 cm per year in SCL for
turtles measuring 37-59 cm (Balazs 1979, 1982b, Balazs et al. 1994a). Some of the turtles living
at a foraging site situated at the lowest latitude (19°N) demonstrated the fastest rate of growth (5
cm/year). The forage quality, algal species availability, and abundance were believed to play a
significant role in the turtles' relatively rapid growth. Turtles residing at this site fed exclusively on
the red alga, Ptercladia capillacea. It is speculated that substantially faster growth rates may result
at certain pastures having an abundance of high quality forage located at low latitudes closer to the
equator. Seagrass and algae beds in Fiji, the Gilbert Islands and the Gilbert Islands and the
Phoenix Islands (Kiribati), Western Samoa, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea offer such a
possibility (see Zug and Balazs 1985).
Continuing studies through 1991, which included additional Hawaiian green turtle foraging
pastures, indicated an overall average annual rate of growth of about two cm/year for all size
classes ranging from 35-82 cm. The minimum size observed for nesting females in Hawaii is 81
cm SCL (Balazs 1 982b). Based on these data, it is estimated that an average of at least 25 years
would be needed to achieve sexual maturity (i.e., first breeding migration to French Frigate Shoals).
While these data are subject to more comprehensive analysis, results of a preliminary study using
skeletochronological aging techniques were consistent with the above findings (Zug and Balazs
1985).
Growth studies conducted in Australia have indicated that the length of time required for green
turtles to attain minimum breeding size exceeds what has thus far been found in the Hawaiian
Islands (Limpus and Walter 1 980). Investigations of green turtles in the western Atlantic conducted
by Mendonca (1977), Frazerand Ehrhart (1985), Frazerand Ladner (1986), Bjomdal and Bolten
(1988), and Boulon and Frazer (1990) all suggest comparatively slow growth rates, albeit slightly
faster than what has thus far been found in the Pacific. Carapace measurements of adult females
recorded on nesting beaches over several seasons have shown that green turtles grow at an
exceedingly slow rate (0.5 cm/year in the Hawaiian Islands) once sexual maturity has been attained
(see also Carr and Carr 1970).
15
There are no records of growth in the wild for post-hatchling and juvenile green turtles residing
in pelagic habitats. In those pelagic areas where an abundance of high quality food may be
available, growth on a carnivorous diet might be expected to exceed that which results from
herbivory in benthic habitats.
Reproduction
According to Owens (1980 in Eckert 1993), mating precedes egg-laying by 25-35 days. Adult
female green turtles emerge at night to excavate nests and deposit eggs during the warmer months
of the year at sites usually far removed from their resident foraging pastures (see Migrations and
Movements). Descriptions of the nesting sequence have been reviewed by Ehrhart (1982). The
influence of beach sand characteristics on the reproductive aspects of the green turtle has been
investigated by Mortimer (1990) in a study that includes several nesting sites from the insular
Pacific region.
In Hawaii, greens lay up to six clutches of eggs per season, with a mean of 1 .8 (Balazs 1 980).
Hendrickson (1958 in Eckert 1993) reported greens nesting up to 11 times at Sarawak Turtle
Island. Clutches consist of about 100 eggs each, laid at 10-15 day intervals. As previously
mentioned, the females migrate to breed only once every two or possibly many more years,
although the common remigration intervals reported for several rookeries worldwide are two and
three years. Limpus et al. (1994) report that the modal remigration interval for Heron Island,
Australia is five years; laparascopic examination of females tagged on nesting beaches and
recaptured at their foraging grounds has confirmed that most females wait five or more years
between breeding seasons. Once the eggs are laid and covered they incubate in the sand
unattended for about two months (54-88 days in Hawaii, with a mean of 64.5 [Balazs 1980]). The
hatchlings dig upward in a communal effort and take 2-3 days before reaching the surface and
emerging usually under the coolness of night. Newly emerged hatchlings are strongly
photopositive and can be disoriented away from their path to the sea by artificial lighting.
All sea turtles are now known to have temperature-dependent sex determination (Mrosovsky
and Yntema 1 980; Yntema and Mrosovsky 1 980; Morreale et al. 1 982). Eggs that incubate below
a pivotal temperature produce hatchlings that are predominantly males, while eggs incubated
above the pivotal temperature are predominantly females. Alvarado and Figueroa (1987) reported
that for East Pacific green turtles nesting in Michoacan, Mexico, average temperatures less than
27°C during the middle trimester resulted in 100% males. Temperatures greater than 31 °C
produced 100% females, while those in between produced mixed clutches.
The degree of predation on eggs and hatchlings on a nesting beach varies considerably
between breeding sites, and it should not be assumed that mortality is always high. For example,
at French Frigate Shoals in the NWHI there is virtually no predation on eggs and, while numerous
seabirds including frigate birds inhabit the area, no evidence of avian predation on hatchlings has
been detected during studies. Predation on hatchlings at French Frigate Shoals when they pass
through the nearshore waters en route to the open ocean does not appear to be high either (Balazs
1 980). However, this factor is far more difficult to quantify. Each breeding site must be individually
investigated. Conclusions reached for one site must not be applied to another without supporting
documentation.
16
At least in some populations, there is strong nest site fidelity within a season. In the Sarawak
Turtle Islands, only 3.7% of 5,748 records showed turtles changing islands in between nestings
after an average intemesting interval often days, and most of those only shifted between islands
less than 500 m apart (Hendrickson 1958 in Eckert 1993).
Comparatively little is known about the reproductive biology of male green turtles (but see
Balazs 1983b). Except for in the east Pacific, copulation occurs early in the breeding season but
not after a female lays her first clutch of eggs. In contrast, black turtles in the east Pacific are
reported to periodically continue to copulate between the female's successive egg clutches
throughout the season.
Offshore Behavior
Based on the behavior of post-hatchlings and juveniles raised in captivity, it is presumed that
those in pelagic habitats live and feed at or near the ocean surface, and that their dives do not
normally exceed several meters in depth. As mentioned earlier, it is also presumed that drift lines
or surface current convergences are preferential zones due to increased densities of likely food
items. In the western Atlantic, drift lines commonly contain floating Sargassum capable of providing
small turtles with shelter and sufficient buoyancy to raft upon. In the insular Pacific region there
is nothing similar in the way of floating algae to correspond with the phenomenon present in the
Atlantic.
Certain nearshore marine habitats of the insular Pacific region, as elsewhere worldwide,
constitute essential living space for juvenile, subadult, and adult green turtles. Behavior at these
discrete benthic sites includes: foraging on marine vegetation (algae and/or sea grass), lying
motionless on the ocean bottom to "rest" or possibly to avoid predators, being groomed by fishes
to remove ectoparasites (see Balazs et al. 1 994a; Losey et al. 1 994), and courtship and copulation
in waters proximal to nesting beaches. In contrast, post-hatchling and juvenile green turtles up to
about 35 cm in carapace length inhabit pelagic or open-ocean habitats far removed from land.
Adults of both sexes also use the pelagic environment when they periodically migrate between their
resident foraging pastures and distant breeding sites. The spatial limits, or range, of these two
types of habitats (nearshore benthic and pelagic) are not well known for green turtles of the insular
Pacific region.
In the remote NWHI, and especially at French Frigate Shoals, adult male and female green
turtles regularly haul out during the daytime to bask along the shoreline (Balazs 1 980; Whittow and
Balazs 1 982). This behavior is not known to occur elsewhere in the insular Pacific region, although
diurnally emerging non-nesting green turtles have been reported from the Galapagos and certain
(but by no means widespread) sites in Australia.
Health Status
Green turtles residing in certain benthic habitats of the Hawaiian Islands are afflicted by
lobulated tumors (fibropapillomas) on their skin, scales, scutes, eyes, oral cavities, and viscera
(Balazs and Pooley 1991). The tumors begin as small, localized lesions that rapidly grow to
exceed 30 cm in diameter, greatly interfering with or even prohibiting swimming, feeding, breathing,
or seeing. The lesions have been classified as fibropapillomas, based on established histologic
17
criteria for tumor classification. The cause of this disease is unknown, but a herpes virus is highly
suspected based on recent research (Herbst 1994). The disease has increased to epidemic
proportions in Hawaii since the mid-1 980s. Similar severe outbreaks in green turtles over the same
time period have also been reported in Florida, several Caribbean nations, and at a few other sites
worldwide. In the Hawaiian population, the disease represents the single most significant threat
to the green turtle's survival and is considered of highest priority for ongoing research.
During the 1991 nesting season, three turtles were seen at Gielop in Yap with abnormal
growths on the carapace that have been diagnosed as fibropapillomas (Kolinski 1994).
Green turtles are known hosts for an array of internal parasites, especially blood flukes, which
may play some debilitating role in the impact of the fibropapilloma disease. In addition,
Ozobranchus leeches, burrowing Stephanolepas barnacles, and other external parasites (including
ticks at nesting beaches) are commonly present, but again their impact on health status, and
potential as vectors for disease, are entirely unknown (see Balazs and Pooley 1991).
H. Threats
This section presents a brief overview of threats to green turtles in the Pacific basin, followed
by summaries of major threats in each U.S. -affiliated island group. A third section then presents
more detailed information specific to each island group.
"Threats" to sea turtles are broadly defined as any factor that jeopardizes the survival of turtles
or impedes the recovery of their populations. Twenty-six kinds of threats have been identified in
this and previous Recovery Plans, but it is readily apparent that all are not equally important and
that threats in one Pacific area may not be relevant in another area. Consequently, each island
group was evaluated separately based on information received from the Recovery Team and
Technical Advisors. Table 1 lists the 26 threats and ranks their significance. Definitions of the
threats are provided in subsequent text.
When viewing Table 1, it should be recognized that there are limitations inherent in this
tabulation. First, generalizations are made. Some island groups, such as the Republic of Palau,
consist of over 500 islands; consequently, the data presented in Table 1 are limited to a general
statement about conditions for the group as a whole. Similarly, most of the island groups possess
both sparsely inhabited remote islands and heavily inhabited main islands. The distribution of
turtles and the kinds of threats they face would obviously differ in these two types of islands.
Specific information about individual islands, if available, is presented in 'General Threat
Information'. Second, there are data limitations. For most islands, information about turtle threats
is sparse (see 'Pacific Synopsis').
Pacific Synopsis
The eight U.S. -affiliated island groups in the Pacific consist of several thousand islands spread
across a region twice the size of the continental United States. This vast and diverse area is
inhabited primarily by two species: green and hawksbill turtles.
18
A fundamental problem for the Pacific region is that, with few exceptions, there is a serious
shortage of information on all aspects of turtle ecology. For many areas, the most basic
information (e.g., population size, nesting beaches, distribution, migration patterns) is extremely
rudimentary. While this lack of data may not be a direct threat to the turtles themselves, it will
certainly hamper effective recovery efforts for them. For example, it will slow the protection of
important nesting habitat because many such beaches have not yet been identified. The principal
exception to this information void is Hawaii, where turtle studies have been conducted for many
years.
Based on knowledgeable accounts, turtle populations have declined dramatically in the Pacific
islands. Harvest by humans is by far the most serious problem turtles face, particularly green
turtles which have historically been used for food. This is illustrated in Table 1, which shows that
harvests of turtles on nesting beaches and in coastal water were identified as major threats in most
of the eight U.S. -affiliated island groups reviewed in this report.
Turtles have been harvested for centuries by native inhabitants of the Pacific region. In
modern times, however, a severe overharvest has resulted from a variety of factors, among which
are the loss of traditional restrictions that had limited the numbers of turtles taken by island
residents, modernized hunting gear, easier boat access to remote islands where turtles nest,
extensive commercial exploitation for turtle products in both domestic markets and international
trade, loss of the spiritual significance of sea turtles, inadequate regulations and lack of
enforcement. One often-mentioned aspect of this problem is the pillage of wildlife on remote
islands by supply ships, commercial fishing crews, and sometimes government vessels.
A greatly complicating aspect about turtle harvests is that stocks of turtles can be heavily
harvested at both ends of their migratory routes -- first by one group of people when the turtles nest
on beaches in one location and later by a second group of people when the same turtles migrate
far away to their feeding areas at another location. Conservation efforts at only one end of this
pathway are useful, of course, but may not be successful without similar conservation efforts at the
other end.
Other than harvest, the major problems are those associated with habitat losses due to rapid
expansion of resident human populations and/or increased urban and tourism development. As
a generalization, the eight U.S. -affiliated islands can be divided into three groups based on their
major turtle threats or problems: (1) Urbanized islands (main islands of Hawaii, CNMI, Guam)
where the major threats are habitat loss and problems associated with rapidly expanding tourism,
(2) Rural or developing islands (American Samoa except Rose Atoll, Republic of Palau, the
inhabited islands of CNMI, FSM, RMI) where human consumption and the lack of basic biological
information about turtle stocks prevail, and (3) Protected, uninhabited or military-controlled islands
(the unincorporated islands, Rose Atoll, the uninhabited islands of CNMI, FSM and RMI, and
Hawaiian Islands) where threats are negligible but biological information about turtle stocks is
needed.
Another potential problem is the incidental take of turtles in distant-water fisheries, but data are
generally lacking for this threat.
19
Regional Summaries
U.S. West Coast
Primary turtle threats:
See East Pacific green turtle Recovery Plan
American Samoa
Primary turtle threats:
directed take
increased human presence
algae/seagrass/reef degradation
The main islands of American Samoa are steep volcanic islands with limited land suitable for
human habitation and agriculture. The fast-growing human population (46,600 people, 3.7%
growth rate, doubling time = 1 9 years) is concentrated along the southern coastline of Tutuila Island
where significant pre-emption of former turtle nesting beaches has occurred due to village
expansion and the placement of the island highway and structures to protect them from coastal
erosion. The harvest of any turtles and eggs encountered, is the major threat to turtle recovery in
American Samoa. Although only a rough estimate, turtle populations have seriously declined and
now may number only about 120 nesting females (greens and hawksbills, combined) per year.
More data are needed to assess this trend.
Turtle tag returns show that American Samoa is dealing with a shared resource in the South
Pacific Ocean. Nesting turtles have been tracked to foraging grounds in Fiji and French Polynesia.
In order to recover this population, turtle conservation must be pursued in these countries as well.
Hawaii
Primary turtle threats:
disease
nest predation
directed take
fisheries incidental take
boat collisions
The Hawaiian Archipelago consists of 132 islands spread over 2,450 km. Most of the 1.2
million inhabitants live in the eight Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) which account for 99% of the
State's land mass. Fewer than 10 people live in the NWHI.
The primary threats to green turtle recovery and conservation include the loss of foraging
habitats to nearshore development in MHI (e.g., marina construction, artificial beach development,
siltation from agricultural runoff, contamination of forage areas from toxic spills, resort development,
and increased vessel traffic), entanglement and ingestion of marine debris, incidental take in sport
and commercial fisheries, poaching, and proliferation of disease (fibropapillomas) throughout the
turtle population. While human impacts can be readily identified and corrected or mitigated in some
20
cases, the potential adverse impacts of fibropapilloma disease may have no reasonable remedy,
as its cause is still unknown.
Guam
Primary turtle threats: directed take
increased human presence
coastal construction
nest predation
algae/seagrass/reef degradation
There is limited information available regarding turtle threats in Guam. The DAWR, in past
correspondence, indicated that the two principal threats to sea turtles in Guam are thought to be
habitat destruction and harvest. Habitat destruction has resulted mainly from construction and
development due primarily to growing tourism. In 1 990, over 740,000 tourists visited the island and
their numbers are expected to increase. On the northern portion of Guam, where the majority of
nesting occurs, the military base has limited public access and development, but landowners in the
Uruno area are attempting to develop their land as well, which would put some of the last nesting
sites in danger. Another effect of development is sedimentation which has damaged Guam's coral
reefs, and presumably, food sources for turtles.
Turtles were traditionally taken by residents for celebrations, and recent reports indicate that
illegal harvesting still occurs. There is also poaching by immigrants, fishing crews, and tourists,
especially those from areas where they are accustomed to eating turtles legally. The language
problem for non-English speaking immigrants and lack of knowledge about local regulations has
caused the majority of such problems. Incidental catch of turtles in coastal waters by commercial
fishing vessels probably also occurs.
Republic of Patau
Primary turtle threats: directed take
increased human presence
algae/seagrass/reef degradation
The Republic of Palau consists of two distinctive island groups, a northern group consisting of
several large islands and over 200 small islands collectively called the Rock Islands, and a
southwest group of the six small southwest Palau islands located 300-600 km south of the Rock
Islands. Most of the 15,000 residents of the Republic of Palau dwell on the northern islands of
Koror, Babeldaob, and Peleliu.
The Southwest Islands are small and sparsely populated (about 1 00 people). Green turtles nest
there, particularly on Merir, and large populations forage at Helen Atoll. These populations have
been reduced by commercial fishing crews, residents, and crews of supply vessels out of Koror.
Although the Southwest Islands are remote, humans are present on all green turtle nesting
21
beaches in the area. Transportation between these islands and the central Palau Archipelago
continues to increase, with inevitable increases in the exploitation of turtles.
By far the greatest threat in both island groups is the directed take of turtles in coastal waters
(which is legal during seven months of the year) and nesting turtles and eggs (which is illegal).
Enforcement is lacking.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
Primary turtle threats: directed take
increased human presence
coastal construction
algae/seagrass/reef degradation
The Mariana Archipelago consists of 15 major islands, stretching approximately 675 km from
Guam to Farallon de Pajaros. The islands are politically divided into two governing bodies: Guam
(a U.S. Territory) and CNMI which includes the remaining islands. In CNMI, Saipan, Tinian and
Rota are the largest islands and contain over 95% of the total population. Saipan is the major
business and tourist center for CNMI. The ten islands north of Saipan are relatively small, isolated
and sparsely inhabited, primarily due to active volcanic activity. Due to the rapidly expanding
development on Saipan, Tinian and Rota, hotels and human activities are beginning to dominate
beaches used by nesting turtles.
Sea turtles are considered a traditional food and are readily taken on nesting beaches or in
coastal waters. Nesting seasons and sites, as well as feeding areas, are well known to the
indigenous fisherman.
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)
Primary turtle threats: directed take
nest predation
dynamite fishing
FSM covers a vast oceanic region of the Caroline Islands and extends 2,500 km from one end
to the other. It has 600 islands (65 are inhabited) divided among four states: Pohnpei, Kosrae,
Chuuk, and Yap. There has been a general decline in numbers of nesting turtles throughout FSM,
though hard data are lacking. Turtles remain common only in some remote areas, such as the
outer islands of Yap where traditional customs limit the numbers of turtles harvested for food
although the customs are being disregarded on more and more islands.
Pohnpei State (population 33,000) consists of the main island of Pohnpei and eight atolls. The
remaining principal turtle nesting area is Oroluk Atoll, where numbers have declined. Only 7-10
green turtles per year are now thought to nest there. Oroluk was uninhabited for many years but
the Pohnpei State government now leases the island to a group of settlers from Kapingamarangi
22
Atoll. Houses and pig pens on Oroluk beaches probably continue to interfere with turtle nesting.
No nesting has been observed on other islands of Pohnpei, although sporadic usage may occur.
Kosrae (population 7,200) no longer has any significant nesting area, but turtles are common
in coastal waters.
Chuuk State contains about 300 islands and 50,000 people. There is one major nesting site
on East Fayu Island and probably some use of other islands. Unfortunately the turtle population
at East Fayu was on the verge of extinction when visited several years ago (M. Nelson, Marine
Resources Division, FSM, pers. comm.), because turtles were sold commercially as well as taken
for subsistence. Important turtle nesting beaches in Chuuk lagoon have all been depleted of
turtles, except for one or two islands of the southern barrier reef.
Yap State includes the four closely associated high islands of Yap (commonly referred to as
Yap Proper), three coral islands and 12 coral atolls. Turtles and turtle eggs have been exploited
in Yap State for as long as people have inhabited these islands. Turtles continue to play a
subsistence role and are an important part of traditional culture. A common perception among the
people is that, over the years and despite annual fluctuations, there has been a gradual decline in
the number of turtles visiting or residing within this region. Harvesting levels have increased at the
remote uninhabited islands of West Fayu and Pikelot due to increased access using motorized
skiffs from the nearest inhabited atolls (Lamatrek, Elato, Satanal).
Traditional systems regarding turtles vary somewhat throughout the islands. Some of these
systems appear to restrict the level of human interaction with turtles, though conservation of the
resource does not appear to have been a motivating factor. In general, the people of Yap State
have taken advantage of greater abilities to harvest turtles and turtle eggs through the use of
introduced foreign technologies and materials. Over-harvesting, coupled with the gradual loss of
a number of traditional practices related to the taking of turtles and turtle eggs, appears to be the
main threat to turtle populations. Turtles tagged in YAP and recovered in the Philippines and
Majuro, RMI indicate that the FSM is dealing with a shared resource. In order to recover this
population, turtle conservation must be pursued in these countries as well.
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI)
Primary turtle threats: directed take
nest predation
fisheries incidental take
There is limited information available regarding turtle threats in the 29 Atolls and south islands
of RMI. The consumption of nesting turtles and their eggs appears to be the single-most important
source of turtle mortality. Turtle harvest has expanded to all of the atolls, with Majuro, Ebeye, and
the Southern Islands purchasing turtles from the Northern Islands where they nest. There is little
or no control over the harvest on any of the islands, although informal control comes from the
owner of the land (upon which the turtles are nesting). The turtles are primarily harvested from the
nesting beaches and are generally taken for celebrations. Turtle eggs are regularly eaten. Also,
eggs are hatched and the young kept as pets. In some cases the practice of raising young is
23
mistakenly believed by the islanders to be a good conservation practice. The harvest of nesting
turtles and their eggs is illegal, but few know of these regulations. The major turtle nesting beaches
on Bikar Atoll, Jemo Island, and Erikub Atoll, and possibly Ailinginae are not continuously
uninhabited. However, the high price paid for turtles and improvements in boating and harvest
technologies have led to increased levels of harvest at the uninhabited atolls by Marshallese from
adjacent inhabited atolls.
A second major threat to nesting turtles comes from Polynesian rat predation on nests. The
feral predators have been documented to consume large numbers of eggs on Erikub and Bikar
Atolls.
Unincorporated Islands (Wake, Johnston, Kingman, Palmyra, Jarvis, Howland, Baker, Midway)
Primary turtle threats: coastal construction
nest predation
beach erosion
environmental contamination
The unincorporated islands consist of protected islands in the National Wildlife Refuge system
(Johnston, Howland, Baker, Jarvis), islands with military facilities (Wake, Johnston, Palmyra ), and
one island with no permanent land (Kingman Reef). Some are used by nesting green turtles, and
all probably provide marine feeding grounds for green and perhaps hawksbill turtles. Other than
Johnston Atoll which is inhabited by 800-1,000 people and Wake and Midway islands where
smaller numbers of people live, few or no people live on the other islands. While there are no major
threats to sea turtles at the present time, little is known about the biology of the turtles in this
region. Currently the only identified problems are in regard to activities associated with human
presence such as coastal construction, beach erosion and feral animal predation of nests.
Midway, at the northwest end of the Hawaiian chain is presently under U.S. Navy jurisdiction,
but the naval station is being closed. Midway and the other unincorporated islands may revert to
the jurisdiction of the state of Hawaii.
24
TABLE 1 . Threat checklist for
green sea turtles in the
western and central Pacific Ocean.
Codes 1 = major problem
2 = moderate problem
3 = minor problem
- = not current problem
? = unknown
P = known problem but extent unknown
Threat
U.S.
West
Amer.
Samoa
Hawaii
Guam
Palau
CNMI
FSM
RMI
Un-
incorp.
Nestinq Environment
1
Directed take - eggs
-
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
-
Directed take - turtles
.
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
.
2
Increased human presence
-
2
-
1
1
1
3
3
-
3
Coastal construction
-
-
-
1
-
1
3
3
3
4
Nest predation
-
-
2
2
P
?
1
1
3
5
Beach erosion
-
3
3
?
3
?
P
3
3
6
Artificial lighting
-
P
P
P
3
P
-
P
-
7
Beach mining
-
-
-
?
-
-
-
-
3
8
Beach vehicle driving
-
-
3
P
-
?
-
-
-
9
Exotic vegetation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
Beach cleaning
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11
Beach replenishment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Marine Environment
12
Directed take
-
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
-
13
Natural disasters
-
P
P
P
-
P
P
P
P
14
Disease/parasites
-
?
1
?
?
?
2
-
?
15
Algae/Seagrass/Reef
degradation
-
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
P
16
Environmental
contaminants
-
P
P
?
P
3
-
3
3
17
Debris (entangle/ingest)
-
P
3
?
-
P
P
P
P
18
Fisheries (incidental take)
-domestic waters
.
3
2
?
P
P
P
2
P
-international
.
P
2
?
P
P
P
3
P
19
Predation
-
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
20
Boat collisions
-
-
2
-
3
-
-
-
-
21
Marina/dock development
-
-
-
?
-
-
-
3
-
22
Dredging
-
-
P
?
P
-
?
2
-
23
Dynamite "fishing"
-
P
P
P
P
P
2
P
P
24
Oil exploration/development
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
Power plant entrapment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
Construction blasting
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
3
25
General Threat Information with comments on specific U.S. jurisdictions.
This section provides the supportive information used to rank the 26 turtle threats listed in
Table 1 . Each threat is defined and then evaluated separately for each of the eight U.S. -affiliated
island groups (where applicable). The first 1 1 threats pertain to the turtle's nesting environment,
the latter 15 to the marine environment.
Nesting Environment
1 . Directed Take
The harvest of sea turtles and/or their eggs for food or any other domestic or commercial use
constitutes a widespread threat to these species. Removing breeding adults from a population can
accelerate the extinction of local stocks, and the persistent collection of eggs guarantees that future
population recruitment will be reduced. This category includes only the harvest of sea turtles
(typically nesting females) and their eggs on land. Harvest at sea is discussed in a later section,
(see Recovery - Section 1.1.1)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Turtle harvest is a significant source of mortality in the Territory. Turtles and
their eggs, when found, are consumed. The concept of turtle conservation faces several difficulties
in contemporary American Samoa. For example, many people are unaware that it is illegal to take
sea turtles within the Territory. Public acceptance of conservation issues is a challenging problem.
Although many people acknowledge that there are considerably fewer turtles on their beaches than
when they were children, few indicated concern for the future of turtles. Some residents expressed
the view that turtles were placed in the ocean by God for man to take, and others felt that if they
did not take the turtle, someone else would. Another aspect of the problem is that villagers may
keep hatchlings as pets, which eventually die. Also the implications of nest beach fidelity and how
this factor can accelerate extirpation of nesting stocks on specific islands are not well understood
or acknowledged.
Hawaii: Because most green turtles nest at French Frigate Shoals, which is far removed from
populated islands, their take from nesting beaches is not a current problem.
Guam: Directed take is one of the major threats to turtles in Guam. Turtles were traditionally taken
by residents for celebrations, and reports indicate that illegal harvesting still occurs. Poaching also
occurs by immigrants, fishing crews, and tourists, especially those from areas where they are
accustomed to eating turtles legally. The language problem for non-English speaking immigrants
and lack of knowledge about local regulations has caused the majority of such problems. When
turtle poachers are convicted, all gear and vehicles (car, boat) are confiscated and fines and/or
penalties are levied.
Republic ofPalau: Directed take is considered to be a major problem. The seasonal harvest from
coastal waters has been legal, but the take of nesting turtles and their eggs is not. Enforcement
is lacking, however and both local and federal regulations are widely ignored. The illegal harvest
of turtles and eggs at remote islands and atolls beyond the watchful eye of local authorities is also
26
a problem. In October 1994, Patau became an independent nation in free association with the
United States, therefore ESA and other federal laws no longer apply to actions in Palau.
CNMI: In CNMI, turtles are a traditional delicacy for most ethnic groups. Knowledge of existing
regulations does not inhibit many people from eating turtles or their eggs. Female turtles crawling
toward the nesting area are taken even before the eggs are laid.
FSM: Turtle harvest is the most significant source of mortality within the region. In general, both
turtles and eggs are consumed if encountered (direct take varies from island to island based on
rights to the resource). Nesting has apparently been extirpated from one state (Kosrae) due to
overharvest of nesting females. People also raise hatchlings as pets which generally die in
captivity, but the impact of this is thought to be low.
Laws dealing with the harvesting of turtles and eggs are in need of revision. Both present and
future laws will remain unenforceable and unagreeable to the people unless the people themselves
enact and enforce them at the community level. A few islands (Elato, Lamotrek, Satawal) have
introduced their own regulations controlling the take of turtles (such as waiting until after a nesting
turtle lays eggs before harvesting it). Nevertheless, turtle harvesting continues to increase, even
among the populations of these islands.
Marine Resources Management Division (MRMD) has, in cooperation with specified island
residents, been collecting data on the number of turtles caught and consumed throughout the outer
islands. Most of the outer islands within the state have generally sent in this type of information.
These data have not yet been analyzed.
The introduction and use of motorized boats have increased peoples' ability to reach islands
where turtles nest. Travel by traditional methods of transportation (outrigger canoes) was and is
restricted by weather patterns, the length of the voyages, etc. Motorized craft have allowed for an
extended travel season as well as for an increased frequency of visits to the uninhabited islands.
RMI: The consumption of nesting turtles and their eggs is the single-most important source of
mortality to turtles. Turtle harvest has expanded to all of the atolls, with Majuro and the Southern
Islands importing turtles from the Northern Islands. On Ebeye and Majuro, imported turtles sold
for about $300.00 U.S. dollars in 1988 (Jim Maragos, pers. comm.). There is little or no control
over the harvest on any of the islands, although informal control comes from the owner of the land
(upon which the turtles are nesting). The turtles are primarily harvested from the nesting beaches
and are generally taken for celebrations. Turtle eggs are regularly eaten. Also, eggs are hatched
and the young kept as pets -in some cases the practice of raising young is considered a good
conservation practice. The harvest of nesting turtles and their eggs is illegal, but few know of these
regulations.
Unincorporated: Not a current problem. Nesting activity, if it ever occurred at Johnston, is
prevented by the construction of vertical seawalls.
27
2. Increased Human Presence
Human populations are growing rapidly in many areas of the insular Pacific and this expansion
is exerting increasing pressure on limited island resources. Threats to sea turtles include increased
recreational and commercial use of nesting beaches, the loss of nesting habitat to human activities
(e.g., pig pens on beaches), beach camping and fires, an increase in litter and other refuse, and
the general harassment of turtles. Related threats, such as coastal construction, associated with
increasing human populations are discussed separately, (see Recovery - Sections 1.1, 1.2)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Continued incremental loss of habitats occurs due to varied activities of a rapidly
expanding human population. American Samoa has one of the fastest growth rates in the world;
the doubling time is only 19 years.
Hawaii: Not a problem for green turtles nesting at remote NWHIs.
Guam: Habitat destruction is a major threat to Guam turtles. Guam had over 740,000 tourists in
1 990. With tourism expected to increase, the number of hotels and other beachfront development
and usage will also increase.
Republic of Palau: Most nesting beaches occur on inhabited islands (Helen Atoll, Merir, Tobi,
Kayangel). Residents of these remote nesting areas have been dependent on green sea turtles
for food. As transportation to these remote areas improves, pressures on turtle stocks are bound
to increase.
CNMI: Nesting habitat along the sand beaches of the Saipan Lagoon is rapidly disappearing due
to rampant development.
FSM: Minor problem due to construction on nesting beaches of livestock pens at Oruluk Atoll.
RMI: Minor problem, primarily limited to Majuro Atoll.
Unincorporated: Generally a minor problem.
3. Coastal Construction
The most valuable land on most Pacific islands is often located along the coastline, particularly
when it is associated with a sandy beach. Construction is occurring at a rapid rate and is resulting
in a loss of sea turtle nesting areas. This section discusses construction-related threats to the
region's sea turtle nesting beaches, including the construction of buildings (hotels, houses,
restaurants), recreational facilities (tennis courts, swimming pools), or roads on the beach; the
construction of sea walls, jetties, or other armoring activities that can result in the erosion of
adjacent sandy beaches; clearing stabilizing beach vegetation (which accelerates erosion); and the
use of heavy construction equipment on the beach, which can cause sand compaction or beach
erosion, (see Recovery - Sections 1.2.2, 1.2)
28
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Few green turtles occur around the inhabited islands of American Samoa.
Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles at remote NWHIs.
Guam: Habitat destruction is a major threat to Guam turtles. Over 740,000 tourists visited Guam
in 1990. With tourism expected to increase, the number of hotels and other beachfront
development and usage will also increase.
Republic ofPalau: Not a current problem. However, the newly independent Republic of Palau and
the relaxation of U.S. environmental controls have opened opportunity for considerable road and
resort planning and development during the past two years, some of which will lead to coastal
construction.
CNMI: On Saipan, golf course, hotel and tourism-related development has severely impacted most
of the historical nesting areas on the western portion of the island and residential development is
beginning to threaten the eastern portion of the island. On Rota, nesting beaches appear limited
to undeveloped private land due to heavy recreational use and shoreside tourist developments.
Many of these "undeveloped" beaches are slated for development. On Tinian, the majority of the
nesting beaches are on military-leased land where no construction is presently expected.
Development of a large resort and casino on the southern side of the island will likely increase
human disturbance on nesting beaches.
FSM: Construction of pig pens on turtle beaches is a problem at Oruluk Atoll, while coastal
construction on the islets of Chuck lagoon has caused beach erosion (though no known nesting
beaches have yet been affected).
RMI: Coastal construction is a moderate problem on Majuro Atoll, but no known nesting beaches
are threatened. Military construction and activity at the U.S. missile testing facility at Kwajalein Atoll
will occur near several turtle nesting beaches on the small outer islets.
Unincorporated: Generally a minor problem, except at Johnston Atoll where seawall construction
has preempted use of beaches by nesting turtles.
4. Nest Predation
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, (see Recovery
-Section 1.1.3)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Not a current problem due to a recent rat eradication project. Rats had formerly
been observed to attack hatchlings.
29
Hawaii: Possibly a moderate problem at the primary nesting areas in French Frigate Shoals due
to predation by ghost crabs, mongooses, cats, dogs, birds, and possibly rats and feral pigs.
Guam: Predation by crabs, feral dogs and pigs is a problem. In one nest, 20% of the eggs were
eaten by crabs. Some nests are fenced to keep pigs out.
Republic of Patau: Not known as a current problem, however at Ngerecher-Ngerkeklau islands
where pig predation is likely and at Merir dog predation is likely a problem.
CNMI: Not known to be a problem.
FSM: Impacts are area dependant. Out of 33 nests monitored on Olimarao Island, 1 5 (45%) were
attacked by ghost crabs. Twelve (36%) of these were completely destroyed, the other three
produced only 47 hatchlings. However, it is quite possible that tampering with the nests increased
the likelihood that these nests would be invaded. In any event, predation by ghost crabs should
be considered a potential threat to nests deposited on the two islands within this atoll (S Kolinksi,
A. Smith, pers. comm.).
On Gielop Island, one or more ghost crabs were present in four of the 15 nests (27%) at the
time of examination (post-hatch). Predation damage appeared to have been minimal with the
exception of one nest where 113 eggs produced only 42 hatchlings. Coconut crabs were
commonly seen feeding on eggs strewn from 28 disrupted nests by the digging of other nesting
turtles.
On Losiep Island (near Gielop island), Ulithi residents report that the introduction of monitor
lizards by the Japanese has been the main cause for the virtual collapse of this island's nesting
turtle population. Reports indicate that Losiep was once one of the main turtle islands for the
region. Monitor lizards apparently feed on the turtles' eggs as they are being deposited, and may
be able to dig down into a buried nest. On Oruluk Atoll, pig pens encroach on nesting beach areas.
RMI: According to a 1992 survey by Puleloa and Kilma (1992), Polynesian rat predation is very
severe at Bikar. Because of the importance of Bikar (largest nesting area for green turtles in the
RMI) this must be considered extremely serious.
Unincorporated: Apparently a minor problem.
5. Beach Erosion
Weather events, such as storms, and seasonal changes in current patterns can reduce or
eliminate sandy beaches, degrade turtle nesting habitat, and cause barriers to adult and hatchling
turtle movements on affected beaches, (see Recovery - Section 1.2.1, 1.1.5.2)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Weather records indicate that a severe tropical storm or hurricane hits
somewhere in the Samoan island chain every three years on average, causing extensive erosion.
A predicted rise in sea level due to global warming would increase erosion problems.
30
Hawaii: Minor problem. Hurricane storm waves, tsunamis and coastal subsidence are known to
cause erosion problems.
Guam: No information, but typhoons are frequent and likely to cause beach erosion.
Republic of Patau: Occasional storm erosion occurs, and this is a distinct problem at Helen Island.
CNMI: Not thought to be a threat to turtle populations, but typhoons are frequent and likely to
cause beach erosion.
FSM: Likely a problem, although severe tropical storms and typhoons are common for this region.
Seasonal changes in wind direction (which occur towards the end of the main nesting season - late
July/early August) cause erosion. Only one nest on Olimarao and no nests on Gielop Island were
jeopardized by shifting shoreline sands. Yap State's low coralline atolls are extremely vulnerable
to rises in sea levels and will be adversely affected if hypothesized rises occur. Some erosion of
nesting beaches at Oroluk was reported in 1990 after passage of Typhoon Owen.
RMI: Moderate problem. Shoreline erosion occurs naturally on many islands in the atolls of the
Marshalls due to storms, sea level rise from ENSO's (El Nino - Southern Oscillation) and currents.
On the outer atolls, erosion has been aggravated by airfield and dock development, and by urban
development on Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls.
Unincorporated: This is a problem at Palmyra Atoll.
6. Artificial Lighting
Hatchling sea turtles orient to the sea using a sophisticated suite of cues primarily associated
with ambient light levels. Hatchlings become disoriented and misdirected in the presence of
artificial lights behind (landward of) their hatching site. These lights cause the hatchlings to orient
inland, whereupon they fall prey to predators, are crushed by passing cars, or die of exhaustion or
exposure in the morning sun. Nesting adults are also sensitive to light and can become disoriented
after nesting, heading inland and then dying in the heat of the next morning, far from the sea.
Security and street lights, restaurant, hotel and other commercial lights, recreational lights (e.g.,
sports arenas), and village lights, especially mercury vapor, misdirect hatchlings by the thousands
throughout the Pacific every year, (see Recovery - Sections 1.1.2, 1 . 1 .4)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Possibly a problem in coastal villages, although there are no documented cases
of disoriented turtle hatchlings.
Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles at remote NWHIs, but possibly a problem on the
MHI group.
Guam: A problem with unknown impact.
31
Republic ofPalau: Recently in 1994, the village of Melekeok (Melekeok State) reported that green
turtle hatchlings were attracted into lighted houses and to street lights (M. Guilbeaux pers. comm.).
Campfires and houselights are a problem at Angaur, Peleliu, Kayangel and the Southwest Island
beaches.
CNMI: High potential as a future problem in Rota where resort development is flourishing.
Presently not a problem on Tinian, but there is a potential problem as development continues. Most
houses and hotels adjacent to the lagoon area of Saipan usually have some form of beach lighting.
The Division of Fish and Wildlife routinely reviews all major development projects adjacent to beach
fronts through the Coastal Zone Management permitting process. A permitting condition restricts
the orientation of night lights onto the lagoon beach area, and most establishments comply with
this.
FSM: Not a current problem. Only two islands within two separate atolls (Falalop Ulithi and
Falalop Woleai) have electricity. These islands are not known to have significant numbers of
nesting turtles. Light beacons for ships have been placed on two of the small uninhabited islands
(Woleai, Ulithi Atoll), but the impact on hatchling orientation is unknown.
RMI: Portions of Majuro and Kwajalein are lighted, but the impact is unknown.
Unincorporated: Not a current problem.
7. Beach Mining
Sand and coral rubble are removed from beaches for construction or landscaping purposes.
The extraction of sand from beaches destabilizes the coastline (e.g., reduces protection from
storms), removes beach vegetation through extraction or flooding and, in severe cases, eliminates
the beach completely. When mining occurs on or behind a nesting beach, the result can be the
degradation or complete loss of the rookery. In addition, females can become confused when they
emerge from the sea only to find themselves heading down slope into a depression formed by
mining activities; too often the outcome is that the female returns to the sea without laying her
eggs. Even when eggs are successfully deposited, reduced hatch success results if nests are
flooded or excavated during mining, (see Recovery - Section 1.2.2)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Despite educational attempts and enactment of protective laws, the tradition of
removing sand and coral rubble from shorelines continues at a surprisingly high rate (100 cubic
yards/week) for a small island with limited beaches. However, the impact to turtles is probably not
significant because affected beaches are usually along the island roadway, and most of these
beaches are too narrow (due to road placement) to be suitable for turtle nesting. In some areas,
shoreline erosion, exacerbated by beach mining, jeopardizes the island highway.
Hawaii: Not a current problem.
Guam: No information.
32
Republic of Patau: Not a current problem.
CNMI: Not a current problem.
FSM: Not a current problem. Beach mining does occur on the island of Falalop Ulithi in Yap State
and in Phonpei and Chuuk and may occur on other inhabited islands.
RMI: Mining of beach sand is a serious problem on Majuro, although not at the only known nesting
beach (Iroij Island). Otherwise, beach mining does not appear to be a problem.
Unincorporated: Minor problem.
8. Vehicular Driving on Beaches
Driving on the beach causes sand compaction and rutting, and can accelerate erosion. Driving
on beaches used by turtles for egg-laying can crush incubating eggs, crush hatchlings in the nest,
and trap hatchlings after they emerge from the nest cavity and begin their trek to the sea. In the
latter case, hatchlings are exposed to exhaustion and predators when they fall into and cannot
climb out of tire ruts that are typically oriented parallel to the sea. (see Recovery - Section 1 .2.6)
American Samoa: Not a current problem. In some areas (e.g., Sailele), a non-paved village road
crosses upper beach areas where turtles may nest, but such areas are already heavily impacted
by the villages and there is generally no available space to re-route the road.
Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles nesting in the NWHIs, but may be a minor problem
on MHIs.
Guam: Vehicle traffic is extensive on nesting beaches.
CNMI: Although beach driving is a pastime on Saipan, the impacts are unknown.
Other areas: Not a current problem.
9. Exotic Vegetation
Introduced species can displace native dune and beach vegetation through shading and/or
chemical inhibition. Dense new vegetation shades nests, potentially altering natural hatchling sex
ratios. Thick root masses can also entangle eggs and hatchlings. (see Recovery - Section 1 .2.3)
All areas: Not a current problem.
10. Beach Cleaning
Removal of accumulated seaweeds and other debris from a nesting beach should be
accomplished bv hand-raking only. The use of heavy equipment can crush turtle eggs and
hatchlings and can remove sand vital to incubating eggs, (see Recovery - Section 1 .2.5)
33
All areas: Not a current problem. In CNMI, beach cleaning occurs in front of the major tourist
hotels, but this is not thought to be a threat to turtle populations.
11. Beach Replenishment
The nourishment or replacement of beaches diminished by seawalls, storms, or coastal
development can reduce sea turtle hatching success by deeply burying incubating eggs, depositing
substrate (generally from offshore deposits) that is not conducive to the incubation of sea turtle
eggs, and/or obstructing females coming ashore to nest by machinery, pipelines, etc. (see
Recovery - Section 1 .2.4)
All areas: Not a current problem.
Marine Environment
1 2. Directed Take
The harvest of juvenile and adult sea turtles for food or any other domestic or commercial use
constitutes a widespread threat to these species. In particular, the exploitation of large juveniles
and adults can accelerate the extinction of both local and regional stocks. This category includes
only the harvest of sea turtles at sea. Harvest on the nesting beach was discussed in a previous
section, (see Recovery - Section 2.1)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Turtle harvest is the most significant source of mortality in the Territory. Turtles
and their eggs, when found, are consumed. The concept of turtle conservation faces several
difficulties in contemporary American Samoa. For example, most people are unaware that it is
illegal to take sea turtles within the Territory. Public acceptance of conservation issues is a
challenging problem. Although many people acknowledge that there are considerably fewer turtles
on their beaches than when they were children, few indicated concern for the future of turtles.
Some residents expressed the view that turtles were placed in the ocean by God for man to take,
and others felt that if they did not take the turtle, someone else would. Another aspect of the
problem is that villagers may keep hatchlings as pets, which eventually die. Also the implications
of nest beach fidelity and how this factor can accelerate extirpation of nesting stocks on specific
islands are not well understood or acknowledged.
Hawaii: A moderate problem in Hawaiian waters. Turtles are taken using spears, harpoons, nets,
grappling hooks, firearms from shore, underwater bang sticks, nooses, and by hand capture.
Guam: See previous comments in Nesting Environment.
Republic of Palau: Green turtles are taken in nearshore waters year-round. However, it is legal
to harvest turtles at sea with a minimum carapace length (CCL ;> 76.2 cm) during two periods
(seven months) of the year: February-May and September-November. Adults and large juveniles
34
are preferred for special occasions such as funerals and other custom events. There are no
statistics for the numbers of green turtles harvested or the distribution of the sizes taken.
CNMI: Sea turtles are considered a traditional food item and are hunted illegally to this day.
Federal laws protecting turtles are known, but hotly contested by the public. CNMI Customs
Officers routinely confiscate turtle handicrafts (combs, jewelry, etc.) at the airport. Confiscation of
turtle products is the extent of prosecution. Most of the turtle products originate from the Republic
of Palau (Belau) or FSM.
FSM: Significant problem for both legal and illegal harvests. Motorized boats, masks and snorkels,
spear guns, and hooks have aided man in catching turtles. Mating turtles are often taken because
they are easier to approach. A method involving tethering a female to attract males is occasionally
practiced. In Pohnpei, it is legal to hunt large green turtles (greater than 76.2 cm) in marine waters
during two periods (February - May and September - November), but they are actually taken year-
round. See previous comments in Nesting Environment.
RMI: Although harvests consist mostly of nesting turtles and their eggs, some turtles are taken by
snorkelers in nearshore waters.
Unincorporated: Not a current problem.
13. Natural Disasters
Natural phenomena, such as cyclones, can contribute to the mortality of turtles at sea,
particularly in shallow waters. Disease epidemics and other debilitating conditions that affect prey
items (sea grass, coral, sponges, reef invertebrates) can also harm sea turtle populations. Storms
can alter current patterns and blow migrating turtles off course into cold water. Unseasonable
warm water incursions from subtropical regions into the northeastern Pacific, known as "El Nino"
events, may cause green turtles to migrate north where they "cold stun" once they encounter colder
water. El Nino events can also cause reduced food production for some turtle species which can
reduce growth and fecundity, (see Recovery - Sections 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.2.1, 2.2.2)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Mortality due to natural disasters is unknown. Recent weather trends indicate
that a severe tropical storm or hurricane hits somewhere in the Samoan islands every three years
on average.
Hawaii: Probably a minor problem. Turtles have been reported thrown ashore by tsunamis. Nesting
sites have also been covered by lava flows, but only rarely (for example Halape, Kaimu).
Guam: An undetermined problem, although Guam is in an area that is regularly hit with typhoons.
Republic of Patau: Not thought to be a problem.
CNMI: An undetermined problem, although CNMI is in an area that is regularly hit with typhoons.
35
FSM: Mortality due to natural disasters is unknown. A recent typhoon (1990/1991) nearly
devastated some of the outer islands, but the impact to turtles in those regions is unknown.
RMI: Moderate problem, however the low elevation of these islands makes them particularly
susceptible to typhoons, large waves and sea level rise.
Unincorporated: Minor problem.
14. Disease and Parasites
There are few data to assess the extent to which disease or parasitism affects the survivability
of sea turtles in the wild, (see Recovery - Section 2.1 .6)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
Hawaii: The tumor disease "fibropapilloma" has recently received a great deal of attention, and
may now affect more than 50% of the green turtles in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The disease is
characterized by grayish tumors of various sizes, particularly in the axial regions of the flippers and
around the eyes. This debilitating condition can be fatal. Neither a cause nor a cure has been
identified.
FSM: Moderate problem with unknown impact. Four of 416 female green turtles (1 %) tagged at
Gielop Island had large lesions covering large portions of their carapace. Lesions consisted of
raised bubbly, papillary-like projections with numerous individual nodules and crevices. The largest
lesions measured 136 cm in circumference and 10 cm in height. Carapace lesions were observed
only on the vertebral and costal scutes. Upon examination, none of the lesions could be associated
with any other obvious forms of external damage. The lesions appeared to be different from those
identified as fibropapilloma on Hawaiian green turtles. Lesions of this type have also been reported
on turtles foraging around Yap proper as well as turtles in the Elato and Lamotrek regions.
RMI: Green turtles in the RMI appear to be free of fibropapillomas (as of 1992).
Other areas: Unknown.
15. Algae, Seagrass, and Reef Degradation
Most sea turtle species depend upon sea grass and/or coral reef habitats for food and refuge.
The destruction or degradation of these habitats is a widespread and serious threat to the recovery
of depleted sea turtle stocks. The general degradation of these habitats can be affected by
eutrophication, sedimentation, chemical poisoning, collecting/gleaning, trampling (fishermen, skin
and SCUBA divers), anchoring, etc. (see Recovery - Section 2.2)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: A general degradation of coral reef habitats on the south side of Tutuila Island
is occurring, due to both human impacts (particularly sedimentation resulting from erosion on steep
36
agriculture slopes) and natural disturbances (recent hurricane damage). There are no known
seagrass beds in the Territory, although some may occur in nearby Western Samoa.
Hawaii: Seagrass and coral reef habitat along the south coast of Molokai has been degraded from
upland soil erosion and siltation. Coral reefs in Kaneohe Bay (Oahu), Hanalei Bay, Hanamaulu
Bay, Nawiliwili Harbor (Kauai), Maalaea Bay (Maui) and Hilo Bay (Hawaii), and along the northeast
coast of Lanai have all been degraded by sedimentation, sewage, or coastal construction.
Guam: Sedimentation has damaged Guam's coral reefs.
Republic of Patau: Offshore sand mining occurs in Patau, with possible implications for foraging
habitat degradation. At the mouth of Lighthouse Channel (eastern side of Malakal Harbor) in 90
feet of water, green sea turtles used to be found foraging on seagrass beds but are no longer seen
there as they once were (N. Idechong, Div. of Marine Resources, Palau, pers. comm.). This is a
site for sand mining.
CNMI: Saipan is the only island that has extensive seagrass meadows inside the reef system, but
impacts to seagrass meadows are not known.
Saipan's coral reef ecosystem, located along the western side of Saipan, is currently being
impacted by terrigenous runoff and nutrient loading associated with sewage discharge from the
Sadog Tasi Water Treatment Plant. Actual impacts to the reef are not known, but some sections
of the reef system appear to be dying. Other islands do not have a well-developed fringing reef
system or extensive seagrass meadows.
FSM: Coral reefs and seagrass beds have been severely degraded within the urban centers of the
four states of the FSM: Pohnpei, Yap, Chuuk, and Kosrae.
RMI: Coral reefs and seagrass habitat off the lagoon shoreline of Kwajalein islands and Majuro
have been degraded by coastal construction and/or eutrophication from sewage.
Unincorporated: Not a current problem, though the sewage outfall at Johnston may be a problem.
16. Environmental Contaminants
Chemical pollutants, such as petroleum, sewage, pesticides, solvents, industrial discharges,
and agricultural runoff are responsible for an unknown level of sea turtle mortality each year.
Environmental contamination also harms biologically important nearshore ecosystems, including
seagrass, coral, mangrove, and algae communities. The declining productivity of seagrass and
coral communities, in particular, can be hazardous to sea turtles that depend on these systems for
nutrition and shelter, (see Recovery - Section 2.2.4)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: In populated and agricultural areas on the main island of Tutuila, some
degradation of coastal waters is occurring due to silt-laden runoff from land and nutrient enrichment
from cannery discharges and human/pig wastes. A more serious pollution problem occurs in Pago
37
Pago Harbor where both fish and sediments are grossly contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs,
pesticides, and petroleum products. A health risk analysis indicated that the concentration of lead
alone may reach levels that cause mental retardation in people who regularly consume fish from
the harbor.
Hawaii: Impact unknown.
Guam: No information.
Republic of Patau: Sewage effluent is a problem around Koror State, particularly Malakal Harbor,
and near urban areas.
CNMI: With the exception of sewage, environmental contamination is not documented. One
potential source of contamination is the unregulated Puerto Rico landfill in the Saipan Lagoon
adjacent to American Memorial Park. This landfill was originally a U.S. military dump which the
Trust Territory continued to use. Recent efforts by the government to relocate the dump to the
Marpi area have meet with some success, and if additional funds are generated, the Puerto Rico
dump may be closed by the end of 1992. Other islands may also have "hazardous waste" areas,
most likely associated with World War II activities.
With respect to sewage, Saipan has two wastewater treatment plants at Agingan Point and the
Sadog Tasi. The Agingan Point plant discharges untreated sewage into the ocean between Saipan
and Tinian. The area of discharge is a dynamic current area and is adjacent to deep waters. The
Sadog Tasi plant adequately treats all sewage (secondary level) before discharging into the Saipan
Lagoon near Charlie Dock, the main shipping port. However, the outfall has been damaged and
is in need of repair.
The current wastewater treatment plant situation does not appear to be a direct threat to sea
turtles; however, habitat and food may be affected. In addition, a cumulative effect of general
habitat degradation could be occurring from the numerous drainage ditches which empty into the
lagoon.
FSM: Unknown but assumed not to be a significant problem at this time. A seemingly large
number of fishing boats and other vessels have grounded on Yap State reefs and spilled fuel. The
effects of this are unknown. Garbage dumps are overflowing and contaminating nearshore waters
in Chuuk and Pohnpei, and to a lesser extent, Kosrae.
RMI: Minor problem. Possibly some problems at Kwajalein, Bikini and Anewetok, where toxic and
hazardous waste have been dumped into coastal waters during the era of military missile testing.
Unincorporated: Minor problem. Military toxic and hazardous waste have contaminated coastal
waters at Johnston Atoll (Agent Orange, radionucleotides) during the 1960's and a toxic and
hazardous waste dump left over from 1950's - 60's U.S. military occupation of Palmyra Atoll was
reported along the coast of a northern island about five kilometers from known nesting and other
turtle feeding areas.
38
17. Debris (Entanglement and Ingestion)
The entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris threatens the survival of sea turtles in the
Pacific. Such debris includes not only discarded or abandoned fishing gear (lines, ropes, nets), but
also plastic bags, plastic sheets, "6-pack" rings, tar balls, styrofoam, and other refuse that might
ensnare or be consumed by a sea turtle. Severely entangled individuals can neither submerge to
feed nor surface to breathe; they may lose a limb to the offending net or fishing line, or attract a
predator with their struggling. Stranding data and necropsies provide evidence that some turtle
mortalities have resulted from ingested garbage, such as plastic or tar. Death or debilitation can
result from poisoning or from obstruction of the esophagus, (see Recovery - Sections 2.1 .3)
Pelagic-phase turtles are clearly at risk from the ingestion of (and entanglement in) plastics and
other buoyant and persistent synthetic debris discarded into the ocean (Balazs 1 985b; Carr 1 987b).
Human intervention on nesting beaches, to manipulate eggs and hatchlings for intended
conservation purposes, should only to conducted as a last resort to more conservative in situ
methods of protection (see Hirth 1971b).
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: A possible problem in nearshore waters due to local practice of discarding
garbage into streams and onto beaches. Entanglement in fishing gear is not a current problem in
coastal waters because there are virtually no commercial fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ). However, fishing debris including potentially entangling fishing lines and nets were spilled
on the reef at Rose Atoll, after the grounding and breakup of a Taiwanese Longliner fishing vessel
in late 1993. Debris-related problems in offshore waters are unknown.
Hawaii: Thought to be a minor problem.
Guam: No information.
Republic of Patau: Not a current problem.
CNMI: A possible threat; however, there have been no reports of turtle deaths due to debris
entanglement or ingestion.
FSM: Unknown impact. 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 consistently increasing. Some people
have observed plastic debris in the gut contents of harvested turtles, but the extent of this problem
is unknown.
RMI: Debris and garbage disposal in coastal waters is a serious problem on Majuro Atoll and
Ebete Island (Kwajalein Atoll) both which have inadequate space, earth cover and shore protection
for sanitary landfills. This problem also exists to a lesser extent at Daliet Atoll.
Unincorporated: Minor problem.
39
18. Fisheries (Incidental Take)
Sea turtles are accidentally taken in several commercial, subsistence and recreational fisheries.
These include bottom trawls, off-bottom trawls, purse seines, haul seines, beach seines, bottom
longlines, surface longlines, hook and line, gillnets, and driftnets. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC; unpubl. data) reported sea turtles - mostly unidentified, but probably olive
ridleys or greens - feeding directly off bait (usually shark or dorado) used by tuna fishermen in the
eastern Pacific. Mortality associated with entanglement in active and abandoned fishing gear has
not been fully quantified, but is very likely to involve tens of thousands of Pacific sea turtles each
year, (see Recovery - Section 2.1.4)
U.S. West Coast Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Subsistence gillnets set along the shoreline occasionally catch turtles in Pala
Lagoon and probably elsewhere. Catches farther offshore in the EEZ are not a problem because
little fishing occurs there. However, limited tagging data indicate that Samoa's turtles migrate great
distances in the South Pacific, so impacts of distant fisheries must be considered. Bycatch of
turtles in these fisheries is not known.
Hawaii: Incidental catches of turtles occur, primarily in nearshore nets. Now terminated (June 1 ,
1 993) driftnet fisheries in offshore waters in the North Pacific had taken many turtles. In 1 990, the
total bycatch of turtles in these fisheries was 6,100 turtles (at least 1,700 of which were dead),
mostly loggerheads, followed by leatherbacks and green turtles. Recent increases in longline
fisheries may be a serious source of mortality. Greens comprised 14% of the annual observed take
of all species of turtles by the Hawaiian-based longline fishery between 1 990-1 994 (NMFS 1 995).
The predicted annual take level by this fishery is 1 1 9 green turtles and although most are recovered
and released alive, the post-release mortality remains unknown. While these numbers appear to
be relatively low, they could be significant if the animals affected belong to severely depleted
stocks.
Guam: The harvest of turtles through bycatch probably occurs within Guam's EEZ. Laws
prohibiting this are hard to enforce because there is only a single Coast Guard vessel available for
Guam. A large amount of longline fishing for tuna occurs just beyond the EEZ, and this is also
expected to pose a threat to turtles.
RMI: The recent addition of a Chinese longline fleet (10-22 boats) to the RMI waters may provide
a serious threat to green turtles.
Other areas: Incidental catches by offshore fleets and in international waters may be a problem,
but the impact is unknown.
40
19. Predation
Few predators, with the notable exception of orcas (killer whales), large sharks, and marine
crocodiles, can consume a full-size sea turtle. Predation on hatchlings is believed to be relatively
high and, again, the species most often implicated are coastal and pelagic sharks.
All areas: Unknown impact.
20. Boat Collisions
Sea turtles can be injured or killed when struck by a boat, especially an engaged propeller.
Recreational equipment, such as jet skis, also poses a danger due to collisions and harassment,
(see Recovery - Sections 2. 1 .4, 2. 1 .5, 2. 1 .7)
All areas: Unknown but probably inconsequential, except in Hawaii where serious injuries and
mortalities have been documented (Balazs et al. 1 994a) and possibly the Republic of Palau where
high speed skiffs constantly travel throughout the lagoon south of the main islands.
21. Marina and Dock Development
The development of marina and docking facilities pose direct and indirect threats to sea turtles.
Direct consequences can be seen when foraging grounds and nesting beaches are dredged or
otherwise permanently altered in the process of construction and maintenance. Altered current
patterns and increased levels of ship traffic, pollution, and general activity which displace or injure
local sea turtles constitute indirect consequences that should also be considered, (see Recovery -
Sections 1.2.1, 2.2)
U.S. West Coast Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Not a current problem.
Hawaii: Not a current problem for green turtles in the remote NWHIs.
Guam: No information.
Republic of Palau: Not a current problem.
CNMI: The major shipping area on Saipan is Charlie Dock, an outdated structure from World War
II. Plans to expand and modernize the dock facilities may not be completed for another five years
due to monetary constraints.
FSM: A dock extension project is currently underway on Yap proper but it is not thought to pose
problems for turtles around that island.
RMI: Minor problem.
41
Unincorporated: Not a current problem. Docks are also under construction at Bikini Atoll. Recent
dock construction at Ine and Arno villages at Arno Atoll degraded nearby coral reefs. Many other
docks for the outer Atolls are in the planning stages with some possibly funded by foreign aid.
22. Dredging
Active dredging machinery (especially hopper dredges) may injure or kill sea turtles, and
channelization may alter natural current patterns and sediment transportation. Coral reef and sea
grass ecosystems may be excavated and lost, and suspended materials may smother adjacent
coral and seagrass communities, (see Recovery - Section 2.2.5)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
American Samoa: Not a current problem.
Hawaii: Possible though intermittent problem.
Guam: No information.
Republic of Patau: Dredging and filling for Ollei Dock (Ngerechelong), Ngetpang Dock and
Melekeok dock have modified current and sedimentation patterns and degraded or destroyed
seagrass, mangrove and coral reef habitats. More dock construction is likely in the Republic of
Palau.
CNMI: Very little dredging is done in CNMI waters, however there are two dredging projects on
Saipan that will most likely be completed within the next two years: (1 ) a channel/marina dredging
project in Garapan, and (2) the deepening of the harbor area and expansion of the present Charlie
Dock facilities in Tanapag Harbor (Garapan area of Saipan).
The Tinian harbor facilities, originally constructed by the U.S. military, have been under
discussion for rehabilitation, however, no proposal has been submitted for review. The harbor area
is known for turtles and therefore, minimizing impacts to sea turtles will become part of the
permitting process if this project is approved. No dredging activities are known for the remaining
Islands.
FSM: Impact unknown. A limited amount of dredging occurs on a fairly regular basis around Yap
proper. Recently, dredging occurred in Yap proper in an effort to widen one channel and establish
another.
RMI: Dredging and filling for outer island airfields and docks may have caused minor changes to
longshore processes and shoreline erosion. Dredging and filling for house lots, road causeways
and sources of construction fill constitute moderate impacts at Majuro and Kwajalein Atoll.
Unincorporated: Not a current problem.
42
23. Dynamite "Fishing"
The use of explosives to stun or kill fish destroys coral, degrading or eliminating foraging
habitat and refugia for all sea turtle species (except the leatherback). (see Recovery - Section
2.2.7)
U.S. West Coast: Not a current problem.
FSM: Dynamite fishing in Chuuk lagoon (FSM) is widespread and has caused the degradation of
about 10% of the reef.
All other areas: Dynamite fishing is an outlawed technique in many areas but occasionally occurs.
24. Oil Exploration and Development
Oil exploration and development poses direct and indirect threats to sea turtles. A rise in
transport traffic increases the amount of oil in the water, such as from bilge pumping, as well as
the likelihood of a major spill. Oil spills, such as those resulting from blow-outs, ruptured pipelines,
or tanker accidents, can kill sea turtles. Indirect consequences include destruction of foraging
habitats by drilling, anchoring, and pollution, (see Recovery - Section 2.2.8)
All areas: Not a current problem.
25. Power Plant Entrapment
Entrapment in the water intake mechanisms of power generating facilities can result in death
to sea turtles of all size classes.
All areas: Not a current problem.
26. Construction Blasting
Blasting can injure or kill sea turtles in the immediate area. The use of dynamite to construct
or maintain harbors, break up reef and rock formations for improved nearshore access, etc. can
decimate coral reefs, eliminating food and refuge for sea turtles. Some types of dynamiting have
minimal impact to marine life, such as placing explosive in pre-drilled holes (drilling and shooting)
prior to detonation. This is the standard practice to secure armor rock, (see Recovery - Section
2.2.7)
RMI: Charges are used to fracture rock used in construction projects on Ebeye and could pose
a danger if used incautiously.
All other areas: Not a current problem. However, in Tinian Harbor (CNMI), caution must be
observed if dynamite is used due to the numerous sightings of turtles there.
43
I. Conservation Accomplishments
Legislation
At present, the ESA applies only to actions taken within the Territory of Guam, State of Hawaii,
Territory of American Samoa, CNMI, and the eight unincorporated U.S. islands (Midway, Wake,
Johnston, Palmyra, Kingman, Jarvis, Howland, and Baker) within the geographic area covered by
this recovery plan. The RMI, FSM and Republic of Palau are independent countries no longer
subject to U.S. environmental jurisdiction, including the ESA, for activities conducted within these
countries. Export of sea turtles or their products to the United States is prohibited, under CITES.
Protected Species Statutes in the Republic of Palau
National law protects all sea turtle eggs, hatchlings, and nesting adults on all Palauan beaches
at all times. Green turtles with a CCL of less than 76.2 cm are protected in the water, and larger
animals may not be taken during the seven month closed season of February to May, and
September to November. In addition, the States of Koror, Ngeremlengui and Kayangel have
expressed the need and may now be taking action to establish state-level regulations for protecting
green sea turtles found within their jurisdictional areas, including northern Ngeremeduu Bay,
Kayangel, and Ngeruangl Atoll where nesting sea turtles and eggs are being taken. Unfortunately,
protective measures are proving very difficult to enforce throughout Palau, as there is a segment
of the population that has not been convinced to take such laws and regulations seriously. Without
a strong cooperative effort between Palau federal government and the traditional leadership of
Palau's States, enforcement of existing conservation measures will remain next to impossible, with
little beneficial effect accruing to the conservation of Palau's green turtles at the present time or in
the foreseeable future.
Traditional Controls
For hundreds, if not thousands of years, the traditional societies of the Mariana, Caroline,
Marshall, Samoan, and Hawaiian Islands exerted controls over the taking of sea turtles, especially
at nesting beaches. These controls have been effectively eliminated from the Hawaiian, Mariana,
and American Samoan Islands due to a combination of a colonial takeover by western powers and
transition from subsistence to cash economics. These changes eroded the power of ruling clans
and introduced modern technologies that led to rapid depletion of turtle stocks.
Only in the Marshalls, FSM, and Palau are traditional controls still in effect, although only at
rural or uninhabited atolls away from the urban centers. The introduction of a western "elected"
political system to these islands has challenged traditional authorities and further eroded protection
of sea turtles. Landowners in parts of the Marshalls and FSM still claim ownership of adjacent reef
areas which discourages taking of turtles by other groups. The FSM, Palau, and Marshall Islands
also established "pantry reserves" at uninhabited atolls near inhabited atolls. Examples of these
include Ngeruangl Atoll and Fanna Island in Palau, Gaferut, Pikelot, and West Fayu in the FSM;
and Bokaak and Bikar in the Marshalls. These so-called "traditional reserves" were only visited by
sailing canoes during favorable weather conditions in the old days. However, these reserves are
now much more accessible due to availability of the outboard motor, modern skiffs, and modern
navigation equipment. Modern supply boats and patrol boats also have easy access to these
44
islands. Most of the uninhabited islands are now being rapidly depleted of their nesting sea turtles
and many of these sites are the last remaining nesting populations of sea turtles in their respective
countries.
Protected Areas
Republic of Patau
Until recently Palau has had the only designated protected area in Micronesia, the Ngerukuid
Nature Reserve, also known as the 70-islands Nature Reserve located within Koror State. Reserve
status has worked to protect nesting green turtles and their eggs on the six beaches within the
Reserve for the last several decades, particularly during daylight hours. However, the Reserve is
small, and the illegal take of nesting turtles and eggs at night has been clearly documented by the
Palau Division of Marine Resources as significant over the last ten years (see Section on Nesting
Environment - Directed Take). The Division of Conservation and Entomology has six conservation
officers for all of Palau. There are, in addition, Koror state marine rangers willing and able to patrol
the Reserve with authority to detain but not to arrest. Poachers, therefore, are rarely apprehended,
and prosecution of illegal acts within the reserve has been nil. As a result, the effectiveness of the
Ngerukuid Nature Reserves as a sea turtle conservation preserve is less than its potential.
Guam
The Government of Guam is proposing the establishment of Territorial Reserves to protect
wildlife including sea turtles, but so far no reserves that protect sea turtles have been established
by the Territorial Government. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Navy,
and the U.S. Air Force have all established protected areas in Guam. The Andersen Air Force
Base beach reserves on the north coast of Guam afford protection to nesting sea turtles.
Moreover, military installations discourage public access to their lands and waters which in effect
serves as an enforcement mechanism against unauthorized harvest of turtles or eggs.
American Samoa
The American Samoa Government cooperatively has established a National Marine Sanctuary
with National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at Fagatele Bay, Tutuila.
Beaches at Fagatele appear suitable for turtle nesting although no data are available. Certainly
foraging and nesting sea turtles would be afforded protection in the sanctuary due to its
inaccessibility from nearest villages.
The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) has recently established a new National Park in
American Samoa with three units: SW Ofu, Central Ta'u and northern Tutuila. The Ofu unit which
includes beaches and a coral reef along the SW Coast of Ofu will likely afford protection to sea
turtles, since the coast is only sparsely inhabited. The Ta'u unit may protect foraging sea turtles
of the remote south coast of Ta'u. The northern Tutuila unit includes several bays, beaches and
potential foraging and nesting habitat for sea turtles. Several villages claim subsistence access
to resources in the Park and along the entire northern coastline. It remains to be seen whether the
new National Park will promote the conservation of sea turtle populations in American Samoa.
45
Rose Atoll is a National Wildlife Refuge and administered by the U.S. FWS. The Refuge affords
protections for nesting turtles on the beaches of the atoll, and potential foraging habitat for turtles
on the atoll's reefs and lagoon. The American Samoa Government's Division of Aquatic and
Wildlife Resources (DAWR) co-administers the refuge.
CAM
The government of the CNMI has not established protected areas in the Commonwealth
although Managaha Island and reefs off western Saipan and the three Maug Islands have been
candidate parks for some time. The CNMI government is presently evaluating a number of
candidate protected areas throughout the Commonwealth, some of which may benefit nesting or
foraging sea turtles.
RMI
No reserves or protected areas have been established although several were recommended
in the Northern Marshall's by Thomas et al. (1989) and Maragos (1994).
FSM
No reserves or protected areas have been established in the FSM. Oroluk was recommended
as a reserve by Holthus et al. (1993) although it has yet to be established.
Unincorporated Islands
Howland, Jarvis, Baker and Johnston are National Wildlife Refuges administered by the U.S.
FWS although Johnston is jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (Air Force and
Army). Wake is the northernmost of the Marshall Islands (Marshallese name Enen Kio) claimed
by the United States and administered as an Air Force station. The Air Force has established small
wildlife management areas on the non-inhabited parts of the atoll. Midway Atoll is a Naval Air
Station that is about to be closed. Sand Island and Eastern Islands on Midway support beaches
and potentially important nesting habitat for turtles. The lagoon supports potentially important
foraging habitat for turtles. The future use of Midway at this time (July 1995) is not known, but the
prospect is the designation of the entire atoll as a wildlife refuge of the state of Hawaii.
Palmyra is an uninhabited and privately owned atoll of U.S. sovereignty. The owners are
proposing residential and resort development of a portion of the atoll and refuge status for the
remainder. The U.S. FWS is interested in Palmyra as a potential National Wildlife Refuge. The
atoll supports important feeding and nesting habitat for green turtles. The U.S. Department of the
Interior technically administers Palmyra while the U.S. Navy claims territorial waters around the
atoll as a Naval Defensive Sea. These designations afford some conservation value to sea turtles.
Kingman Reef supports no permanently vegetated land, but sandspits present on the atoll may
be valuable resting and nesting habitat for turtles while the lagoon may support foraging habitat for
turtles. The Navy claims Kingman as a Naval Defensive Sea which discourages access and
affords some protection for turtles.
46
Hawaii
Hawaii supports a large number of protected areas throughout the archipelago. Kure Atoll at
the northwest end of the chain is a wildlife refuge of the state of Hawaii and potentially important
to nesting and foraging sea turtles. The northwest atolls and islands between Pearl and Hermes
to the northwest and Kaula to the southeast are part of the Hawaiian National Wildlife Refuge
complex administered by the FWS with assistance from the NMFS. The complex includes the most
important nesting habitat for green turtles at French Frigate Shoals in the geographic areas
covered by the present plan and many of the other atolls, island reefs and lagoons in the complex
afford important turtle foraging and nesting habitat for sea turtles.
The state of Hawaii administers a system of state parks and Marine Life Conservation Districts
throughout the main islands, and one coastal Natural Area Preserve on Maui. The National Park
Service's Hawaii Volcanoes National Park includes coastal areas on the southeast coasts of Hawaii
and Maui islands. Honaunau and Pu'u Kohola are also national parks with coastal areas along the
west coast of Hawaii Island. All of these areas afford protection for foraging and nesting sea turtles
in Hawaii.
Other Plans and Regulations
The governments of Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas all administer
coastal zone management programs sponsored by NOAA. These plans are authorized by
legislation or executive orders and include policies to protect coastal zone resources including
beaches, reefs and lagoons - habitats important to nesting and foraging sea turtles. These
governments also administer a system of coastal zone permits to control development and promote
sustainable and multiple uses of coastal resources including conservation. Federal activities within
designated coastal zones must also achieve consistency with state or territorial coastal zone
management plans. None of the other areas have established functional coastal zone
management plans yet although Kosrae and Yap in the FSM are close.
Development in nearshore coastal waters is also controlled through permit programs
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE; discharge of dredge or fill materials and
work in navigable waters) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; for sewage
treatment plants and outfalls). State and territorial permits are also administered by the state of
Hawaii (Conservation District Use Permits) and the FSM, RMI and Palau (earthmoving permits).
The CNMI and Guam may also have comparable permits. The state of Hawaii also administers
a state-level endangered species act which affords protection to sea turtles in state waters and
beaches.
Headstart and Hatchery Programs
The Yap state government also operated a headstart program on some of the outer atolls of
Yap. The primary purpose of the program was to educate the islanders on the need to conserve
and protect sea turtles. Success of the program in returning reproductively viable adults to the
population was not measured.
47
Sea Life Park operates a hatchery and headstart program for green turtles at its facilities in
Oahu, Hawaii. However, in this case all eggs and hatchlings originate from adults held in captivity
at the Park for many years. No "wild" eggs or hatchlings are brought to the Park except in times
when wild nests or hatchlings are in jeopardy. The facility has released and tagged large numbers
of hatchlings and has an excellent educational and outreach program. The program is well-
supported by the community. So far there is no documentation of released hatchlings returning
to Hawaiian beaches as viable nesting adults.
Sea Turtle Conservation and Management Plans
Hawaii: The NMFS, Honolulu Laboratory, has prepared an Interim Recovery Plan for Hawaiian
Sea Turtles (Balazs et al.1992) which has served as important guidance in actions to recover
Hawaiian sea turtles.
Patau: The Republic of Palau requested assistance with preparation of a sea turtle conservation
plan after closing the Micronesian Mariculture Demonstration Center (MMDC) turtle hatchery and
headstart program. A draft plan was prepared (Maragos 1992) and submitted for review.
Subsequently, additional studies were sponsored to fill in major gaps in the plan (Atkinson and
Guilbeaux 1992, Geermans 1992, Geermans and Honigman 1992, Guilbeaux 1992, Guilbeauxet
al.1994, Di Rosa 1992). A final sea turtle conservation plan has not been completed as of 1995.
Research and Education
The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), with headquarters in Apia,
Western Samoa, funds a regional sea turtle conservation program with support for research, public
education, brochures, and other activities which benefit all species of sea turtles in the insular
Pacific. 1995 was declared "The Year of the Sea Turtle" by SPREP, with a major conservation
awareness program in effect throughout the region.
The NMFS in Hawaii and SPREP in Apia, Western Samoa, have sponsored generalized
research on sea turtles in the Pacific to promote conservation. Tagging of adult nesting sea turtles
at many beaches in the tropical insular Pacific is being sponsored by the SPREP regional sea turtle
conservation program with technical assistance from NMFS. Genetic research on tropical Pacific
sea turtles is being conducted in Australia by the Queensland Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Resources and in Hawaii by the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory. Posters and educational pamphlets
are widely distributed via SPREP throughout the recovery plan region, promoting conservation and
research. Additional educational programs at the government and school level are also active on
some island groups, such as American Samoa (P. Craig, Office of Wildlife and Marine Resources,
Govt, of American Samoa, pers. comm.).
Effectiveness of Conservation Accomplishments
The sum total of all conservation accomplishments in each of the eight island groups covered
in this recovery plan have been ineffective in all areas except Hawaii and the unincorporated
islands. In all other island groups (Palau, CNMI, Guam, FSM, RMI, and American Samoa)
conservation actions have not been successful to stem the precipitous decline of resident sea turtle
nesting and foraging populations. The only major safe nesting areas for greens are located in the
48
large protected areas of the northwest Hawaiian islands and of the northeast coast of Australia.
The large nesting populations in outer Yap (FSM) are insufficiently protected. Lower levels of sea
turtle foraging and nesting are relatively safe in the unincorporated islands, due largely to restricted
access to military installations, wildlife refuges and to the lack of local harvesting of eggs and
turtles. The situation at Helen Reef and Merir Islands of Palau is especially perilous for green
turtles.
The success of conservation efforts in Hawaii is largely due to effective enforcement of the
ESA, good public education outreach and research, the curtailing of harvesting of adult turtles and
their eggs, and the generous establishment of protected areas. Conservation efforts must
significantly be improved in the island groups where direct harvesting of adults (especially at
nesting beaches) is continuing unabated, where there has been inadequate designation of
protected areas, inadequate legislation to protect sea turtles and inadequate enforcement of the
few reserves and regulations that have been enacted.
Most importantly, educational efforts have been unsuccessful in changing the behavior of the
islanders conducting or condoning the harvests. Harvesting is the single biggest cause of sea turtle
declines and conservation efforts must focus on the education of the harvesters to convince them
to curtail or cease harvesting efforts. Conservation efforts in Palau, FSM, CNMI, Guam, and the
RMI are so inadequate that all nesting populations of both the green and hawksbil! are likely to be
extirpated from the islands within the next twenty years if not sooner. No amount of research,
tagging, regulatory actions and protected areas designation will succeed in reversing this trend
unless the turtle and egg harvesters are educated or convinced enough to cease or drastically
curtail harvesting activities. It will be virtually impossible for enforcement measures to reverse
these trends by themselves; Pacific islanders are not accustomed to fining or confiscating gear of
friends and neighbors or imprisoning violators. Massive education and public pressure will be
essential to save the sea turtle stocks from complete collapse throughout most of the recovery
region.
49
II. RECOVERY
A. Recovery Objectives
Goal: The recovery goal is to delist the species.
Recovery Criteria: To consider de-listing, all of the following criteria must be met:
1) All regional stocks that use U.S. waters have been identified to source beaches based on
reasonable geographic parameters.
2) Each stock must average 5,000 (or a biologically reasonable estimate based on the goal of
maintaining a stable population in perpetuity) FENA over six years.
3) Nesting populations at "source beaches" are either stable or increasing over a 25-year
monitoring period.
4) Existing foraging areas are maintained as healthy environments.
5) Foraging populations are exhibiting statistically significant increases at several key foraging
grounds within each stock region.
6) All Priority #1 tasks have been implemented.
7) A management plan to maintain sustained populations of turtles is in place.
8) International agreements are in place to protect shared stocks.
Rationale: Determining quantifiable values that can be used to determine when a sea turtle stock
is recovered is quite difficult. The recovery team has tried to make such recommendations as listed
above based on best available information with the following conceptual guidelines:
1 ) The minimum nesting stock must equal a size that could not easily be eliminated by a single
catastrophic event ("natural" or "man induced").
2) Nesting population trends should be long enough to minimize the effects of natural
fluctuations in numbers that are characteristic of sea turtle populations. Generally this time
period is equal to the estimated one generation time for each species.
3) Habitats are adequate to support population growth once threats have been reduced or
eliminated.
4) If a species is to be considered for delisting, a plan must already be in force for maintaining
the population in stable or increasing condition. The team was concerned that if a species was
50
delisted, and no management plan was already in force, that the species may be driven back
toward extinction too rapidly for resource management agencies to implement such plans.
B. Step Down Outline and Narrative for Recovery
1 NESTING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Protect and manage turtles on nesting beaches.
It is prudent to preserve the capacity of a population to recover from a depleted state by
protecting nesting females, their nests and hatchlings and to preserve the quality of the nesting
area. The killing of gravid females, poaching of nests, predation (native and feral), destruction
of the habitat through mining, destruction of vegetation, artificial lighting, development, and
increased human use all degrade the ability of depleted populations to recover. The following
tasks are designed toward enhancing the reproductive ability of sea turtle populations at the
nesting grounds. Since non-nesting adult male and female green turtles have been known to
haul out diurnally on beaches, protection of these turtles is also included.
1.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles and their eggs.
Direct take of nesting turtles and their eggs have been identified as a primary threat
to Pacific sea turtle populations. Eliminating this threat is required if populations are
to recover.
1.1.1.1 Reduce directed take of turtles through public education and information.
While increased law enforcement will be effective in the short term, without
support of the local populace, regulations will become ineffective. Education
of the public as to the value of conserving sea turtles, is a very effective
way of sustaining recovery efforts and providing support for enforcement of
management regulations.
1 .1 . 1 .2 Increase enforcement of laws protecting turtles by law enforcement and the courts.
Lack of adequate support for law-enforcement activities which protect sea
turtle populations is common, yet it must be understood that enforcement
is as important as any other resource management activities. Enforcement,
judicial, and prosecutorial personnel must receive adequate instruction
about sea turtles and the importance of protecting turtle populations. Non-
nesting adult green turtles that haul out diurnally on beaches must also be
protected.
1 .1 .2 Ensure that coastal construction activities avoid disruption of nesting and hatching
activities.
Coastal construction must be monitored to minimize impact on turtle beaches, both
during construction, particularly during the nesting and hatching season, and in the
51
long-term. Construction equipment must not be allowed to operate on the beach,
remove sand from the beach, or in any way degrade nesting habitat. Nighttime
lighting of construction areas should be prohibited during nesting and hatching
seasons. In the long-term, structures should not block the turtle's access to the
beach, change beach dynamics, or encourage human activities that might interfere
with the nesting process.
1 .1 .3 Reduce nest predation by domestic and feral animals.
Feral animals such as the Polynesian Rat (Rattus exulans), dogs and mongooses
pose a severe threat to turtle nests and hatchlings. It is important that feral
predators be controlled or eliminated from nesting areas. Domestic animals such
as pigs, dogs and cats can also threaten turtle nests and hatchlings, and should be
controlled near nesting areas. In particular, domestic dogs should not be allowed
to roam turtle nesting beaches unsupervised.
1 .1 .4 Reduce effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.
Because sea turtles (especially hatchlings) are extremely attracted to artificial
lighting, lighting near nesting beaches should be placed in such a manner that light
does not shine on the beach. If not, turtles may become disoriented and stray from
their course.
1 .1 .4.1 Quantify effects of artificial lighting on hatchlings and nesting females.
It is important to quantify the impact of existing lighting in terms of nesting
success and hatchling survival so that pragmatic mitigation can be applied.
Also, such study can be used to guide the development of effective lighting
ordinances.
1 . 1 .4.2 Implement, enforce, evaluate lighting regulations or other lighting control measures
where appropriate.
Shielding of the light source, screening with vegetation, placing lights at
lowered elevations and in some cases the use of limited spectrum low
wavelength lighting (e.g., low pressure sodium vapor lights) are possible
solutions to beach lighting problems. Such measures should be required by
law and enforced.
1 .1 .5 Collect biological information on nesting turtle populations.
The collection of basic biological information on nesting is critical for making
intelligent management decisions. Monitoring nesting success can help to identify
problems at the nesting beach or elucidate important areas for protection.
Analyzing population recruitment can help in understanding population status.
52
1 . 1 .5.1 Monitor nesting activity to identify important nesting beaches, determine number of
nesting females, and determine population trends.
Important nesting beaches (based on actual number of nests) must be
identified for special protection. Nesting beaches need to be identified by
standardized surveys during the nesting season. Informational surveys with
local residents and officials should be conducted to determine current or
historical nesting beaches.
One of the most crucial techniques for determining the status of sea turtle
populations and for evaluating the success of management or restoration
programs is long-term monitoring of annual nesting on key beaches. The
surveys must be done in a standardized and consistent manner with
experienced personnel. Since female turtles show fidelity to nesting
beaches, long term beach censusing provides a ready means for assessing
these maternally isolated populations. However, because of long maturity
times for turtles, quantifying trends in population sizes and effectiveness of
any restoration program may take a generation time (20+ years) to be
reflected in the annual numbers of nesters. Monitoring should thus be
recognized as a long-term undertaking.
1.1.5.2 Evaluate nest success and implement appropriate nest-protection measures on
important nesting beaches.
One of the simplest means to enhance populations is by increasing
hatchling production at the nesting beach. The first step to such an
enhancement program is to determine the nesting/hatching success and to
characterize factors which may limit that success. Once those limiting
factors are determined, protection or mitigation measures can be
implemented. If nests must be moved to prevent loss from erosion or other
threats, natural rather than artificial incubation should be employed.
1 .1 .5.3 Define stock boundaries for Pacific sea turtles.
Because sea turtles exhibit a unique genetic signature for each major
nesting assemblage, and because nesting assemblages provide an easily
censused means of monitoring population status, it is useful to use genetic
analysis methods to determine stock boundaries for sea turtle populations.
It also enables managers to determine which stocks are being impacted by
activities far removed from the nesting beaches, and thus prioritize
mitigation efforts.
1.1.5.3.1 Identify genetic stock type for major nesting beach areas.
A "genetic survey" to establish the genetic signature of each nesting
population must be established, before stock ranges can be
determined. Such surveys are relatively simple as they require only
53
a small blood sample from a statistically viable number of females
within each nesting population.
1 .1 .5.3.2 Determine nesting beach origins for juvenile and subadult populations.
Because nesting populations can form the basis for stock
management, it is important to be able to pair juvenile and subadult
turtles with their stock units by genetic identification. DNA analyses
have begun to provide scientists and managers with this sort of data.
1 . 1 .5.3.3 Determine the genetic relationship among Pacific green turtle populations.
The need for such study is critical to successful management of a
sea turtle population as it enables resource managers to identify the
entire (and often overlapping) range of each population. This type
of population study can also detail the genetic diversity and viability
of the populations. Genetic analyses also have a forensic application
that can 1 ) support law enforcement efforts to identify the source of
illegal sea turtle products (eggs and meat) (see Section 2.1.1) and
2) identify originating stock of confiscated or stranded live animals
for rehabilitation purposes (see Section 3.3).
1 .2 Protect and manage nesting habitat.
The nesting habitat must be protected to ensure future generations of the species. Increased
human presence and coastal construction can damage nesting habitat resulting in reduced nest
success or reduced hatchling survival.
Once key nesting beaches are identified, they may be secured on a long-term basis in an
assortment of ways. These may include conservation easements or agreements, lease of
beaches, and in some cases, fee acquisition. Certain beaches may be designated as natural
preserves. In some cases education of local residents may serve to adequately secure nesting
beaches.
1 .2.1 Prevent the degradation of nesting habitats caused by sea walls, revetments, sand
bags, other erosion-control measures, jetties and breakwaters.
Beach armoring techniques that beach residents use to protect their beachfront
properties from wave action may actually degrade nesting habitats by eroding
beaches and preventing nesting by preventing access to nesting sites or preventing
digging of the nest on the site. Guidelines on the proper placement of stonewalls
must be proposed. Jetties and breakwaters impede the natural movement of sand
and add to erosion problems in neighboring beaches. Regulations regarding beach
construction and beach armoring should be reviewed to ensure that such measures
are restricted or prohibited if adverse impacts to nesting are anticipated.
1 .2.2 Eliminate sand and coral rubble removal and mining practices on nesting beaches.
54
Beach mining severely affects a nesting beach by reducing protection from storms,
destroying native vegetation directly or indirectly and may completely destroy a
nesting beach. Protective legislation and public education must be used to protect
the substrate of the beaches.
1.2.3 Develop beach-landscaping guidelines which recommend planting of only native
vegetation, not clearing stabilizing beach vegetation and evaluating the effects as
appropriate.
Non-native vegetation may prevent access to nesting sites, prevent adequate nest
digging, exacerbate erosion or affect hatchling sex ratios by altering incubation
temperatures. Native vegetation, however, plays an important role in stabilizing the
beach and creating the proper microclimate for nests. Guidelines for residents
concerning the most appropriate plant species and the importance of a native plant
base should be encouraged.
1.2.4 Ensure that beach replenishment projects are compatible with maintaining good
quality nesting habitat.
Sand on sea turtle beaches has particular properties which affect hatching success
(ie. compaction, gas diffusion, temperature). Any addition or replacement of sand
may change these properties and make it more difficult for females to nest or
reduce hatchling success. As such, beach replenishment projects should be
carefully considered, use materials similar to the native sands and be carried out
outside the nesting season.
1.2.5 Implement non-mechanical beach cleaning alternatives.
Hand raking of beach debris, rather than using heavy machinery, should be
encouraged on nesting beaches where cleaning is done for aesthetic reasons. The
use of heavy machinery can adversely affect hatchlings directly and their nesting
habitat.
1 .2.6 Prevent vehicular driving on nesting beaches.
Driving on active nesting beaches should be forbidden. Vehicles cause
destabilization of beaches, threaten incubating nests and leave tire ruts that
hatchlings have difficulty crossing.
2 MARINE ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Protect and manage green turtle populations in the marine habitat.
Protection of turtles in the marine environment is a priority that is often overlooked as
enforcement is difficult and quantification of the problem problematic. However, 99% of a
55
turtle's life is spent at sea; thus, recovery must include significant efforts to protect turtles at that
time.
2.1.1 Eliminate directed take of turtles.
Direct take of turtles was identified as a severe threat to population recovery in the
Pacific Ocean and must be eliminated if sea turtles are to recover.
2.1.1.1 Reduce directed take of turtles through public education and information.
While increased law enforcement will be effective in the short term, without
support of the local populace, regulations will become ineffective. Education
of the public as to the value of conserving sea turtles, especially given the
cultural history of green turtle exploitation in this region, is a very effective
way of sustaining recovery efforts and providing support for enforcement of
management regulations.
2.1 .1 .2 Increase/maintain law-enforcement efforts to reduce illegal exploitation.
One of the major threats identified for turtle populations in the Pacific was
the harvest of turtles, both on the nesting beach and in the water, for food,
medicine, and religious or cultural reasons. Rigorous efforts in law
enforcement, with sensitivity to cultural attitudes, should be undertaken
immediately to reduce this source of mortality. Such efforts need to include
training of enforcement personnel in the importance of protecting turtles, as
well as supplying such personnel with adequate logistical support (boats,
communication and surveillance equipment etc.). Judges and prosecutors
must also be educated in the importance of these matters. Trade in green
turtle paraphernalia must also be restricted.
2.1 .2 Determine distribution, abundance, and status in the marine environment.
In its review of information on sea turtle populations in the Pacific, the Recovery
Team found that lack of accurate information on distribution and abundance was
one of the greatest threats to sea turtle populations. Most existing information is
anecdotal or obsolete and where new information is available, it uniformly indicates
that green turtle populations are vastly smaller than commonly believed. We
consider that gathering of basic information on distribution and abundance should
take a very high priority in the recovery of Pacific green turtle populations.
2. 1 .2. 1 Determine the distribution and abundance of post-hatchlings, juveniles and adults.
While little is known about the distribution of nesting beaches for the green
turtle, even less is understood about distribution of foraging adult and
juvenile populations with the exception of green turtle residents In the
Hawaiian Islands. Quantitative surveys of foraging areas to determine
56
green turtle abundance, and to identify essential habitat is of significant
importance for restoration of green turtle populations.
2.1.2.2 Determine adult migration routes and internesting movements.
Like all species of sea turtle (with the possible exception of the Flatback
turtle, Natator depressus), green turtles migrate from foraging grounds to
nesting beaches. These migrations often mean that the turtles move
through a variety of political jurisdictions where regulations regarding the
stewardship of the species may vary. To preclude the problem of
contradictory management strategies by these various jurisdictions, it is
important to determine the migration routes green turtles follow between
nesting and foraging areas. Satellite telemetry studies of both males and
females are needed.
2.1.2.3 Determine growth rates and survivorship of hatchlings, juveniles, and adults, and
age at sexual maturity.
Understanding the rates of growth and survivorship of turtle populations is
crucial to the development of appropriate population models. Such models
are important in understanding population status and how best to efficiently
apply management efforts, in restoring depleted populations. For example,
the application of stage-based modeling (Grouse et al. 1987) indicated that
not enough effort was being expended on protecting juvenile sized
loggerhead sea turtles in the southeastern United States and that without
such protection, extensive nesting beach protection was having less positive
benefit. A similar approach to understanding green turtle populations should
be undertaken, and used to guide restoration policy.
2.1 .2.4 Identify current or potential threats to adults and juveniles on foraging grounds.
Little is known about threats to foraging populations of green turtles.
Studies on such threats should be undertaken immediately.
2.1 .3 Reduce the effects of entanglement and ingestion of marine debris.
Entanglement due to abandoned or unmonitored fishing gear, as well as the
ingestion of man-made debris is a significant problem in the marine environment.
2.1.3.1 Evaluate the extent to which sea turtles ingest persistent debris and become
entangled.
Quantification of the extent to which sea turtles are impacted by marine
debris should be undertaken as a first step to mitigating or preventing such
impacts. The benefits of such work are that it allows the prioritization of
57
recovery activities and it allows the activities to be efficiently targeted at the
problem.
2.1.3.2 Evaluate the effects of entanglement and the ingestion of persistent debris on
health and viability of sea turtles.
Because of the remote nature of turtle/debris interactions, the acute and
chronic effects of such interaction are not often understood. Turtles may not
die immediately after ingesting certain materials, but may become
debilitated. Studies to further understand the impacts of such interactions,
and what age classes are affected most severely, should be undertaken
immediately. As with quantifying the extent to which sea turtles ingest
debris, such a program allows recovery efforts to be more efficient.
2.1.3.3 Formulate and implement measures to reduce or eliminate persistent debris and
sources of entanglement in the marine environment.
Once the problem of marine debris has been identified and quantified, it is
important to implement (and enforce) a program to reduce the amount of
debris in the marine environment, ie. removing the problem entirely, as
contrasted to mitigating the problem.
2. 1 .4 Monitor and reduce incidental mortality in the commercial and recreational fisheries.
For some areas, incidental take in fisheries has been identified as a severe threat.
These mortalities are often associated with international fleets operating on the high
seas, but for the green turtle it is probably most significant in nearshore waters.
Monitoring of turtle take by fisheries is extremely important for two reasons. First,
it allows resource managers a means to quantify the extent of the problem, and by
the very act of monitoring, tends to cause commercial fishermen to be more aware
of the concern over incidental takes, and thereby encourage reduced take. The
choice method for monitoring take is through the use of an unbiased observer
program. Voluntary logbooks have not proven a reliable technique for quantifying
incidental catch in commercial fisheries. Implementation of mortality reduction
activities includes the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) in shrimp trawler
fisheries. Finally a serious but unquantified problem is that of fisheries vessels
stopping illegally at uninhabited islets and atolls and killing turtles. This can be
curtailed only by the education of fisherman, and increased enforcement on the
seas and in the courts.
2.1 .5 Eliminate the harassment of turtles at sea through education and enforcement.
Activities such as "petting" turtles and chasing them while snorkeling and scuba
diving, water skiing, jet skis, vessel traffic, and vessel anchoring may disturb or
displace turtles. These factors should be regulated or controlled to eliminate
negative impacts, especially in sensitive and high density foraging and resting
areas.
58
2.1 .6 Study the impact of diseases on turtles.
Little is known about diseases in sea turtles, but there has been recent evidence
that it may be a limiting factor in certain populations. Disease origin and
transmission may not be limited to the marine environment.
2.1.6.1 Investigate fibropapillomas (tumors) in green turtles.
Debilitating and life threatening tumors are known to occur in Hawaiian and
other (Caribbean) populations of green turtles. The magnitude of this
disease during recent years has increased substantially in Hawaii. The
etiology of the disease and effects as they relate to the viability of the
population are presently unknown and need to be studied.
2.1 .6.2 Investigate parasites and other infectious agents.
A variety of other diseases and parasites may be affecting sea turtles. The
prevalence of such infections, their impact on sea turtles, and modes of
transmissions need to be studied. Parasites include internal parasites such
as blood flukes, external parasites such as leeches (Ozobranchus) and
burrowing barnacles (Stephanolepas), and certain bacterial infections such
as Vibrios.
2.1.7 Develop/maintain carcass stranding network.
Stranding networks are operated generally by volunteers who monitor beaches for
stranded animals. Such networks can be useful for alerting managers to incidents
causing high mortality, such as an increased fishery take or disease problems, as
well as providing some basic biological data.
2.1 .8 Centralize administration and coordination of tagging programs.
In general, government resource management agencies can provide the continuity
required to coordinate tagging programs. The responsibility of any such agency is
that they act as a central distribution point for tags, tagging training and database
management. It is critically important that the coordinating agency: 1) provides
adequate staff to keep the program organized and respond to tag returns
immediately, and 2) remain in existence for many years (20+). Without such a
commitment, tagging programs have very limited usefulness, and before initiation
of such a program it should be considered carefully on its scientific merits. It must
be remembered that sea turtles are long-lived animals, and the most valuable
information yielded by any tagging program comes from turtles which have carried
identification tags for many years. Short-term tagging projects are at best very
limited in the information they yield and at worst are nothing more than a form of
undue harassment to the turtles.
59
Centralization of tag records is useful as it makes the most efficient use of limited
personnel resources, allows standardization of techniques, and can act as a
screening mechanism to ensure that tagging is done for valid scientific reasons.
2.2 Protect and manage marine habitat, including foraging habitats.
Green turtles inhabit a variety of marine habitats, although we are most familiar with their
coastal habitat. Increased human presence in this and other sea turtle habitats have
contributed to reef degradation, primarily by coastal construction, increased recreational and
fisheries use, and increased industrialization. Habitat loss and degradation must be prevented
or slowed.
2.2.1 Identify important marine habitats.
These areas may include hatchling, juvenile and adult foraging areas and migratory
range for all age classes. (Many of these areas will first need to be identified
through actions in Section 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2.)
2.2.2 Ensure the long-term protection of marine habitat.
Once marine habitats are identified, sea turtle range, refugia and foraging habitats
(Sargassum beds, coral reefs and sponge habitats) need to be protected to ensure
long-term survival for the species. Habitats identified as important or critical should
be designated as marine sanctuaries or preserves, while others may require close
monitoring. The public needs to be educated on the importance of preserving these
habitats.
2.2.3 Assess and prevent the degradation or destruction of reefs and seagrass beds
caused by boat groundings, anchoring, and trampling by fishermen and divers.
Physical harm done by boat hulls, anchors and persons on coral reefs can be a
serious threat to reef habitats, particularly in heavily-used bays. Given that reefs
recover slowly from physical damage, appropriate actions such as providing boat
moorings and removal of grounded vessels should be undertaken.
2.2.4 Prevent the degradation of reef, algal and seagrass habitat caused by
environmental contaminants such as sewage and other pollutants.
Protect these habitats by reducing offshore dumping of industi.al waste and
offshore sewage outfalls. High water quality standards must be established and
maintained for inland water treatment plants.
2.2.5 Prevent the degradation or destruction of marine habitats caused by dredging or
disposal activities.
60
Dredging causes mechanical destruction of reefs, adds suspended sediments that
may damage corals and seagrasses and disposal of dredged materials smothers
existing flora and fauna.
2.2.6 Prevent the degradation or destruction of important habitats caused by upland and
coastal erosion and siltation.
These processes, often made worse by coastal construction, adversely affect coral
reefs by disrupting vital trophic processes, reducing productivity and reducing
species diversity. Minimum water standards upstream must be maintained. Land-
use decisions must take this into account and associated projects where erosion
and siltation occur must be monitored.
2.2.7 Prevent the degradation or destruction of reefs by dynamite fishing and construction
blasting.
Blasting of any nature physically damages reefs and may kill turtles. It must be
monitored and/or restricted.
2.2.8 Prevent the degradation of important habitat caused by oil transshipment activities.
Oil spills from tankers are a possible threat both to coastal and pelagic habitats.
Also, groundings or collisions of tankers and other petroleum industry vessels may
physically damage reefs, perhaps more so than other vessels because of their
sheer size (see Section 2.2.3). The oil and gas industry should take necessary
preventive measures (e.g., double hulled tankers). Oil spill response teams should
be identified for all likely areas.
2.2.9 Identify other threats to marine habitat and take appropriate actions.
Such threats to sea turtle habitat that do not fit in the previous sections or new
threats must be considered and addressed. Such threats may include commercial
and recreational illegal takes of coral and "live rock" for aquaria, as well as take of
tropical fish for aquaria. Chemicals used to capture the fish may also affect reefs.
3 ENSURE PROPER CARE IN CAPTIVITY.
Captive care of sea turtles is common in the Pacific. Some of this care is in the form of formal
rearing programs and other captive care is more casual, such as rearing turtles as pets
(although this is illegal in Guam, CNMI and American Samoa.) The latter should be
discouraged, even where permitted. Depending on the scale of such activities such captivity
can be harmful to the wild population due to excess take from the wild, or from the potential
introduction of exotic diseases or unfit genetic stocks to the wild population. Captive care
should be carefully regulated to minimize such problems, and all release programs should
rigorously monitor the status of released turtles to ensure their proper integration into the wild.
It should be noted that to be deemed successful, captive turtles that have been released to the
61
wild should be shown not only to survive in the wild but should also successfully reproduce.
If released turtles do not reproduce, such populations will never be self sustaining.
3.1 Develop standards for the care and maintenance of sea turtles, including diet, water quality,
tank size, and treatment of injury and disease.
Standards should be developed by NMFS or other appropriate agencies. Once developed,
these criteria should be published and set as requirements for any sea turtle holding facility.
Facilities that comply with the criteria will receive permits to hold turtles and be inspected for
compliance. A manual for diagnosis and treatment of sea turtle diseases should be compiled,
published and distributed to holding facilities.
3.2 Establish a catalog of all captive sea turtles to enhance use for research and education.
The FWS and NMFS should establish a catalog of turtles at all known facilities.
3.3 Designate rehabilitation facilities.
FWS, NMFS and other appropriate agencies should designate these facilities based on the
above criteria. Designation should be based on availability of appropriate veterinary personnel,
compliance with standards of care and annual inspections. Recommendations should be made
on when and where hatchlings or adults should be released.
4 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
4.1 Support existing international agreements and conventions to ensure that turtles in all life-
stages are protected in foreign waters.
Considering that green turtles migrate outside of U.S. territorial waters during at least part of
their life cycle, an effective recovery plan must include supporting existing cooperative
agreements with other nations to protect the species. Existing agreements include CITES (see
next section, adopted 1973), the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in
the Western Hemisphere (adopted 1 940), the ASEAN Agreement on the Convention of Nature
and Natural Resources (adopted 1985), the Convention for the Protection of the Natural
Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (SPREP convention, adopted 1986),
as well as a number of conventions concerning marine pollution (Eckert, 1993). Out of the
SPREP convention, the South Pacific Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Programme was
created to specifically implement a regional approach to the species protection. Agreements
and conventions that are effective must continue to be supported.
4.2 Encourage ratification of the CITES for all non-member Pacific countries, compliance with
CITES requirements, and removal of sea turtle trade reservations held by member nations.
CITES is a comprehensive wildlife treaty signed by many countries that regulates and prohibits
commercial import and export of wild plant and animal species that are threatened by trade.
In the north Pacific signatories include 18 countries (Eckert, 1993). It is one of the most
powerful international agreements concerning threatened species. The U.S. State Department,
62
Department of Commerce and Department of Interior should work with Pacific nations to
encourage non-member countries to become signatories and demand compliance with CITES
requirements on sea turtles from all signatories.
4.3 Develop new international agreements to ensure that turtles in all life-stages are protected in
foreign waters.
New agreements must be outlined by the FWS and NMFS, and pursued by the State
Department and Department of the Interior. Eastern Pacific nations should be encouraged to
ratify the Regional Agreement for Investigation and Management of Marine Turtles of the
American Pacific which was not put into place after being drafted in 1986.
4.4 Develop or continue to support informational displays in Republic of Palau, Guam, Hawaii,
American Samoa, North Marianas, the Marshall Islands, the FSM and other airports which provide
connecting legs for travelers to the area.
Airports are particularly good avenues for information about illegal trade in tortoise and
tortoiseshell paraphernalia, as well as general information on sea turtle conservation. If
travelers don't purchase the items, the market for them may decrease. Agencies such as
NMFS, FWS and the U.S. Customs Service should collaborate on display content and
placement.
63
III. REFERENCES CITED
Alvarado, J., and A. Figueroa. 1987. The ecological recovery of sea turtles of Michoacan, Mexico.
Special attention: the black turtle, Chelonia agassizii. Final Report 1986-1987 submitted to
U.S.F.W.S. and W.W.F. - U.S. 46 pp. + tables/figs.
Atkinson, S., and M. Guilbeaux. 1992. Survey of hawksbill nesting activity on selected Rock
Island beaches. Unpublished report to the Division of Marine Resources, Republic of
Palau. 2 pp.
Balazs, G.H. 1976. Green turtle migrations in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Biol. Conserv.
9:125-140.
Balazs, G.H. 1 978. Terrestrial critical habitat for sea turtles under United States jurisdiction in the
Pacific region. 'Elepaio 39(4):37-41.
Balazs, G.H. 1979. Growth, food sources and migrations of immature Hawaiian Chelonia. Mar.
Turtle Newsl. 10:1-3.
Balazs, G.H. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle in the Hawaiian Islands. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAATech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-7. 141 pp.
Balazs, G.H. 1982a. Status of sea turtles in the central Pacific Ocean. Pages 243-252 in K.A.
Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,
Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Balazs, G.H. 1982b. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian archipelago. Pages
1 1 7-1 26 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst.
Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Balazs, G.H. 1982c. Sea turtles: A shared resource of the Pacific islands. South Pac. Comm.
Fish. Newsl. 232:22-24.
Balazs, G.H. 1983a. Sea turtles and their traditional usage in Tokelau. Atoll Res. Bull. 279:1-29.
Balazs, G.H. 1983b. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at
French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAATech.
Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-36. 42 pp.
Balazs, G.H. 1985a. Status and ecology of marine turtles at Johnston Atoll. Atoll Res. Bull.
285:1-46.
Balazs, G.H. 1985b. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. Pages
387-429 in R.S. Shomura and H.O. Yoshida (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the
Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-SWFC-54. 582 pp.
64
Balazs, G.H. 1985c. History of sea turtles at Poihua Beach on Northern Lanai. 'Elepaio, 46(1 ):1 -3.
Balazs, G.H. 1986. Ontogenetic changes in the plastron pigmentation of hatchling Hawaiian green
turtles. J. Herpetol. 20(2):280-282.
Balazs, G.H. 1 991 . Historical summary of sea turtle observations at Rose Atoll, American Samoa.
Natl. Mar. Fish. Sci. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI. Unpublished manuscript. 6 pp.
Balazs, G.H. 1994. Homeward bound: satellite tracking of Hawaiian green turtles from nesting
beaches to foraging pastures. Pages 205-208 in B. A. Schroeder and B. E. Witherington
(compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.
Balazs, G.H., and S. Pooley (eds.). 1991. Research plan for marine turtle fibropapilloma. U.S.
Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-156. 113 pp.
Balazs, G.H., and J. A. Wetherall. 1991. Assessing impacts of North Pacific high-seas driftnet
fisheries on marine turtles: progress and problems. Doc. U001, Scientific Review of North
Pacific High-seas Driftnet Fisheries, Sidney, B. C, Canada, 11-14 June 1991. 15 pp.
Balazs, G.H., R.G. Forsyth, and A.K.H. Kam. 1987. Preliminary assessment of habitat utilization
by Hawaiian green turtles in their resident foraging pastures. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-71. 107 pp.
Balazs, G.H., R.K. Miya, and M.A. Finn. 1994a. Aspects of green turtles in their feeding, resting,
and cleaning areas off Waikiki Beach. Pages 15-18 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E.
Witherington (compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.
Balazs, G.H., P.Siu, and J. P. Landret. 1995. Ecological aspects of green turtles nesting at Scilly
Atoll in French Polynesia. Pages 7-10 in Richardson, J. I. and T.H. Richardson (compilers),
Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-361. 274 pp.
Balazs, G.H., P. Craig, B.R. Winton, and R.K. Miya. 1994b. Satellite telemetry of green turtles
nesting at Rose Atoll, American Samoa, and French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii. Pages 184-
187 in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Balazs, G.H., H. Hirth, P. Kawamoto, E. Nitta, L. Ogren, R. Wass, and J. Wetherall. 1992. Interim
Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Sea Turtles. Honolulu Lab., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Natl.
Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396. Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent. Admin. Rep.
H-92-01.76pp.
Bjorndal, K.A. 1985. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia 1985:736-751.
65
Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas,
on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988:555-564.
Boulon, R.H., and N.B. Frazer. 1990. Growth of wild juvenile Caribbean green turtles, Chelonia
mydas. J. Herpetol. 24:441-445.
Bowen, W., A.B. Meylan, J. P. Ross, C.J. Limpus, G.H. Balazs, and J.C. Avise. 1992. Global
population structure and natural history of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in terms of
matriarchal phylogeny. Evolution 46(4):865-881.
Bryan, E.H., Jr. 1974. Panala'au Memoirs. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 529 pp.
Carr, A.F. 1987a. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Cons. Biol.
1(2):103-121.
Carr, A.F. 1 987b. The impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook
of sea turtles. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18(6b):352-356.
Carr, A.F., and M.H. Carr. 1 970. Recruitment and remigration in a green turtle nesting colony. Biol.
Conserv. 2:282-284.
Collard, S.B., and L.H. Ogren. 1990. Dispersal scenarios for pelagic post-hatchling sea turtles.
Bull. Mar. Sci. 47:233-243.
Craig, P. and G.H. Balazs. 1995. Turtle travels from American Samoa to Polynesia. Mar. Turtle
News. 70:5-6.
Crouse, O.T., Crowder, L.B. and Caswell, H. 1987. A stage based population model for
loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology 68(5):1412-1423.
Di Rosa, R. 1992. Palua trip report, rapid ecological assessment Sept. 26-Oct. 9, 1992. Unpup.
Report to Nature Conservancy. 9 pp.
Dizon, A.E., and G.H. Balazs. 1982. Radio telemetry of Hawaiian green turtles at their breeding
colony. Mar. Fish. Rev. 44(5): 13-20.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1978. Terrestrial critical habitat and marine turtles. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 14:
233-240.
Dutton, P.H. and D.L. McDonald. 1990. Status of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, 1989 - 1990 Final
Report. Sea World Research Institute Technical Report #90-225. 18 pp.
Dutton, P.H., S.K. Davis, T. Guerra, and D. Owens. 1996. Molecular phylogeny for marine turtles
based on sequences of the ND4-leucine and control regions of mtDNA. Mol. Phylogenet.
Evol. 5:511-521.
66
Eckert, K.L. 1 993. The biology and population status of marine turtles in the North Pacific Ocean.
NOAATech. Memo. NMFS. NOAA-TM-SWFSC-186. 156 pp.
Edson, C, and F. Curren. 1987. Report from Oroluk. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 41:1-2.
Ehrhart, L.M. 1982. A review of sea turtle reproduction. Pages 29-38 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology
and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Forbes, G.A. 1994. The diet of the green turtle in an algal-based coral reef community - Heron
Island, Australia. Pages 57-59 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers),
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.
NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.
Forsyth, R.G., and G.H. Balazs. 1989. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental
requirements of coastal vertebrates and invertebrates, Pacific Ocean region: Report 1 ,
Green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Technical report EL-89-10, prepared by NMFS, NOAA,
Honolulu, HI, for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
20 pp.
Fosberg, F.R. 1969. Observations on the green turtle in the Marshall Islands. Atoll Res. Bull.
135:9-12.
Frazer, N.B., and L. M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and
loggerhead, Caretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:789-802.
Frazer, N.B., and R.C. Ladner. 1986. A growth curve for green sea turtles, Chelonia, in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, 1913-1914. Copeia 1986:798-802.
Geermans, S.H. 1992. Marine turtles in the Southwest Palau Islands. Unpub. SPREP Report.
Geermans, S., and L. Honigman. 1992. Palau Rapid Ecological Assessment: Marine turtles,
seabirds, and Micronesian megapodes of Babeldaob, Peleliu, and Ngemelis. Prepared for
the Republic of Palau Bureau of Natural Resources and Development and The Nature
Conservancy. Sponsored by the Queensland Dept. of Environment and Heritage and the
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Marine Turtle Conservation
Programme.
Groombridge, B. (Compiler). 1982. The IUCN Amphibia-Reptilia red data book. Part 1.
Testudines, Crocodylia, and Rhynchocephalia. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp.
Groombridge, B., and R. Luxmoore. 1989. The green turtle and hawksbill (Reptilia: Cheloniidae):
World status, exploitation and trade. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Center, Cambridge.
601 pp.
Guilbeaux, M.D. 1992. Summary report of sea turtle nesting beach suitability survey, September-
October 1992 Palau REA. Unpub. report to Nature Conservancy. 12 pp.
67
Guilbeaux, M., S. Davis and P. Tonne. 1994. Survey of hawksbill nesting activity on selected
Rock Island beaches. Unpublished report to the Division of Marine Resources, Republic
of Palau. 1 p.
Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.), in Malaya and Sarawak.
Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 130(4):455-535.
Hendrickson, J.R. 1972. South Pacific Islands - marine turtle resources. FAO Report
FI:SF/SOP/REG 102/6. FAO, Rome.
Herbst, L.H. Fibropapillomatosis of marine turtles. 1 994. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 4: 389-
425.
Hiatt, R.M. 1951. Marine zoology study of Arno Atoll, Marshall Islands. Scientific investigations
in Micronesia: natives uses of marine products. Atoll Res. Bull. 3-4:1-13.
Hirth, H.F. 1971a. South Pacific Islands - marine turtle resources. FAO Report
FI:SF/SOP/REG/102/1. FAO, Rome.
Hirth, H.F. 1971b. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus)
1758. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 85. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, Rome. 74 pp.
Hirth, H.F. 1980. Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus), green turtle. Catalogue of American amphibians
and reptiles. 249:1-4.
Holthus, P.F., J.E. Maragos, J. Naughton, C. Dahl, D. David, A. Edward, M. Gawel and S. Liphei.
1993. Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef resource survey. East-West Center Program on
Environment, Honolulu, Hawaii. 94 pp.
Honigman, L. 1 994. Preliminary survey to determine the status and distribution of sea turtles on
the island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands. Draft report to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.
Johannes, R.E. 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9:349-364.
Johannes, R.E. 1981. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of
Micronesia. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.
Johannes, R.E. 1 986. A review of information on the subsistence use of green and hawksbill sea
turtles on islands under United States jurisdiction in the western Pacific Ocean. NMFS
Southwest Region Admin. Report SWR-86-2. 41 pp.
Kolinski, S. 1991. Outer islands turtle project: Stage 1 Final report on the Olimarao Atoll
fieldwork. Marine Resources Management Division, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia,
March. 21 pp.
68
Kolinski, S. 1994. Carapace lesions of Chelonia mydas breeding in Yap State are diagnosed to
be fibropapilloma. Mar. Turtle News. 67: 26-27.
Lessa, W.A. 1962. The decreasing power of myth on Ulithi. J. Am. Folkl. 75: 153-159.
Lessa, W.A. 1984. Sea turtles and ritual: Conservation in the Caroline Islands. Pages 1 183-1201
in B. Gunda (ed.), The Fishing Culture of the World: Studies in Ethnology, Cultural Ecology
and Folklore. Volume II. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. Pp. 589-1253.
Limpus, C.J. 1978. The reef and uncertain land of plenty. Pages 187-222 in H. Lavery (ed.),
Exploration North, A Natural History of Queensland. Richmond Hill Press, Melbourne.
Limpus, C.J. 1982. The status of Australian sea turtle populations. Pages 297-303 in K.A.
Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,
Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Limpus, C.J., and D.G. Walter. 1980. The growth of immature green turtles Chelonia mydas
under natural conditions. Herpetologica 36(2): 162-1 65.
Limpus, C.J., P. Eggler, and J.D. Miller. 1994. Long interval remigration in eastern Australian
Chelonia. Pages 85-86 in B.A. Schroederand B.E. Witherington (compilers), Proceedings
of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 281 pp.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera,
species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synomymis, locis. Ed. 10, Tomus 1. L. Salvii,
srockholm, Sweden. 823 pp.
Losey, G., G.H. Balazs, and L.A. Privatera. 1994. A cleaning symbiosis between the wrasses,
Thalassoma duperry, and the green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Copeia 1994(3): 684-690.
Loshbaugh, D. 1 993. Dead turtle may have set northern record. Homer News, October 28, 1 993.
Maragos, J.E. 1992. Sea turtle conservation plan for the Republic of Palau. Draft report prepared
for the Republic of Palau, Bureau of Resources and Development by the Nature
Conservancy, Pacific Region, Honolulu. 39 pp.
Maragos, J.E. 1994. Description of reefs and corals for the 1988 protected area survey of the
northern Marshall Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 419: 1-88 + 4 appendices.
Maragos, J.E., C. Birkland, C. Cook, K. Des Rochers, R. Di Rosa, T.J. Donaldson, S.H. Geermans,
M. Guilbeaux, H. Hirsh, L. Honigman, N. Idechong, P.S. Lobel, E. Matthews, K.J.
McDermid, K.Z. Meier, R. Meyers, I. Otobed, R.H. Richmond, B. Smith, and R. Smith.
1994. Marine and coastal areas survey of the Main Palau Islands: Part 2. Rapid
ecological assessment synthesis report (J. E. Maragos (ed.)). A report prepared for the
Palau Bureau of Natural Resources and Development, Republic of Palau, by The Nature
Conservancy, Pacific Region, Honolulu, Hawaii. 125 pp.
69
Marquez M., R. 1990. Sea turtles of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea turtle
species known to date. FAO Species Catalog, FAO Fisheries Synopsis 11(125):81 pp.
McCoy, M.A. 1974. Man and turtle in the Central Carolines. Micronesica 10(2):207-221.
McCoy, M.A. 1982. Subsistence hunting of turtles in the Western Pacific: the Caroline Islands.
Pages 275-280 in K.A. Bjomdal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Mendonca, M.T. 1977. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta
caretta in Florida. J. Herpetol. 15:447-451.
Meylan, A.B. 1982. Sea turtle migrations-evidence from tag returns. Pages 91-100 in K.A.
Bjomdal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press,
Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Meylan, A.B. , B.W. Bowen, and J.C. Avise. 1990. A genetic test of the natal homing versus social
facilitation models for green turtle migration. Science 248:724-728.
Morreale, S.J., G.J. Ruiz, J.R. Spotila, and E.A. Standora. 1982. Temperature-dependent sex
determination: current practices threaten conservation of sea turtles. Science
216:1245-1247.
Mortimer, J. A. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles. Pages 102-1 09 in K.A. Bjomdal (ed.), Biology
and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583 pp.
Mortimer, J.A. 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behavior and
clutch survival of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia 1990:802-817.
Mrosovsky, N., and C.L.Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in sea
turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biol. Cons. 18:271-280.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985a. Five-year status review of sea turtles listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington
D.C, January. 90 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1985b. Review of regulations concerning the taking of sea
turtles for subsistence purposes: notice of final determination and availability of review
documents. Federal Register, 50, 2:278-279, 1/3/85.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1 995. Annual report on the biological opinion of June 25, 1 994
concerning the take of sea turtles in the Hawaii longline fishery. Unpublished report. 1 1
PP-
Naughton, J.J. 1 991 . Sea turtle survey at Oroluk Atoll and Minto Reef. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 55:9-1 2.
70
National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp.
Ogren, L. 1984. Overview of the biology of the green turtle. Pages 78-80 in P. Bacon, F. Berry,
K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth L. Ogren and M. Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic
Turtle Symposium. RSMAS Printing, Miami.
Owens, D.W. 1980. The comparative reproductive physiology of sea turtles. Am. Zool. 20(3):
549-563.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1977. Marine turtles of Micronesia. Chelonia Press, San Francisco. 83 pp.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982a. Marine turtles of Micronesia. Pages 263-274 in K.A. Bjorndal (ed.),
Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. 583
pp.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982b. Marine turtles of the South Pacific. Pages 253-262 in K.A. Bjorndal
(ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.
583 pp.
Pritchard, P.C.H., and P. Trebbau. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles. Contrib. Herpetol. 2.
Puleloa, W.K. and N. Kilma. 1992. The sea turtles of the Northern Marshalls: A research
expedition to Bikar and Erikup Atolls and Jemo Island. Unpublished Report to SPREP. 72
pp.
Russell, D.J. and G.H. Balazs. 1994. Colonization and utiization of the alien marine alga Hypnea
musciformis (Wulfen) J.Ag. (Rhodophyta: Gigartinales) in the Hawaiian Islands. Aquatic
Botany 47(1 994): 53-60. *
Schweigger, A. 1812. Prodomus monographiae cheloniorum. Konigsberger Arch. Naturwiss.
Math. 1:271-368;406-458.
Smith, A. 1991. M.R.M.D. working paper on turtles. Marine Resources Management Division,
Yap, Federated States of Micronesia, January. 26 pp.
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 1 991 . Report of the first meeting and workshop
of the Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Programme (RMTCP), Noumea, New
Caledonia, 13-15 August 1991. South Pacific Commission, Noumea. 35 pp.
Suganuma, H. 1991 . Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Ogasawara Islands. Pages 125-
127 in I. Uchida (editorial advisor), International Symposium on Sea Turtles 1988 in Japan,
Himeji City Aquarium and Chelonian Museum, Japan.
Thomas, P.E.J, (compiler). 1989. Report of the Northern Marshall Islands Natural Diversity and
Protected Areas Survey, 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional Environment
71
Programme (SPREP), Noumea, New Caledonia, and the East-West Center, Honolulu,
Hawaii. 133 pp.
Tobin, J.E. 1952. Land tenure in the Marshall Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 11:1-36.
Tobin, J., G. Weilbacher, E. Iwaniec, F. Mahoney, S. Kaneshiro, and R. Emerick. 1957. Notes on
the present regulations and practices of harvesting sea turtle and sea turtle eggs in the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Anthropological Working Papers No. 1 , Office of the
Staff Anthropologist, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Guam, M. I. 26 pp.
Tuato'o-Bartley, N., T.E. Morrell, and P. Craig. 1993. Status of sea turtles in American Samoa in
1 991 . Pacific Science 47(3):21 5-221 .
Wetherall, J.A., G.H. Balazs, R.A. Tokunaga and M.Y.Y. Yong. 1993. Bycatch of marine turtles
in North Pacific high-seas driftnet fisheries and impacts on the stocks. Bull, of the N. Pacific
Comm. 53(lll):519-538.
Whittow, G.C., and G.H. Balazs. 1982. Basking behavior of the Hawaiian green turtle (Chelonia
mydas). Pac. Sci. 36:129-139.
Yntema, C.L., and N. Mrosovsky. 1980. Sexual differentiation in hatchling loggerheads (Caretta
caretta). Can J Zool. 60(5): 101 2-1 01 6.
Zug, G.R., and G.H. Balazs. 1 985. Skeletochronological age estimates for Hawaiian green turtles.
Mar. Turtle Newsl. 33:9-10.
72
IV. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The Implementation Schedule outlines management and research actions and estimated costs for
the U.S. Pacific green turtle recovery program, as set forth in this recovery plan. It is a guide for
meeting the objectives discussed in Part II of this plan. This schedule indicates wherever possible,
task priority, task numbers, task descriptions, duration of tasks, the agencies responsible for
committing funds, and lastly, estimated costs. The agencies responsible for committing funds are
not, necessarily, the entities that will actually carry out the tasks. The actions identified in the
implementation schedule, when accomplished, should protect habitat for the species, stabilize the
existing populations, and increase the population sizes and numbers. Monetary needs for all
parties involved are identified to reach this point, whenever feasible.
Priorities in column 3 of the following Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:
Priority 1 -
An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from
declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.
Priority 2 -
An action that must be taken to prevent significant decline in species population/habitat
quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.
Priority 3 -
All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.
KEY to Implementation Table Abbreviations:
CNMI
COE
DOC
DOI
DOS
EPA
FSM
FWS
NA
NMFS
NRCS
RMI
USN
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Deparment of State (primarily as a conduit for negotiations and
support for tasks in other political jurisdictions)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federated States of Micronesia
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Not applicable
National Marine Fisheries Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service)
Republic of the Marshall Islands
U.S. Navy
73
-^
2
3
<2
1
_5
en
0
T3
C3
c
Q.
e
CD
E
£
0
J3
en
CU
O
a
C
0
O
•- w
3 00
0
>
C
X)
0
a.
of;
E «>
en
O
0
a
0.
3
C/5
^5
£
0
form
chan
rum1
'en
_3
ej
CN
en
03
eu
D.
en
O
en
tn
C
'0
00
3 ;g
00 >
O '-S
O
Z
eu
X)
g
c ■*• 0
c
—
It
z
O
0
0
t- eu
VI
>-
«o
ir>
PL,
t—
r-
^
v=>
en
LO
Tf
O
u
>
IX,
r--
><
u
3
0
M
en
IX
<o
>/->
fa
u
T3
CU
to
J
r-
r-
<
IX
fa
tn
iri
m
•
UJ
r-
f~
t/5
i — > -
■*— *
b-JO^
c
tc 03
CD
E
3
u
t--
SCHED
helonia 1
en
a
'3
(U
IS
en
c
0
00
u.
u
E
<
£3
3
O
cd
, CNMI,
FSM,
:orp.
O
Q
e/T
eu
O
tzf
c
cej
*c
<U
E
<
E
3
O
, CNMI,
FSM,
:orp.
ories,
S, DOS
TATION
Green (C
c
CD
<
Q.
en
CU
Q4
00'
x
'5
X
c
E
c3
00
Palau
RMI,
Uninc
E
to
-
O
U
'3
ea
a:
O
E
Palau
RMI,
Uninc
Territ
NMF!
en
CO
c
ox
g
'3
_g
ox
g
'3
ox
g
'3
g
g
H
—
Q
c
0
c
0
c
0
fa
0
tj
0
<
Li
fa
O
2
Oh
1 1
00
C
<%
"3
3
=y
u
c
1
C/5
0
>
0
<m .a
00 -j
.s •-
en
3
H
to
0
3
•O
eu
Xi
eu
3
c
0
=1
c
0
CO
<u
Cu
c
u
-2 «
D. C
0
0
eu
U4
3
en
c
0
S
O
•3
CO
•a
<u
-O
0
3
—J
E
<u
0
x 5
u g
-T3 en
C
0
3
en
G 00
H.-S
__
0
3
eg
_g
■■"!
e2
C
C3 en
00 efl
Ji S3
(N
en
C
O
O
3 -*
.52 3
*■*
-5
D.
""
<u
r= x:
f"H
O
cc
•0 x:
D
eu
OX
t
en
OX
1
3
00
es
en
en
00
00
u
C
00
3
H
13
'C
O
E
_g
tn
U
c
3 0
C «>
■ 3 M
In
x:
E
3
g
tn
eu
c
1—
D
0
E 3
■0
0
O
CL>
u
c
§
tu
C
e
3
0
en
"3 "O
O
en
CU
0
O
0
H
CU
en
U
U
x:
0
I—I 0
en
U
O
I*
0-
en
eu
(LI
^
s
eg
• CU
c
pM
"5
ca
— *
3
U
X
— ^3
3
-
3
eu
X)
-a
eu
eu
C
O
CO
3
O.
O
D.
00
D
CU
x:
<*-
T3
«
en
en
CU
H
73
T3
CO
CU
X)
^— »
en
3
E
en
en
3
O
«
^1
O
CU
T)
x:
en
■3
3
xj
»
3
3
u
c
X)
y
C3
D.
c
0
0
U.
u.
x>
0
(L>
en
x:
^
T3
.^*
%
en
0
3
.a
en
g
t/3
en
—
D
3
"
0
-4—*
CO
>
<N
^
•0
O-
CJ
§
&
0
s
^*
>-.
C
0
' —
(0
a.
^H
en
0.
^
en
CU
3
S3
O
CU
0
C
+j
t*-,
CO
0
O
CU
eu
c
0
>
en
=
en
CU
<u
3
0
M
O
T3
3
CJ
-*
(U
'
CO
3
en
O
en
x;
eu
en
H
(N
, .
IS
en
efl
CO
tyj
-0
eu
H
CU
U
en
eu
T3
O
— '
c
3
en
3
<U
rr
.s
T3
0)
^
en
CU
1-
C
0
en
en
CU
3
E
Oil
3
<
*-*
c
CU
CO
-0
M
3
1-
en
CD
CO
a
0.
■^
to
^^
x;
0
-1
s
< C/303
c
cu
E
c/i
E
<l>
o
O
U
z
i4
o
V
"O
CU
a
IT)
u.
ft.
>-
ft.
ft.
e
fc
3
u
n
■§ a
2 o
OB U
< oi
a
m -2
53 5
H 3
Q
i—
o
a.
as
H
n
co
en c«
CO CU
H 'C
— o
CO 00
CD -4-»
a «
<u o
a
CD
rvt
C/l
£
fn
<D
n>
>
>*
o
o
o
O
O
o
©
o
Kl
<+-
c
o
o
t:
-a
CO
Q.
■
£
C3
cu
ea
00
>
o
CO
o
4_.
o
1—
u
CD
a.
co
o
vx 33
£ s
C3
el-
s'
cd
3
fro
.s «
o
ft, < O O ft. H
c
c
o
U
a >» ,
■§ -2 *
u g u
^ o a «i
f»1
ca cd
•opt
£ O c
u
oo
CO
c
co 00
s .s
tu
3
- tt
« 3
(N
.2
■3 «c
a
J5
oo
00
c
c
o
U
a
S
R)
oo u
C >-
■- 3
ca
111
£ O c
00 t. o
— O a
oo
CO
c
CO 00
£ .2
=y
o
3 -o
2 oo
"S •** «y
3 if «> I
" 3 :§ I
U
- 2
. ca -"-
. CtH C
« o o
u
00
c
o
o
m
o
o
m
o
o
O
o
co
o
o
m
o> "2 E
« «> CO
§ C S
00 ^
>
I _4 Ci>
4> S cC
Qi <S CO
O
O
O
O
(N
O
O
O
o
O
o
CO
o
.j E .
'3 ca 3
=> 0° "
*T-| CO UU
C/3 c3
^ E
- o
S .3 bT
2 c «
«- D O CO
^ „' .s ft.
tt, < o u ft. h jz;
c
o
U
a .^
CO c« -<
O J
•- & a §.
u C ca u
c0 — " X) c
00 C&1 00 *S
c
O CD
a .a c -a to
c
o
U
a e
§i o
5 E °
> 5 CD
1/5 5- 3
a « I
E
c
^~,
°3
Cfl
O
C
1)
c
0
CO
n
CJ
0
on
u
0
u
00
ft,
<u
>T)
0
.a co
3
D.
O
O.
00
c
2 rt
n Jj B —
T3
cu
cu
X3
3
C
O
n.
co
D
a>
J3
T3
CU
■a
T3
CO
cu
X)
« -a
-C c/5
CO
3
X)
<= g
O CL
'■£ I-.
o <u
•■5 £
co O
P • =
"^ on
D iS
2 c^
>•>
a. o
S a
co £
"S s
CO D.
<" lo
cu O
C ■"
„ C/5
o <"
c o
<* s
cu cu
o
S 3
5 £ E
■!-> • C
ca 7) „
^ — : ^3
o .3 —
c
cu
-a
3
cr
u
S « w
cu e ox
X5 C CO
cu -^ co
1- « CU
CO CO —
D. *~ CU
[JOG
< co ca
in
<u
£
CO
E
<l>
o
O
U
%
>/-)
>-
tin
!-h
4A
CO
to
■^T
O
U
>-
Ph
><
3
m
o
>
St,
u,
T3
<U
S3
£
(N
w
c
t
3
o
m
_4>
•5 S
3 Q,
» CO
00 4>
< es5
S 3
Q
3
H
co on
3 (u
H "C
— o
S S
C CO
u U
O
3
ci
U
c
■o
r<->
■^*
_
ro
'Si
;
i/->
CO
o
in
u
cH
—
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PL,
>%
</-)
s
13
n> co
D '6
T3
c
O
— X)
S3
£
33
DO
s
00
Pl
PL
C&
O S3
C3 U
a 6
Q. X)
M .9
00
PL
«3 00
li-
ed
1)
4 -2
U 03
» > 2
-_> i CL
■° -T^S
oo co 3
c C -a
■■B :^^
U i- 3
C O co
00
on
Ph
S3
u
C S
OJ O
1? 'is
Q -5
o « -S
Ph «
.y «
o C
O £
S .S
n.
o
Q.
oo ,-,
B ^
'3 C
SI o
o
■q
3 U
O -3 u.
3 3
<u 00
J 3
< a
6 a
3" _;
00
O
&
0
a
0
0
r
0
on
'3
E
2
_)
H
Z
00
3
3
O
U
°%S
S c
c
B
tu
on
0
O
a>
■a
C3
31
C3
c
0
1-
3
5
id
e js
i>
00
es
3
C3
E ^
*- x>
O CS
a -3
O 00
a. .3
ID
3
a.
o
a,
GO
b
u
T3
T3
T3
3
(L>
X5
2 -a
3 3
2 «
3 «
£> .3
3' 0
O O"
o <u
00 O
"5 e
_3 .3
""" ' «
D 2
>>>
a. o
*s g
3 D.
ca 3
0) o
c **
3 O
O W)
-a
3
.— to .;
-3 P co
« co ZZ
-3 ^_' ^3
W 93 co
O .3 —
3 3 co
4) it
t3
co *- 2
J3 3 3
m -* 3
L « U
3 3 —
C2.H
< t/5m
CD
1^-
c
<L>
£
t/i
E
cu
o
O
U
z
o
U
La
03
a>
T3
W
tn
>*
tin
C
CU
fc
3
u
en 5
CU en
3 Q.
<u So
< ed
03 3
Q
La
'C
C3
H
s
3
en GO
3 CU
H "C
— o
g ojo
« &
s ea
cu u
a
» O « u
o
2
o
3 3
u 3
3 3
< o
:3" rf
cd o
5 £
ed Jg
SC on
es
cu
p. o
si
5 £
CO
o
Q
CO
1
2
00
c
s
a
U
— , k c a.
OX)
c
tM
XI
$
X
1-
c
d
£
£
"c3
ha
o
o
en
>
cj
T)
o
rs
c
b
03
D
en
n>
^
M
■_•;
KJ
K
3
O
in
O
£
' — '
*J
a
X
< i
C3
u
SS
o
01)
c
2 co
3 U-
o
CO
O
Q
OS
c
'£
O
3
CU
CN
oo
_c
> 1 1 -
u •* S u
n 2 5 c
ca ' —
„ 3 .3 <D
u a .^
> U 3
1> X 00
ri
<
z
4>
La
3
e/>
C
pa
oo en
£ t>
D.-O'
£ Q.
X
.3
<
Z
<
z
1)
03
00
£
c
.2 3
Q. -3
3
3
u
CA
u
>
3
<u
o
E
1
1/-1
4=
O
E
rj
3
O
ca
CU
u
—
3
X
CO
CU
<U
3
Q.
O
n.
CO
<L>
x:
T3
CU
T3
-a
Xi
2 T3
J- en
CO 3
x: ^7
4-. "3
3 .a
JO .3
o o.
'■S La
CJ <u
"3 ■£
en O
i.s
— » 05
CO -^
>> >
D. °
a- g
"S S
03 D.
en O.
en 3
CU O
3 *-
a_> M
o u
3 O
3
CU
OX)
CO
«
4>
o
M
en
3 ^O ZZ
X5 _ • ^3
2 u ,2
o .ia —
O
C
<u
-a
en
CU
CU r-
JS 3
3 en
°" '^
CU >>
>- O
M
ed
e en *rl
g ^ c3
u w U
3 « —
^^ J3 x:
° L—
w 3 ^
< CO m
1^-
a
\>
E
to
E
V
o
o
O
4,
i4
O
U
•—
CO
CU
-a
cu
W
^1-
CN
c
CU
fc
3
<u
to
CU vj
2 o
<U Jo
< p4
CO 2
H 3
Q
CL,
CO
H
c
CO
CO to
CO cu
— o
CO 00
s s
C CO
<U (J
o
o
CO '[J
"5 c
CJ 00
CO
00
^ CO
B-O
R Q
I- 3
h-T '-' O
co
2 2
oo
e
c
o
U
s
o
oo
C co
■«- U
3 .5 -c
s C o
CJ T3 CO
> Z: u
a S3 *
a. 3 op
ri
00 *s
§ o
e r
4-. XI
cj CO
o oo
cu .5
W _;
f-
oo
c
c
o
V
X!
oo
3
O
<u _c
CJ 53
■a »
E J £
CN T3 CJ .5
c
•S g
> . =
cj <N to
to o. co ^
r°i 3 c5 I
(J -o h £
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
CO CO
D O
..- Q
oo
3
3
O
u
CJ CJ
00 3
Si
■2
£ 3 S
CU 3 .3
— o- x>
. O CO
11
c^l
CJ
>
ri
*.3
—
w
C3
O
CN
V
a.
rO
u
-i
a
U
■a
H
CO
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
co"
1
z
o
3
3
CJ
s"
o
3
T3
S3
1)
O
u
s
■Jo
Q
3
u
CJ
to
CJ
CJ
1—
o
3
o
CN
X)
•a
q
x:
3
—
CO
3
X)
CO
O
>
3
" —
CJ
CJ
CN
■a
CO
u.
CJ CJ
00 3
1 s
* -s cr
o S o
S o o
02 1 8
CU 3 .-3
_ O- XI
. O CO
<n a. x;
«J o
1? -5
Q S
■o
CU
3
a.
o
a.
co
P
CU
x:
7D
-a
■a
CO
CD
X3
■^*
CO
3
E CO
co .i;
5 ts
2 ^
■ i H
M 3
x3 ^?
tj CO
3 .2
■£> *J
c 2
O D-
Cj CD
^ «
co O
= -S
*"' CO
^ -a
D S
2 b
>^^
S. R
Q, CJ
"S s
CO Q.
co D.
co 3
D to
° -
<u o
c «-■
OT E
-a co
S 3
■s s 1
■s •-; 1?
<P cU 2
.b —
3 co
co >- 2
CU >> 3
<u c oo
J3 E CO
c J2 "2
cu -* co
5 SS .2
D. _ cu
,— s J3 X3
s_- 3 c-1
< CO CQ
O
c
CU
-a
00
a
C CO
P Si
o o
U 2
it
o
O
S—
CO
>
-a
<L)
to
£
w
in
>-
>
>-
C
t
u
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ffl
* i§
•3 1
<u Si
oo S
< a:
00
u.
00
co =5
Q
C3
s-
_o
cO
c
to
60
3 u
2 &
00 c
3
-a
S3
Sell
? > 3
p C x
u 3 u
01) n ia
CN
S3
c
o u =
u c o
2 •£ <«
CO CO
CO 0)
H "C
— o
c co
<L> (J
o
oo
CO
c
CO
E
*5
S3*
S 3 .8
_ a. x>
. O cd
m a. x:
.2 8
I 5
O
o
o
o
o
o
<
cu
OJ
oo"
oo
a
'5
_c
c
o
3 TS
O *
c .2
1 -S §
op « £
£ gii
_, *s 00
C .22 g
O CO CO
CO
u
=3
XI
u
■o
o —
'35 c3
— ■« a— cG
60
c
cu ©
Is
co «s
cu ^
W tu
|
c
o
U
3
1>
U
€ < •§
C w op
E £ S
£
3
-a
« u
c c
§
E
op c
2 js §
CU 3 ,*3
. O C3
<s a. x:
«s o .5 -a
3
a.
o
b
u
J3
T3
■a
T3
to
u
X)
CO
J3
3
X5
o ex
i/i o
— ' «
on •*
D 2
2 ^
a. o
S o
'S 2
CO CU
CO CU
en 5*
CD O
c -^
^j CO
n>
C O
<U CD
-a co
2 3
^s £ 1
*j • (2
x: ~ ^3
«> J) «
O .3 —
CD
CT"
T3
CD >*
CO
CO U
<U
2 ao
C CO
x:
c
« T3
CL>
JaS co
u
to tu
rrt
CO —
Q.
! 4>
^^.^
•S 7==
^
^ H
<
00 03
O)
r>-
r-1 fli
a
CD
E en
o o
o
U
La
CO
CD
T3
O
00
|
u
tu
>
tu
tu
CN
c
t
3
u
to •—
<o en
" o
c Q.
OB <3
< <*
co «
H 3
Q
CO
H
c
CO
en en
CO CD
H 'C
— o
a co
O
o
IT)
c3
c.
H
O
C
X>
en
c/1
in
Jaj
CO
S
O
03
u
CN
J=
o
CI
•— ) CO
CX>
tu
e-
o
B
S3 w
o a
a S £ £
c
o
u
a S s d
3 t;
73 O
S S
DO
C
'3
c
'■§
o
CN
S3 ■
x: cs
^ c
= H
.2 E
3 u
, CO cj
CO o u
' 3 eP
■5* S
oo c
§ 1
E 3 ~
dg •= ^
Lj. ""> s:
3 o o
o
s-
— CO
_ O. XI
. O CO
o
o
CN
o
o
CN
o
o
CN
o
o
CN
o
o
CN
on CO
<D O
C/3
^ (/} _cfl
C/3
tu
J- 3
3 * .2
3 o ;r •£>
o
| | 2 • E
2 '*
D. ■«
9- -3
S3
u
>>
o
CO
.1 c3
i E
o
Ui
X)
CN 15
oo
c
c
o
u
3 O
CO XS
en -Q.
n3 « 3
«N
3
u
sd
cS
o
CN
CO
o.
u <u
00 3
E c
3
B §
2 a
O. X)
O CO
O. jz
C/3
SO
CO w
«s .5 3
T3
CD
X5
3
D.
O
a.
D
CD
<u
■a
CO
<U
X)
-^^
VI
3
E c/j
■^ o
2 =3
x: en
J_> -^-
13 3
x: ^7
*Z CO
3 .2
X> .3!
C 3
o o.
"•E3 Uc
o cu
-3 •&
en O
3 .5
"*"1 en
"■J en
p s
2 b
p o
ff 2
x\>C
'3 2
CO O.
en D.
en 3"
<0 35
g 2
*- en
O 2
3 'o
<U CL>
0 2*
T3 CO
1 I
.9 S *j
rg S |
B cd . 22
O .fcs —
C 3 22
cd a"
CD >,
S» O J*
CD -*■ CO
Put.
< ooca
<u
O
CO
CD
E
t/i
E
<u
o
o
U
4.
o
U
i-
03
CD
>
-a
W
IT)
C
CD
t
3
u
en
CO :S
•3 3
e 2
ft ^
OB 4>
c
^ .2
03 «
H 3
Q
o
a*
03
H
c
CO CO
H 'C
— o
CD 4-t
c «
<d u
O
. ac
GO .
Ci. to
•5 cs3
e °
2 U
O
■ CXI
•3 S .a «f
£ 2 c «
B" - D g
I 1 2 1
c
o
U
00
CO
c
c
•a
03
E
B
ex
co
o
CO
r-
u
C^
>
CJ
<D
1
<N
Q
U
<u
Oi
c
§
S3
E
c
^H
«J
en
S"
C
O
D
o
u
o
03
' — '
tn
a-
3
!
O.
xi
O
in
<s
Q.
x
■a
c
o
o
o
o
GO
a.
CO
m
I
2
e
c
o
U
03
-a
c
03
E
C3
i-
oo
o
u
B 5.
u u
U op -c
'En °"
00 i
oo oo
03 C3
00
CN
T3
s J3
■S £
*S
s .S
o
X!
S in ri
o
oo
c
o
„ 00 >
03 u* o
CUO.cS
O
'3 x
o
CL
E
00
a
'3
a
c
o
U
00
c
0
c
0
OJ
■j^
0
J
1)
c
0
UJ
a.
cN
cj
r-4
£
<N
CD
E „
I? "S
& x
p u
£ I
r* c3
ri £
-a
CD
CD
XI
O
CD
1—
W
CO
C
O
03
3
Q.
O
O,
cn
D
i>
x:
<+-
T3
CU
00
CO
(L)
U.
T3
T3
«
CD
X3
CO
3
E
c^
CO
C
O
CO
4-1
O
CD
T)
x;
CO
«
1—
3
X!
" — 1
3
03
O
X>
4--
C
O
O
Q.
Ih
CJ
CD
-0
Xj
CO
0
3
.s
•■ — 1
CO
CO
CO
D
s
0
c?
>>
CD
>
0.
0
a.
CO
CJ
CD
i—
>»
c
0
03
a.
CO
n.
CO
0)
3
0
CD
0
c
*■*
0
CO
CD
C
O
C
CD
<D
O
OiJ
T3
03
CO
03
CD
O
U
3
CO
O
CO
CD
to
iS
J_.
03
(/)
Xj
D
■0
CD
CD
CD
CO
O
—
c
3
CO
CD
rr
'**
T3
u
^
!—
CJ
«
>,
C
00
03
OJ
CD
E
Oil
x:
03
n
CO
TJ
CD
M
03
l.
CO
n>
03
03
n.
"^
<i>
Q
X
a
3
S
<
OO 03
00
00
c
o
00
a
c
o>
o
E
C3
Oij
o
u
CL
E
o
U
CO
cu
o
2
o
03
ft.
6Q
o
U
•—
T3
W
in
u.
c
g
u
•3 a
3 Q.
cu S"
< oi
H 3
Q
&
_o
'C
ft.
CS
c
-id
en to
CO CD
H 'C
•3 °
s s
C C3
4> (J
o
3
e
c
o
U
c
o
ca
O
c
01)
en
<y
ca
#c
u
Gfl
00
o
ccj
O
X>
>
on
1
f>
<
c
Xl
OS
Oil
m
>
u
c
13
<*,
«N
U
<1>
.>
OJ
rj
CL
O
-o
D
^
OJ
■^
a
P
c
O
03
Cj
fc'
*S
|
4—i
_o
u
<n
OJ
J3
OO
c
'5
oo
c
o
00 >
O "3
<
CU
# O
00
c
'3
a
"3
C
o
U
> .2
u 3
i- C3
CU 73
CO
2 3
o
00
c
o
00 >
O '3
C/3
i
W on
° s
U Q
oo
c
'3
c
o
U
(B O
CD Q.
g Sri
o "8 ^
o t,
c e °
.2 O O
13 3 «
2 £ •£
M « °
1> u >»
T3 T3 X
00
C
'5
00
c
o
E S
bll
„ oo >
5 O *3
CO fc- Q
0- CL C3
on
<
ft.
1
Z
U1
O
Q
c/o
OO
u
LU
■s
al
O
u-
A
u
00
c
c
o
U
O
X
C
O
C
CO
o
O
o
l-
■Jc)
cu
c
1
p
03
.o
oo
CO
ds
03
o
tu
o
•o
T3
u
CO
oo
e
"5
60
c
o
c*-
o
O
U
tzf
oo
c
'3
c
c
o
U
u
CO
CL)
>
O
c
o
00
c
l_
C3
ft.
C3
H
E
s
rv]
oo
CO
"_>
U
>,
O)
-o
■a
X
■a
CU
CU
x>
3
a.
o
o,
as
CU
CU
C8
CU
£>
-t-J
en
3
£ en
•^ O
en .s
« O
2 '-3
■S 22
cd 3
*j £3
3 «
-^) .-3
e "o
o ft<
'Z. "-
O CU
x: -3
en O
v. en
D XS
2 b
^^
& R
« £
"S S
03 Q.
en D,
en =|
CU 55
° -.
CU O
3 «"•
« en
O 2
3 'o
<U eU
o 2P
23 £
5 3
.22 S j
fj £ «
+- • i2
-3 _' ^3
*P »
^ 2 • SS
O .3 —
3 3 22
cu o*
T3 CU >»
CU >-> 3
« w B»
CU c °0
= S "3
tu >* c8
b 22 »
O. _ cu
^-s -G ,3
< C/Dffl
CM
00
c
1)
E
i<
U Z
i>
M
(&
o
O
>-.
CO
CU
>-
"O
cu
CO
£
en
in
>-
■3-
tu
Uu
c
CU
fc
3
o
4)
« a
Hi en
y o
< ed
s
^ -2
co =5
H 3
Q
cu
CO
H
c
co
en
en
CO
0)
H
!_
^^
o
CO
C5l>
u
cu
c
CO
<u
( )
o
OO
C
'5
00
c
o
OO >
O +3
C/2
o
U <
on cu
oo
c
c
o
V
— O J3
1)
C
c/l
>
o
§
CO
Ph
TJ
w
CN
CO
00
cj
'o
tN
■o
X)
u
^^
CJ
*J
CO
s*
q
o
CO
CJ
S
«a
■2
~_>
X)
CJ
CO
00
c
'3
oo
c
o
oo >
O *3
<
cu
w
& o
^ C/l
00
e
e
o
u
J5 O
sa cj
T5 «
2£ -e
p u
£ .a
t/3
czf
tu
fN
Q.
o
1 1
O CO
Q "2
Q. c3
CO en
CNl C
CO
u
CO
.§> en
en cj
o •-
Q 3
u
CO
CJ
1-
u
O.
O
l*
a.
&
1)
u
.>
3
C
a.
LU
CJ
CJ
T3
3
en
ri
OJ
■<*
CJ
C/l
CJ
V
a.
c/J
'S,
CO
CJ
H
C
■o
3
h
o
o
o
o
y
o
«j Q
§ o
2 a
CO CO
^ 8
Pu Q
oo
c
c
o
U
o
o.
a.
3
C/3
CJ
o
a.
1—
u
rn
5
C
r:
o
00
c
u
CJ
,o
CJ -S «
(D *^! 7i
3
C
'■§
o
U
D.
UJ en
(N CJ
^ E
CO
Is
cO 'Q
e 2
(L>
CJ
JO
3
n.
o
o-
c/i
D
cu
J3
CU
-a
CO
CU
X>
U T3
-3 en
CO 3
*j «
3 .2
X) .-3
<= g
o o.
"■S i—
cj cu
en O
^•S
~" ' en
p 3
2 &
S. 8
o_ °
8* £
x>C
"S s
CO O-
e/i CL
en 3"
CU «
° ^.
CU O
3 *-
*j en
O 2
3 'cj
e" S
CU <U
o OX)
-a
5 2 2
o .b —
3 3 en
CU a"
T3 cu
cu .
a
55 j JS
< t/3cn
CO
00
c
<L>
a «
a 4>
So
U 2
o
U
u.
CO
4)
>-
tu
-o
4)
a
w
in
>«
m
e
1>
fc
3
u
4)
« is
•a a
2 o
co 5
Q
"C
Oh
CO
H
a
£0
J*
to CO
co i>
H C
~ o
co ofl
8 &
a <o
o
O
Q
Ll,
U
o
Q
O
Q
c
o
U
c
D.
U
>
Q
21
2 £
2 a
c
p
Ct>
Oil
E
u
<i)
u
^
00
sa
a
T3
3
00
[JL
O E
« <
Z D ft oo
c3
0.
fr
o
U
a
'3
D
CO
u
(3
>> C
« 5
Q. 'S
CO CO CO
sis
a 9
3 if
sr
0
(*1
o
C
* — '
O
c
o
«t
■^3
F
CO
1»
U
ex
T3
0)
X)
3
o
a.
on
D
w
J5
-a
■a
CO
3
a g
■s J
"H CO
CO 3
■£3 __?
3 .a
JO +j
e 2
O CL
13 <§
to O
3 .5
— > CO
on J^
"■: en
D 2
2 &
>>>
J->c
'3 2
CO CL
co Cl
co 3
° «
CO o
c **
u
a o
co U
O SP
a co
3 3
.a 8 *i
.3 £ CO
S w I,
B <u a
o .a —
C 3 to
CD o"
"O CD >v
M fc" a
3
U
S g 5b
js a co
d> J* CO
C co 4>
S 3 ~
D. *" (U
/— \ JO JO
^^ 3 i—
< 00 CQ
00
— OTJMgffiflBgP
A0QQD330fi4l5E
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11